Senate
6 March 1973

28th Parliament · 1st Session



The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Magnus Cormack) took the chair at 3 p.m.. and read prayers.

page 135

REAPPOINTMENT OF SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

Notice of Motion

Senator MURPHY:
Attorney-General · Leader of the Government in the Senate · ALP

– I give notice that on the next clay of sitting I shall move:

  1. That a select committee be appointed to inquire into -.mil report upon the desirability and feasibility of establishing a Securities and Exchange Commission by the Commonwealth either alone or in co-operation with the States and the powers and functions necessary for such a commission to enable it to act speedily and efficiently, against manipulation of prices, insider trading and such other improper or injurious practices as the committee finds have occurred or may occur in relation to shares and other securities of public companies, and to recommend generally in regard to the foregoing such legislative and administrative measures by the Commonwealth as will, having regard to the constitutional division of legislative power in Australia, enable the utmost protection of members of the public and the national interest.
  2. That the committee consist of eight senators, four to he appointed by the leader of the Government in the Senate, three to be appointed by the leader of the opposition in the Senate and one to bc unpointed by the leader of the Australian Democratic Labor Parly.
  3. That the committee elect as chairman one o! the members appointed by the leader of the Government.
  4. That, the chairman of the committee may, from time to lime, appoint another member of the committee to be the deputy chairman of the committee, and that the member so appointed act as chairman of the committee at any, time when the chairman is noi present at a meeting of the committee.
  5. That in the event of an equality of voting, the chairman, or the deputy chairman when acting as chairman, have a casting vote.
  6. That the presence of three members of the committee shall be necessary to constitute a meeting of the committee for the exercise of its powers.
  7. That the committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, to move from place to place and to meet and transact business notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament.
  8. That lbc committee have leave to report from time to time its proceedings and the evidence taken and such recommendations as it may deem fit.
  9. That the Senate authorise the publication of all documents which may be laid before the select committee and of all evidence which may be given before it except such particular documents or evidence as the committee determines should not be published.
  10. That the committee have power to consider the minutes of evidence and records of the select committee on securities and exchange appointed during the previous parliament.
  11. That the committee report to the Senate as soon as possible.
  12. That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders.

page 135

THAILAND

Notice of Motion

Senator CARRICK (New South Wales)Mr President, I give notice of the following contingent motion:

That contingent upon the re-appointment of the Legislative and General Purpose Standing Committees I shall move that there be referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence the following matter: Thailand.

page 135

QUESTION

HEALTH INSURANCE FUNDS: FINANCIAL POSITION

Senator GREENWOOD:
VICTORIA

– My question without notice is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security. Does the Minister confirm that there is to be a 40 per cent increase in contributions to Victorian medical benefits funds? Will he also confirm a reported Press statement by him that the reserves of the Victorian funds are practically depleted? If so. does not this contradict many statements made last year by the Prime Minister and members of the present Government that the reserves of the hospital and medical benefits funds in Australia are about S 1.40m and would be appropriate to provide needed hospital and nursing home facilities in Australia? What does the Government propose to do in view of the apparent error in the Government’s assumptions about the extent of medical funds reserves?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It is true that the Minister for Social Security has approved increases of up to 40 per cent in the cost of contributions to the several medical benefits funds in Victoria. The Minister has expressed the point of view that the increases are regrettable but that they also are unavoidable, so I am told, if the funds are to remain financial and continue to operate to the benefit of the public under the old Government’s medical benefits scheme. The Minister assures me that the proposed increases reveal the parlous financial position into which the funds had been allowed to drift by the previous Liberal-Country Party Government which resorted to the discreditable tactic of concealing mounting cost pressures which affected its complicated, excessively expensive and most unsatisfactory system of health insurance. The Minister has had the proposals that have been submitted to him by the 4 largest funds examined by the Commonwealth Registrations Committee and, following recommendations by that Committee, has approved of increases for the funds.

In reply to the last portion of the honourable senator’s question, may I say that the Government is examining the whole question of the maintenance of the present system of health insurance. It is being kept under review so that the interests of the public, first and foremost, are protected.

page 136

QUESTION

REVALUATION OF CURRENCY: RURAL INDUSTRIES

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industry. I refer to the Minister’s statements regarding revaluation. I ask: Is it a fact that what the Government is saying to primary industry is that where an industry was in trouble with adjustments before revaluation and where these troubles have been increased by revaluation, that industry can apply to the Government for help in carrying out those adjustments? If this is correct, does this mean that apart from fruit, no industry has any chance of qualifying for assistance? If this is the case, will the Minister say honestly that no other primary industry can qualify for exchange compensation?

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Primary Industry · TASMANIA · ALP

– Last week I attempted to explain adequately the Government’s position concerning its devaluation of the Australian dollar last December. In doing so I pointed out that the former Government had established certain principles which were clearly enunciated by Mr McMahon at the time of the devaluation of the American dollar in December 1971. When the pound sterling was devalued in 1 967 - and I think that I should spend a moment or two to spell this out - the then government adopted a policy of outright compensation across the whole spectrum of rural industry and, by some simple mathematical process which would be very difficult for any economist to justify, it made a payment of approximately $11 lm to all rural industries. At the time of the American devaluation of the dollar in December 1971, the then Prime Minister, Mr McMahon, said:

The changes in international exchange rates will adversely affect some of the rural industries already experiencing difficult times. The Government is therefore prepared to examine and consider the position of those rural industries which are seriously affected.

This was a complete change of policy from the decision that was made in 1967 and a complete departure from the principle that was then adopted. The principle enunciated by Mr McMahon in December 1971 was almost exactly identical with the one enunciated by this Government in December 1972.

I think it is perhaps to the credit of the previous administration that between 1967 and 1971 it woke up to the fact that in 1967 it had implemented a principle which was wrong. I might add for the benefit of honourable senators opposite that as a result of the principle adopted in 1971 not one cent of revaluation adjustment payment or compensation money - call it what you like - was paid from December 1971 until the change of government in December 1972.

page 136

QUESTION

CHILD ENDOWMENT

Senator TOWNLEY:
TASMANIA

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security aware that a family with 4 children would receive child endowment of $5.75 a week and yet if, due to divorce, the family were divided into 2 groups with each parent, looking after 2 children, each group would receive only $1.50 a week - a total of $3? In other words, is the Minister aware that at a time when the need for endowment is greater, less is actually given to each parent? Will he take action to remedy this situation?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– 1 am assured by the Minister for Social Security that the existing Social Services Act provides that where for any reasons any children, who would otherwise be living together as one family or as part of one family, are not living together the Director-General of Social Security may, if he thinks fit exercising his discretion, authorise payment of endowment in respect of any of those children- at the rate that would be payable if those children were in fact living together as one family, this rate being not less than the rate, that might otherwise be payable. This section, of the Act is interpreted to apply to families which are temporarily separated but not. to families which are permanently separated. Divorce is an example of permanent separation of parents.

Therefore the position regarding the endowment payable in the circumstances outlined by Senator Townley was correctly stated by him. The Minister for Social Security assures me that in the near future he will be undertaking a complete review of all aspects of social services and social security policies and procedures. I feel sure that once it is brought to his attention he will look at the situation referred to by Senator Townley.

page 137

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN FILMS

Senator DRURY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister for the Media whether it is a fact that Australian film producers are still confronted by major difficulties in distributing their films and that a number whose films are funded by the Australian Film Development Corporation have sought the Corporation’s advice, particularly on distribution outside the major cinema circuits. Is the Government taking any action to help Australian film producers?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– 1 understand that Australian film producers are confronted by major difficulties in having their products distributed, not only in Australia but more particularly abroad. At present I am negotiating with the distributing companies that operate in Australia - most of them are foreign owned - to see whether I can get a better deal for Australian film producers. 1 am negotiating with American distributors also to see whether it is at all possible to obtain their co-operation in having films made in Australia, using predominantly Australian labour, placed on the export market. It is a fact that the Australian Film Development Corporation can play a part in the distribution of films, having regard to the charter given to it by the Act that established it in 1970. The Corporation, which the honourable senator will realise is a statutory corporation, also is looking at ‘this aspect of the industry.

page 137

QUESTION

DIVORCE LAW REFORM: INQUIRY BY SENATE COMMITTEE

Senator McMANUS:
VICTORIA

– I address my question to the Leader, of the Government in the Senate. It directs attention to the position which arises, for example on the issue of divorce, when a Senate committee is appointed to hear evidence, report, and make recommendations, but without waiting for its report

Government decisions are made on that issue. To what extent does the Government regard itself as called upon to take notice of the fact that a Senate committee is engaged in consideration of an issue? As a matter of courtesy, in relation to issues similar to that of divorce will the Government arrange, for the relevant Minister to appear before the committee concerned and advise it of the reasons foi anticipating its report and recommendations?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– I think the strict constitutional position is that the Government is not obliged to take notice of the reports of committees. Nevertheless, one would hope that in the processes of government, notice, would be taken of the reports of Senate committees. The Senate may recall that last year and again this year I placed on the Senate notice paper a notice of motion dealing with this matter. It is marked No. 4 and states:

  1. The Senate declares its opinion that, following the presentation of a report from a Standing Committee or Select Committee of the Senate which recommends action by the Government-

We would not want to be dealing with or inviting the Government’s view on matters which were not its concern - the Government should, within the ensuing 3 months, table a paper informing the Senate of its observations and intentions with respect to such recommendations.

The further proposal is: . . that the President communicate this resolution to the Government with a request that the foregoing procedure apply, from the date of the passing of this resolution, to Reports already presented . . . and, in respect of future Reports … 1 think it important that notice be taken of the reports made by select committees. Indeed, as Attorney-General I took prompt note of the report made by the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional ana Legal Affairs which recommended the abolition of discretion statements from the divorce rules. That action was taken in accordance with the recommendation. As I recall, that was the only recommendation made by the Committee.

As to what should happen in respect of other matters when a committee is investigating a subject, I suppose there will be differences of opinion. I anticipate, for example, that committees may be considering large areas of legislative policy, concerning territories or other areas of law. I think it would be absurd if the processes of legislation, both substantive, that is, by Act of Parliament, and by delegated legislation, should come to a halt merely because some committee was engaged in looking at the subject matter. I would think that in areas where many of the Senate committees have a broad coverage, all legislative activity would not cease because the committees were engaged in looking at those subjects. Since the honourable senator has mentioned divorce I should point out that the rules made touching divorce will prove, once they are examined carefully, to have been drawn in such a way as to show that close attention has been paid to the weight of opinion put before the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. Perhaps some of those who have not been aware of the Senate Standing Committee’s role or of the evidence put before it might profit from reading the evidence. They would see that many of the proposals, and the weight of opinion expressed, have been carried into many of the newly made rules.

Senator McManus:

– What about the Minister appearing before the Committee? That was part of the question I asked.

Senator MURPHY:

– The honourable senator reminds me that he suggested that it would be a good idea for the Ministers concerned to appear before committees. I think it would be important for the Minister to appear before the committee concerned, particularly in cases where some action was taken in his area. Certainly in areas in which I am concerned I would want to appear before the particular standing committee - that is, when the committees are reconstituted - of the Senate and explain to it what I had in mind or what I had done and why I had done it. If the Senate would permit, I would do likewise with similar committees of the House of Representatives.

page 138

QUESTION

DIVORCE LAW REFORM: DISCRETIONARY STATEMENTS

Senator GREENWOOD:

– My question, addressed to the Attorney-General, follows the question asked by Senator McManus to which the Attorney-General has just replied. Will the Attorney-General tell the Senate how a judge hearing a divorce case can determine whether adultery has been committed, having regard to the fact that the Attorney’s amending statutory rules abolish discretion statements, while the provision in the Matrimonial Causes Act still remains requiring the court to exercise a discretion in connection with the petitioner’s adultery and consequently to be told about it? Does he not consider it more undignified for a petitioner to have to make a statement in open court rather than to have it in a discretion statement which is seen by nobody but the judge?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– As Attorney-General I have been asked to answer a question on a subject on which I noticed my predecessor often declined to answer questions on the basis that he was being asked questions of law; but I will endeavour to deal with the question. There was a provision in the rules for a discretion statement to be made, that is, for a person to write some confession of his or her own adultery. As far as I can gather, the unanimous view of those who gave evidence before the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs and of those who have discussed this matter in any way publicly is that such discretion statements should be abolished; they are an abomination in the law and should not exist. I think that that community opinion ought to be given effect to. Let me correct my earlier statement that that was the unanimous opinion. It was unanimous except for the opinion of Senator Greenwood. I had not realised until now that he would be in favour of the retention of such statements..

In so far as the provisions of the Act affecting this matter are concerned, my understanding is that judges of the court act as judges exercising the judicial power of the Commonwealth. If something is brought to their attention in a defended proceeding about adultery, no doubt they will observe the provisions of the Act and exercise their discretion as they think fit in conforming with the law. If in a defended proceeding no evidence of adultery is put before the judge, I do not understand it to be the function of those exercising the judicial power to turn themselves into inquisitors and start to crossexamine a person on whether some act of adultery has been committed.

page 138

QUESTION

HEALTH INSURANCE FUNDS: FINANCIAL POSITION

Senator POYSER:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security. Is it a fact that medical and. hospital benefit accounts are separate funds, as provided in the current legislation, and that this separation of the funds cannot be altered except by amendments to the appropriate Act? Are there in fact substantial surpluses in the hospital benefit funds which cannot now be used for medical benefit purposes?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I understand it is a fact that, under the existing legislation, hospital and medical benefit accounts are separate funds, that this is provided for in the legislation and that a surplus in, say, a hospital fund cannot be transferred to the account of the medical fund within the one association for the purpose of assisting a particular fund that might be becoming insolvent. I understand that my colleague, the Minister for Social Security, is also looking into this matter in. his consideration of all aspects of social security arrangements.

page 139

QUESTION

SHIPBUILDING: NAVAL VESSELS

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister assisting the Minister for Defence. As he is a South Australian, the Minister is no doubt aware that Adelaide Ship Construction will close in May of this year due to a lack of orders. Is the Minister also aware that this company employs a considerable number of people and that it has built some of the best tugs and other vessels in Australia? in view of the well known quality product of this company and the stated Government policy of decentralisation, will the Government give immediate consideration to, and make an early announcement on, the letting of contracts to this company for the construction of some small naval vessels? If not, how does the Government’s attitude align itself with the statement of the Minister for Defence, Mr Barnard, that defence hardware, including small naval vessels, will be built in Australia?

Senator BISHOP:
Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– When Senator Young began to ask his question I thought it was on a subject which was mainly within the responsibility of Senator Cavanagh, who, as the honourable senator knows, is the representative in this chamber of the Minister for Transport, Mr Charles Jones. The Minister for Transport has met representatives of Adelaide Ship Construction and has attempted to reach some agreement with them as to a continuation of orders in the area. All I can say about general defence requirements is that the Minister for Defence, Mr Barnard, has on 2 occasions recently assisted 2 important shipyards.

One was Cockatoo dock. On Friday he visited Williamstown with the object of placing as far as possible, additional orders in that area for defence requirements.

Senator Young:

– They are not closing; the one I have mentioned is closing.

Senator BISHOP:

– I know. Let me answer the question. The present Government has great difficulty in meeting the downturn of shipbuilding capacity brought about by the long standing inability of the previous Government to provide additional orders to all the shipyards. There is a downturn - there is no question about this - and there are proposed retrenchments in the area of defence, which the Minster has refused to accept. I refer to both Cockatoo dock and Williamstown. That has been stopped. It is impossible to provide short order work to each shipyard which is becoming redundant at present, but 1 can assure the honourable senator that the Minister for Transport and Mr Barnard are conscious of the need for Australian shipyards to have an increased workload and to be kept at full capacity. We shall do all we can to provide assistance where shipyards are becoming affected by the downturn.

page 139

QUESTION

EDUCATION OF CHILDREN IN REMOTE AREAS

Senator MILLINER:
QUEENSLAND

– My question, which is supplementary to the questions asked by Senator McManus and Senator Greenwood, is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate in his capacity as Minister representing the Prime Minister. Notwithstanding that the Senate Standing Committee on Education, Science and the Arts is charged with the responsibility to consider and report upon the best procedures to be adopted to assist the education of children in isolated areas of Australia, has he or the Government received any complaints from the parents of such children about the generous allocation of money to them prior to the report of the Senate Committee being finalised?

The PRESIDENT:

– That is a pretty odd question.

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– Nevertheless, its intention is clear. The Government has announced that it proposes to make these allocations in this important area, and the wisdom of that policy has received universal acclaim. As I indicated previously, it obviously would not be right if, because a committee is inquiring into a matter, the Government and the Parliament should have to stay their hands entirely and not do what seems to them to be right, particularly in (he area of delegated legislation and especially where procedures are concerned. I am reverting now to the earlier question on which Senator Milliner based his question. Where procedural matters and rules are concerned the Government and the AttorneyGeneral may be said to have a responsibility for the existing state of those rules. When faced with a mountain of evidence that the rules and the procedures are adding unnecessarily to cost and indignity I think there is a duty on the Attorney-General to move to deal with those rules, which were made by a predecessor and which were altered by other predecessors. He should alter them in the way that he thinks will bring them more into conformity with the dignity of citizens and the propriety of reducing expenses and removing other objectionable features.

page 140

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY

Senator GAIR:
QUEENSLAND

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Is it true, as Press reports claim, that the Department of the Treasury has presented to the Cabinet a submission which claims that the economy is approaching boom conditions? Is it also true that the Treasury warns that the overriding threat to the nation’s economic health is no longer unemployment but the serious danger of runaway inflation? In the interests of open government will the Minister see that this document is made available for public perusal?

Senator WILLESEE:
Minister Assisting the Prime Minister · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I have not seen the report. I do not think Cabinet documents would be made available until a decision had been made by Cabinet.

page 140

QUESTION

WORLD MONETARY CRISIS

Senator COTTON:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. What steps does the Government propose to take to safeguard Australia’s important position as a trading nation and an economic power of consequence at the meeting to be held in Paris next Friday of a group of 14 nations which will attempt to resolve the world monetary crisis?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

– I have not seen the briefing for our delegates there. I shall find out what I can for the honourable senator.

page 140

QUESTION

CHEMICAL SPRAYING OF COTTON

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Health: What action does the Government contemplate to avoid a repetition of the recent excessive spraying of DDT on New South Wales cotton fields which has impaired the health of a large section of the field workers?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The

Minister for Health has advised me that the chemical agent responsible for the problem at Wee Waa and other areas in the north-west of New South Wales was not in fact DDT but a mixture of other chemicals, including an organo-phosphorus compound which I think is commonly referred to as Phosdrin. The responsibility for control of pesticides is a matter for the State authorities. The Commonwealth is responsible only for the territories which it administers. The Minister has assured me that at present the National Health and Medical Research Council is drawing up recommendations relating to the use and safety of pesticides. When these have been completed by the Council they will be recommended to the States and the territories for adoption into legislation.

page 140

QUESTION

SHIPBUILDING: STRIKE IN QUEENSLAND

Senator WRIGHT:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. Having regard to the answer which was given by Senator Bishop in relation to a South Australian shipbuilding yard, I ask the Minister what steps the Government is taking to prevent strikers at the Evans Deakin and Co. Pty Ltd. shipbuilding yard in Queensland succeeding in their purpose of putting the yard out of business?

Senator CAVANAGH:
Minister for Works · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Give preference to union members, I should say. I do not know of the dispute at the Evans Deakin yard in Queensland. I do not know of any strike there. If there were a strike I think this would be a matter for the Minister for Labour. I assure the honourable senator that we are concerned about strikes and our recent action has shown that we have done everything possible to try to eliminate them.

page 140

QUESTION

PRICE OF MEAT

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– Is the Minister for Primary Industry aware that the Australiawide shortage of beef and mutton has caused both commodities to be priced beyond the reach of fixed income and low income groups in the community? Will the Minister investigate the possibility of withdrawing export licences for both beef and mutton so that there will be sufficient of both for Australian consumption at a price which all can afford to pay?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– It is true that overseas demand for these products is very strong. I think it is reasonable that exporters should take advantage of current prices. At the same time the Government should assist wherever it can to keep retail prices within reasonable limits. But I think it should be said that no machinery has been established to implement the suggestion which the honourable senator makes. However, this is a matter worthy of consideration and I assure the honourable senator that I will give it consideration.

page 141

QUESTION

BRITISH NATIONAL HEALTH SCHEME: FOUR CORNERS’ PROGRAM

Senator PROWSE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question which is addressed to the Minister for the Media is further to my question of 1st March which was related to the ‘Four Corners’ television program of 17th February. Now that the Minister is aware of the statement referring to the English general practitioner in relation to the British health scheme, has he verified the accuracy or otherwise of those statements? If they have been found to be inaccurate, what action is being taken to inform the public correctly of the facts?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– No, I must say that J have not attempted to verify the accuracy or otherwise of the statements made on the ‘Four Corners’ television program and alluded to by Senator Prowse in the chamber last week. The Government adopts the altitude that the political and programming independence of the Australian Broadcasting Commission must and will be guaranteed. However, having said that, now that Senator Prowse has asked me to verify the accuracy of the statements made on the particular ‘Four Corners’ program, I assure him that 1 will refer the matter to the Chairman of the ABC and ask him to see what corrective action should be taken if in fact such action is necessary.

page 141

QUESTION

DRUGS

Senator LAUCKE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate.

In view of the disquiet in the minds of many Australians arising from uncertainty as to Government attitudes in relation to the legalisation of the distribution and sale of marihuana or any other narcotic drug that could lead to the pollution of the moral environment of our youth, will the Minister clearly state the Government’s intentions in this matter?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– I do not know of the disquiet to which the honourable senator has referred but I do know that the problem ot how to deal with drug trafficking and drug abuse is a very difficult one. An interdepartmental committee has been established consisting of representatives of the Departments of Health, Social Security, Customs and Excise, the AttorneyGeneral, and Environment and Conservation to look into how, in effect, some total approach might be made to these questions. As the very valuable report of the Senate Select Committee on Drug Trafficking and Drug Abuse showed, it is not simply a problem of the criminal law; nor is it simply a problem of education, health or the other disciplines. It is a problem which affects so many aspects of our society.

The intention of that interdepartmental committee is to investigate the approaches being taken in the United States, where the stress hitherto has been mostly on the criminal law aspect and also the approaches being taken in the United Kingdom where the stress seems to have been rather on the health aspect and dealing with it as being a problem of sickness. The experience seems to show that the United Kingdom approach, without being perfect, has been more satisfactory than that of the United States. In any event, the Government is very much concerned about this problem. No-one would want to see a development of the crime in the streets that has been associated with the drug traffic in the United States of America. We all would want to have a solution to this problem. I can assure the honourable senator that the action to which I have referred is being taken and that the Government, conscious of the position, will take whatever other steps can be taken to deal with the problem. If it would be convenient for the honourable senator, I would present, in more precision, a statement to indicate what is happening in relation to this committee.

page 142

QUESTION

POSTMASTER-GENERAL’S DEPARTMENT: INQUIRY

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral. Has the inquiry into the PostmasterGeneral’s Department commenced yet? Does the Postmaster-General intend to continue making statements about his Department pending a report from the inquiry? Does the Postmaster-General believe that all new telephone services should be an economic proposition, especially in the rural areas?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I think that the inquiry into the Post Office affairs is due to commence in the very near future. 1 assume that the Postmaster-General, charged with his ministerial responsibilities, will continue to make statements about the administration of his Department, especially in reply to questions asked of him at question time. So far as new telephone services are concerned, the simple fact is that in 1970-71 there were deliberate increases in charges intended to cover capital development but these were inadequate for the capital development. The works programme of the Postmaster-General’s Department could have been better organised, in that problems referred to recently appear to have arisen from inadequate capital development funds. Therefore, the policy of the Government at this stage, pending the inquiry into Post Office affairs, is to ensure that the needs of the community as a whole are taken into account by assessing whether telephone lines and telecommunications systems should be installed rather than provide for the needs of a minority section of the Australian community.

page 142

QUESTION

REVALUATION OF CURRENCY: SUGAR INDUSTRY

Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND

– Has the Minister for Primary Industry read a report of the speech delivered yesterday in Brisbane by the Junior Vice-President of the Queensland Cane Growers Council, Mr K. A. Day, at the opening of the annual conference of that Council in the presence of the Minister for Northern Development, Dr Patterson, who delivered an address? In his speech the Vice-President, Mr Day, expressed the very grave concern of the sugar industry in regard to the probable financial loss to the industry if Australia did not move its currency rate against the Ameri can dollar. Mr Day suggested that there would be a reduction in export income to the sugar industry of perhaps $30m a year after 1974 and something approaching that amount this year. Can the Minister indicate what steps the Government has in mind, whether by means of exchange variation or otherwise, to offset this immense financial loss?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– As applies in the case of every other rural industry and as has been enunciated time and again since the revaluation of the Australian dollar, every industry which feels that it has been disadvantaged as a result of that revaluation is entitled to make a proper submission to the Government. That principle still stands.

page 142

QUESTION

TASMANIAN TOBACCO TAX: HIGH COURT CASE

Senator RAE:
TASMANIA

– By way of preface to my question, I say that last Thursday the AttorneyGeneral said he. would endeavour to answer that day my question first asked of him last Wednesday relating to the Tasmanian tobacco tax case, but apparently was not able to do so. I now ask: Will he answer those parts of my question that fall within his own knowledge and require only a yes or no answer? I refer to question No. 53, on the notice paper, parts (1) and (2). Part (1) reads:

Is the Attorney-General aware that on 22nd February 1973 the then Acting Prime Minister stated that the Commonwealth Government had decided not to seek leave to intervene in the High Court case involving the question of the constitutional validity of the Tasmanian tobacco case.

