29th Parliament · 1st Session
The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Justin O’Byrne) took the chair at 2. IS p.m., and read prayers.
page 2105
– I present the following petition from 245 Australian Government employees:
To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament. The petition of the undersigned Australian Government employees respectively shows:
That under the provisions of the existing Superannuation Scheme for Australian Government employees:
contribution rates are excessively high- especially high for older members and hence precludes most senior contributors from the full pension theoretically available;
costs of administration are needlessly high because of the complexity of the scheme;
female contributors are discriminated against.
The proposed new scheme is no more generous to contributors than the existing scheme, will cost no more to the Government, and is tailored to meet the needs of modern society beset with problems caused by inflation.
Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, will take the most urgent steps to ensure: the introduction of the Treasurer’s proposals for a new Superannuation Scheme for Australian Government employees presented in March 1974.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
Petition received and read.
Australian Economy: Proposals by Premier of Queensland
– I present the following petition from 2 citizens of Queensland:
To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth:
That whereas dangerously accelerating inflation is placing unbearable strain and hardship upon the people of Australia, with consequent serious escalation of industrial strikes, chaos and hostility,
And whereas neither government economists nor the Federal Government can offer any certain early solution but continue to propose policies known to have failed in the past- including the claim for centralised control of all wages and prices which has also failed overseas, and which the Australian public rejected decisively by national referendum only recently,
And whereas the Senate is not only an independent House of Review elected democratically by the people with its own mandate to protect their heritage and constitutional rights, but is the States ‘ House by which all Australians in their own sovereign States formed long before Federation can bring together ideas and plans and resources for their mutual benefit and advancement,
So accordingly the recent, carefully-reasoned proposals of the Premier of the State of Queensland seeking the freezing of all taxation, the elimination of sales tax, and the reimplementation of consumer subsidies or discounts, warrant the most urgent and thorough investigation of the Senate.
Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, will take all essential steps without delay to:
Demonstrate to the Australian public that everything possible is genuinely being done to halt the grave damage being inflicted by inflation upon our economy, by immediately and openly debating the aforesaid proposals of the Queensland Premier, and
Call for the widest possible publicity and discussion of these said proposals, especially in view of the surprising scarcity of reports or details about these in most of the mass media and having regard for the fact that the Premier of Queensland did certainly table such proposals at the official Premiers’ Conference lately, that the practice of consumer or price subsidies or discounts did work most effectively and harmoniously throughout Australia between 1943 and 1948, and finally, that such broad publicity is in full accord with the present Federal Government’s stated claim of ‘Open Government*.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
Petition received and read.
-I present the following petition from 20 citizens of Australia:
To the honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showth
That whereas the Budget Paper No. 9 titled ‘Australia’s External Aid 1974-75’ allocated $150,000 for humanitarian assistance to National Liberation Movements in Africa;
And whereas the humanitarian needs of these oppressed people require greater assistance from Australia than the above amount allocated in the budget;
And whereas such assistance is in keeping with that provided by Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, The Netherlands, Canada, the Federal Republic of Germany, and New Zealand, and United Nations Organisations such as UNICEF, UNDP, UNHCR, FAO and WHO, and such non-Government organisations as the World Council of Churches, the Australian Freedom From Hunger Campaign, Community Aid Abroad, and some Roman Catholic Aid Agencies in Europe;
So therefore your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate will take action to substantially increase the abovementioned humanitarian assistance.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
Petition received and read.
– I present the following petition from 23 citizens of Australia:
To the honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:
That whereas the Budget Paper No. 9 titled ‘Australia’s External Aid 1 974-75 ‘ allocated $ 1 50,000 for humanitarian assistance to National Liberation Movements in Africa;
And whereas the humanitarian needs of these oppressed people require greater assistance from Australia than the above amount allocated in the budget;
And whereas such assistance is in keeping with that provided in Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, The Netherlands, Canada, the Federal Republic of Germany, and New Zealand, and United Nations Organisations such as UNICEF, UNDP, UNHCR, FAO and WHO, and such non-Government organisations as the World Council of Churches, the Australian Freedom From Hunger Campaign, Community Aid Abroad, and some Roman Catholic Aid Agencies in Europe;
So therefore your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate will take action to substantially increase the abovementioned humanitarian assistance.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
Petition received.
– I present the following petition from 27 citizens of the Commonwealth.