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– It is a little irregular since this question is on the notice paper, but I think I can answer it all. The answer to the first part of the question is no, I am not aware of that. To explain what that means, I point out that I spoke to Mr Barnard, the then Acting Prime Minister, and as I understand what he said, it was to the effect that the Commonwealth Government had not decided to seek leave; the decision had not been made. That has somehow been translated into a decision not to seek leave to intervene. I had not had any consultation with Mr Barnard about the matter before the statement or indeed until the honourable senator asked me the question. I did not answer him then and there because other matters were involved and because, in the pressure of events, it was possible that some consultation might have occurred. However, I have checked and have learned that there was

M> consultation before or after. The statement which Mr .Barnard made was made while I Was overseas. When I returned from overseas

I looked into the matter-

Senator Rae:

– No, this was on 22nd February.

Senator MURPHY:

– I am sorry, you are right. I was not oversea*. In any event, after I returned from overseas I looked into the matter and discussed it with the Solicitor-General, and a decision was made that we would seek leave to intervene.

Senator Rae:

– Thank you.

Senator MURPHY:

– I take it, then, that you do not seek to know the reasons why we Would not seek leave to intervene.

Senator Rae:

– That is so

page 143

QUESTION

PRICE INCREASES

Senator GAIR:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Can tse Minister explain why very little publicity, If any, has been given recently to the problem of inflation, which is still Australia’s greatest problem? Is it not correct that prices, as measured by the consumer price index, have greatly increased since 2nd December last year? Did he note the Press report that in the last 12 months food prices in Sydney have risen, by 30 per cent? Is he aware that in Brisbane, more than 100 grocery and food items have increased in price recently? Has he heard ‘ about the uproar . in Brisbane over increases in the prices of bread and meat, and the announcement in today’s Press that meat pies and pasties will rise in price to 20c? Why is: it that now when inflation is worse than it Was .prior to the election we do not hear much about it, whereas before the election Labor spokesmen were forecasting the collapse of the economy?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

– No, despite my many duties”! do not know why the Press does not write on particular items. I do not think it is my job to tell the Press what to write about it’ For our own part, we now publish a monthly Treasury Information Bulletin’ in lieu . of the old quarterly one, and I should nave, thought that was the type of action the Government ought to take to inform the public of the state- of the economy.

page 143

QUESTION

TRADE WITH CHINA AND TAIWAN

Senator HANNAN:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Special Minister of State. Has the Ministers attention been drawn to an eco nomic and political treatise by Professor Hans Arndt, who resigned from the Labor Party over Mr Whitlam’* performance in China, dealing with what the professor called the myth of China trade? Is the Government holding any hopes of substantial trade relations with China? Is the Government aware that the overseas trade figures for Taiwan are slightly better than those for the whole of Red China and mat such trade is conducted by free men? If this is so, would it not be extremely desirable in Australia’s interests to maintain official trade links wilh Taiwan? If this is so, will the Government in the exercise of its independent foreign policy seek Chairman Mao’s permission to set up at least a trade mission as has been done by Austria, Belgium and other countries?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

– The answer to the . first part of the question is no, I have not seen the article. On the aspect of trade, the only thing I have seen recently was a report that the Victorian Liberal Minister, Mr Byrne, seemed to think that trade would flourish between Communist China and Australia. The rest of the question I do not think deserves an answer.

page 143

QUESTION

TERRORISTS

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Attorney-General. Is it a fact that last August the Yugoslav Ambassador, Mr Vidovic, officially complained to the Australian Government that Australia was being used by Croatian terrorists as a training ground? Has the Minister any comments to make on reports that since the federal election more than 200 terrorists have left Australia to carry on their activities elsewhere? Has the Government any plans to control the actions of hard core terrorists, including their departure from our shores?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– I have indicated already that I propose shortly to make a statement to the Senate about this general matter, and I do not desire to anticipate the statement.

page 143

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

The PRESIDENT:

– Everyone is anxious to ask questions; 1 am giving priority, which is proper, to the leaders of the identifiable parr ties in the Senate.’ I .have another priority which relates to the deputy leaders of those parties. I will not call senators, apart from those to whom I have referred, to ask second questions until I have accorded to every sena tor who wishes to ask a question the right to ask a question.

page 144

QUESTION

SUGAR INDUSTRY: REPRESENTATION AT UNCTAD

Senator MAUNSELL:
QUEENSLAND

– Will the Minister for Primary Industry inform the Senate which Federal Minister will be leading the Australian delegation to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development to discuss the new International Sugar Agreement?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– I am not sure, but I presume it would be Dr Patterson. I will find out for the honourable senator.

page 144

QUESTION

RECOGNITION OF CHINA

Senator SIM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Last Wednesday I asked the Special Minister of State the following question:

As lbc Government claims that the agreement with the ‘People1! Republic of China is similar to’ the Canadian formula, win the Government provide to the Parliament full details of the formulas for recognition of the Peopled Republic of China adopted by Canada, Japan, West Germany; Zaire, Malagasy, Jamaica and Chad? .

The Minister replied:

They would be public documents. If the honourable senator cannot get them from the Parliamentary library, possibly I could assist him to get them.

I did not ask that question for my own- information; I have been informed, I. asked the question for the information of the ‘ Parliament. I now ask the Minister: Will he lay on the table of the Senate the formulas for recognition of the People’s Republic of China adopted by Canada, Japan, West Germany, Zaire, Malagasy,- Jamaica and Chad? Senator WILLESEE - Yes

page 144

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN MASS COMMUNICATIONS COUNCIL

Senator CARRICK:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Minister for the Media currently a member of the Australian Mass Communications Council? If not, has he been a member in the past, and when and by what process did he resign? What are the broad objectives and policies of that Council? Does the- Minister subscribe to these objectives and. policies? . .

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It is true that for some years I was a member of the Australian Mass Communications Council. It was only this year, that I did not renew my membership of the Council because I thought that I could be in a situation where the Interests of being a member of the Council and my ministerial position might clash with one another.

The broad objectives of the Mass Communications Council are to seek a . greater increase in the quantity of Australian programmes, to improve the quality of Australian productions, to obtain better .quality programmes from abroad and generally to create amongst the public at large an awareness of the responsibility that mass communications have in our society. I think that the objectives of the Council, to which there are a number of affiliated organisations - unions, churches, religious organisations and ‘ charitable institutions - are very laudable and worthwhile and I am hoping that many of those objectives can be implemented by the present Government.

page 144

QUESTION

THAILAND

Senator KANE:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– 1 ask the Minister assisting the Minister for Foreign Affairs: Is the Prime’ Minister, correctly reported as having said in an interview .published in the current issue of ‘Newsweek’ - that he feared that American forces in Thailand might produce a situation like Vietnam, and that American use of air - bases in Thailand’ for’ operations against Vietnam bad inevitably caused the suspicion and, in fact, the hostility of Hanoi against Thailand? If so, is this an extension of the new vvhitiam doctrine announced in Indonesia of telling Britain and the’ United States of America to get out of Asia? Is it a fact that in his policy speech Mr Whitlam made . no -mention whatever of this new and radical foreign policy?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

– I do not know whether the article in ‘Newsweek’ referred to by the honourable senator correctly reported the Prime Minister. As I do not know that, I cannot answer, the remainder of the question.

page 144

QUESTION

TERRORISTS

Senator DRURY:

– I ask the. Minister assisting the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether Australia, together with many other nations, at the most recent General Assembly of the United Nations desired urgent- action to be taken to prevent international terrorism which affected innocent people not a party to any dispute? Was the - draft’ resolution prepared which would have directed the International Law Commission to prepare as a matter of priority a convention providing effective means ft combat terrorism? As the resolution failed and lt appears unlikely that any effective action can-be achieved before the next session of the General Assembly and in the light of the recent acts of terrorism, will the . Government continue to work for the passage of the resolution through the various organs of the United Nations?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

– At the United Nations the Secretary-General had inscribed an item on the question of terrorism. Australia, with Canada, the United Kingdom and several other nations, co-sponsored a resolution which would have had the effect of the International Law Commission’s preparing a draft convention.’ This was voted against, mainly by the ‘non-aligned countries, their reasoning being that it might impede genuine revolutionary movements throughout the world. They in turn passed a resolution’ which invited members to put forward their ideas on terrorism to a newly formed committee. Australia .voted against that, on the basis that it did not underline the urgency and seriousness of -terrorism : throughout the world. Australia made it clear. at the same time - this is in answer to the -honourable senator’s last question - that it would work with’ the United Nations in its- efforts to do something about the: whole question of terrorism. On the subject -of aerial hijacking, we have ratified both the. Tokyo and the Hague, conventions. We have signed the Montreal Convention, and legislation will be brought down as soon as it can be. prepared to enable us to ratify it.

page 145

QUESTION

PRICE OF MEAT

Senator LAUCKE:

– My question, which I direct to the Minister for Primary Industry, follows upon the question asked earlier by Senator Keeffe concerning the price of meat on the. home market. Is it -not a fact that meat producers in Australia, with the exception .of . those who are producing beef, have experienced very low prices for their products over a long period? Are they not now entitled to enjoy the benefits. of markets more. favourable to them? Will this be kept in mind when the Minister is considering Senator Keeffe’s question?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– Again I am not sure whether tho producers of meat have not enjoyed good prices in recent years. It is true that they have not enjoyed in recent years the prices that they are enjoying *ow. I think that when I answered an earlier question I made the point that exporters are entitled to receive the benefits reasonably due to them from export prices, as indicated by .the honourable senator. I assure him that I shall bear that in mind in any consideration I give to the matter.

page 145

QUESTION

VD? FLIGHTS

Senator McMANUS:

– I address my question to Senator Bishop in his capacity as the Minister representing the Minister having control over the use of VIP aircraft. Wilt the Government follow the example of the previous government, and lay on the table details pf ali persons other than crew members who have travelled iri VIP aircraft since 2nd December?

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

– As a preamble I would like to indicate to Senator McManus .that this afternoon T will be tabling guideline’s for the use of VIP aircraft. The answer to his question, is yes. .

page 145

QUESTION

LOCAL GOVERNMENT: REPRESENTATION AT CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION AND LOAN COUNCIL

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Can the ‘ AttorneyGeneral inform’ the Senate whether’ local government will be given . full representation status at the forthcoming conversion on’ constitutional reform? Has the Prime Minister indicated that he would like local ‘government to be given . representation: 04 ‘ the ‘ Australian Loan Council?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– As to the. second part of the question, yes, I believe that the Prime Minister has announced .that he, would like local government to be given, .representation on the Australian Loan Council’. As to whether local government will, be represented at the convention, I cannot say because the convention, which was initiated fay the States, presumably will be master of its own business. That decision would have to be taken by the convention. I know lt is the desire of this Government that local government, be represented at the . convention. The Government has met the various representatives of local government, and heard them ‘: express their wishes to be represented arid the ‘.Government has agreed with those views. It has made its position clear that it considers that Ideal government is’ now, and perhaps tuts’, been for some time;’- so’ important to the conduct df our society that it ought to have a place in any constitutional convention and that it ought to have a greater role in the affairs of the nation, However, I cannot answer with any certainty the honourable senator’s question as to whetherlocal government will be represented. If the Australian Government has its way it will be represented.

page 146

QUESTION

REVALUATION OF CURRENCY: EXPORT INDUSTRIES

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– I direct a question to the Minister for Primary Industry. In view of the rather general answer which the Minister gave to my specific questions, will the Minister now admit that the 1967 revaluation was a very much more serious cost to export industries than the minor adjustments which occurred in 1971? Was not the so-called new policy of 1971 justified by the minor nature of the adjustments? Does the Minister claim that the latest exchange adjustment of 7 per cent can be called minor?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– It is not a question of whether the adjustment was minor or major. The important point is the distinction that I made in my earlier answer. The previous government adopted a different principle in its approach to the problem in 1971. I suggest that this is the essentia] point that ought to be considered in any further revaluations or currency alignments as far as this country is concerned. It would be irresponsible and remiss of this Government - I think it is possible that the honourable senator or some of his colleagues would agree with me or any future government, . Labor or LiberalCountry Party, to revert to the principles that were set out in the 1967 revaluation. I think a proper course was adopted in 1971 by Mr McMahon. I also think a proper course has been adopted by this Government.

page 146

QUESTION

REVALUATION OF CURRENCY: APPLE AND PEAR INDUSTRY

Senator WRIGHT:

– I direct a question to the Minister for Primary Industry. Does the Minister concede that devaluation compensation is an entitlement of exporters, or is it in his conception a welfare payment to be given and bestowed at the discretion of a Minister? Does the Government’s devaluation decision of December represent a loss of 60c on every case of apples priced at $6 in the sterling market? Does that mean that, to the ordinary grower of 10,000 cases of apples the lossis $6;000? Will the Minister honour the . promises made in applegrowing areas by his colleagues, Mr Grassby and Dr Rex. Patterson, that in the event of devaluation proper compensation would be paid?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– Insofar as the statements by Dr Patterson and Mr Grassby are concerned, I think it would be as well for the honourable senator to be precise in quoting what they said. It is my understanding that they did not make the statement be alleges’ they made. What they did say was that the stabilisation scheme would be considered by this Government with a view to assisting the industry. I should add that the apple and pear industry is a very poor example for Senator Wright to choose because the previous Government went no closer to solving the problems of that industry than the present Government has gone to date, but we hope during the course of the present Administration to adopt a more positive approach. As to the other part of his question, I do not wish to alter in any way the principle which I have spelled out and which has been spelled out by the Government, but I make the point thatI am sure the previous Government would not have expected, and the present Government’ does not expect, any rural industry or any other industry to -pay compensation to the Government in the case of the reverse situation occurring in a currency change, although exactly the same principle would be involved. That was not done previously and I am sure’ it will not be done in the future.

page 146

QUESTION

IMPEACHMENT OF MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT

Senator HANNAN:

– In directing this question to the AttorneyGeneral I am not seeking’ a legal opinion. Can the AttorneyGeneral explain to the Senate the provisions of Australian law, if any, in respect, of the impeachment of members of Parliament? Do they follow the American practice, from which we borrowed so much of our Constitution, where the matter, is raised in the Houses, of Representatives but the decision is actually made in the Senate?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– No.

page 146

QUESTION

PRICE OF MEAT

Senator YOUNG:

– My question to the Minister - for Primary Industry follows the Minister’s reply to Senator Keeffe’s question in relation to meat prices and exports. Does mb Ministers answer mean that he will give Serious consideration to suggestions which could endanger meat export contracts that have been hard earned over the years and could be lost to other meat exporting countries?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– With great respect to Senator Young, I’ think that is a most unreasonable interpretation of my answer! 1 said exactly what I meant to say, that is, that I Will give consideration to them without prejudice to the position.

page 147

QUESTION

TASMANIAN TOBACCO TAX: HIGH COURT CASE

Senator RAE:

– The Attorney-General, . in answering a question I asked him a short time ago .. about the- Tasmanian tobacco tax case, said -that since I asked roy first question he had. been- able to have discussions with his colleague, the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Barnard. He said that Mr Barnard had said that the Government had not made any decision on the seeking of leave to intervene in the’. Tasmanian tobacco tax case. I ask the Attorney-General: From his knowledge of what Mr Barnard said, is the following a correct quotation of the words used by Mr, Barnard: ‘. . whatever attitude or action contemplated or taken by the Commonwealth Government would have to follow (he judgment of the High Court’? Will the AttorneyGeneral confirm that, if it is- correct, it displays a complete -misunderstanding of the question involved?

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I make the observation that it is unfair to ask a Minister to verify reports which allegedly have been made by a colleague.- If the Leader of the Government carries the quotation in his mind and can verify it, I call him.

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– I wish the honourable senator would clarify the question. I have tried to make clear the substance of the matter. The Government has decided to intervene in the sense that the Attorney-General has decided that there should be an intervention in the High Court on behalf of the Australian Government. That much is clear. Apparently Mr Barnard made a statement which has been misunderstood and which has been taken as suggesting that the decision which had been made went, the other way. I have - explainedthat there was no consultation between Mr Barnard and myself about the matter.

As to reflections’ upon what the’ Deputy Prime Minister’ thought to’‘1’ be’ the legal position and how legal matters develop, I do not think’ that he ‘.should be- criticised for not being a - specialist in the ‘ legal field. The position is’ ‘ clear. The Australian ‘ Government’s interests will be protected. It is intervening in the matter because, very’ wide questions might be raised and they might have implications in cither areas. We think it is important. Frankly, I do not know whether what Mr Barnard may have thought was the appropriate way in which these constitutional questions and their consequences ‘are to be dealt with is worth pursuing. .

page 147

QUESTION

ATMOSPHERIC RADIATION

Senator CARRICK:

– My question is directed to the Attorney-General. It concerns’ the current radiation content of the Australian atmosphere following past nuclear tests carried out by all nations. Is the international acceptable maximum’ limit of ‘ atmospheric radiation, regarded as 100 units- or rads? What is the current measurement of radiation fallout from all causes, natural . and’ .otherwise, over the Australian continent? Is it 2 units or less? Has the Minister sought advice upon the possible genetic or carcinogenic . effects of such a level of . radiation? If sp,, from, whom was the advice sought and what were the. answers given? Are the Australian radiation levels consistently, .among the ..lowest in the world?

The PRESIDENT:

– Under the previous Administration I told Ministers that unless they carried highly technical’ and statistical information in ‘ their ‘ heads they ‘could ask that questions be put on notice, or I would order that they be put on notice. Senator Murphy, do you have that statistical and technical information?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– I think - 1 can deal with part of the question. It is true that there is a natural background of radiation. It is true also that the amount of radiation has been increased appreciably by the nuclear tests’, which have been’ performed in various parts of the world, and also the explosions which took place over Japan. The amount of that increase may be regarded’ in- some ways as small.’ Nevertheless, it- is significant for several - reasons, - as I - understand it. There is no threshold whatever^- in other words .the view is that any- amount’ of radiation is harmful:’ There is a certain ‘ background radiation about which, wo cannot do anything. Wo expose ourselves to radiation by way of X-rays h… various other means. We do so on the basis that some kind of benefit is to be gained by having an X-ray or In some other way exposing ourselves to radiation. But to expose oneself to radiation unnecessarily without such a benefit is not advisable.

Senator Carrick:

– Will the honourable senator give me a specific answer?

Senator MURPHY:

– Yes. Certainly, advice has been obtained by the Government and 1 have obtained some myself. I do not propose to say from whom that advice was obtained because, as the honourable senator may be aware and as I mentioned in the Senate the other day, there has been an exchange of diplomatic notes between Australia .and France. A dialogue is going on. The. Prime Minister has indicated, that in certain events an approach will be made to the International Court of Justice. Matters may become the subject of evidence before that Court. It is not appropriate nor is it the practice in such circumstances for the Government of Australia to pinpoint the quarters . from which its scientific advice or, for that matter, its legal advice has come.

page 148

QUESTION

TASMANIAN TOBACCO TAX: HIGH COURT CASE

Senator RAE:

– I ask the Attorney-General whether he it able to tell the Senate the approximate date on which the decision was taken that the Commonwealth would seek leave , to intervene in the Tasmanian tobacco tax case?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– No, because 1 was carrying the decision in my head for a few days. I think I can tell the honourable senator the date on which I wrote to the AttorneyGeneral of Tasmania. From a note which I was sent a little while ago it appears that it was in fact a couple of days, before the date on which the honourable senator said that the Deputy Prime Minister-

Senator Rae:

– That was 22nd February. Was it a couple, of days before 22nd February?

Senator MURPHY:

– Yes, I think it was a couple of days before then that I wrote to the Attorney-Genera) of Tasmania. As I indicated to the honourable senator, this decision by me had not been communicated to. the Deputy Prime Minister.

Senator Rae:

– Apparently he had not sought it from the Minister before making the statement?

Senator MURPHY:

– As far as I am aware we had had no discussion about the matter at all.

page 148

QUESTION

ROAD ACCIDENTS IN THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Senator NEGUS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I preface a question to the Minister representing the Minister for the Capital Territory by stating that, contrary to the general view, although the wearing of. seat belts in late model cars is now compulsory the accident rate on the roads of the Australian Capital Territory has not declined. I ask the Minister whether this is so because many motorists in the A.C.T. are able to exceed the speed limit by 10 to 15 miles an hour and apparently get away with it? Does the Minister consider that the only way to keep speeds down and reduce accidents is to have governors fitted to vehicles of continual offenders? Does he consider that inability to control cars at speeds is one of the major causes of accidents? Would it not help reduce the accident rate if penalties included suspension of the car registration, and driver’s licence of second ‘ or third offenders charged with speeding?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

– I do not know what effect that would have on traffic. There are some interesting comments inherent in the question and I shall refer them to the Minister.

page 148

QUESTION

REVALUATION OF CURRENCY: CRAYFISH INDUSTRY

Senator JESSOP:

– Is the Minister for Primary Industry aware that cray fishermen in the south east of South Australia who depend on the United States market have had their returns cut by up to 20 per cent by the action of the Labor Government with regard to the value of the Australian dollar? As a result of this ‘action, serious economic, consequences are being faced. Will the Minister consider as a matter of urgency compensation for fosses incurred by the industry?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– 1 certainly shall consider this as a matter of urgency if a submission has been placed before the Government. I do not know whether or not this is so but I do not think it is my responsibility to invite every industry in Australia which may feel that it has been affected by revaluation to place a submission before the Government. The position has been spelt . out clearly enough to al] industries concerned that if they feel they have a case to put before the government it is up to them to do so. But if the industry referred to by the honourable senator in fact has done that I shall have its submission looked at as a matter of urgency.

page 149

QUESTION

REVALUATION OF CURRENCY’. APPLE AND PEAR INDUSTRY

Senator WRIGHT:

– Having regard to the oft repeated statement of the Minister for Primary Industry that if an industry would submit a case the Government would give a decision, I ask- the Minister whether the Apple and Pear Growers Federation of Tasmania submitted to him on 5th January 1973 a case for compensation?’ Has the Minister given an answer?- Is it in writing? If so, will he table the case’ submitted- and the response given?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– 1 am aware .that, the prg organisation referred to by -the honourable senator, did. submit a case- for compensation. He in turn ; is aware - that the Government took very quick action in respect of that industry - much quicker than action taken, by the previous- Government in either 1967 or 1971 because we recognised that the industry was deserving .of immediate assistance, which it received. There was nothing in the assistance which precluded ..that industry from any further assistance which the Government may feci it ought to receive. -I might say also for the benefit of the honourable senator that part of that payment was made up of the supplementary grants which .1 consider to have been a very important part of the fruitgrowers’ reconstruction scheme started by the honourable senator’s own - administration last year and continued by this Government. I think that this is the fairest thing that this Government could have done.

page 149

HEALTH INSURANCE FUNDS: FINANCIAL POSITION

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON - My question which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and the Minister for Social Security is in response to jio answer which the Minister gave earlier today to’ a question directed to him about medical and hospital insurance funds. Is he ware that under section 76 of the National Health Act every fund is required to provide a return to the Government annually? Is he aware that ‘ last April the Director-General, under the provisions of section 76a of the National Health Act, forwarded to the then Minister for,’ Health, the annual return on the. operation .pf registered medical fund organisations and hospital .benefit organisations during the year elided 30th June 197.1? Is he aware also that the then Minister, in. accordance with his responsibilities, tabled the document in this Senate on 18th May 1972? Is he aware than an annual’ report will now no doubt be in the possession of the present Minister who in turn presumably will table it within the period of the present sittings?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am aware that under’ section’ 76a of the National Health Act every fund is required to provide a return to the Minister annually.

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

– And table it in the Parliament.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The fund does not table the ‘ document. I am aware also that the Minister- is.’ required under the Act to tabic the document in the Parliament. I can well recall the honourable senator in his- role as Minister for Health- tabling the document sometime in the- autumn session, of last year. I assume that an annual report will be in the possession .of the present Minister. I assume that -once’ that .report has- been studied by his Department and by the. Minister he will table- the document. I want to remind the honourable senator that until, this Government is able to introduce amending, legislation to the existing Social Service Act and the National Health Act into the Parliament it will still be operating under an obsolescent, inadequate and hotchpotch scheme of the previous administration. It is inevitable that whilst that scheme continues, ho matter which political party is in government,’ - enormous difficulties will ‘ confront the Austraiian people. It is the -objective of- the present Labor Government to bring about’ ‘ a completely new scheme which will contain some equity for all sections of the’ Australian community.

page 149

QUESTION

HEALTH INSURANCE FUNDS: FINANCIAL POSITION

Senator GREENWOOD:

– My . . question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, .follows on the question asked ‘ by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson. Why, in the light of his concession to Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson that all these facts were- available, did the ‘Minister say in his answer, to the first question I asked today that the previous Government had ‘concealed’ these cost pressures by making the hospital and medical benefit funds absorb the increases into reserves and attack the previous Government for-, an alleged concealment? How does he justify the .use of the word ‘concealment”?

Senator DOUGLAS McCLELLAND What I said in reply to Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson was that I presumed the latest reports were now in the possession of the Minister for Social Security and that, after he and his Department had .considered them, he would table those reports .in the Parliament. The honourable senator has referred to a document that was tabled in the Senate in April of last year.

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

– lt was May of last year.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It was April or May. What happened between April and December of last year, at the time of the. general election, was that costs., in these funds were increasing considerably and the then Government, realising that an election was pending and not wanting to increase the medical and hospital fund contributions, did nut do so. Therefore, these hospital and medical benefit funds in Victoria are in their present situation.

page 150

QUESTION

HEALTH INSURANCE FUNDS: FINANCIAL POSITION

Senator MULVIHILL:

– My question, which is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health, is supplementary to the 2 previous questions directed from the Opposition. Notwithstanding the financial position of the Victorian hospital and medical benefit funds, am I not correct in assuming that their New South Wales counterparts have amassed considerable reserves- which, if the Nimmo report were implemented, would be utilised for the benefit of subscribers?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Having been a member of the Senate Select Committee on Medical and Hospital Costs which inquired into this matter and having read not only .the ..report of that Committee but also the Nimmo report to which the honourable senator has referred, 1 understand that there are a number of hoSpital and medical funds that have amassed considerable reserves and - that ‘ these ‘ reserves, . generally speaking, could- be utilised in the interests of the Australian community. Apparently, one- of the objections:- that, the present .Minister for Social Security has to- the manner in which the previous - Government- : administered;, the national health scheme is that it regarded the overall report- in. this respect’ presented by .His Honour Mr. Justice Nimmo as’ representing an across the board attitude which meant that the reserves of the funds should- absorb increasing - costs. . It was: not - proposed that individual funds should be examined separately to see which funds could absorb the costs and which funds should increase ‘the fees. Rather than look at these funds individually, the previous Government apparently adopted an across the board attitude.

page 150

QUESTION

PURCHASE OF BASIC TRAINER AIRCRAFT

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– In directing my question ‘to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence,” I refer to a defence statement issued in July last year regarding the purchase of a basic trainer aircraft. Did that statement say that before’ a contract could be signed with a New .’Zealand’ company . a definitive ‘specification- for the aircraft had to be agreed to? Did it also’ say that a number of changes ‘ were required by the Royal Australian Air Force which needed to be satisfactorily proven in the existing prototype aircraft? Can the Minister inform the Senate whether these requirements have now been met? If not, can he state the present position? Can he say when signing is anticipated or when the contract for these aircraft was signed?

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

– Al] I can say to the honourable’ senator is that he has indicated the policy of’ the previous government, arid that as far as I am aware the ‘final points have not been concluded. I will get the information for the honourable senator.

page 150

QUESTION

HEALTH INSURANCE FUNDS: FINANCIAL POSITION

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It is a fact that the previous Government introduced amendments to the nursing homes legislation. The honourable senator who was formerly Minister for Health introduced that legislation and I on behalf of the then Opposition did not oppose it. Certainly it was a provision of the legislation that the funds would be required to give the additional home nursing benefit without an increase in the premium payable by the contributor, and it was intended that in that way some of the excessive reserves would be utilised. Since April last, costs have caught up particularly with the Victorian funds, and now the Minister for Social Security in another place has warned the Australian public that further rises in medical benefit contributions may be necessary to cover the increased medical fees which are likely to apply from 1st July this year.

page 151

QUESTION

CLA.: INFLUENCE ON AUSTRALIAN DEFENCE POLICIES

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. Has it been decided whether the American Central Intelligence Agency has influenced or does influence the policies of the Australian Department of Defence as is apparently alleged by the former secretary of the Victorian Australian Labor Party, Mr Hartley?

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

– The matter is one for the Minister for Defence, but I can say that within my own knowledge the answer is no.

page 151

QUESTION

CONDITIONS ATTACHING TO GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

Senator McMANUS:

– My question to the Minister for Works, relates to the statement that it is the intention of the Government that preference in allotting contracts shall be given to firms which adopt satisfactory attitudes in regard to conditions and relations with the trade unions. I ask the Minister: What is the method by which this will be implemented? Will firms be required, when submitting tenders, to support their tenders with evidence of their relationship with the trade unions, or does the Government propose to seek information in each case from union officials? What exactly will be the procedure?

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

– The honourable senator has the facts wrong. There was never a statement that this was the intention cf the Government. There was a statement that within my ministerial responsibility, I would take into consideration certain factors. I take the responsibility for that statement. There never was a statement made by me that preference would be given to firms which employed trade unionists or which had good relations with trade unions. To make the position very clear, I tabled in the House List week, the instruction to my Department. Senator McManus has not taken the trouble to read that statement to see what it says. The statement said that a number of things would be taken into consideration at the time of allocating contracts. One was the relationship of certain builders or contractors - tenderers - with trade unions; whether they employed union labour; whether they employed their ratio of apprentices, and whether they employed a day work system or a contract system. There was no indication that any such question would be the determining factor. Whereas previously the Director General of Works had full power in letting contracts, now the approval of contracts will be taken over by myself acting within my ministerial responsibility and, I hope, with :he advice of the Department. My Department is now working out schemes for how the directions can best be put into operation. They will be put into operation. Unless the tenders of firms which have a notoriously bad union record are very much lower than are others, and unless there are other considerations, those firms will have very little chance of getting a Department of Works contract while I am Minister.

page 152

QUESTION

CONDITIONS ATTACHING TO GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

Senator WRIGHT:

– My question is directed to the Minister for Works. In his directive, did the Minister direct the Director-General of Works that in allocating contracts consideration shall be given to the relationship of the contractor with the trade union movement? What does the Minister consider to be indicative of a relationship with a union that he would favour? Is it contribution to its funds, ready acceptance of union demands, or active support of the trade union movement? Why has the Minister displaced the Director-General as the impartial, objective officer who, on a consideration of the technical matters relating to the contract, in my day gave the contract to the best tender? Is the Minister displacing the Director-General so that he can translate the feeling of the union movement into the awarding of contracts for his favourites?

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

– The honourable senator commenced his question by asking whether the document I tabled contained certain statements which he read out of the document. I do not know whether that part of the question necessitates an answer. It is obvious that the honourable senator did not require information about that; he had it. I am doing everything possible in my portfolio to create a harmonious relationship between employers and employees. I hope that during my period of office we do not have such disputations as occurred when Senator Wright was a Minister. As to my intention to replace the Director-General as the approving authority for contracts, even under the previous Minister for Works, some contracts of a certain value had to be approved by the Minister. That remains the case. Contracts of a greater value will be approved with complete co-operation and agreement between my Director-General and myself.

page 152

QUESTION

TELEVISION: OVERSEAS PROGRAMS

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– Is it true that the Minister for the Media has asked all Australian television stations to reduce their purchases of overseas programs? If this is the case, how will this time be made up to the Australian viewing public?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It is not true that I have asked the licensees of commercial television stations, or indeed all of the networks, to reduce their purchases of overseas programs. In fact I have suggested to the 3 commercial networks in Australia and to the Australian Broadcasting Commission that rather than go to the United States in March to purchase programs 12 months in advance they should postpone their buying arrangements until the programs are telecast around September, October or November so that they can go over there and see the programs have been telecast. Of course, this would be of benefit to the Australian licensees, it certainly would be of great benefit to the Australian viewers and I believe it might have some impact in lowering the prices paid by Australians to foreigners for the purchase of programs.

According to the broadcasting and television year book, Australia was paying a program cost of $179’ per 100,000 sets compared with $85 by Canada, $38 by France, $15 by Italy, $28 by Japan, $80 by New Zealand and $46 by the United Kingdom. Instead of the 4 networks in Australia going to America 12 months in advance of their program requirement and competing one against the other, I have suggested to them that it would be in their interests to postpone their buying arrangements until September, October or November when the programs have in fact been shown.

page 152

QUESTION

EXPORT OF MERINO RAMS

Senator WEBSTER:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Primary . Industry. It is now many weeks since the Minister announced that there would be a referendum to decide whether merino rams may be exported from Australia? Did the Minister announce that the result of such referendum would be available in June 1973? Has the Minister yet decided whether a written case for and against export will be sent to all persons who are to have a vote? Who will be requested to prepare the appropriate arguments for and against?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– I should make it clear that I have not given any undertaking about the June 1973 deadline. As regards the latter part of the question, no, there is no specific decision. I indicated last week that I was giving consideration to this question. I think it is a very reasonable one- As soon as a decision is made I shall advise the Senate.

page 153

QUESTION

REVALUATION OF CURRENCY: APPLE AND PEAR INDUSTRY

Senator WRIGHT:

– I direct to the Minister for Primary Industry another question, which will be the last, providing the answer is satisfactory. Did the Minister, before his announcement of 6th February last of a welfare payment limited to $1,500 per orchard, have before him the full report from the Australian Apple and Pear Board recommending devaluation compensation? What was the amount recommended? Will the Minister table the recommendation and any repiy that he made?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– When the honourable senator speaks of a recommendation, 1 presume he means the recommendation by the Federation-

Senator Wright:

– No, by the Apple and Pear Board. I dealt with the Federation half an hour ago.

Senator WRIEDT:

– I have not seen specifically the report to which the honourable senator refers. 1 do not think it is a matter that should commit me to table the report in the Senate. However, I will have a look at the document for the honourable senator. 1 can only make the further observation that 1 feel certain that in view of the lack of criticism in Tasmania of the Government’s action regarding this industry, there cannot be much wrong with it.

The PRESIDENT:

– I think that honourable senators are getting a bit weary of questions. We have a lot of business to do. I suggest that we might conclude questions with this question by Senator Rae.

page 153

QUESTION

TASMANIAN TOBACCO TAX: HIGH COURT CASE

Senator RAE:

– .1 ask the Attorney-General whether he can clarify for me one further matter concerning the Tasmanian tobacco tax case. Will the Government, if given leave to intervene, argue that the tax is unconstitutional?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– 1 do not think that I should answer that question. I have indicated that the Australian Government would seek leave to intervene. I do not think it is proper for me to say here and now in the Senate, especially in some capsulated way, what sub missions the Australian Government proposes to make in the course of a case before the High Court of Australia.

I should like to add, for the benefit of the honourable senator, something regarding the matter about which he has been asking me questions in Che last few days. Having read the statement that was published in, I think, the ‘Mercury’ of 23rd February 1973 about what has been said by Mr Barnard, I do not know that the strictures which have been passed by the honourable senator about Mr Barnard’s statements are all justifiable. I just wonder what all the fuss is about. Now that it is clear that the Australian Government is intervening in the matter, it seems to me that some of the honourable senator’s reflections ought not to have been made.

page 153

QUESTION

TELEVISION: OVERSEAS PROGRAMS

Senator LAUCKE:

– My question, which I direct to the Minister for the Media, follows upon the question asked a moment ago by Senator Lawrie in respect of the Minister’s request to television stations to delay the purchase of certain programs. Has the request relevance to increased Australian content of television programs? Is there an area of interest in this matter which attaches to that request in the first instance?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I have made an approach to the 4 purchasing networks in Australia at this time because I understand that normally in March the networks - and I believe rather unwillingly in their circumstances - begin the process of selecting their purchases from abroad for transmission in Australia next year. It seemed to me that the Australian networks might welcome a situation where, by agreement, they did not buy programs abroad until they were assured after seeing a number of episodes that the programs would be suitable and successful on Australian television. I hope that my approach, relates not only to a considerable saving of money on the purchase of programs from abroad, which could then be devoted to the production of Australian programs, but also to improving the quality of programs that are purchased by the networks abroad. My suggestion seems preferable to the networks’ going abroad and purchasing on speculation. They would have the advantage of seeing 2 or 3 episodes of a production before they decided to purchase. That is why I made the approach.

page 154

PROPOSED STEEL PRICE INCREASES

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesAttorneyGeneral and Minister for Customs and Excise · ALP

– For the information of honourable senators 1 present the report by Mr Justice Moore on the inquiry conducted on behalf of the Australian Government in relation to proposed steel price increases by Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd and Australian Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. Copies of the report will be available to senators in the Parliamentary Library.

page 154

DESIGNS LAW REVIEW COMMITTEE

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesAttorneyGeneral and Minister for Customs and Excise · ALP

– For the information of honourable senators I present the report of the Designs Law Review Committee on its first term of reference, namely, the law relating to designs.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Senator MURPHY:

– I advise honourable senators who are especially interested in the report that between 20 and 30 copies of it will be available in about 2 days. For the convenience of honourable senators the copies will be made available in the Senate records office.

page 154

JOINT COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS

Senator WILLESEE:
Western AustraliaMinister assisting the Minister for Foreign Affairs · ALP

– 1 have pleasure in presenting to the Senate the report of the Joint Parliamentary Foreign Affairs Committee on Australia’s foreign aid. The report arises from a series of meetings held between March and October 1972 of a sub-committee of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Foreign Affairs. In response to advertisements published in the Press 39 submissions were presented to the sub-committee by members of the public. At the 22 meetings, 12 of which were public evidence was taken from 34 witnesses representing the academic world, voluntary aid agencies and Commonwealth government departments.

Honourable senators will find a number of conclusions and recommendations in the report. I hope that honourable senators will read those recommendations in conjunction with the background analysis in the main text with a view to apprising themselves further of the many complex issues involved iri the area of foreign aid. Senators will need no reminding that the views of the Committee «re not necessarily those of this Government. However, senators may be confident that the Government regards the report as a useful contribution to the general debate on aid and will consider seriously the valuable points arising from it.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Senator Drury:

– I ask for leave to move a motion relating to the report.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator DRURY:
South Australia

– I move:

I ask for leave to make my remarks at a later date.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 154

RULES FOR THE USE OF VIP AIRCRAFT

Ministerial Statement

Senator BISHOP:
Minister assisting the Minister for Defence · South Australia · ALP

– For the information of honourable senators I present the following paper:

Rules for the use of Royal Australian Air Force VIP aircraft- Ministerial statement, 1st March 1973.

I ask for leave to make a short statement in connection with the paper.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator BISHOP:

– The Government recently gave consideration to the question of rules for the use of Royal Australian Air Force VIP aircraft for VIPs and VIP party travel, following which the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) stated that the rules would be tabled when Parliament sat. I now table these rules. There are some points which I should specifically mention. Essentially these rules are the same as those which were drawn up and applied under the previous Government. Those rules were the subject of a statement in the Senate on 30th September 1970 by the then Minister for Air, Senator DrakeBrockman, in which he summarised their provisions. The rules which I have tabled amplify the previous rules in 2 respects. First it is made clear that a request is not to be made to an approving authority for VIP aircraft travel if alternative forms of transport are available. Second the previous rules said that passengers carried as members of a VIP’s party would normally be limited to his wife, personal staff and departmental officials connected with the official party. The new rules add that if a request is made for travel by a member of a VIP’s family other than his wife it will be referred to the Prime Minister for consideration.

There is a final point I should make to avoid possible misunderstanding. As has been made clear in the past, the rules provide guidelines. They are not intended to include specific references to all circumstances in which travel on VIP aircraft may be approved nor are they intended to be inflexible. There may be special circumstances in which approving authorities will need to exercise discretion and applications in those cases will be examined on individual merits. Such matters will be handled by the Minister for Defence in consultation with the Prime Minister.

Motion (by Senator Withers) by leave - proposed:

That the Senate take note of the paper.

Debate (on motion by Senator Withers) adjourned.

page 155

REGULAR ARMED FORCES: CONDITIONS OF SERVICE

Senator BISHOP:
Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence · South Australia · ALP

– For the information of honourable senators I present the final report of the Committee of Inquiry into Financial Terms and Conditions of Service for Male and Female Members of the Regular Armed Forces.

page 155

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION ACT

Senator BISHOP:
Minister for Repatriation · South Australia · ALP

– Pursuant to section 70 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-72, I present the 16th annual report of the President of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission for the year ended 13th August 1972.

page 155

COAL INDUSTRY ACT

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Primary Industry · Tasmania · ALP

– Pursuant to the provisions of the Coal Industry Act 1946-66, I present the 25th annual report of the Joint Coal Board for the year ended 30th June 1972 together with the Auditor-General’s report on the accounts of the Board.

page 155

ALBURY-WODONGA DEVELOPMENT

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Government in the Senate · ALP

– For the information of honourable senators I present the communique of the meeting between the Prime Minister and the Premiers of New South Wales and Victoria at AlburyWodonga on 25th January last. Copies of this communique will be available to senators in the Parliamentary Library.

page 155

QUESTION

PLACING OF BUSINESS

The PRESIDENT:

– Is it desired to postpone or rearrange the business?

Senator DEVITT:
Tasmania

– I move:

That Business of the Senate, Notice of Motion No. 1, standing in my name, be postponed until 2 sitting days after today.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senator Wriedt:

– This matter concerns the disallowance of a regulation relating to the honey industry. I suggest that it be deferred until such time as 1 have had a further discussion with the Regulations and Ordinances Committee. This may obviate the need to move the motion for disallowance. The regulation may be amended in such a way as to suit the Committee.

Senator Murphy:

– It cannot be done here.

Senator Withers:

– That cannot be done here.

The PRESIDENT:

– No.

page 155

QUESTION

DAYS AND HOURS OF MEETING

Senator MURPHY:
Leader of the Government in the Senate · New South Wales · ALP

– I move:

Apart from the times, the motion is in accordance with the usual procedure. It is proposed that the times virtually be what we had last year but for this week only so as to provide the opportunity for further discussion around the chamber before a specific proposal is put as to what the permanent sitting times should be.

Senator Withers:

– I have no objection to the motion being put immediately. I do not know about the other leaders.

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– I have no objection.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 156

BROADCASTING COMMITTEE

The PRESIDENT:

-I have received a message from the House of Representatives in the following terms:

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Proceedings Broadcasting Act 1946-60, the following members of the House of Representatives have been appointed members of the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings, viz, Mr Speaker, Mr Donald Cameron, Mr Coates, Mr Duthie, Mr England and Mr Sherry.

page 156

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE

The PRESIDENT:

– I have received the following message from the House of Representatives:

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Accounts Committee Act 1951-66, the following members of the House of Representatives have been appointed members of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, namely, Mr Collard, Mr Hurford, Mr Jarman, Mr MacKellar, Mr Martin, Mr Reynolds and Mr Ian Robinson.

page 156

PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE

The PRESIDENT:

– I have received the following message from the House of Representatives:

That, in accordance with the provisions,,, Qf the Public Works Committee Act 1969-72, the following members of the House of Representatives have been appointed members of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, namely, Mr Corbett, Mr Fulton, Mr Keith Johnson, Mr Kelly, Mr Keogh and Mr Whittorn.

page 156

COMMITTEE OF DISPUTED RETURNS AND QUALIFICATIONS

The PRESIDENT:

– Pursuant to standing order 38 I lay on the table my warrant appointing Senators Drury, Fitzgerald, Mulvihill, O’Byrne, Sim, Rae and Webster to be members of the Committee of Disputed Returns and Qualifications.

page 156

MEMBERSHIP OF JOINT COMMITTEES

Motions (by Senator Murphy) - by leave - agreed to:

That, in’ accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Proceedings Broadcasting Act 1946-60, Senators Hannan and O’Byrne be appointed members of the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings.

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Accounts Committee Act 1951-66, Senators Fitzgerald, Guilfoyle and McAuliffe be appointed members of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts.

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969-72, Senators Georges, Jessop and Poyser be appointed members of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works.

page 156

PUBLIC SERVICE ARBITRATION DETERMINATIONS

Debate resumed from 1 March (vide page 133) on motion by Senator Greenwood:

That the Senate disapproves the following Determinations made under the Public Service Arbitration Act 1920-1972:

No. 23 of 1973- Administrative and Clerical Officers’ Association, Commonwealth Public Service and others.

No. 24 of 1973- Postal Telecommunication Technicians’ Association (Australia)

No. 25 of 1973- Australian Broadcasting Commission Staff Association

No. 26 of 1973- Administrative, and Clerical Officers’ . Association, Commonwealth Public Service

No. 27 of 1973- Australian Postmasters’ Association and others.

No. 28 of 1973- Royal Australian Nursing Federation

No. 29 of 1973- Industrial Arbitration Registrars’ Association

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

– At the outset I Indicate that I strongly oppose the proposal which has been submitted to the Senate by Senator Greenwood that the Senate disapprove a number of Determinations made under the Public Service Arbitration Act. The Senate’s action in disapproving ‘ those Determinations of the Public Service Arbitrator would have the effect of denying an additional one week’s annual leave to many thousands of members of the Public Service. Whilst I take the debate on the proposal quite seriously, because of the implications of Senator Greenwood’s proposal, I find it very difficult to take seriously the honourable senator’s motion, proposed on behalf of the Opposition, and also what has been said by the Opposition on it. 1 say that because my colleague, the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Bishop), recited by chapter and verse something of the conduct and performance of Senator Greenwood when he was Attorney-General in the former government. In the course of his tenure of that office Senator Greenwood displayed an aversion to trade unions generally and to trade union officials in particular.