To the honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth respectfully showeth:
We deplore the tactics of the opponents of the Family Law Bill in seeking further delays for its implementation. The community has had more than adequate opportunity to examine its contents and implications.
Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should not delay the Family Law Bill.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
Petition received and read.
-1 present the following petition from 217 citizens of the Commonwealth:
To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth respectfully showeth:
Irretrievable breakdown of marriage as the sole ground for divorce, as set down in the Family Law Bill 1 973 based on one year’s separation.
b) Maintenance to be based on the needs of all the parties in a failed marriage. Effective automatic permanent entitlement to an ex-wife to be abolished.
Emphasis to be placed on rehabilitation and retraining of estranged wives to enable them to be independent.
Custody to be awarded in disputed cases on the basis of a qualified panel recommendation and to only take in to account the material, moral, and psychological well being of children involved, not the possessive demands of their parents.
Matrimonial property to be divided equally, taking into account initial contributions.
Costs of matrimonial proceedings to be divided equally.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
Petition received and read.
– I present the following petition from 100 citizens of the Commonwealth:
To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth respectfully showeth:
We support the introduction of Family Courts and the single non-fault ground for divorce based on 12 months separation.
We also support the change hi maintenance provisions to end the subsidy for life system and to base maintenance on the real needs of all parties involved. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should not delay the Family Law Bill.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
Petition received.
-I present the following petition from 54 citizens of the Commonwealth:
To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth respectfully showeth:
We urge the Parliament to debate and implement the Family Law Bill, at the earliest possible time.
The community has had nearly 12 months to consider the implications of the Bill. Further delays are not justified.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
Petition received.
-I present the following petition from 20 citizens of Australia:
To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The humble Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that:
Divorce is a social and medical problem not a legal issue and should be relieved accordingly;
Irretrievable breakdown must be the only grounds, with a maximum of twelve months separation;
When making property settlements the court must take into account the direct and indirect financial and other contributions made to the acquisition, conservation or improvement of the property by the parties in the capacity of homemaker, parent or otherwise;
There must be urgent reform and the Family Law Bill must be presented to Parliament forthwith and accepted without further delay,
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
Petition received.
– I present the following petition from 14 citizens of Australia:
To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The humble Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that:
Divorce is a social and medical problem not a legal issue and should be relieved accordingly;
Irretrievable breakdown must be the only ground with a maximum of twelve months separation;
When making property settlements the court must take into account the direct and indirect financial and other contributions made to the acquisition, conservation or improvement of the property by the parties in the capacity of homemaker, parent or otherwise;
There must be urgent reform and the Family Law Bill must be presented to Parliament forthwith and accepted without further delay,
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
Petition received.
– I present 2 petitions, identical in wording and from 20 and 40 citizens of the Commonwealth respectively, in the following terms:
To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned Citizens of the Commonwealth, by this our humble Petition respectfully showeth:
That the existing matrimonial laws in Australia are archaic, unrealistic, and cruel and so completely at variance with modern thought as to require their immediate repeal.
That there is such urgent need for reform that there must be no delay in presenting the Family Law Bill 1974 to Parliament for debate.
That the ground of Irretrevable Breakdown of Marriage be the sole ground for divorce with proof of this determined by a maximum of twelve months separation.
That dissolution of marriage must come out of the legal system with people resolving9 their family matters between themselves according to guidelines and with assistance of a mediator. Family Courts only to be used for enforcement as a last resort.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
Petitions received.
-1 present the following petition from 1 1 citizens of the Commonwealth:
To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth respectfully showeth:
We support the introduction of Family Courts and the single non-fault ground for divorce based on 12 months separation.
We also support the change in maintenance provisions to end the subsidy for life system and to base maintenance on the real needs of all parties involved. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should not delay the Family Law Bill.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
Petition received.
-I present the following petition from 35 citizens of the Commonwealth:
To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth respectfully showeth:
We deplore the tactics of the opponents of the Family Law Bill in seeking further delays for its implementation. The Community has had more than adequate opportunity to examine its contents and implications.
Your Petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should not delay the Family Law Bill.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
Petition received.
– I present the following petition from 80 citizens of the Commonwealth:
To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth respectfully showeth:
We support the introduction of Family Courts and the single non-fault ground for divorce based on 12 months separation.
We also support the change in maintenance provisions to end the subsidy for life system and to base maintenance on the real needs of all parties involved.
Your petitioners most humbly pray thai the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should not delay the Family Law Bill.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
Petition received.
– I present the following petition from 96 citizens of the Commonwealth:
To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth, by this our humble petition respectfully showeth:
That the existing matrimonial laws in Australia are archaic, unrealistic, and cruel and so completely at variance with modern thought as to require their immediate repeal.
That there is such urgent need for reform that there must be no delay in presenting the Family Law Bill 1974 to Parliament for debate.
That the ground of Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage be the sole ground for divorce with proof of this determined by a maximum of twelve months separation.
That dissolution of marriage must come out of the legal system with people resolving their family matters between themselves according to guidelines and with assistance of a mediator. Family Courts only to be used for enforcement as a last resort.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
Petition received.
– I present a petition from 14 citizens of the Commonwealth:
To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate of Australia in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth respectfully showeth:
That we support the concept of no fault divorce in the Family Law Bill because:
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Family Law Bill be debated and passed as soon as possible.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
Petition received.
– I present the following petition from 76 citizens of the Commonwealth:
To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned Citizens of the Commonwealth, by this our humble Petition respectfully showeth:
That the existing matrimonial laws in Australia are archaic, unrealistic, and cruel and so completely at variance with modern thought as to require their immediate repeal.
That there is such urgent need for reform that there must be no delay in presenting the Family Law Bill 1974 to Parliament for debate.
That the ground of Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage be the sole ground for divorce with proof of this determined by a maximim of twelve months separation.
That dissolution of marriage must come out of the legal system with people resolving their family matters between themselves according to guidelines and with assistance of a mediator. Family Courts only to be used for enforcement as a last resort.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
Petition received.
– I present the following petition from 46 citizens of Australia:
To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled.
The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that there is an urgent need for the reform of the law of Australia relating to Divorce. The existing legislation is not fair to both parties, promotes unnecessary litigation, cost and delay resulting in greatly unnecessary expense to parties, indignities to the parties involved and their children and delays in resolving divorce matters. Generally it is true that the existing legislation fails to meet the criteria for good divorce law adopted by the English Law Commission as follows: “It should buttress rather than undermine the stability of marriage and when a marriage has irretrievably broken down it should enable the empty legal shell to be destroyed with the maximum fairness and minimum bitterness distress and humiliation”.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Family Law Bill be debated and passed at the earliest possible opportunity in the interests of the many thousand people in
Australia presently affected by a matrimonial breakdown situation.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
Petition received.
– I present the following petition from 49 citizens of Australia:
To the honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:
That where as the Budget Paper No. 9 titled Australia’s External Aid 1974-75 allocated $150,000 for humanitarian assistance to National Liberation Movements in Africa:
And whereas the humanitarian needs of these oppressed people require greater assistance from Australia than the above amount allocated in the budget;
And whereas such assistance is in keeping with that provided by Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, The Netherlands, Canada, the Federal Republic of Germany, and New Zealand, and United Nations Organisations such as UNICEF, UNDP, UNHCR, FAO and WHO, and such non-government organisations as the World Council of Churches, the Australian Freedom From Hunger Campaign, Community Aid Abroad, and some Roman Catholic Aid Agencies in Europe;
So therefore your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate will take action to substantially increase the abovementioned humanitarian assistance.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
Petition received.
-I present the following petition from 20 citizens of the Commonwealth:
To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth, by this our humble petition respectfully showeth:
That the existing matrimonial laws in Australia are archaic, unrealistic, and cruel and so completely at variance with modern thought as to require their immediate repeal.
That there is such urgent need for reform that there must be no delay in presenting the Family Law Bill 1 974 to Parliament for debate.
That the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage be the sole ground for divorce with proof of this determined by a maximum of twelve months separation.
That dissolution of marriage must come out of the legal system with people resolving their family matters between themselves according to guidelines and with assistance of a mediator. Family Courts only to be used for enforcement as a last resort.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
Petition received.
– I present 3 petitions, identical in wording, from 20, 20 and 40 citizens of the Commonwealth respectively, in the following terms:
To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth, by this our humble petition respectfully showeth:
That the existing matrimonial laws in Australia are archaic, unrealistic, and cruel and so completely at variance with modern thought as to require their immediate repeal.
That there is such urgent need for reform that there must be no delay in presenting the Family Law Bill 1974 to Parliament for debate.
That the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage be the sole ground for divorce with proof of this determined by a maximum of twelve months separation.