The granting of preference to unionists, which is what this is all about, is not an innovation. It is not a new thing. My colleague, the Minister for Repatriation, had incorporated in Hansard a schedule of awards making provision for preference to unionists. That schedule, which took up over 2 pages of Hansard in close type,, appears at pages 116, 117 and 118. 1 repeat that what we are projecting in the course of the proposal to grant 4 weeks annual leave to those who are members of claimant organisations is not an innovation. I took the opportunity of checking some of the Commonwealth Public Service Arbitration Reports, presented over the years, and I found something of interest in volume 36 of 1956 entitled Determinations made and interpretations given pursuant to the Public Service Arbitration Act 1920-1955’ over the signature of the then Attorney-General, Senator the Hon. N. O’sullivan. I remind the Senate that this occurred in the course of the life of a government which was of the same political character as are the parties which we now see in opposition. Paragraph 35 on page 589 of volume 36. under the heading ‘Application of Determination’, states:

Notwithstanding any other provision of this determination the Commissioner shall not be obliged to grant to an employee who is not a financial member of the claimant organisation covering his calling any of the benefits, prescribed by clauses 18, 19 and 20 of this determination. 1 was reliably informed by the source from which I obtained this information that the Public Service Arbitrator has consistently over the years drawn awards and determinations which have restricted the benefits which have been obtained by claimant organisations to the members of those organisations.

It was, to say the least, a novel experience last Thursday to see Senator Greenwood, who, as I have said, has in the past displayed such hostility towards unions, present himself as the champion of the workers cause. That is a little hard for honourable senators on this side of the House to accept. I regard the Opposition’s proposal as, to say the least, political humbug. I am not sure whether, as a consequence of his Party’s defeat in the last House of Representatives election, Senator Greenwood - I regret that he has left the chamber - has been chastened, which I doubt; but it is interesting to note that he now claims that he is concerned about personal freedom and freedom of the individual to make decisions. I direct the attention of honourable senators to page 111 of Hansard of 1st March 1973. Among other things, Senator Greenwood is reported as having said:

To say that a person shall receive 4 weeks leave only if he is a member of a union is to deny to a person an essential freedom.

He went on to say:

There have to be over-riding considerations of public utility to break down the rule that a person should have a freedom to decide whether he shall join an organisation. The practical effect of what has been done is that if a person does not join he will be denied an extra week’s leave.

I wonder what those young men who were subjected to the administration of the National Service Act by Senator Greenwood, as Attorney-General, would have to say about that. As Attorney-General he pursued the Act with such zeal that he persecuted, prosecuted and jailed young men who had the temerity to exercise the freedom he now suggests ought to be available to all and sundry. We, of course, believe in this freedom, but we also say at the same time that we believe a person is entitled to make a contribution to an organisation which obtains benefits for him. Senator Greenwood went on to use some rather extravagant language. At page 1 1 1 of Hansard he is also reported as having said:

What is being done is a form of economic blackmail and coercion.

Those are strong words indeed. All we are talking about is preference to unionists, which is not a new thing. It is as old as the industrial movement itself and it has been accepted and acknowledged by responsible authorities and tribunals throughout the years. To compare Senator Greenwood’s conduct in the former Government, particularly when he was Minister for Health, let me refer briefly to sections of the National Health Act. I do so because I believe that it will point up the double standards that Senator Greenwood is adopting in pretending to be the champion of the workers cause. He has referred to the right of the individual to decide whether he will belong to an organisation. He has referred also to compulsion, blackmail and coercion. When Senator Greenwood was Minister for Health in the former Government he had the responsibility of administering the National Health Act. 1 refer to section 13 of Part III of the National Health Act which deals with medical benefits and relates to the interpretation of some of the terms used in the Act. It states:

Commonwealth benefit’ means a benefit payable by the Commonwealth under this Fart in respect of a professional service rendered to a contributor and includes a payment under section 25 of this Act.

Contributor’ is defined as being a taxpayer who is obliged under the Act to belong to one of the fund organisations. It is true that a contributor could use his option and that he could either belong or not belong, but if he did not belong he did not enjoy the benefit of the contribution made by the Commonwealth Government. I refer again to the interpretation of ‘contributor’ in the same section of the Act. The Act states:

Contributor’ means a person who pays contributions, or on whose behalf contributions are paid, to the medical benefits fund conducted by a registered medical benefits organisation . . .

Fund benefit’ is defined as meaning: the amount, other than in respect of Commonwealth benefit, paid or payable under the rules of a registered medical benefits organisation in respect of medical expenses incurred by a person who pays contributions to the medical benefits fund . . .

Section 13 then briefly interprets the meaning of ‘medical benefits fund’. It states: medical benefits fund’ means a fund conducted by an organisation under the rules of which benefits are provided to contributors to the fund, being benefits consisting of payments in respect of medical expenses incurred by those contributors or their dependants or consisting of the provision of “professional services under a contract arrangement for those contributors or their dependants, or both.

Section 13 of the National Health Act simply says what we are saying in respect to the application of 4 weeks annual leave to public servants. The former Government, in which Senator Greenwood, was the then Minister for Health, was saying that one was obliged it is true to say that it is voluntary to belong to a fund if, firstly, one wanted to derive the benefit of receiving the amount that is payable by the fund and secondly, the subsidy that is payable by the Commonwealth to the fund. But, first of all, one is compulsory obliged to belong to a fund organisation. I refer to a further section of the Act. Itis Part III, section 14(2). Sub-section (2.) highlights in clear and unequivocal terms the point which I am making. It states:

If, on the date on which the professional service was rendered, any contributions due and payable to the organisation in respect of the contributor had not been paid- in other words, if he were not financial at the time when he received the professional service - and, by reason of the non-payment, the organisation was entitled to refuse payment of fund benefits in respect of medical services rendered to the contributor, Commonwealth benefit is not payable in respect of the professional service unless -

a fund benefit is paid by the organisation in respect of the professional service.

The sub-section makes it quite clear that not only must a person belong to a fund organisation to be entitled to the benefit of the Commonwealth subsidy but he must be financial as at the date on which the professional service was rendered to him. If he was not and if the fund organisation was entitled to refuse payment of a benefit, the Commonwealth automatically refuses to pay its subsidy.

To a large extent, the same principle applies in respect of hospital benefits. That principle is contained in Part V of the Act. I will refer only briefly to it. It is Division 3, Part V, section 46 (1.). This section refers to hospital treatment. It states:

Where a contributor receives hospital treatment in an approved hospital, there is payable, subject to this Part, Commonwealth benefit of $2 for each day on which the contributor is a qualified hospital patient.

That sub-section contains 2 qualifications. The first is that the person has to be a contributor and that he has to be financial as at the time he received the service. The second is that he has to be a patient in a qualified hospital. The section goes on briefly to deal with 2 different types of beneficiaries under the so-called voluntary, non-compulsory national health scheme. I refer to section 46 (2.) of Division 3. It states:

Where hospital fund benefit is not payable in respect of a day on which a contributor is a qualified hospital patient -

for the reason that all contributions due and owing by the contributor to the organisation have not been paid; or

for a reason other than the reason specified in the last preceding paragraph, if payment of the benefit could have been refused for the reason so specified, the amount of Commonwealth benefit per day is 80c instead of $2.

Under the hospital benefit scheme there was some modification of the stringent measures applicable to the entitlement of medical benefits inasmuch as if a person was not a member of an organisation or if his contributions were still outstanding at the time that he was hospitalised and if the benefit fund refused to pay him benefit because of those specified reasons, the Commonwealth Government, out of taxation which is payable by all workers, reduced the payment from $2 a day to 80c a day.

I make a final reference to the Act because it fortifies what I have said. I refer to section 48 (1.). It states:

Where a contributor receives hospital treatment in an approved hospital before he became a contributor or in the period of 2 months commencing on the day on which he became a contributor and, under the rules of the registered hospital benefits organisation to the fund of which he is a contributor, no hospital fund benefit or an amount of hospital benefit of less than $1.65 per day is paid by the organisation in respect of the days in that period on which he is a qualified hospital patient, the amount of Commonwealth benefit per day is 80c instead of $2.

If a person were hospitalised in an approved hospital either before he joined the fund organisation or 2 months after joining it and if the registered rules of the fund benefit organisation prescribe that no fund benefit is payable or that the amount of hospital fund benefit of less than $1.65 per day is payable by the organisation, the Commonwealth grants the handsome amount of 80c a day. When one considers the objections that have been voiced by Senator Greenwood to the proposal - which I support wholeheartedly - for a form of preference to people who make a contribution to an organisation which obtains benefit for them and when one compares what he, as the Minister for Health, said in relation to the National Health Act and what he said, as Attorney-General, in relation to the National Service Act one can see the point which I made earlier in my speech, that is, that it is very difficult to take seriously the Opposition’s quest to present itself as the champion of the worker because it strikes me, as I said earlier, as being out and out humbug.

I make a passing reference to another contribution that was made. I think it was one of the most crude and nauseating contributions that I have heard made by any senator. The honourable senator represents the section on my half right. That is the appropriate political orientation of the honourable senator and it is the position in which he is located in the chamber. Since 1955 he has consistently opposed worthwhile reforms which were suggested by the then Opposition, which is now the Government, and which would have enabled the trade union movement to breathe more freely and to obtain improved physical conditions of employment and improved standards of living for its members. He had the temerity, in my view, to lambast, in one of the crudest speeches I have heard in this chamber, trade union secretaries and officers of trade unions. His speech was nauseating to me. The only conclusion that I can draw is that perhaps the material that this gentleman displays on the shelves in his newsagency, which material he must peruse occasionally, has affected him. That is the way his speech came through to me.

I have heard it said that some people claim that pornography tends to deprave the mind. I have an idea that that has happened to the gentleman on my half right. He was an erstwhile Labor man and a former officer of a trade union, but I have not heard him once attack the profession of the gentleman who moved the motion which the honourable senator supported so strongly. I have not heard the honourable senator attack that profession and gentlemen of that profession who are dealt with for embezzling clients funds, which are held in trust accounts. I have not heard him attack major employer organisations which have allowed their funds to be denuded to such an extent that the organisations have gone into bankruptcy, thus denying workers their just entitlements for work already done - annual leave, sick leave and long service leave entitlements. I have not heard him utter one word against such organisations. It is a poor show indeed for one who has served the Labor movement to engage in attacks on an organisation of which he knows better. I do not claim the organisation is any better or any worse than other sections of the community, but why should he be so selective and single it out as he does repeatedly?

I think I have dealt sufficiently with what the honourable senator said, except to point out that his temerity and audacity to suggest that he would introduce a Bill which would give 4 weeks annual leave to public servants is nothing more than political humbug. The Democratic Labor Party supported the former government, which constantly and right up till the last general election, opposed every attempt to secure 4 weeks annual leave not only by public servants but also by all other organised workers in Australia before various tribunals. Let us get the record straight. Senator Little cannot play a double game in this place. He has played it for too long. I am sure that people will see him and his Party for what they are. The DLP has lived like a parasite off a political party which is no longer in government. Now it has problems because it has to live with the changed fortunes of that party.

I felt obliged to say that because there is nothing worse than seeing people act in the manner in which some people act in this chamber. All we are saying is that thousands upon thousands of public servants have contributed to their organisations. Down through the years they have expended time, energy and a great amount of money in endeavouring to improve the conditions - both physical and financial - of those employed in the Public Service. I do not think it is unreasonable to say that any decent person - I use that term deliberately - would object to paying for a service and a benefit which a union obtains. I understand that in recent weeks because of what has been decided by the Arbitrator and particularly since the instructions issued by the Public Service Board there has been quite a substantial increase in the membership of the various claimant organisations. That is good. I hope it continues to be so. In my view and in the Government’s view it would be wrong for this chamber to deny a benefit to those persons who over the years have contributed to and assisted their organisations progressively to improve their standard of living and working conditions. I cannot see how the Opposition can justify this motion because some few people as employees have not recognised their responsibilities to their claimant organisations and paid their contributions.

If this argument were carried to its illogical conclusion it would mean that although one received a service from the Melbourne Metropolitan Board of Works one should not have to pay one’s rates each year. One pays one’s rates because of the service one receives. I regret that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Senator Greenwood) is not in the chamber; he has exercised his option to stay or go. I presume that if he were to attend a social function with some friends one evening and it was necessary to use a taxi he would expect to pay his part of the fare because he has received a service in the use of that con veyance. There is nothing more or less to this proposition. I hope that those who are members of claimant organisations are entitled to receive a benefit which they achieve over and above their colleagues who are not of the same mind. Senator Greenwood talks about economic blackmail and coercion. What greater coercion can there be than that which I read from the National Health Act, if it is a matter of comparing one with the other. Nobody acknowledges more than I the benefit of an additional week’s annual leave for those employed in any industry, including of course the Public Service. But if it were a matter of selecting one or the other I am sure that everyone in this chamber would agree that access to assistance from the Commonwealth Government, to which all taxpayers pay, for hospital and medical costs would be paramount. It would be over and above even a week’s annual leave in industry. Yet this Opposition, the former government, suggested that it was a voluntary health scheme. It has been shown for what it really was. It was a compulsory health scheme because if one did not make a contribution one did not derive a benefit. This is a simple proposition of ours and one for which we make no apology. I sincerely hope that the Senate will recast its thinking on this matter. It appears that some arrangement has been entered into between the various Opposition groupings. We have 3 or 4 now as distinct from what we used to have. I sincerely ask honourable senators opposite to reconsider the implications of what it is attempting to do because if a Bill is brought into this chamber and carried it still has to go back to the other House to be dealt with.

Senator Little:

– That is right and we know how it will be dealt with.

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

– The honourable senator has an advantage because 1 do not know. I think I know what will happen.

Senator Little:

– The honourable senator’s leader in the other place has said that he is in favour of what we are doing. He does not favour the Public Service arbitration decision at all. I cannot understand trie honourable senator’s enthusiasm.

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

– That is not correct but the statement is characteristic of the sort of thing to which we have become accustomed from that corner. The Government opposes very strongly any attempt to delay or deny this improved benefit to those persons who have made a contribution towards it over the years. Other people who are of a different mind have an option to exercise. This scheme of arrangement is as free and non-compulsory as the National Health Act was under the former government.

Senator CARRICK:
New South Wales

– This debate originates from a motion brought forward by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Senator Greenwood). It seeks to disallow some 7 determinations under the Public Service Arbitration Act 1920-1972. In effect the determinations seek to provide 4 weeks annual leave or an additional week’s annual leave with pay to public servants with the qualification that they must be unionists. The effect of disallowance is not in any way intended to alter or hinder the extension of the benefit of 4 weeks annual leave to public servants. It can be extended by legislation with the qualification removed and it can be done promptly. That is a matter for the Government. Indeed, Senator Little has shown a way. Why does the Opposition seek this disallowance? It does so for a number of reasons. The first is incontrovertible because the action taken under the Public Service determinations is in fact a dishonouring of the policy speech of the Whitlam Government. Of course the silence of Government senators underlines that statement.

Senator Bishop:

– It does not. I suggest that the honourable senator read the policy speech. I shall give him a copy if he would like one.

Senator CARRICK:

– I accept the offer made by the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Bishop) because I do not have a spare copy of the policy speech. I would like one. The policy speech says without qualification that there shall be 4 weeks annual leave. So did the statement made by the Minister for Labour (Mr Clyde Cameron) 3 days after the election. It was made without qualification. It is only subsequently when pressures from without are upon the Government that we find this situation. The number one reason why this should be disallowed is because it dishonours the policy speech. The second reason relates to something which the present Government, when in Opposition, was unanimous about. Let us hope that it is unanimous today. We had lecture after lecture, notably by the present Attorney-General (Senator Murphy), as to what a bad and rotten principle it was to seek to do by regulation and by backhand methods what should be done by law. Let nobody from the Government benches deny that, because we were lectured ad nauseam. I invite the Government to accept the principle of its then mentor. I say also that it should be rejected because it is fundamentally opposed to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which provides that no-one may be compelled to belong to an association.

I want to go one step further, because the Minister invited us to read the International Labour Organisation conventions. I always accept invitations willingly and I have been enlightened by the contents of those 1LO conventions which the Whitlam Government says in the Governor-General’s Speech it will seek to ratify. I say unequivocally that those conventions would hold as nauseating the principle which the Government now seeks to introduce. In other words, I say that it is in breach of the conventions and I invite the Government to deny it.

Senator Bishop:

– Of course we deny it. We have said that.

Senator CARRICK:

– Right. Since they are fairly lengthy, may I refer to them in brief and then perhaps the Government may agree that they be incorporated in Hansard.

Senator Bishop:

– You can incorporate them now.

Senator CARRICK:

– I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard ILO Convention Nos 87, 98, 100 and 111.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Prowse) - Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The documents read as follows) -

page 161

CONVENTION No. 87

Convention concerning Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right (o Organise1

The General Conference of the International Labour Organisation,

Having been convened at San Francisco by the Governing Body of the International Labour Office, and having met in its Thirty-first Session on 17th June 1948;

Having decided to adopt, in the form of a Convention, certain proposals concerning freedom of association and protection of the right to organise, which is the seventh item on the agenda of the session;

Considering that the Preamble to the Constitution of the International Labour Organisation declares recognition of the principle of freedom of association’ to be a means of improving conditions of labour and of establishing peace;

Date of coining into force: 4 July 1950

Considering that the Declaration of Philadelphia reaffirms that ‘freedom of expression and of association are essential to sustained progress’;

Considering that the International Labour Conference, at its Thirtieth Session, unanimously adopted the principles which should form the basis for international regulation;

Considering that the General Assembly of the United Nations, at its Second Session, endorsed these principles and requested the International Labour Organisation to continue every effort in order that it may be possible to adopt one or several international Conventions; adopts this ninth day of July in the year one thousand nine hundred and fortyeight the following Convention, which may be cited as the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948:

Part I. Freedom of Association Article 1

Each Member of the International Labour Organisation for which this convention is in force undertakes to give effect to the following provisions.

Article 2

Workers and employers, without distinction whatsoever, shall have the right to establish and, subject only to the rules of the organisation concerned, to join organisations of their own choosing without previous authorisation.

Article 3

Article 4

Workers’ and employers’ organisations shall not be liable to be dissolved or suspended by administrative authority.

Article 5

Workers’ and employers’ organisations shall have the right to establish and join federations and confederations and any such organisation, federation or confederation shall have the right to affiliate with international organisations of workers and employers.

Article 6

The provisions of Articles 2, 3 and 4 hereof apply to federations and confederations of workers’ and employers’ organisations.

Article 7

The acquisition of legal personality by workers’ and employers’ organisations, federations and confederations shall not be made subject to conditions of such a character as to restrict the application of the provisions of Articles 2, 3 and 4 hereof.

Article 8

Article 9

Article 10

In this Convention the term ‘organisation’ means any organisation of workers or of employers for furthering and defending the interests of workers or of employers.

Part II. Protection of the Right to Organise Article 11

Each Member of the International Labour Organisation for which this Convention is in force undertakes to take all necessary and appropriate measures to ensure that workers and employers may exercise freely the right to organise.

Part III. Miscellaneous Provisions

Article 12

DirectorGeneral a declaration modifying in any other respect the terms of any former declaration and stating the present position in respect of such territories as it may specify.

Article 13

Pari IV. Final Provisions

Article 14

The formal ratifications of this Convention shall be communicated to the DirectorGeneral of the International Labour Office for registration.

Article 15

Article 16

Article 17

Article 18

The DirectorGeneral of the International Labour Office shall communicate to the SecretaryGeneral of the United Nations for registration in accordance with Article 102 of the Charter of the United Nations full particulars of all ratifications, declarations and acts of denunciation registered by him in accordance with the provisions of the preceding Articles.

Article 19

At such times as it may consider necessary the Governing Body of the International Labour Office shall present to the General Conference a report on the working of this Convention and shall examine the desirability of placing on the agenda of the Conference the question of its revision in whole or in part.

Article 20

Article 21

The English and French versions of the text of this Convention are equally authoritative.

CONVENTION No. 98

Convention concerning the Application of the Principles of the Right to Organise and to Bargain Collectively

The General Conference of the International Labour Organisation,

Having been convened at Geneva by the Governing Body of the International Labour Office, and having met in its Thirtysecond Session on 8th June 1949, and

Having decided upon the adoption of certain proposals concerning the application of the principles of the right to organise and to bargain collectively, which is the fourth item on the agenda of the session, and

Having determined that these proposals shall take the form of an international Convention, adopts this first day of July of the year one thousand nine hundred and fortyninethe following Convention which may be cited as the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949:

Article1

Article 2

Article 3

Machinery appropriate to national conditions shall be established, where necessary, for the purpose of ensuring respect for the right to organise as defined in the preceding Articles.

Article 4

Measures appropriate to national conditions shall be taken, where necessary, to encourage and promote the full developmentand utilisation of machinery for voluntary negotiation between employers or employers’ organisations and workers’ organisations, with a view to the regulation of terms and conditions of employment by means of collective agreements.

Date of coming into force: 18 July 1951

Article5

Article 6

This Convention does not deal with the position of public servants engaged in the administration of the State, nor shall it be construed as prejudicing their rights or status in any way.

Article 7

The formal ratifications of this Convention shall be communicated to the DirectorGeneral of the International Labour Office for registration.

Article 8

Article 9

Article 10

Article 11

Article 12

Article 13

The DirectorGeneral of the International Labour Office shall communicate to the SecretaryGeneral of the United Nations for registration in accordance with Article 102 of the Charter of the United Nations full particulars of all ratifications, declarations and acts of denunciation registered by him in accordance with the provisions of the preceding Articles.

Article 14

At such times as it may consider necessary the Governing Body of the International Labour Office shall present to the General Conference a report on the working of this Convention and shall examine the desirability of placing on the agenda of the Conference the question of its revision in whole or in part.

Article 15

Article 16

The English and French versions of the text of this Convention are equally authoritative.

CONVENTION No. 100

Convention concerning Equal Remuneration for Men and Women Workers for Work of Equal Value’

The General Conference of the International Labour Organisation,

Having been convened at Geneva by the Governing Body of the International Labour Office, and having met in its Thirtyfourth Session on 6 June 1951, and

Having decided upon the adoption of certain proposals with regard to the principle of equal remuneration for men and women workers for work of equal value, which is the seventh item on the agenda of the session, and

Having determined that these proposals shall take the form of an international Convention, adopts this twentyninth day of June of the year one thousand nine hundred and fiftyone the following Convention, which may be cited as the Equal Remuneration Convention, 1951:

Article 1

For the purpose of this Convention -

Date of coininginto force: 23 May 1953

Article 2

  1. Each Member shall, by means appropriate to the methods in operation for determining rates of remuneration, promote and, in so far as is consistent with such methods, ensure the application to all workers of the principle of equal remuneration for mcn and women workers for work of equal value.
  2. This principle may be applied by means of -

    1. national laws or regulations;
    2. legally established or recognised machinery for wage determination;
    3. collective agreements between employers and workers; or
    4. a combination of these various means.

Article 3

  1. Where such action will assist in giving effect to the provisions of this Convention measures shall be taken to promote objective appraisal of jobs on the basis of the work to be performed.
  2. The methods to bc followed in this appraisal may be decided upon by the authorities responsible for the determination of rates of remuneration, or, where such rates are determined by collective agreements, by the parties thereto.
  3. Differential rates between workers which correspond, without regard to sex, to differences, as determined by such objective appraisal, in the work to be performed shall not be considered as being contrary to the principle of equal remuneration for men and women workers for work of equal value.

Article 4

Each Member shall co-operate as appropriate with the employers’ and workers’ organisations concerned for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of this Convention.

Article 5

The formal ratifications of this Convention shall be communicated to the Director-General of the International Labour Office for registration.

Article 6

  1. This Convention shall be binding only upon those Members of the International Labour Organisation whose ratifications have been registered with the Director-General.
  2. It shall come into force twelve months after the date on which the ratifications of two Members have been registered with the Director-General.
  3. Thereafter, this Convention shall come into force for any Member twelve months after the date on which its ratification has been registered.

Article 7 ti. Declarations communicated to the DirectorGeneral of the International Labour Office in accordance with paragraph 2 of article 35 of the Constitution of the International Labour Organisation shall indicate -

  1. the territories in respect of which the Member concerned undertakes that the provisions of the Convention shall be applied without modification;
  2. the territories in respect of which it undertakes that the provisions of the Convention shall be applied subject to modifications, together with details of the said modifications;
  3. the territories in respect of which the Convention is inapplicable and in such cases the grounds on which it is inapplicable;
  4. the territories in respect of which it reserves its decisions pending further consideration of the position.

    1. The undertakings referred to: in subparagraphs (a) and (b) of paragraph 1 of this Article shall be deemed to be an integral part of the ratification and shall have the force of ratification.
    2. Any Member may at any time by a subsequent declaration cancel in whole or in part any reservation made in its original declaration in virtue of subparagraph (b), (c) or (d) of paragraph 1 of this Article.
    3. Any Member may, at any, time at which the Convention is subject to denunciation in accordance with the provisions of Article 9, communicate to the Director-General a declaration modifying in anyother respect the terms of any former declaration and stating the present position in respect of such territories as it may specify.

Article 8

  1. Declarations communicated to the DirectorGeneral of the International Labour Office in accordance with paragraph 4 or 5 of article 35 of the Constitution of the International Labour Organisation shall indicate whether the provisions of the Convention will be applied in the territory, concerned without modification or subject .to modifications; when the declaration indicates that the provisions of the Convention will be applied subject to modifications, it shall give details of the said modifications.
  2. The Member, Members or international authority concerned may at any time by a subsequent declaration renounce in whole or in part the right to have recourse to any modification indicated in any former declaration.
  3. The Member, Members or international authority concerned may, at any time at which this Convention is subject to denunciation in accordance with the provisions of Article 9, communicate to the Director-General a declaration modifying in any other respect the terms of any former declaration and stating the present position in respect of the application of the Convention.

Article 9

  1. A Member which has ratified this Convention may denounce it after the expiration of ten years from the date on which the Convention first comes into force, by an act communicated to the Director-General of the International Labour Office for registration. Such denunciation shall not take effect until one year after the date on which rt is registered.
  2. Each Member which has ratified this Convention and which does not, within the year following the expiration of the period of ten years mentioned in the preceding paragraph, exercise the right of denunciation provided for in. this Article, will be bound for another period of ten years and, thereafter, may denounce this Convention at the expiration - of each period of ten years under the terms provided for in this Article.

Article 10

  1. The DirectorGeneral of the International Labour Office shall notify all Members of the International Labour Organisation of the registration of all ratifications, declarations and denunciations communicated to him by the Members of the Organisation.
  2. When notifying the Members of the Organisation of the registration of the second ratification communicated to him, theDirectorGeneral shall draw the attention of the Members of the Organisation to the dale upon which the Convention will come into force.

Article 11

The DirectorGeneral of the International Labour Office shall communicate to the SecretaryGeneral of the United Nations for registration in accordance with Article 102 of the Charter of the United Nations full particulars of all ratifications, declarations and acts of denunciation registered by him in accordance with the provisions of the preceding Articles.

Article 12

At suchtimes as it may consider necessary the Governing Body of the International Labour Office shall present to the General Conference a report on the working of this Convention and shall examine the desirability, of placing on the agenda of the Conference the question of its revision in whole or in part.

Article 13

  1. Should the Conference adopt a new Convention revising this Convention in whole or in part, then, unless the new Convention otherwise provides,

    1. the ratification by a Member of the new revising Convention shall ipso jure involve the immediate denunciation of this Convention, notwithstanding the provisions of Article 9 above, if and when the new revising Convention shall have come into force;
    2. as from the date when the new revising Convention comes into force, this Convention shall cease to be open to ratification by the Members.
  2. This Convention shall in any case remain in force in its actual form and content for those Members which have ratified it but have not ratified the revising Convention.

Article 14

The English and French versions of the text of this Convention are equally authoritative.

page 167

QUESTION

CONVENTION No.111

Convention concerning Discrimination in Respect of Employment and Occupation

The General Conference of the International Labour Organisation,

Having been convened at Geneva by the Governing Body of the International Labour Office, and having met in Ms FortySecond Session on 4 June 1958, and

Having decided upon the adoption of certain proposals with regard to discrimination in the field of employment and occupation, which is the fourth item on the agenda of the session, and

Date of coming into force:15 June 1960

Having determined that these proposals shall lake the form of an international Convention, and

Considering that the Declaration of Philadelphia affirms that all human beings, irrespective of race, creed or sex, have the right to pursue both their material well-being and their spiritual development in conditions of freedom and dignity, of economic security and equal opportunity, and

Considering further that discrimination constitutes a violation of rights enunciated by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopts this twentyfifth day of June of the year one thousand nine hundred and fiftyeight the following Convention, which may be cited as the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958:

Article 1

  1. For the purpose of this Convention the term discrimination’ includes -

    1. any distinction, exclusion or preference made on the basis of race, colour, sex, religion, political opinion, national extraction or social origin, which has the effect of nullifying or impairing equality of opportunity or treatment in employment or occupation;
    2. such other distinction, exclusion or preference which has the effect of nullifying or impairing equality of opportunity or treatment in employment or occupation as may be determined by the Member concerned after consultation with representative employers’ and workers’ organisations, where such exist, and with other appropriate bodies.
  2. Any distinction, exclusion or preference in respect of a particular job based on the inherent requirements thereof shall not be deemed to be discrimination.
  3. For the purpose of this Convention the terms employment’ and ‘occupation’ include access to vocational training, access to employment and to particular occupations, and terms and conditions of employment.

Article 2

Each Member for which this Convention is in force undertakes to declare and pursue a national policy designed to promote, by methods appropriate to national conditions and practice, equality of opportunity and treatment in respect of employment and occupation, with a view to eliminating any discrimination in respect thereof.

Article 3

Each Member for which this Convention is in force undertakes, by methods appropriate to national conditions and practice -

  1. to seek the co-operation of employers’ and workers’ organisations and other appropriate bodies in promoting the acceptance and observance of this policy;
  2. to enact such legislation and to promote such educational programmes as may be calculated to secure the acceptance and observance of the policy;
  3. to repeal any statutory provisions and modify any administrative instructions or practices which are inconsistent with the policy;
  4. to pursue the policy in respect of employment under the direct control of a national authority;
  5. to ensure observance of the policy in the activities of vocational guidance, vocational training and placement services under the direction of a national authority;
  6. to indicate in its annual reports on the application of the Convention the action taken in pursuance of the policy and the results secured by such action.

Article 4

Any measures affecting an individual who is justifiably suspected of, or engaged in, activities prejudicial to the security of the State shall not be deemed to be discrimination, provided that the individual concerned shall have the right to appeal to a competent body established in accordance with national practice.

Article 5

  1. Special measures of protection or assistance provided for in other Conventions or Recommendations adopted by the International Labour Conference shall not be deemed to be discrimination.
  2. Any Member may, after consultation with representative employers’ and workers’ organisations, where such exist, determine that other special measures designed to meet the particular requirements of persons who, for reasons such as sex, age, disablement, family responsibilities or social or cultural status, are generally recognised to require special protection or assistance, shall not be deemed to be discrimination.

Article 6

Each Member which ratifies this Convention undertakes to apply it to non-metropolitan territories in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution of the International Labour Organisation.

Article 7

The formal ratifications of this Convention shall be communicated to the Director-General of the International Labour Office for registration.

Article 8

  1. This Convention shall be binding only upon those Members of the International Labour Organisation whose ratifications have been registered with the Director-General.
  2. It shall come into force twelve months after the date on which the ratifications of two Members have been registered with the Director-General.
  3. Thereafter, this Convention shall come into force for any Member twelve months after the date on which its ratification has been registered.

Article 9

  1. A Member which has ratified this Convention may denounce it after the expiration of ten years from the date on which the Convention first comes into force, by an act communicated to the DirectorGeneral of the International Labour Office for registration. Such denunciation shall not take effect until one year after the date on which it is registered.
  2. Each Member which has ratified this Convention and which does not, within the year following the expiration of the period of ten years mentioned in the preceding paragraph, exercise the right of denunciation provided for in this Article, will be bound for another period of ten years and, thereafter, may denounce this Convention at the expiration of each period of ten years under the terms provided for in this Article.

Article 10

  1. The Director-General of the International Labour Office shall notify all Members of the International Labour Organisation of the registration of all ratifications and denunciations communicated to him by the Members of the Organisation.
  2. When notifying the Members of the Organisation of the registration of the second ratification communicated to him, the Director-General shall draw the attention of the Members of the Organisation to the date upon which the Convention will come into force.

Article 11

The Director-General of the International Labour Office shall communicate to the Secretary-General of the United Nations for registration in accordance with Article 102 of the Charter of the United Nations full particulars of all ratifications and acts of denunciation registered by him in accordance wilh the provisions of the preceding Articles.

Article 12

At such times as it may consider necessary the Governing Body of the International Labour Office shall present to the General Conference a report on the working of this Convention and shall examine the desirability of placing on the agenda of the Conference the question of its revision in whole or in part.

Article 13

  1. Should the Conference adopt a new Convention revising this Convention in whole or in part, then, unless the new Convention otherwise provides,

    1. the ratification by a Member of the new revising Convention shall ipso jure involve the immediate denunciation of this Convention, notwithstanding the provisions of Article 9 above, if and when the new revising Convention shall have come into force;
    2. as from the date when the new revising Convention comes into force, this Convention shall cease to be open to ratification by the Members.
  2. This Convention shall in any case remain In force in its actual form and content for those Members which have ratified it but have not ratified the revising Convention.

Article 14

The English and French versions of the text of this Convention are equally authoritative.

Senator CARRICK:

– International Labour Organisation Convention No. Ill which concerns discrimination in respect of employment and occupation states in part:

Considering that the Declaration of Philadelphia affirms that all human beings, irrespective of race, creed or sex, have the right to pursue both their material well-being and their spiritual development in conditions of freedom and dignity, of economic security and equal opportunity, and Considering further that discrimination constitutes a violation of rights enunciated by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights . . .

The Convention enshrines and adopts the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but it goes further. It states:

For the purpose of this Convention the term discrimination’ includes -

any distinction, exclusion or preference made on the basis of race, colour, sex, religion, political opinion, national extraction or social origin . . .

Article 2 of the Convention provides that each member for which the Convention is in force undertakes to declare and pursue a national policy designed to promote the Convention. I hope that all those good ladies of the Women’s Electoral Lobby are listening in because Convention No. 100 concerns equal remuneration for men and women workers for work of equal value. That Convention would not support that part of the Labor Party platform and the Government’s policy which has the effect that pregnant women who are unionists are first class citizens and are entitled to extensive maternity leave but pregnant women who are non-unionists are second class citizens and are not entitled to maternity leave. Page 25 of the Platform, Constitution and Rules of the Australian Labor Party states:

Consistent with the foregoing declaration of principles. Labor will grant to the employees of the Commonwealth and Commonwealth instrumentalities, who are members of their appropriate industrial organisations, the following benefits -

a standard working week of not more than 35 hours-

These are worked in a particular way -

  1. a minimum of 4 weeks’ annual leave with 5 weeks’ pay;
  2. equal pay for the sexes;
  3. pro rata annual leave and long service leave as a nonforfeitable right;
  4. maternity leave on full pay. . . .

So a personreceives equal pay if he is a unionist; he does not if he is not” a unionist. A woman gets maternity leave if she is a unionist but she does not if she is not a unionist.

Senator Bishop:

– You know that is not true.

Senator CARRICK:

– Well, there it is. When honourable senators read Convention No. 100 in Hansard tomorrow they will find that the term ‘remuneration’ which relates to equal remuneration for men and women workers for work of equal value includes the ordinary, basic or minimum wage or salary and any additional emoluments whatsoever payable directly or indirectly. The Convention states:

Each member shall . . . ensure the application to all workers

I emphasise the words ‘all workers’; without qualification - of the principle of equal remuneration for men and women workers for work of equal value.

Convention No. 87 concerns the freedom of association and protection of the right to organise. Article 2 of that Convention states:

Workers and employers, without distinction whatsoever, shall have the right to establish and, subject only to the rules of the organisation concerned, to join organisations of their own choosing without previous authorisation.

Sitting suspended from 5.45 to 8 p.m.

Senator CARRICK:

– I have stated that there are a number of reasons why this motion for the disallowance of these determinations should be supported. I have said that the Public Service determination has dishonoured the Australian Labor Party’s policy; that it is a bad principle to do by regulation what thereby bypasses the Parliament; and that this action is opposed to the declaration of human rights. I have drawn attention to the InternationalLabour Organisation declarations and had them incorporated in the Hansard record. At that stage I was challenged by the Minister for Repatriation who asked me whether I had a copy of the ALP policy. He offeredme a copy. Since then I have availed myself of the facilities of the Parliamentary Library.

Senator Bishop:

– I asked the honourable senator 2 questions.

Senator CARRICK:

-I will manage my speech by myself. I now say that, having accepted the invitation to look at a copy of the ALP policy, unequivocally the policy speech contains these words and only these words in regard to leave:

All Commonwealth employees will receive 4 weeks annual leave.

There is no qualification and any suggestion otherwise is distortion. I say that these determinations should be opposed for another reason. They frustrate the essential principle of equal pay for equal work value. That is the basis of all good Australian and all good trade union principles. I stated that what the ALP is trying to do is in defiance of that. What it is doing is un-Australian, divisive and loathsome. I. use those words advisedly. Under this device, it is trying by a backdoor method to establish a precedent and to establish, first in the Commonwealth Public Service, what the Labor Party sets out in its policy platform under the heading of ‘Commonwealth Public Service’. Let honourable senators deny it. It is stated that there will be shorter hours, 4 weeks annual leave, equal pay for the sexes, pro rata annual leave and maternity leave. All that is granted with one qualification: Public servants receive it only if they join a union. Let honourable senators opposite deny that they want to implement this platform.

Last week a Minister said that this was not contained in the policy speech. He said that it was contained in the Party’s platform. He said that that was the area from which the Party derived its strength. The Party platform aims, as a precedent, at bringing into Australia the most obnoxious, un-Australian and anti-trade union principle. It is a divisive and loathsome principle. I now come to another high principle that the ALP has used for years. Members of the Labor Party say - let them roll in this - ‘you cannot legislate for morality’. They say that you must not interfere with morality. Let those people who believe, as I do, that there are moral reasons for people who gain the benefits of trade unionism to join unions - I was in such a position and belonged proudly and voluntarily to a union - admit that they cannot hope to achieve their ends by legislating for morality.

If you legislate for morality, you legislate for tyranny and that is silly and inefficient. The principle that such people espouse is that in order to receive the benefits of trade unions people should be forced to join those organisations. This thing called ‘preference to unionists’ is a backdoor method of compulsory unionism because the end is the same. Those who say: ‘We will force you to do it’, are trying to legislate for morality. That is the ugliest and most stupid of attempts. The effect is to be this: In Australia on the trade union and industrial level there are henceforth to be 2 kinds of citizens. We will have the Whitlamite citizen class 1 - the Australian stakhanovite. Let there be no mistake about this. He will be the good person who receives a good conduct badge because, forced or voluntarily, he has joined a union. Then we will have the deprived, under-privileged citizen class 2 who has failed because that citizen has elected not to join a union. This is the Party that had the nerve to say in the GovernorGeneral’s Speech that we must unite Australia - that it has been divided. There is no more ugly or divisive principle than that which is enshrined in this ordinance.

Why is the Labor Party doing it? Let us examine the position and look at a number of reasons. I can fully sympathise with those decent trade union leaders who want more people in their unions, who want more money for their unions and who, as one Government Minister said, need it because unionism is becoming more costly. But because something is becoming more costly they should not do a Ned Kelly and stick a gun at the head of members of the community. That is entirely a wrong tactic. I can sympathise with union officials. Let us reflect and remember this: Of all the men and women in Australia who are eligible to join a trade union, despite the abilities of the trade unions to bring their facilities to the attention of these people, approximately half of them at this moment have elected not to join. What are we to do? Are we to say that we will stand by and, by blackmail and industrial conscription, take that one-half of the eligible people and force them into a trade union? Perhaps it is not the fault of these people that they have not joined unions. Perhaps they should say: ‘Physician, cure thyself. Look, trade union official, at yourself. What are you doing wrong that you cannot attract people to the union?’. That is the real mote in the eye.

Last year, the Australian Labor Party was successful in a move which is now becoming the trade union numbers game. It has pledged the whole of its weight to obtain amalgamations in trade unions. As in the case of its caucus, the ALP is to use the numbers game in trade unionism. Because they will do that the trade union leaders are out to gain more and more numbers in more and more trade unions, amalgamating unions left and right. This drive is making the ordinary worker in the community a puppet in the game of the trade union official and ALP and Communist Party politics. The unionist himself is merely a pawn. His welfare does not matter. In my view, this is odious.

We must look at 2 aspects of this matter. The Minister for Works (Senator Cavanagh) today exposed an interesting situation. He said, in effect, that the ALP is to implement that clause of its policy which states that all contracts made by the Commonwealth or its authorities shall provide preference for unionists. When pressed about Government policy, he said that this is to be a personal, ministerial responsibility. The fact is that this is inherent in Labor Party thinking because it is a 2-way squeeze. The Minister for Works should reflect on John Milton’s famous poem, On His Blindness’. He should remember one line and roll it around and around in his mind:

Doth God exact day-labour, light denied . . . He should remember that the poem was aptly entitled for the Labor Party’s benefit ‘On His Blindness*. There can be nothing more stupid than to use another weapon of intimidation - the threat that the Government is to force day labour. If 1 may say so, when the Government does that it will be light denied. But the Government intends to do it in an interesting way. Firstly, there is a thrust on the trade unions particularly to get numbers up in those unions which by political levy give money to the Labor Party. Do not forget that the greater the numbers, the greater the levy. I sympathise with the Labor Party’s dilemma because of its massive Bacchanalian over expenditure to honour promises made in the last election campaign, but I look at it with some envy. Of course the Labor Party is short of money, so it gets its funds by duress and blackmail. The Labor Party gets its funds by putting pressure on the trade unions to increase their numbers. Then it says to commerce and industry: ‘Let us get this straight: By the most intangible terms which we will not define but which the Minister will know by virtue of his responsibility, unless you are on side with the unions and unless the shop stewards tell Senator Cavanagh, “This is a good shop; it played ball in all ways”, you do not get a contract’. This is the corruption of all moral values. What an extraordinary situation. If we apply this principle, do we take it that Senator Cavanagh will say: ‘1 will give contracts only to those who, as employers, belong to the Building Industry Congress’? Do not forget that the International Labour Organisation gives exactly the same privileges and exactly the same responsibilities to employer organisations as it does to employees. Are we to have that situation? Let honourable senators opposite answer this question: Is it for one group only? Are we to have the situation in which Mr Hayden, in another place, when he negotiates a most common fee with the Australian Medical Association, will say to the General Practitioners Society: ‘You are not a member of the AMA; you must charge a lower fee. There are 2 different kinds of rates - one for those who belong to the employers union which we recognise and the scabs’. Are we to apply this principle throughout?

When Senator Bishop spoke in this debate he raised the fact that in 1963 a Liberal government brought in reforms for the stevedoring industry and, having done so, made it a closed shop. That was like looking at the back half of the moon, for what Senator Bishop failed to say - this was agreed by honourable senators on both sides - was that a group of employees was facing massive retrenchment as a result of massive modernisation and massive mechanisation of their industry, and that the Act was designed specifically to protect them against others coming in and taking their jobs. The Act was a result of special circumstances. It was commended on all sides. It was a most enlightened piece of legislation. Senator Bishop somehow also took some credit for the fact that in 1947 :i Commonwealth Public Service regulation impacted, and still does, upon Commonwealth Railways. I point out, however, that Mr Chifley was the Prime Minister in 1947 and this in fact was his kind of legislation. Senator Bishop asked why we on this side always talked about the Australian Labor Party platform, and why we do not talk about the Liberal Party platform. I am proud to talk about the Liberal Party platform. I hold a copy of the federal platform of the Liberal Party of Australia in my hand. I accept the challenge. He was much slower to give me a copy of the Labor Party platform; in fact, he is still the reluctant virgin. Perhaps that is an unwise choice of words. I am prepared to have incorporated in Hansard, if Government supporters and others so desire, that section of the federal platform of the Liberal Party of Australia which sets out the policy points on employment and industry. Have I permission to incorporate it in Hansard?

Senator Bishop:

– No, you had better read it. We have never seen it; it is a secret document.

Senator CARRICK:

– I accept that the Government when challenged ran away from it. There is no proof that Government members can read. Last week they were so high with noise, noise, noise, and they kept asking why we did not talk about it. We called their bluff on the International Labour Organisation, and we have called their bluff on the Liberal Party. They do not have the guts to give me permission to incorporate this document. I remind the Senate that contained in this platform of the Liberal Party are impeccable principles regarding effective trade unionism. the protection and development of healthy trade unions and the protection and development of high standards in Australia. I remind the Senate that those principles include incidentally, encouragement of industrial organisations of employers and employees; that membership is not to be compulsory, and acceptance of the principle that in return for good work employed persons merit the highest wages and best conditions that the national economy can sustain with regard to the situation in any particular industry. There are some 20 or 30 such premises on this.

Let us look at the principles involved. This is not a piece of legislation aimed to improve unionism, to raise the standards of the Australian community or to help commercial and industrial working conditions. This is a regulation, an ordinance, designed to be divisive; designed to help the unionists and the Labor politicians; designed to be punitive; designed to divide the Australian community. It is designed to go further and to bring in the principle, firstly, in the Public Service and then into the rest of industry and commerce in Australia, that there shall be 2 kinds of citizens. Whether it has regard to hours, annual leave or equal pay, let us not forget that all women are equal with men except that some women, being unionists, are more equal than others. All pregnant women are equal, but pregnant women unionists are more equal than unpregnant women. Let us look at this aspect because this is what the Labor Party says in its platform.

We come now to the nub of this matter. The birdbrains on the Government side are interjecting, but when pulled up they have nothing to say. Let me sum up by saying that there is no doubt in the world - the Opposition would be the first to concede - that everything that is possible to do should be done to achieve healthy, vigorous and voluntary trade unionism in this country. Trade unionism in itself has its strength in voluntary unionism; it has its weakness, its destruction, in compulsory unionism. Compulsion destroys it.

Senator Bishop:

– Tell the ironworkers that.

Senator CARRICK:

– I am not telling the ironworkers that. I have great respect for Mr Short but I believe he is wrong. Why is he advocating compulsory unionism? He is advocating it because he is being forced to do so, seeing that the Labor Party is permitting an amalgamation of the left to get the numbers to destroy the right. In other words, Mr Short and his good Australian unionists like Mr Maynes and others have to get the numbers now to be in the numbers game. Do not raise this. This, as you know - your silence admits it - is true.

Senator Hannan - Why do not Government senators give him a go and stop interjecting.

Senator CARRICK:

– I need no go. It is they who need forgiveness. The whole of the ILO conventions are based not only on the fundamental acceptance of the Declaration of Human Rights but on the freedom of the right of people to organise, and the freedom of the right of people to organise means the freedom if they wish, not to organise. If there is no freedom not to organise, there is no freedom to organise. I stood in this place and in plain English opposed the amalgamation because I believe this country will live to regret it. The fact of the matter is that under the guise of claiming that they are helping decent Australian working people - men and women - and under the unqualified promises in the policy speech regarding extra leave, equal pay and extra maternity leave, there now emerges the proposition that you must read the policy speech together with the platform; that all these matters are qualified. The living wage is to be fixed in the wage case to be heard in a month’s time. I understand that in that case the needs principle is to be pleaded. Presumably it will be pleaded on 2 levels - the needs of the Whitlamites and the needs of the deprived. Are we to have margins for skill for those who are unionists and lesser margins for those who are not unionists? This is completely anti-Australian.

I sympathise with many honourable senators opposite who - and let me pay a tribute to them - in their day have been fine trade union officials and who understand the great difficulties involved in running great institutions and trade unions. I sympathise with their sense of frustration that their numbers are falling and that they need more money. I sympathise with that, and I will be very attentive to suggestions as to how they will get their numbers up. Mr President, I do not know whether you know about genetic sports and mutations, but an honourable senator who sits appropriately on my left is the very embodiment of sport. That is the only question he has ever raised. I think he is the. .only genetic mutation that the Labor Party has produced in my time here.