That dissolution of marriage must come out of the legal system with people resolving their family matters between themselves according to guidelines and with assistance of a mediator. Family Courts only to be used for enforcement as a last resort.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
Petitions received.
-I present the following petition from 41 citizens of the Commonwealth:
To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth, by this our humble petition respectfully showeth:
That the existing matrimonial laws in Australia are archaic, unrealistic, and cruel and so completely at variance with modern thought as to require their immediate repeal.
That there is such urgent need for reform that there must be no delay in presenting the Family Law Bill 1974 to Parliament for debate.
That the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage be the sole ground for divorce with proof of this determined by a maximum of twelve months separation.
That dissolution of marriage must come out of the legal system with people resolving their family matters between themselves according to guidelines and with assistance of a mediator. Family Courts only to be used for enforcement as a last resort.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
Petition received.
– I present the following petition from 64 citizens of the Commonwealth:
To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth, by this our humble petition respectfully showeth:
That the existing matrimonial laws in Australia are archaic, unrealistic, and cruel and so completely at variance with modern thought as to require their immediate repeal.
That there is such urgent need for reform that there must be no delay in presenting the Family Law Bill 1974 to Parliament for debate.
That the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage be the sole ground for divorce with proof of this determined by a maximum of twelve months separation.
That dissolution of marriage must come out of the legal system with people resolving their family matters between themselves according to guidelines and with assistance of a mediator. Family Courts only to be used for enforcement as a last resort.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
Petition received.
– I present the following petition from 1 1 citizens of the Commonwealth:
To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth respectfully showeth:
Divorce is a social and medical problem not a legal issue and be relieved accordingly.
All family matters must come out of the legal system.
There must be no lawyers- no courts- and especially- no judges.
DLRA’s proposals must be considered for the new divorce laws.
1 ) The persons themselves to record their own divorce at the place where marriages are made.
Guidelines to be established by mediators (nonlawyers) to resolve difficulties particularly with children and property.
Joint custody and mutual financial support of children where possible.
Child endowment to provide financial support of children when needed.
Property disputes to be resolved as an ordinary civil matter.
Adults not self supporting to be regarded as unemployed or on sickness benefit or pensions.
Only the breach of agreement should incur legal process.
The motivation of lawyers in family matters is for profit only and their involvement has proved a disaster for the community since I9S9.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
Petition received.
– I present a petition from 40 citizens of the Commonwealth:
To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth, by this our humble petition respectfully showeth:
That the existing matrimonial laws in Australia are archaic, unrealistic, and cruel and so completely at variance with modern thought as to require their immediate repeal.
That there is such urgent need for reform that there must be no delay in presenting the Family Law Bill 1974 to Parliament for debate.
That the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage be the sole ground for divorce with proof of this determined by a maximum of twelve months separation.
That dissolution of marriage must come out of the legal system with people resolving their family matters between themselves according to guidelines and with assistance of a mediator. Family Courts only to be used for enforcement as a last resort.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
Petition received.
– I present the following petition from 1 17 citizens of Australia:
To the Honourable, the President and members of the Senate of Australia in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:
That, in modern society which accepts divorce, the law of divorce should be fair to both parties. However, we are very concerned about proposals to alter the law in the Family Law Bill 1974.
The Family Law Bill 1974 would fundamentally change the institution of marriage itself; that is all existing and future marriages.
The said Bill does not protect the legal and social rights of women and children in the family.
3 ) The said Bill does not provide for either the training of suitable counsellors who can assist in conciliation procedures or for suitable initiatives to be taken prior to the breakdown of marriage.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that this Bill be tabled for six months and that all sections of the community be consulted on marriage, the family and the long term effects of such a Bill upon our Australian society.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
Petition received and read.
– I present 3 petitions, identical in wording and from 7, 24 and 25 citizens of Australia respectively, in the following terms:
To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate of Australia in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:
That, in modern society which accepts divorce, the law of divorce should be fair to both parties. However, we are very concerned about proposals to alter the law in the Family Law Bill 1974. 1. The Family Law Bill 1974 would fundamentally alter the institution of marriage itself; that is all existing and future marriages. 2. The said Bill does not protect the legal and social rights of women and children in the family. 3. The said Bill does not provide for either the training of suitable counsellors who can assist in conciliation procedures or for suitable initiatives to be taken prior to the breakdown of marriage.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that this Bill be tabled for six months and that all sections of the community be consulted on marriage, the family and the long term effects of such a Bill upon our Australian society.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
Petitions received.