Having said that, I conclude by putting to the people of Australia that it is morally wrong for the Government to attempt to legislate What it thinks is morality. Why is it right if it thinks there is a moral obligation on someone to join a union? What impertinence it is to decide that. I hold the same view, but it would be impertinent of me if I tried to enforce it. Let me make it quite clear that I believe that people have a moral obligation to join the organisation of their calling. I believe that, and I stand here and say it with all the emphasis that I can command. I believe that it is a corruption of morals and a corruption of the mind for people to get up and say: *We will do that by duress; we will do that by legislation’. I use Senator Murphy’s words - the words of one of your leaders: ‘You cannot legislate for morality in unions or in anything else. When you do you corrupt your party and you do a grave disservice to society’. I commend the motion for disallowance and I ask honourable senators to support it.

Senator CAVANAGH:
Minister for Works · South Australia · ALP

– If the aftermath of that provocative speech that we have just heard has died down I will take a short time to try to bring the Senate back to a realisation of the problem that is before it. I agree with Senator Jessop, that the Young Liberal trained lad from New South Wales is quite capable of making good speeches. It is unfortunate that on occasions when he gets on to industrial unionism we see all the military training come out and a display of the hatred of those who have built Australia. It is significant that tonight we have been denied all the logic, commonsense and the facts which Senator Carrick sometimes advances in this chamber. He has denigrated himself as just a rabble rouser. He has forgotten the truth and the facts because he is in Opposition. He wants to make a name for himself. Liberal politicians get the impression that when they are in Opposition they can make a name for themselves by the degree to which they can condemn the trade union movement.

The Australian Labor Party has no heartaches or no fears about how the vote will go in this chamber. It has become obvious, following Senator Little’s speech, that the determinations will be disallowed and that someone will introduce a Bill which will be passed. I have said nothing derogatory about Senator

Little, but he is trying to interject He simply cannot shut up when I am on my feet Why this weakness of the little puppet who-

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Little, will you please give me the pleasure of hearing Senator Cavanagh in silence? He is a Minister of State. He is taking a mollifying attitude, and I think that he is entitled to be heard in silence.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I do not know why I am subjected to this repeated mouthing of statements that are unrealistic. After discussion with the Minister today, I say that there is no concern that these determinations may be disallowed and that subsequent legislation may extend this provision to everyone in the Public Service. The Labor Party has a policy supporting preference to unionism and encouraging trade union membership. We put our policy into operation by making to the Public Service Arbitrator representations which have resulted in the determinations now under challenge. This was not done lightly. It was done mainly at the request of the right wing unions - unions which are not affiliated with the Labor Party and unions which are affiliated with the Australian Democratic Labor Party. No-one can tell me that the unions affiliated with the Labor Party, or the extreme left wing unions, have any difficulty in enrolling union membership. Noone can point to any number of employees in the engineering or metal trades industry who are not members of unions. No-one can point to a great number of builders labourers or building trades workers who are not members of unions.

Senator Little:

– Or boot trade employees.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– Or perhaps boot trade employees. But since it was announced that an extra week’s leave would be granted to members of unions, 15,000 employees have joined the clerical officers association. Honourable senators opposite want to deprive the members of that organisation, which is not affiliated with the Labor Party, of the extra week’s leave.

Senator Jessop:

– Ned Kelly would have been a saint compared with this bloke.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– My friend from the northern towns of South Australia never saw civilisation until he was elected to the Senate. Mr Acting Deputy President, would you remind him that he is in a civilised community at the present time.

Senator Jessop:

– I represented a Labor electorate for 3 years.

Senator McLaren:

– You did not do much of a job. They only gave you one term.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Donald Cameron) - Order! Honourable senators, I ask that you give due regard to the speaker and allow him to make his contribution. From the Chair I will give the same protection to everyone. I ask you to respect that.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– The representations which were made to the Public Service Arbitrator were made as a direct result of representations made to the Minister by, amongst others, Mr Maynes, the President of the Federated Clerks Union. Mr Maynes wrote to the Minister on 4th February last, and I think what is said in the letter puts up a good case why these determinations should stand. He said:

The principle of 100 per cent membership of eligible employees has applied over large areas of Australia and within numerous industries for decades, and particularly from the war years.

That is, it has applied for approximately 32 years. He went on:

What appears to have occasioned the present interest is the extension of this principle into the retail areas and its growth over the last 10 years in the clerical and white collar field. There is no new principle involved. The Commonwealth, for example, by legislation requires that a waterside worker be a member of the Waterside Workers Federation. A waterside worker, a turner and fitter or an employee of the New South Wales Government Transport Department is not inferior to a clerk or shop assistant in terms of human rights and conversely.

This is the claim of the Clerks Union to get the representation that the waterside workers have. It is an appeal to the Minister. Mr Maynes went on:

The present proposals arise therefore from a discriminatory approach and apparently some employees have greater rights than others. If the proposals could be made effective it would in fact discriminate against certain unions, i.e. clerks, shop assistants and other white collar workers as against unions such as the WWF, AEU, Boilermakers, etc. . . .

This appeal points out that compulsory unionism for manual workers exists through economic strength. It exists with workers who are not affiliated with the Labor Party. The clerks are making an appeal for us to give them some benefit through the privileges that are now open to manual workers. Mr Maynes went on:

On the waterfront waterside workers, tally clerks, foreman, watchmen and others are required to be members of their respective unions and in point of fact, without those provisions the waterfront could not work despite the high degree of permanency now introduced among watersiders. In practice, what is really in issue today is not the right to refuse to join a union but the effective right to join. The major growth area of employment and union potential is in the white collar field. There is substantial evidence available relating to overseas as well as Australia to demonstrate the determination of employers, particularly those in the multi-national corporation area, to ensure that their white collar employees do not join unions. It is the knowledge of the opportunity for victimisation of those who join or advocate joining unions in the white collar sphere which prevents large numbers from being the first to join.

Mr Maynes names firms where it is difficult for employees to join unions and then concludes:

Membership agreements provide the sole practical way of ensuring that employees themselves believe that they cannot be victimised if they exercise their wish to join. The logical alternative to such arrangements is to seek to restrict the employer and regiment the employees by award prescriptions and otherwise to ensure that all these factors are so regulated that the opportunity to victimise docs not exist. This is neither practical nor desirable.

That is the plea from white collar workers who in the main, until the last election, supported the Democratic Labor Party. They are not normally supporters of the Labor Party. It is a plea to give them the same right that today the manual workers have and insist upon. It is not a case of compulsion to join a union. It is a case of the right of workers to join a union without being subject to victimisation.

Senator Jessop:

– What a stupid statement to make. What do you mean by Victimisation’? Could you explain that?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– That is the point, and I think it is well documented that overseas and even Australian interests introduce victimisation. They do not give their workers the right to join a union. In the last few weeks about 15,000 clerical officers in Commonwealth employment had the freedom to join a union because in doing so they could defy their chiefs of staff. On this issue I support the Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren). I do not support compulsion in every field. If I am a wheat grower, in order to be allocated a quota I must join a wheat growers organisation. If I sell dried fruits or grow grapes I have to join an association. If I enter such an occupation that is one of the compulsory conditions. I have to pay a fee. for the purpose of working in that occupation, and that payment is justified by the benefits I receive in return.

The wine promotion levy is imposed for the purpose of selling the products of wine grape growers. If I am a member of that industry, I have to pay for the benefits that I receive.

Mr Acting Deputy President, I thought earlier tonight that you very logically related this issue to the health services. The previous Government boasted that it is a voluntary health insurance scheme. There is no compulsion to join a hospital and medical benefits fund, but if you do you are paid benefits. The purpose of the Cabinet decision in this case is to see that the people who have advocated and agitated for increased annual leave and have applied to join a union receive the benefit of the Arbitration Commission’s award. There should be no compulsion to force that benefit on to those people who do not want it and who indicated that they do not want it by refusing to participate in the activities of a union. That is ail we are seeking to do. We are supporting the freedom of the individual.

Having studied Senator Greenwood’s motion for disallowance, one would have expected something better from the AttorneyGeneral in the previous Government. He seeks to disallow a number of determinations which were made by the Public Service Arbitrator. I believe that one determination - I have not found it - of the number he seeks to disallow discriminates as to who is to receive the additional leave. That is because in that instance the Public Service Arbitrator had the power so to determine. The Public Service Arbitrator does not have the power to determine whether unionists or non-unionists get additional leave and in all determinations except one before us he has not done so. We are asked to disallow a number of determinations which do not give an extra week’s annual leave to trade unionists but to respondents to the applications before the Arbitrator.

The Arbitrator can make an award binding only on the parties to the application. He cannot inflict something on people who are not members of a union that makes an application to him. His determination is limited to those people who made, the application through their trade unions. I believe that in the past it has been the practice to issue regulations under regulation 74b to make the Arbitrator’s decision apply to all employees of a particular undertaking. On this occasion, because of the Labor Party’s policy, no such regulation will be issued and therefore the additional week’s leave will be restricted to members of the applicant unions only. If there is something wrong it is a condemnation of the Government or the Minister or the Public Service Board for refusing the leave to all; it is not a condemnation of the determinations, which represent only an expression of the principle of 4 weeks leave for those who apply for it.

I come now to the point that the Commonwealth Public Service Arbitrator has supreme power. I believe that power is subject to some appeal to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission but it is not subject to appeal in this Parliament. Section 12 of the Public Service Arbitration Act is important. This shows the enormity of what honourable senators opposite are seeking to do tonight. It is not of much concern if the Democratic Labor Party and the Liberal Party do not want to help the right wing of the trade union movement. That is all right; we will give it to everyone but at least we can say that we tried on behalf of affiliated unions. Let us look at section 12 of the Public Service Arbitration Act. While in government the present Opposition parties pleaded that we should keep wage fixing and conditions of employment outside politics and independent machinery was set up to do this through the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. The Arbitration Court was set up to deal with workers generally. The stevedoring industry was dealt with by another organisation and under the Public Service Arbitration Act machinery was set up to deal with wages and conditions of employment in the Public Service. I believe that that Act was amended last year. Section 12 of the Act states:

Subject to this Act, the Arbitrator shall determine all matters submitted to him relating to conditions of employment of officers and employees of the Public Service.

The Public Service Arbitrator is the deciding authority. He has decided that employees who applied for this benefit should receive 4 weeks annual leave. Now the Opposition is saying tonight that we should take this matter out of the field of the independent arbitrator who made the decision after a hearing and bring it back into the field of politics with all the dirt and filth that goes with it when dealing with wage fixation. Normally we would not have power to do this. We have no power to interfere with the decision of the Arbitrator unless that decision is contrary to an Act of Parliament. This represents the supremacy of the people’s elected representatives over the Arbitrator. There may come a time when, for better industrial relations, power can be given to one man to make a decision although it may be contrary to the law of the land. That power is found in section 22 of the Act.

Senator Byrne:

– I do not think the Act says that. It uses the word ‘may’, does it not?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I am coming to that. The Arbitrator does so in this case. He could be definite about the question. I think that interjection by Senator Byrne is a good one. While the Arbitrator may be definite about the question, he need not be. He may think that perhaps the decision is contrary to the law of the land. We find that section 22 of the Act states: (1.) The Arbitrator may make a determination which is not in accord with an award or order of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration or of the Commission, but, except as provided by this section, ls not empowered to make a determination which is not in accord with a law of the Commonwealth.

Therefore he cannot make an award which conflicts with the law of the Commonwealth except under this section. Sub-section (2.) of section 22 states:

The Arbitrator may, where he thinks it proper to do so, make a determination that, in his opinion, is not, or may not be, in accord with a law of the Commonwealth relating to conditions of employment of employees in the Public Service, not being-

And then some exemptions are set out. Stopping there, the Public Service Arbitrator considered this matter and he could make the determination only if he thought it was proper. He did so and therefore he must have considered that it was proper. Whether or not he thought it was in accordance with the law of the land, he thought the decision was proper and he made the order. The exemptions I referred to are the Commonwealth Employees Compensation Act, the Commonwealth Employees Furlough Act and the Superannuation Act, ‘or any other prescribed Act or the prescribed provisions of any other Act’. My inquiries today have disclosed that the Public Service Act is not a prescribed Act. Other than in the case of those Acts, the Arbitrator can make a determination which is contrary to the law of the land if he thinks it proper to do so. In order to bring the question back to the people’s representatives the Arbitrator has to send to the Prime Minister and to the Attorney-General a certified copy of the determination together with a statement of the laws of the Commonwealth with which, in his opinion, the determination is not or may not be, in accord. Section 22 (3.) then states:

The Prime Minister shall, within 14 days after its receipt, if the Parliament is then sitting, or if not then within 14 days after the next meeting of the Parliament, cause the determination, and the statement (if any) of the Arbitrator, to be laid before both Houses of the Parliament.

Although there is some doubt about whether the Arbitrator’s certificate was laid before the Houses, I believe that both the determination and the statement were so laid before both Houses of the Parliament. Section 22 (4.) then states:

If, before a determination is laid before the Parliament under the last preceding section or under this section, the Attorney-General advises the Prime Minister that, in his opinion, the determination is not in accord with a law of the Commonwealth referred to in the opinion, the Prime Minister shall cause the opinion to be laid, together with the determination, before both Houses of the Parliament.

Le us analyse what is stated in the Act. If, in the opinion of the Arbitrator, the determination is, or may be, in breach of the law of the Commonwealth, he has to give notice to the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General. The Prime Minister then has to place the determinations before the Senate, and this he has done. He also has to file the reasons given by the Public Service Arbitrator as to why he believes the determinations may not be in accordance with the law of the Commonwealth. If the Attorney-General submits that in his opinion they are not within the law of the Commonwealth, he has to submit a certificate accordingly. We have had tabled before the Senate the determinations and the correspondence from the Public Service Arbitrator to the Prime Minister but we have had no communication from the Attorney-General. The Public Service Arbitrator said that the determinations may be in breach of the law of the Commonwealth but he is not the legal adviser to this Parliament. The AttorneyGeneral’s Department is the legal adviser to this Parliament and to Ministers, who had knowledge that the Public Service Arbitrator held an opinion that the determination may be contrary to the law but the AttorneyGeneral has not seen fit to notify us that in his opinion they may be in breach of the law. It is obvious from the absence of that document that, in the opinion of the Government’s legal advisers, it is not contrary to the law of the land. But, according to section 22, it has to be contrary to the law of the land before the

Senate has any right to disallow the determination. Perhaps I should alter what I have said. I am trying to get accuracy in my argument. Section 22 (5.) states:

If, in the case of a determination accompanied by such a statement of the Arbitrator, or opinion of the Attorney-General, as is above referred to, either House of the Parliament within 30 days after the determination with the statement or opinion has been laid before both Houses, passes a resolution disapproving the determination. . . .

Then it is, in effect, null and void. That provides the opportunity for the motion of disallowance proposed by Senator Greenwood to be made valid for discussion in this chamber. But the only reason he has this opportunity is because a section of the Act gives the representatives of the people the right to keep the power which, by statute, has been delegated to an Arbitrator. In this respect we have to consider the question whether to uphold the law or, for industrial harmony, give the Arbitrator power to regulate conditions and industrial relationships. The question involved is whether he should be permitted to have this say with respect to industrial relations. In his opinion the determinations may be in breach of the. law. I would say that it is reasonable to imply that in the opinion of our legal advisers they are not in breach of the law. Therefore, if there was no certificate from the Public Service Arbitrator, there would be no power for this chamber to discuss the question. In the absence of a legal opinion, we must look at the Arbitrator’s letter to see whether there are any valid grounds on which to make this decision. Why did he make the decision? He said:

I am of opinion that these determinations are not, or may not be-

It is either one or the other - in accord with Public Service Act 1922-1972- section 68; Broadcasting and Television Act 1942-1971- section 43.

Because the Public Service Arbitrator is of the opinion that they may not be in accordance with the Public Service Act and has filed the relevant document it is permissible to move, a disallowance motion. I turn now to section 68(1.) of the Public Service Act, which states:

The Chief Officer may at any time grant to an officer of his Department leave of absence for recreation but, subject to the next succeeding subsection, the period of the leave shall not exceed the recreation leave credit of the officer immediately before the commencement of the leave.

Subsection (4.) of section 68 provides:

Subject to this section, on the first day of January, in every year there accrues to an officer a recreation leave credit, or an addition to his recreation leave credit, of -

a period equivalent to the period of his ordinary hours of duty during a period of 3 weeks; or . . .

It is apparent from that that on the first day of January a permanent officer who has been in a department for 12 months shall have credited to his recreation leave entitlement a period equivalent to the period of his ordinary hours of duty during a period of 3 weeks. Can anyone tell me where the determinations under challenge are in contradiction or in breach of that or seek to do something other than that? If 8 weeks leave a year were granted, subsection (4.) of section 68 would still apply and 3 weeks would be granted on the first day of January every year. One determination says that in addition to the period of recreation leave to which they may be entitled under section 68 of the Public Service Act - it acknowledges section 68 - and/or clause 8 or clause 8B of the determination, 7-day shift workers who are rostered to work regularly on Sundays and holidays shall be allowed 7 consecutive days leave, including non-working days. Perhaps 1 am confusing the issue. I am reading from Determination No. 23 of 1973 in which the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association, the Commonwealth Public Service and others were the claimants, but I would point out that, in relation to recreation leave for permanent officers, clause 8B of that determination states:

In addition to the period of recreation leave to which he may be entitled under the provisions, as at 1st January 1973, of the Public Service Act and Regulations, an officer shall, for each completed year of service, be allotted an additional period of leave equivalent to the period of his ordinary hours of duty for one week, such leave to be subject to the conditions specified in the Act and regulations for the grant of payment in lieu of recreation leave.

We see no interference with section 68 of the Public Service Act. It says that in addition to section 68 an officer will be granted an additional week’s leave. There is no interference; no breach. Obviously the Arbitrator, who is not a legal adviser, was wrong in forming the opinion he formed. There can be no other alternative than that he was wrong in forming the opinion. But the letter to the Prime Minister gives us the only opportunity to disallow the determination. This can happen with respect to every application that goes before the Public Service Arbitrator if he is opposed to the agreement that has been reached between the parties before him. This gives an opportunity, especially as it is known that there is sufficient support in the Parliament so to do, to deprive those who have been offered increased annual leave of that leave. There has been public controversy over the disagreement between the Minister for Labour (Mr Clyde Cameron) and the Public Service Board on this matter. The forming of a wrong opinion and the sending of an incorrect letter to the Prime Minister is the only thing that has permitted us to take the question of arbitration outside of the jurisdiction of the person we appointed to deal with it impartially, and to place it in the hands of political parties. That is what has happened on this occasion. That raises the question I asked earlier tonight as to the extent to which the Opposition is prepared to go to block the efforts of the Government to give freedom to workers to join unions, including those unions which do not support the Australian Labor Patty. The Government is offering to those persons who are afraid of being victimised the opportunity of joining a union. The Opposition has adopted a different attitude on this matter for the sole purpose of gaining political advantage. It hopes to gain political advantage by taking this matter out of the hands of an independent tribunal and placing it in the political arena. That is the Opposition’s prerogative. The Government is not concerned. If the Opposition wants to do it, it should do it; we are not concerned. I have stated the dangers. I have with me a copy of the Broadcasting and Television Act. One determination to which objection is taken is related to that Act. I think I have made my point. 1 will not go into it.

I come now to the serious accusation which has been made against me. The accusation is that my intention is to give preference, in the letting of contracts, to those organisations which support compulsory unionism in their establishments. Nothing is further from the truth. I have had a lifetime association with the building industry and with the trade union movement. Few employers in the building industry in Australia would find any danger in the direction to my Department about the letting of contracts. The exception would be the isolated, notorious builder who is in the industry for the purpose of corruption. I have no time for such builders. Only last week I attended a luncheon given by the Master

Builders Association of Australia. I was well received. Among those present were 2 employers for whom I had worked. Also present were many others with whom I had negotiated. No builder of repute is concerned about the direction which 1 have given to my Department.

Honourable senators opposite have been strong in their condemnation of the continual stoppages of work - I think all of us are desirous of avoiding those stoppages - because of the employment of non-union labour. The Northern Territory branch of the Electrical Trades Union has issued an ultimatum that its members shall refuse to work with nonunionists on any undertaking and shall refuse to supply electrical connections to buildings on which non-unionists have been employed. I made an appeal to Mr Dolan, the federal secretary of the union. 1 asked him whether he could get members of the union in the Territory to lift the ban, saying that in the week’s recess I would go to the Territory to straighten out the position. No-one is doing more than 1 am to get trade union recognition in areas in which it is difficult to get it. I do not think I should have these accusations made against me. Mr Dolan has done his best. The Department of Works believes that there will be no trouble. The Department does not know who has been employed on the buildings. 1 believe that at present some shops and a motel do not have electricity connected because of the action of the union in Darwin. I am making a further appeal in connection with this matter.

These problems of industrial relationship could be well done without in Australia. If it is a question of trying to get an amicable relationship between the trade union movement and the employers in industry, I am prepared to assist in every way that I can. Because I do I am continually under suspicion. I am questioned by Senator Wright. It is foreign to his character to believe that I am doing my best. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the other place has stated publicly that my direction to the Department will lead to graft. Mr Lynch, when speaking to the Young Liberals in South Australia, said that I was encouraging graft in the industry. I have stated that nothing in the enforcement of trade unionism in industry would lead to anything like the graft which it was suggested by interjection tonight I might get from builders or that builders, by their method of operation in Australia, are getting from the Commonwealth. I have made a statement on television and I have been asked to justify it.

The Department of Services and Property is renting accommodation, mostly from insurance companies, throughout Australia. The conditions of the leases include the provision that particular architects and particular builders must be used on any additions or renovations to the building. Under such a lease the Department rented from a company - I believe it was an insurance company, but I would not be sure of that fact - 11 floors of office space in a building at 162-166 Goulburn Street, Sydney, lt had to put in partitions so that the space could be used as office space. The conditions of the lease were that the Department had to employ the owner’s contractor. His services were unsatisfactory, and complaints were made to the owner. The Department of Works had to get an appropriation from the Parliament for this work. Its estimate of the cost of the partitioning was 5152,251. The tender price accepted from Allen Constructions Pty Ltd was $.180,945. This price was considered to be excessive, but negotiations with the contractor failed to induce him to reduce it. As the terms of the lease provided for all work to be done by the owner’s architect and contractor we had no alternative but to accept his price. Over $28,000 has been done cold just because the contractor had the right to do that work.

Senator Byrne:

– Why would the Department of Works enter into such a lease with the owner?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– There was no alternative. The estimate of the Department of Works was considered to be a generous estimate. The Department could have let the job by contract for $152,000. Over $28,000 of Commonwealth money over and above the profit which another contractor could have made has been lost because the contractor had the right to do the job.

Senator Little:

– What has this matter to do with the motion?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I am replying to the allegation that my direction about trade union membership will lead to racketeering or graft. What is this? The Department of Transport has office accommodation at North Sydney. Alterations and partitioning were carried out for the Department on floors 3 to 9 inclusive. The lease required the use of Max Cooper and Sons, who were the contrac tors nominated by the owners, the Mutual Life and Citizens Fire and General Insurance Co. One selected tender of $125,449 was obtained from this firm on 27th July 1971 for floors 3 to 8. The Department of Works tender estimate was $87,237. Negotiations with the contractor later reduced the price to $107,449. The contract was let on 16th August 1971, for completion on 5th December 1971. Occupation of the premises took place on 6th December 1971.

Senator Byrne:

– Do I understand the Minister to say that the lease term required this contractor to be employed?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– Yes.

Senator Byrne:

– Why was a tender called?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– An estimate was made by the Department of Works, which had to get parliamentary approval for the expenditure. In addition to that estimate of cost, $40,000 was put on by a reputable company which was a member of the Master Builders Association of New South Wales. When the contractor was approached and told that the price was excessive he said: ‘I will take off $20,000, and I will stick to the other $20,000 for good measure’. That attitude is typical of what is occurring in the building industry today.

The Government goes along with the proposal that we should have regulations for employers and employees in the industry. The Parliament should not be debating continually whether unions are good or bad. Unions are part of the Australian industrial system, the same as marketing boards are part of the Australian trading scene, and they have to be accepted. The more honourable senators opposite seek to impose restrictions the bigger the fight becomes. As I said in my opening remarks, those unions which do not support the Australian Labor Party are appealing to it for some assistance. An honourable senator of the Liberal Party asked a question about mis matter. The Young Liberals ©f South Australia and the Liberal Movement in South Australia, which is possibly the biggest section of the Liberal Party, support co-operation with trade unions. The only sections of the Australian community which do not support this are Liberal Party and Democratic Labor Party politicians who want to make political capital out of it and the exploiters of labour who are operating in Australia today. We have nothing to be afraid of and we have no apologies to make. Destroy the determinations, take away the right to organise the right wing unions and condemn the left wing unions if you want to. We shall give the benefit to everyone. We make no apologies for our attempt to assist those unions which find it difficult to get trade union membership today.

Senator BYRNE:
Queensland

– It is not my intention to enter into the merits of the disallowance motion which is now before the chamber. The position of the Australian Democratic Labor Party was put earlier by Senator Little. I rise for a different purpose. Senator Little, in the course of his remarks last Thursday said:

Senator Greenwood has made it perfectly clear that the Government has to do only what has been done before- to introduce legislation to change the word from ‘three’ to ‘four’ in the annual leave provision relating to the Public Service - to obtain the support of the Opposition. There is no doubt about where my colleagues and I stand. We also would agree. We would be prepared to go a step further. If the Government is in any way embarrassed by anything that may take place between it and the Public Service Board or anyone else, we are prepared to state that we will .bring down a private member’s Bill. If the determination is disallowed and there is not within 24* hours a measure before the Parliament in this or another place to ensure that the promises of the Prime Minister during the election campaign are carried into effect, we are prepared’ to take that step. 1 rise tonight to reiterate that statement made by Senator Little. If I may trespass upon the Standing Orders I wish to ask the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Bishop) who is the Minister at the table whether, in view of the fact that our attitude has been known for some days, he, on behalf of the Government, is able to indicate at this time the intention of the Government? In the event that these determinations are disallowed because of this motion is the Government prepared to bring down a Bil) to legislate for 4 weeks annual leave for the Commonwealth Public Service across the board without any attachment? ls the Minister in a position to give me a reply?

Senator Bishop:

– Our attitude now is that the-

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT -

Order!

Senator BYRNE:

– This is very important

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Brown) - Order! Senator Byrne, resume your seat, please. When I took the Chair I asked that each senator be heard with due courtesy. The Senate responded and, by and large, heard the Minister for Works (Senator Cavanagh) with courtesy. I ask that the same courtesy be extended to every other honourable senator. I propose to ensure that they receive the same protection. I call Senator Byrne.

Senator BYRNE:

– Thank you. I was trespassing somewhat on the standing order relating to interjections to ask the Minister at the table whether he would indicate, in view of what Senator Little said some days ago, whether the Government is prepared if this motion for disallowance succeeds - and I think the Senate agrees that it will succeed tonight - to undertake to introduce legislation within 24 hours to provide for 4 weeks annual leave for the Public Service across the board without any qualifications or discriminations. Is the Minister able to assure me that the Government will do that?

Senator Bishop:

– May I answer the question?

Senator BYRNE:

– Ask for leave.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT - Order! This is an unusual procedure. You have asked a question of the Minister in the course of your contribution to the debate. If the Minister wishes to reply he will have to seek leave of the Senate. Does the Minister wish to do so?

Senator Bishop:

Mr Acting Deputy President

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT - Do you seek leave?

Senator Bishop:

– I seek leave to make a statement.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT - Is leave granted?

Senator Milliner:

– No.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTLeave is not granted.

Senator BYRNE:

– I very much regret that apparently the voices supporting the Minister are not prepared to allow him to make a declaration of Government policy on a matter which should be apparent. Therefore unfortunately I must proceed on the basis that the intensions of the Government are not known and that it has no clear mind to grant 4 weeks leave to the Public Service. I must proceed on the basis that the Government was not able to establish its proposition that it shall be only a contingent grant of leave and that it is not prepared to grant 4 weeks leave to the Commonwealth Public Service. If the Minister had given me the assurance that the Government would introduce legislation I was going to allow it to take the necessary steps. But in view of what has happened I must fall back on the assurance we gave the Government and that is that if this motion is determined in the Senate we will not move for 24 hours. The Government will then have 24 hours in which to bring down a Bill to provide 4 weeks leave without qualifications if it chooses to do so. If it does not do that within 24 hours we propose to present our own Bill to provide for 4 weeks leave. The Bill has been drafted and printed. It is in my hands. Senator Little will be handling the motions which are necessary to introduce and present the Bill.

I have the Bill here. We are prepared to go ahead immediately. If the Minister had said: No, we are not prepared to do that,’ we would have proceeded immediately but the Minister has not been prepared to say that. Apparently he is asking for time. We have assured him that we will give the Government 24 hours. We abide by that undertaking. I present to the Minister a copy of the Bill which we propo.se to introduce. We hand that Bill to the Government and we ask it to consider introducing it either in this place or in the other place within the next 24 hours. Tomorrow, by which time I think we could say 24 hours have expired, the Labor Party meeting will have had an opportunity to consider this matter. We then propose to use the Standing Orders to introduce the Bill and, because it is important and urgent, to use the form’s of the House to provide for the earliest possible passage of the legislation. I must express my disappointment that, in a matter where Ministers at the table have spoken with such heat and with some definiteness, still the attitude of the Government to this matter has not been disclosed.

One must query the real attitude of the Government to the provision of 4 weeks leave for the Commonwealth Public Service. I leave the matter at that. I am indebted to Senator Wright for enabling- me to intervene before he spoke so that the matter might be clarified at an early stage in the debate. It now rests with the Government. Within 24 hours we expect the Government to either bring in the Bill or indicate that it will not give leave across the board without qualifications. In that event, tomorrow we will introduce a Bill to do pre cisely that. Because of the expectation of the attitude of the Senate I anticipate that that Bill will be passed in this place. It then can go to the other place. There the Government can assess whether it is prepared to reject 4 weeks leave for the Commonwealth Public Service or support our Bill and grant 4 weeks leave in terms of the provisions in the proposed legislation.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– In resuming the debate that Senator Greenwood initiated for the disapproval of the Public Service Arbitrator’s determination-

Senator Bishop:

– Why do you not say disallowance’?

Senator WRIGHT:

– The word in the Public Service Act is ‘disapproval’. The honourable senator should not be so fastidious. I intended to observe that it is a matter of credit to the Senate that for some 40 years now it has been conceded that it has a special role in the supervision of subordinate legislation. Usually it takes the form of the disallowance of regulations under the Acts Interpretation Act, but the instrument that is the subject of the motion before the Senate tonight is a determination of the Public Service Arbitrator. The appropriate exercise of the Senate in that case is a disapproval, and that has the same effect as the disallowance of regulations which is to render the Arbitrator’s determination null and void. I do not recall in the long years that I have been in the Senate - and certainly I know of no instance in another place - an occasion on which a Public Service Arbitrator’s determination has been called up for nullification. So today’s proceedings, coupled with those of last week, are a special step in the Senate’s assertion of its authority.

At the present time it is particularly noteworthy “that within 2 or 3 months of the election of 2nd December the Senate takes the stand that the subordinate legislation that is authorised by the various Acts of this Parliament shall be scrutinised and, according to our judgment, will stand or be cancelled. 1 think the Senate shows itself as a particular custodian of the laws of the Commonwealth against the erosion of parliamentary laws without scrutiny. Regulations under an Act which are passed by a Minister at his desk and which are passed through the Executive Council by 2 Ministers should not escape our scrutiny. Likewise the special provisions of section 22 of the Public Service Arbitration

Act - Senator Cavanagh devoted much time to what was to him the novelty of its pro visions and I wish to advert to the provisions a little later on - have carefully prevented one-man rule in the Public Service by an Arbitrator who presumes to make a determination that is contrary to parliamentary law. Not only is that issue raised here but also the issue is raised as to the proper perspective of preference to unionists, not generally bin in the Public Service.

Honourable senators on the Government benches are simply bemusing themselves when they say honourable senators on this side of the House would do anything to destroy or render inefficient the cause of trade unionism. Trade unionism has grown during this century into a real contributor to our community life. But the abuses of it are all too evident. I refer not only to the industrial abuses but also to the unfortunate predatory abuses of political parties, and this motion before the Senate tonight highlights that type of abuse. In private employment trade unionism grew against great difficulty and great hostility but in public employment we have the extraordinary picture tonight where a Labor Government in office, the creature in its own self of the trade union movement - the trade union movement is its heart and soul and the mainspring of its life - pits its reputation and pits its credit for impartial and equitable administration because it wants to promote trade unionism, it says, in the Public Service, that is to say, in the employment services of this Government. if the Government has goodwill towards the employees of its own service, one may be excused for querying what altruistic motive drives the Whitlam Government to increase the number of union members in that service. Let us remind ourselves that 50 years ago this Parliament was so solicitous for the fairness of conditions of employment in the Public Service that it passed an Act creating a board of great responsibility, experience and impartiality in the form of the Public Service Board. That Board has grown with a staff - I hope all equal in experience - administering what? It administers the terms and conditions of service in the Public Service of the Commonwealth, classifying its employees according to the criteria laid down by those who draw their salary in this Parliament for formulating the laws. The laws to be found in our own Act set out the criteria for promotion, the qualifying examinations and the principal officers who give certificates as to skill. We thought - God forgive us - that even under a conservative government the Public Service Board would be so mindful of sympathetic treatment of the Public Service that surely there would be no urgent need for rampant unionism against the government of the day in order to establish equitable treatment amongst individual public servants. But no - bless your heart - Senator Bishop sits there, benign and complacent, representing a government which is so intent upon promoting unionism in the Public Service - a unionism to advocate the cause of the underdog, to see that public servants will get justice against the repressive demands of Senator Bishop and his colleagues - that we need to have preference for unionism m the Public Service.

Senator Bishop:

– You ought to read Johnny Maynes’s statement on that.

Senator WRIGHT:

– Yes, I heard johnny.comelately’s statement but if the honourable senator would give me a little time I too could deliver a lecture on the history of trade unionism. But tonight I am just making a few contemporary comments on the asininity of the grounds on which the Government, represented by Senator Bishop and Senator Cavanagh, puts its case that there is need for rampant unionism and preference to unionists in the Public Service as a matter of equity and fair conditions. Of course, we have lived long enough in this place opposing these gentry to know that they are not motivated by altruism on. behalf of the public servants. They are motivated by the idea of promoting political strength. They want a few more members’ fees so that in the pool of public service union revenues there will be a greater scum or cream to come off into the political kitty for the next election. Just as the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union could afford a $25,000 cheque to promote the idea that on 2nd December it was time, it is hoped that the public service union wheat fields will be spread wide, that the Labor Party will garner the corn and the public servants will be left with the husks. That indicates the extent of the genuineness of the paranoic plea we heard from the Minister for Works who said that in this proposition the Government was insisting on the freedom of unionists to join a union. It is just that degree of perversion of truth that stalked through Germany in the 1930s, restricting the unionist and compelling him to become a member of a union. Government supporters say: ‘We are giving you the freedom and all the benefits of Bishop government’.

I suggest that the next thing we want to observe in this connection is the indignation of Senator Cavanagh, the Minister for Works, when he came to his peroration. He said that in addition to claiming freedom for the Public Service he was insisting that the Public Service should have the benefit of an independent arbitrator. He said that for this Parliament to bring back these determinations into the political arena from the hallowed sanctum of the independent arbitrator was actually an evil drift in a reactionary direction. I must take a little time to bemuse myself with the happy coincidence that a government of Mr Whitlands, Mt Barnard’s and Mr Clyde Cameron’s ilk comes into office on 2nd December 1972 and by 18th December my independent hackles are up when I come down fairly and squarely in favour of the very idea of the government of the day - preference to unionists. Although it occurs in a few desultory other awards, it had not been the general rule in the Public Service until this stroke of divine elucidation came from the new era - the new crusade led by Mr Whitlam - and was imparted to Mr Taylor and the independent arbitrator came down dead straight on the line of the government mentors of the day.

Therefore, it was wise, was it not, that the old hacks who had had a little experience when giving to the Public Service the benefit of arbitration wrote into the legislation the supremacy of Parliament and did not depute either to a 2-man government or a one-man arbitration the right to tear up all the legislation that this Parliament has provided from the point of view of terms and conditions of appointment, transfer, promotion, pay and leave in the Public Service? They simply expressed a proposition that Senator Cavanagh, I thought, needed the whole Department of Works to expound having regard to the ponderousness with which he pursued the matter for 20 minutes. The simple proposition written into section 22 of the Act is this: If an arbitrator makes an award that is contrary to the law of the Commonwealth he shall say so. Then the Prime Minister is in duty bound to put that statement on the table of each House of Parliament. Then with or without the confirmation of the Attorney-General, either House is seized of the authority and the duty which section 22 confers to consider whether the determination by the arbitrator contrary to the law of this country should be disapproved. That is the simple process in which we are engaged tonight. 1 would think that when we recall that the Prime Minister conducted the general election campaign with duplicity, taking into account this arbitration coupled with his electoral speeches, we should highlight the Senate’s performance of a most useful role to ensure not only that unionists in the Public Service receive the benefit of the extra week’s annual leave but also that those public servants who, for their own reasons refuse to join a union, should also receive it. Mr Whitlam told members of the Public Service and the country that, if his Party were elected to government, all public servants would receive a fourth week’s annua] leave. I believe that the Senate, exercising its authority to which I adverted, stands in a role for which it can take proper credit by insisting that these determinations shall be cancelled to enable benefits to flow to all public servants from legislation which can be passed through the Parliament. The benefits will then flow, not merely to trade union members of the Public Service, but to all members of the Public Service. That is in accordance with tradition and in line with the Public Service Act and removes a new anomaly which it is almost impossible to imagine creeping into our system except for the fact that it is Government policy, not part of an arbitral determination, that suggests that we innovate in this way - by preference to trade unionists in our Public Service. Therefore. 1 have some pleasure and pride in supporting Senator Greenwood’s motion to disapprove the determinations.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The word ‘asininity’ was singularly appropriate in Senator Wright’s mouth since he has treated the Senate to a typical performance of braying like a donkey. Whatever else we have learned from this debate we have certainly discovered thai the Opposition knows very little about the industrial laws which it has administered and. in many cases, introduced in the course of the near quarter of a century in which it held office. We have heard emotional language from Senator Greenwood and Senator Carrick in particular, phrases like ‘economic blackmail’, ‘coercion’ and ‘compulsory unionism through the back door’. We even had the quaint experience of hearing that great libertarian Senator Greenwood invoke the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I must admit that I rubbed my eyes when I heard this from him. However, this was what he offered us as a substitute for rational thought or some sort of genuine legal analysis on the subject we are debating tonight. Senator Bishop, of course, had to remind him that the Government of which he was a member and previous governments of his Party had not always been consistent to his cherished notion that compulsory unionism is a great evil to be fought tooth and nail, in particular in the case of the stevedoring and railway industries where there have been cases of compulsory unionism.

What I should like to point out to the Opposition is that there is nothing new in what the Public Service Arbitrator has done in this case. His determination was made in accordance with legislation that was either on the statute book throughout the period of the Liberal Government or was actually enacted by such governments. Let me look at the sections of the Public Service Arbitration Act under which the Arbitrator made these determinations. I refer, firstly, to section 12, and I invite the Senate to favour me with some attention to what is provided in this section. Section 1 2 (2.) reads as follows:

An organisation is entitled to submit to the Arbitrator by memorial any claim relating to the conditions of employment of members of the organisation.

I ask honourable senators to pay particular attention to the last words of that sentence - of members of the organisation’. In other words it is envisaged that an application by a claimant union to the Arbitrator should be confined to members of that union. In other words, there is jurisdiction in the Arbitrator to do just what is complained of in this case, that is, to give benefits limited to members of the union. True, further sections in the Act, in particular section 14 (e), empower the Arbitrator, if he so wishes, to do this:

To declare by any order that any term of a determination shall, subject to such conditions, exceptions, and limitations as are declared In the order, be a common rule of the Public Service or of any branch or part of the Public Service:

In other words, the Arbitrator may, if he so decides, make an award or a determination which is not limited to the members of the claimant union. However, this merely under lines the point I am making. The fact that section 14 is there underlines the fact that the Arbitrator has jurisdiction unless this discretion is invoked to give benefits which are specifically limited to members of the claimant union. I would also draw the attention of honourable senators to the Public Service Regulations, and in particular regulation 74b which reads as follows:

Where in any determination under the Arbitration (Public Service) Act 1920-1934-

That is how long it has been there - before 1934-

  1. . rates of pay or conditions of employment are prescribed in relation to any officer or class of officers, or employees or class of employees, those rates of pay or conditions of employment, or any of those rates or conditions, may be applied to any other officer or class of officers, or employee or class of employees, as the Board determines.

This fills out the picture. In the first place the policy of the Act is that a claimant union may approach the Public Service Arbitrator for benefits confined to members of that union.

Senator Jessop:

– What about the policy of the Government?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– You will hear it if you will follow me.

Senator Jessop:

– I am doing so.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– You are having some difficulty following me?

Senator Jessop:

– I am.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Listen and you will learn something.

Senator Jessop:

– We are interested in your Prime Minister’s policy.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Listen and you will learn something. The primary policy of the Act is that the claimant union may make a claim for its members alone. Then comes section 14, then the regulation which complements section 12 by saying that in one case the Arbitrator may extend the benefits to other than union members. In another case the Board itself may extend the benefits of the determination to other than union members. But those provisions merely underline the fact that it was envisaged in the Act itself that benefits could be confined to members of a claimant union alone. Those who are clamouring so loudly against the outrage of what the Arbitrator has done have had the opportunity since 1920 to remove section 12 which, in a slightly different form. was in the Act in 1920 when the Act was introduced. In 1956 a Liberal government amended the Act but put in section 12 (2.) in the words which I have quoted.

Senator Cant:

– Was Senator Wright in the chamber at that time?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I do not know, but in any event these people, who are so outraged that an Arbitrator could do this allegedly totally novel thing of conferring benefits only upon a claimant union’s members, have had an opportunity since 1920 to take this section out of the Act. Yet in 1956 they put it back in the Act in a slightly amended form but in a form which preserves this right of the Arbitrator to do this highly discriminatory act. In case it should be thought that this is a power which is never availed of, let me recall a case in my own experience - 1 think it occurred in 1966 - when in fact the Public Service Arbitrator specifically limited the benefits of a determination to the members of the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association, and specifically excluded other people from the benefits of that determination. If these people were genuine, if they were outraged by the possibility that this sort of thing could happen, why did they not take section 12 (2.) out of the Act instead of confirming it in the Act in 1956?

Senator Bishop:

– Like the Stevedoring Industry Act.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Exactly. Senator Carrick in the course of saying many extraordinary, hyperbolic, emotional things, made this extraordinary statement: ‘Preference to unionists is the same thing basically as compulsory unionism. It is a back door method of introducing compulsory unionism’. I would again remind the honourable senator that preference to unionists has been enshrined in another Commonwealth Act since 1904. I refer to section 47 which, again, owes its present form to an amendment of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act in 1956 by a government of the same persuasion as that which sits in opposition today and which contains these words which I shall quote. This is preference to unionists which Senator Carrick says is the same thing as compulsory unionism. Section 47 reads as follows:

The Commission’ may, by an award or by an order made on the application of an organisation or person bound by an award, direct that preference shall, in relation to such matters, in such manner and sub ject to such conditions as are specified In the award or order, be given to such organisations or members of organisations as are specified in the award or order.

Subsection (2.) of this section goes even further and states that in some cases the Commission shall’ insert a preference clause. That is stronger than ‘may’; it makes it mandatory in certain conditions for the Commission to put such a clause in an award. In this debate much has turned on whether this is in fact an attempt to introduce compulsory unionism by the back door.

Senator Wright:

– You would not claim to have stated really the substance of section 47, would you?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– In what way have I falsified it? Is that what the honourable senator is suggesting?

Senator Wright:

– It is limited in time and limited to conscientious beliefs.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Is Senator Wright suggesting that there is no power in the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to give preference to unionists in these matters?

Senator Wright:

– Certainly not.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– There is no power?

Senator Wright:

– I said that I am not suggesting such a thing.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I do not know what sort of quibble the honourable senator is taking, but I think that my point stands. I want to come now to this question of whether what we have in the case of the present determinations is in fact preference to unionists or is compulsory unionism. It so happens that we have the word of no less an authority than the High Court of Australia on this very question in a recent case that came before the Court early in 1972. It was in the matter of an application for a writ of prohibition against Holmes, a member of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, and the Federated Clerks Union of Australia, ex parte Altona Petro-chemical Co. Ltd and others. In case Senator Wright or the other lawyers in the chamber wish to study the matter - and I commend it to them - let me say that it appears in the March 1972 edition of the ‘Australian Law Journal’. The court in that case had to examine certain applications for preference in a wide variety of matters. One of the arguments that was put on behalf of the company which was resisting this application was just the point that the Opposition has attempted to make in this debate, that in other words the requests for preference were so wide in their scope and ambit that they really amounted to an attempt to introduce compulsory unionism by the back door. In the course of his judgment Mr Justice Menzies said:

It does seem to me that, if, what I do regard as claims for preference, were to be granted, the long term consequence would be that clerical employment in the industry would be restricted to unionists. More and more unionists would be engaged and more and more non-unionists would bc dismissed. Nevertheless, I do not regard this likely consequence as turning what arc prima facie claims for preference into claims for monopoly of employment for unionists. It is necessary to examine what is claimed rather than the long term consequences of the granting of what is claimed in order to determine whether the claims are in relation to an industrial matter.

I commend to honourable senators that they have a look at what sort of preferences were asked for in this case and were held by the

High Court-

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I know that it is troubling Senator Jessop. It is a little difficult for him to follow this, but I ask him to bear with me. I know that he prefers emotional phrases, but I think some people in the Senate would like to know what the truth of the matter is as a matter of law, and what we aTe considering here is a matter of law. The High Court, which is the highest tribunal in this land, gave this judgment in regard to claims for preference. Listen to what the claims for preference were. They were in relation to the matter of engagement in any employment covered by the award; in relation to the matters of grading an employee hitherto on the incremental scale under the award; in relation to the matter of determining the times when employees employed under the award should take their annual leave, that is, whether unionists should be able to take their annual leave ahead of nonunionists in the case where there was some sort of conflict as to who should go on leave; and in relation to the matter of retention in employment covered by the award.

In all of these matters the High Court held that to grant preference to unionists over nonunionists did not amount to compulsory unionism but was preference permitted by the Conciliation and Arbitration Act within the jurisdiction of the Commission and unobjectionable constitutionally. Yet we are told by the Opposition that measures which do not compel anybody to join a union but which give preference in leave to unionists amount to compulsory unionism. Honourable senators opposite are in conflict with common sense and with the High Court.

Senator McAuliffe:

– And with themselves.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– And with themselves. Of course, some of the propositions that were advanced by Opposition senators confirmed me in my view that they really have very little understanding not only of the industrial laws of this country but also of what has happened in relation to the introduction of 4 weeks annual leave. For example, Senator Durack - who has less excuse than most, since he is a lawyer - made this astonishing statement, which was repeated by Senator Carrick:

Here again, we have a clear example of the double standards of the Government and its senior members in relation to this matter. How often have we heard about the Australian Labor Party’s belief in Parliament and how matters should always be carried out by Parliament? Its members have said that any substantive changes in the law ought to be carried out by Parliament and not by regulation - not even by ordinance. An ordinance of the Australian Capital Territory was disallowed on a motion moved by Senator Murphy some months ago because he said it involved a matter of substantive law which should be changed by Parliament and not by subordinate legislation. Yet not only do we have this major change in the law and the implementation of this major promise of the Prime Minister made during the election campaign carried out by regulation but also we have had many other examples of this kind of thing since 2nd December.

In other words, Senator Durack and Senator Carrick are so much on top of this problem that they believe that a determination of the Public Service Arbitrator is a regulation.

Senator Wright:

– Oh!

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Is it a regulation, senator? Does Senator Wright also believe it is a regulation?

Senator Wright:

– What fantastic nonsense

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– In the mind of Senator Wright, a determination of the Public Service Arbitrator and a regulation are indistinguishable. I leave it to the Senate to judge the legal acumen and the accuracy of analysis of members of the Opposition when they are capable of a confusion as blatant as that. Senator Wright shakes his head sadly because, of course, he has been caught once more in a piece of asininity, if I may borrow his term. The most serious aspects of what the Opposition is trying to do in this case are that it is attempting to do what it has always told this Senate is a particularly outrageous thing - to interfere with the decision of the umpire. How often have we heard purple patches of indignation from men like Senator Wright and the other members of the Opposition whenever unionists went on strike, because they were disputing the umpire’s decision. The decision of a commission, of an arbitration tribunal, up to now has been, according to honourable senators opposite, sacrosanct and beyond challenge. But now, because they think that they can score some cheap little political point, all of those noble principles go out the window. if we are talking about double standards, we see on the Opposition benches the firstrate practitioners of the double standard. I suggest that honourable senators should not be fooled for one moment by the emotional protestations, the high sounding principles to which honourable senators opposite have given voice in the course of this debate, but that they should treat this motion in the way it deserves to be treated - throw it out and allow the determinations of the Public Service Arbitrator to stand. The question of compulsory unionism does not arise in this case at all. It is a familiar exercise of the right of industrial tribunals to grant preference, to unionists. It is a right which has been enshrined in our industrial legislation throughout the period when the present Opposition was in office, and which it did not make any attempt to remove from the statute books. The motion is hypocritical, opportunist and unworthy of the support of the Senate.

Senator WEBSTER:
Victoria

– It is often my lot to follow Senator James McClelland in debates. It is a disappointment that I have to do so as he almost always makes personal attacks in this chamber which are not very pleasant. I have great respect and regard for any comments made by Senator Wright in this place. I am probably more ready to accept them than I am to accept the statements of many others who consider themselves to be legal experts. The Whip has indicated to me that an honourable senator opposite from Queensland wishes to speak in this debate this evening so I will ti brief. We are debating a motion for the disapproval of certain determinations under the Public Ser vice Arbitration Act. As has been pointed out before, the Opposition parties do not deny the right of the Labor Government to implement its election promise that all Commonwealth employees would be granted 4 weeks annual leave. That is the stance that I take.

The general principle announced by the Government, that 4 weeks annual leave should be granted to public servants, gave me great concern. I suppose it was thought to be a very attractive policy which might win a few votes. The Opposition accepts that the present Government can claim that it has a mandate to introduce 4 weeks annual leave for the Commonwealth Public Service. However, I remind honourable senators opposite that this evening’s Sydney newspapers carry details of 1,500 items on the consumer list which are now increasing in price. In that circumstance it would not be proper for the Labor Government to claim that all such increases were created by the former Government. The Labor Party must explain why it has judged it wise to grant 4 weeks annual leave to the Public Service at a cost to the Australian public of about $34m a year.

If the Victorian Employers Federation is accepted as a body with a right to have a positive opinion on this matter, it should be noted that it has estimated an ongoing cost to private industry of at least $2m a day. That ongoing cost is not to commence in the future; it commenced as from 1st January of this year. It has to be provided immediately because employers are liable for the additional cost at the end of 1973. There is retrospectivity in what the Commonwealth Government has decided. I believe that all Commonwealth public servants taking leave after 1st January last will find that they ire due for 4 weeks annual leave.

It is a problem of great significance to me because I believe that the moves by the Labor Government will do untold harm to the Australian economy within a year. This debate revolves around the granting of 4 weeks annual leave, supposedly to Commonwealth employees who belong to unions. I believe that most people, including most Government supporters, within their hearts would object to the fact that there is compulsion. Government supporters have argued that it is not really compulsion. They say: ‘All we are saying is that if you do not join a union you will not get the benefit’.

Mr Hawke said in support of his demands that many companies in Melbourne would be blackballed if they did not support compulsory unionism. In fact the right of individuals to work would be taken away from them. Mr -Hawke would not enable individuals to work and offending companies would be closed down if their employees did not join a union. Honourable senators opposite say that it is not denying a right, that an individual may refuse to take the extra week’s leave if he does not wish to join a union, and that he is completely free. This type of argument will appear in Labor’s policies from now on. There will be compulsion. Benefits will be granted only to individuals who belong to a union and pay their union fees. I am quite certain that these benefits will escalate, as we have seen in many other instances.

I do not think that the Labor Party generally has attempted to conceal its view. Not one honourable senator opposite has said that he disagrees with the proposition. Whilst my opinion of Mr Tom Uren, the Minister for Urban and Regional Development, has not i been great, at least he has been bold enough to challenge the proposition. After it had been announced, his view was reported in the Australian’ of 27th February last under the heading ‘Uren Hits at Forced Trade Unionism’. Undoubtedly he believed that forced trade unionism was involved. I note again that not one honourable senator opposite has declared that he is opposed to what is being done.

The Minister for Repatriation (Senator Bishop) indicated that the whole of Labor’s policy must be read in relation to this matter. As he led for the Government in this debate perhaps I should go a little further in considering his statement. I point out to him that the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) said that he hoped that within the term of this Government’s life Commonwealth public servants would be granted a 35-hour week. I hope that at some stage Senator Bishop will tell us whether a 35-hour week is to be granted only to members of unions. It is a very interesting question in the light of what he has said.

The main argument in this debate is that whatever happens to be Labor’s policy, Senator Bishop will say that one must read the Prime Minister’s pre-election policy speech as embracing the whole of the Labor Party’s policy and that whatever is granted by this Government must be read in relation to every facet of it. It is most regrettable that one should have to do that. I doubt that it has ever been done before. However, the real criticism of the Opposition is that the statements that were made by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Labour (Mr Clyde Cameron) at no stage took into account that the 4 weeks annual leave would apply only to unionists. At page 26 of his policy speech before the election Mr Whitlam stated:

We will apply the principle of equal pay to our own employees and fully support the equal pay case before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. All Commonwealth employees will receive 4 weeks annual leave. In the lifetime of the 28th Parliament their week’s working hours will be reduced by U hours to 35 hours.

Was the Prime Minister speaking truthfully or was he attempting to mislead members of the Commonwealth Public Service at that time? Is the Prime Minister to be believed as an honest man or must his statements be supported by other phrases or statements that are aligned with Labor’s policy?

Senator O’Byrne:

– I think, that this speech will bring the Government down!

Senator WEBSTER:

– I say to you, Senator O’Byrne, that the Prime Minister was untruthful if what the Government now proposes has to be passed by the Parliament. Mr Clyde Cameron made a statement which appeared in the ‘Australian’ on . 5th December 1972 under the headline: ‘Labor Pledges 4 Weeks Leave for All*. That newspaper article stated:

The incoming federal Minister for Labour, Mr C. Ri Cameron, plans to give all workers 4 weeks annual leave. He said Australia’s 320,000 Commonwealth public servants will get the extra week’s holiday from 1st January or soon after.

Is Mr Cameron an honest man? How many times does this question have to be asked of Government supporters? Was Mr Whitlam honest in what he said and was Mr Cameron honest in what he said? I hear only 2 honourable senators sitting in the back benches on the Government side attempting to deny that what those 2 men said did not embrace the whole truth. Those are the facts. It is regrettable that the Opposition has to come into this place and point out to the Government that 2 of its leading members, the Prime Minister in particular, may have treated the truth a little lightly when indicating that all Commonwealth public servants were to be given 4 weeks annual leave. I re*gret the

Prime. Minister’s statement because I have a high regard for him. I hope that his future actions will endorse my view of him.

The main aim of the Labor Party in bringing this matter forward, surely, is bribery. I say that is what it is doing. I believe that the unions provide the basis of the funds for the Labor Party’s political campaigns. It wants to force more people to join unions. Perhaps the next speaker in this debate can correct me but I am told that union subscriptions include some mandatory payment to the Labor Party. I do not know whether that is right. I want to refer to one or two of the unions associated with the Commonwealth Public Service. One of the largest appears to have about 45,000 members and at present the membership fee is $20.80. It is interesting to consider membership dues in the light of inflation. The increase in the consumer price index in the last 10 years has been of the order of 36.4 per cent but the dues payable to this union have increased by 73.3 per cent. The fee for another union with a substantial membership is $23.40. I mention those figures because I believe that to the average working man $23.40 is a pretty substantial fee. I am most anxious to learn from Senator Bishop or from Senator Milliner, who is the next speaker in this debate, what rake-off the Labor Party gets out of that fee. It was on that basis that I used the word bribery.

There, has been a general escalation of the consumer price index in the last 10 years. H has gone up by 36.4 per cent. I hope that this Government will have something to say to that last union I mentioned because in the last 10 years it has increased its fees by 290 per cent. On going through this list of unions 1 find that one has a fee of $24. I do not doubt that people who wish to join that union feel that they get good service from it. Each one of us joins some association which gives us some benefit but as an Australian 1 believe that there should be. some freedom in Australia. When one uses the word freedom honourable senators on the Government side shut their eyes because they are ashamed of this proposition. 1 think that is a proper thing for them to do.

Quite a lot of publicity has been given in the Press to the attitude of individuals to this proposition. I would be very pleased to read a number of letters which have appeared in newspapers. I noted a particular letter which referred to compulsory unionism. The writer commenced his letter by stating:

Being a long-time exponent of a change of government, I am highly delighted that the Labor Party has won office. With the injection of young intellectuals as advisers to the new Government, we will, I hope, see a more rational approach . . . However, one may be permitted to raise a questioning voice as to the Labor Party attitude on compulsory unionism. This is a principle with which I have little sympathy, because I feel it is a betrayal of the things for which the early Chartists fought so bitterly.

I mink that letter in the ‘Financial Review’ of 13th December indicates a view. Again there are individuals who wish to see more freedom in the community. There is no need for Senator O’Byrne to point to the clock on the wall. I can see it.

Senator O’Byrne:

– There is an agreement to halve the time.

Sentaor WEBSTER - I have entered into no arrangements, Senator O’Byrne. The Government is attempting to force individuals to take a certain course. It is attempting to compel them to comply with its demands. It may force them to form a non-union, and what a ridiculous situation that would be. I imagine that all Australians consider the proposition put forward by the Labor Party to be completely abhorrent. Despite what other speakers had indicated, I think that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has to be considered. I feel that it has an application. Article 20 (2) of the Declaration states:

No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

I say that the Labor Party has completely rejected that Declaration.

Senator MILLINER:
Queensland

– I believe that the Senate tonight is indebted to Senator Cavanagh, the Minister for Works, for trying to bring this debate back to its real purpose and that is whether the Public Service Arbitrator has the right to make a decision in relation to members of the Public Service. In effect the Arbitrator said that there shall be 4 weeks annual leave for workers who are in an appropriate union. The Opposition has criticised that decision no end. We have heard tonight that members of the Labor Party are untruthful and are deceitful. In fact some members of the Opposition went so far as to say that we should be bundled out of office because of our alleged deceitfulness. They say that there should be no compulsion, but I point out that the Arbitrator is not compelling anybody to belong to a union.

The Arbitrator is leaving the matter entirely to the individual’s discretion as to whether he joins a union.

Senator Jessop:

– The Arbitrator does not write a policy speech though, does he?

Senator MILLINER:

– Just hang on a moment, please, Senator Jessop. The Arbitrator said that if a person wants to have 4 weeks annual leave that person should pay a contribution to the appropriate union but if not, do not join the union. That is freedom of choice. If Senator Byrne will remain quiet for a moment I will relate what his esteemed leader did in the past. Then he will not have a smile on his face. Do honourable senators opposite know that Sir Kenneth Morris, one of the pillars of the Liberal Party in Queensland, introduced into the State Parliament legislation providing that there shall be compulsory unionism or, in other words, preference to unionists? Let me read to honourable senators section 12(2.) of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act that operates in Queensland. I repeat that it was introduced by a pillar of the Liberal Party, Sir Kenneth Morris. At that time he was not knighted. Section 12 (2.) states:

Where it is mutually agreed by the parlies concerned, or considered advisable by the Commission that preference by granted either generally or to any industrial union, such preference shall be granted subject to such conditions as the Commission may, approve.

What does the Country-Liberal Party Government in Queensland do? To every person who joins the Public Service in Queensland it sends the following letter.

I am directed to inform you that, in pursuance of the provisions of the Public Service Act 1922-1968, you have been appointed-

The position in the Public Service is given. The letter then states what the salary will be and tells the person to go to a doctor and get a medical certificate. Honourable senators should bear in mind that this letter has the approval of the Country-Liberal Party Government in Queensland. The letter contains the following statement:

If you are not already a member of a registered industrial union you must become a member of such a union by-

A space has been left for the date to be inserted. The letter goes further and says:

Please advise the above Staff Clerk in writing by that date as to membership, stating the name of the Union concerned for which purpose the attached form may be used.

That is not bad, is it? Hie classic statement appears in the final paragraph, which reads:

Please also enclose the receipt for such Union fees for noting and subsequent return to you.

The colleagues of honourable senators opposite do not say: ‘If you do not join a union you will not get 4 weeks’ annual leave’. They say: If you do not join a union you will be unemployed’. How in the name of conscience can honourable senators opposite criticise the Government for its attitude to the granting of 4 weeks annual leave when their own colleagues say that to every public servant in Queensland? Perhaps I should go further because it may be said that this position applies only to some part of the Public Service. I challenge honourable senators opposite to ask me to table the documents I have in front of me. I have a document in front of me from the Department of Education that is signed by Mr A. E. Guymer, the Director General of Education, which reads:

I have to inform you that approval has been given for your appointment as-

The position in the Education Department is given. The letter continues:

Your position is subject to the terms of the Public Service Award - State with the following conditions of employment-

The letter then lists the salary and other conditions of employment. The final paragraph states:

If you are not already a member of a registered Industrial Union, you are required to join such a Union within one month. You should advise the Principal in writing as to membership.

That applies to school teachers. The same applies to prison officers, railway employees and overseers of departments. They are all required by the colleagues of honourable senators opposite to become members of a union. I have already referred to the legislation that Sir Kenneth Morris introduced.

Senator Mulvihill:

– He was a Liberal Party senator here.

Senator MILLINER:

– He was subsequently, yes. I think I should refer to it again because it is important. He introduced legislation which provides:

Where it is mutually agreed by the parries concerned or considered advisable by the Commission that preference be granted either generally or to any industrial union, such preference shall be granted subject to such conditions as the Commission may approve.

I emphasise the words ‘as the Commission may approve’. Let me cite a condition that the Industrial Commission has prescribed as a result of the provision to which I have just referred. It is headed ‘Preference of Employment’ and states:

Preference of employment shall be given to financial members of-

In this case - the Printing and Kindred Industries Union of Employees, Queensland Branch . . . then to persons who give to the employer an undertaking in writing to make application to join such Union within 14 days of accepting employment.

No person who is not a financial member of such Union shall continue or be continued in employment under this Agreement unless he makes application to join the Union within 14 days from the date hereof, or if he commences employment after that dale, then within 14 days from the date of commencing employment.

Please listen to the next provision, which states:

No person shall continue or be continued in employment for more than one week after the employer has been notified by the Union that he has ceased to be a financial member of the Union.

No person shall be deemed to have made application to join the Union unless he has tendered the fee prescribed by the rules of the Union.

That prescription is a result of legislation introduced into the Queensland Parliament by a member of the Liberal Party supported by members of the Country Party.

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

– Is there not a Country Party majority in the Queensland Parliament?

Senator MILLINER:

– Yes. What a travesty of justice that the Commonwealth Government should be criticised, not for compelling a worker to join a union but for telling him: ‘If you elect not to join a union you will not get 4 weeks annual leave’. But the Queensland Government the Government supported by the colleagues of honourable senators opposite says: ‘Join a union or else get the sack’. Which is the more tyrannical attitude to workers? Do honourable senators want that prescription to prevail in the federal sphere or do they want the attitude that has been adopted by the Government?

It has been said that the Government is trying to divide the workers. Let me refer to a debate which took place in the Queensland Parliament and which is reported in Volume CLXXXIII of the Queensland Parliamentary Debates of 1 944-45, as follows:

The provision for an appeal to an industrial magistrate and if necessary later to the Industrial Court, is a very good one, because I do not think there is any authority in the State that is better able to determine a question of preference than an industrial magistrate or the Industrial Court, members of which are dealing with such questions frequently.

Who do honourable senators opposite think said that in the Queensland Parliament? None other than the Hon. V. C. Gair. Yet he has said tonight that because an Arbitrator, a member of an industrial commission, prescribes something in a Public Service award he is wrong. Let me take the matter a step further. Let me refer to page 1749 of the same debate. I wish to do so because I want to bring in one of the champions of the Country Party who is now involved in this matter. On that page the following report appears:

The Minister-

That is Senator Gair - mentioned that Queensland was the first State to introduce such legislation.

That was said by Mr Nicklin, or Sir Francis Nicklin as he is now, who went on to say:

Unfortunately, I must correct him because Victoria in December 1943 passed a measure giving preference to members of the fighting services.

Mr Gair is reported as having interjected and said:

Was not that measure confined-

Debate interrupted.

page 191

ADJOURNMENT

The PRESIDENT:

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

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 10.30 p.m.

page 192

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

page 192

NEW ZEALAND WALLABIES

(Question No. 6)

Senator MULVIHILL:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Conservation, upon notice:

What action has the Minister taken in conjunction with the State wildlife authorities to obtain from New Zealand parma and brushtailed rock wallabies for re-stocking wildlife sanctuaries in Australia.

Senator CAVANAGH- The Minister for the Environment and Conservation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

No action has been initiated as yet by my department to re-introduce the parma and brushtailed rock wallaby into Australia in conjunction with State fauna authorities.

I am informed that certain State fauna departments have been examining this situation and that a small number of brushtailed rock wallabies may be introduced into Victoria shortly. I am also advised that any re-introductions of native fauna into Australia will be closely examined by the relevant authorities with the view to possible re-establishment of the species.

I may add that certain problems arise when such intoductions are sought. The possible interbreeding of the New Zealand race with any remaining Australian stock, resulting in possible genetic variations is one such problem and this is an important factor that must be considered by the authorities.

page 192

PRIME MINISTER: VISIT TO TORRES STRAIT ISLANDS

(Question No. 15)

Senator GAIR:

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

Has the Prime Minister ever visited the Torres Strait Islands; if so, when.

Senator MURPHY- The Prime Minister has supplied the following information for answer to the honourable senator’s question:

Yes; in July 1968.

page 192

DEATH OF EX-PRESIDENT TRUMAN

(Question No. 17)

Senator GAIR:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. What was the date of the death of a former President of the United Slates of America, Harry S. Truman.
  2. What was the date on which the Prime Minister sent condolence messages to President Nixon and Mrs Truman.
  3. What was the actual date on which copies of these condolence messages were released to the Press in Press Statement M/15.

Senator MURPHY - The Prime Minister has provided the following information for answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 26th December 1972.
  2. 27th December 1972.
  3. 27th December 1972.

page 192

PRIME MINISTER: MALTESE HONOUR

(Question No. 19)

Senator GAIR:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

Is the Prime Minister a Grand Master of the Order of St Agatha of Paterno, Malta; if so, when did he receive this overseas honour.

Senator MURPHY-The Prime Minister has supplied the following information for answer to the honourable senator’s question:

In August 1969 I was appointed a Knight Grand Cross of Grace in the Roll of Merit of the Military Order of the Collar of Saint Agatha of Paterno.

page 192

MINISTERIAL STAFFS: SECURITY CLEARANCES

(Question No. 42)

Senator KANE:

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

Why was there an initial objection taken by the Prime Minister for security clearances being undertaken on his staff and the staffs of other Ministers.

Senator MURPHY - The Prime Minister has supplied the following information for answer tothe honourable senator’s question:

There was no such objection.

page 192

DIPLOMATIC RECOGNITION OF CHINA

(Question No. 47)

Senator WEBSTER:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

What were the terms of the Agreement, written or otherwise, for recognition by the Australian Government of the Government of the People’s Republic of China.

Senator MURPHY - The Prime Minister has provided the following information for answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The agreement the Australian Government and the Government of the People’s Republic of China reached on mutual recognition and the establishment of diplomatic relations is wholly in writing. The English text was released to the press on 22nd December and published in the newspapers on 23rd December 1972. This text was also published in Current Notes, December 1972, pages 631, 632 and 633.

I have arranged for a copy of the Chinese text to be made available in the Parliamentary Library for honourable senators and members.

page 193

MR RICHARD HALL

(Question No. 54)

Senator LITTLE:

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

  1. What is the present employment of Mr Richard Hail, who the Prime Minister announced on 16th February 1973 had been appointed to the Literature Board of the Australian Council for the Arts.
  2. Is Mr Hall’s full-time profession that of a playwright, as reported in the press, or does he have other employment; if so, what is the nature of such other employment and by whom is he employed.

Senator MURPHY - The Prime Minister has supplied the following information for answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. Mr Richard Hall is at present employed on the personal stall of Mr Bryant, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, to whom he is acting as consultant on the affairs of urban Aborigines in Sydney and country towns in New South Wales.
  2. The position referred to in (1) above is Mr Hall’s present full-time occupation. He has in the past been employed as adviser to the Prime Minister and as a journalist. He is a graduate of the National Institute of Dramatic Art playwright studio. Several of his plays have been publicly performed.

page 193

MINISTERIAL REPRESENTATION

(Question No. 55)

Senator KANE:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice:

  1. Is there any significance in the choice, by the Minister, of Dr Patterson to represent him in the House of Representatives.
  2. Why was the Minister for Immigration bypassed in this selection of a Minister in the House of Representatives.

Senator WRIEDT - The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

  1. and (2) I was in the fortunate position at the time of arranging representation for the Primary Industry portfolio in the House of Representatives of having two extremely competent men in the field of agriculture to choose from the Minister for Northern Development, Dr Patterson, and the Minis ter for Immigration, Mr Grassby. As Dr Patterson’s portfolio is more directly connected with rural matters, I decided to ask him to represent me.

page 193

DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS WITH CHINA

(Question No.56)

Senator SIM:

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

Will the Minister, in the interests of ‘open Government’, cause to be tabled in the Senate the communications which passed between the Australian Ambassador in Paris and the Government during negotiations with the People’s Republic of China.

Senator WILLESEE - The Minister for Foreign Affairs has furnished the following reply:

No. There are obviously limits to the kind of material which can be publicly released in the interests of ‘open Government’. Communications relating to confidential negotiations between Australia and another Government fall outside those limits and would indeed be a breach of trust.

The actual terms and conditions agreed to by Australia and China regarding mutual recognition and the establishment of diplomatic relations were fully set out in my statement of 22nd December 1972, and in the joint communique released at the same time. It would appear from the honourable senator’s question that he believes there to be some secret agreements between Australia and China not mentioned in the joint, communique. It may be that the honourable senator has formed this belief as a result of recent articles in the ‘West Australian’ and other newspapers Which suggested that the Government was obliged to endorse Chinese positions on a number of international questions as the ‘price’ for the establishment of diplomatic relations. This suggestion is absolutely without foundation. The author of the articles appears to have taken a number of the Government’s recent foreign policy decisions and to have assumed that each of them was the result of concessions given to the Chinese during the negotiations in Paris. There is no basis in fact for this assumption. The negotiations with China were confined narrowly to the question of recognition and diplomatic relations and to related questions associated with the status of Taiwan. Broader questions of foreign policy were not raised by either side.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 6 March 1973, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1973/19730306_senate_28_s55/>.