– I present 4 petitions, idential in wording and from 18, 24, 118 and 344 citizens of Australian respectively, in the following terms:
To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate of Australia in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:
That, in modern society which accepts divorce, the law of divorce should be fair to both parties. However, we are very concerned about proposals to alter the law in the Family Law Bill 1974. 1. The Family Law Bill, 1974 would fundamentally change the institution of marriage itself; that is all existing and future marriages. 2. The said Bill does not protect the legal and social rights of women and children in the family. 3. The said Bill does not provide for either the training of suitable counsellors who can assist in conciliation procedures or for suitable initiatives to be taken prior to the breakdown of marriage.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that this Bill be tabled for six months and that all sections of the community be consulted on marriage, the family and the long term effects of such a Bill upon our Australian society.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
Petitions received.
-I present 2 petitions, identical in wording and from 25 and 84 citizens of Australia respectively, in the following terms:
To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate of Australia in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:
That, in modern society which accepts divorce, the law of divorce should be fair to both parties. However, we are very concerned about proposals to alter the law in the Family Law Bill 1974.
The Family Law Bill 1974 would fundamentally change the institution of marriage itself; that is all existing and future marriages.
The said Bill does not protect the legal and social rights of women and children in the family.
The said Bill does not provide for either the training of suitable counsellors who can assist in conciliation procedures or for suitable initiatives to be taken prior to the breakdown of marriage.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that this Bill be tabled for 6 months and that all sections of the community be consulted on marriage, the family and the long term effects of such a Bill upon our Australian society.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
Petition received.
– I present the following petition from 26 citizens of Australia:
To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate of Australia in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:
That, in modern society which accepts divorce, the law of divorce should be fair to both parties. However, we are very concerned about proposals to alter the law in the Family Law Bill 1974.
The Family Law Bill 1974 would fundamentally change the institution of marriage itself; that is all existing and future marriages.
The said BUI does not protect the legal and social rights of women and children in the family.
The said Bill does not provide for either the training of suitable counsellors who can assist in conciliation procedures or for suitable initiatives to be taken prior to the breakdown of marriage.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that this Bill be tabled for 6 months and that all sections of the community be consulted on marriage, the family and the long term effects of such a Bill upon our Australian society.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
Petition received.
– I present the following petition from 600 citizens of the Commonwealth.
To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth respectfully showeth:
We the undersigned citizens of Australia do humbly petition the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia that it might take such steps as may be necessary either to direct the Commonwealth Banking Corporation to preserve and restore the Palace Hotel or itself acquire the said Palace Hotel, St George’s Terrace, Penh on its present site so as to preserve and restore it in perpetuity.
Further we do humbly petition this honourable Parliament to make such funds as may be necessary available to purchase the entire contents of the said hotel from the owners thereof.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
Petition received and read.
– I present the following petition from 200 citizens of the Commonwealth:
To the Honourable the President and members of The Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth respectfully showeth:
We the undersigned citizens of Australia do humbly petition the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia that it might take such steps as may be necessary either to direct the Commonwealth Banking Corporation to preserve and restore The Palace Hotel or itself acquire the said Palace Hotel St George’s Terrace, Perth on its present site so as to preserve and restore it in perpetuity.
Further we do humbly petition this honourable Parliament to make such funds as may be necessary available to purchase the entire contents of the said Hotel from the owners thereof.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
Petition received.
-I present the following petition from 200 citizens of the Commonwealth:
To the Honourable the President and members of The Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth respectfully showeth-
We the undersigned citizens of Australia do humbly petition the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia that it might take such steps as may be necessary either to direct the Commonwealth Banking Corporation to preserve and restore The Palace Hotel or itself acquire the said Palace Hotel St George ‘s Terrace, Perth on its present site so as to preserve and restore it in perpetuity.
Further we do humbly petition this honourable Parliament to make such funds as may be necessary available to purchase the entire contents of the said Hotel from the owners thereof.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
Petition received.
– I present the following petition from 206 citizens of the Commonwealth:
To the Honourable The President and Members of The Senate in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth respectfully showeth:
We the undersigned citizens of Australia do humbly petition the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia that it might take such steps as may be necessary either to direct the Commonwealth Banking Corporation to preserve and restore The Palace Hotel or itself acquire the said Palace Hotel St George’s Terrace, Perth on its present site so as to preserve and restore it in perpetuity.
Further we do humbly petition this honourable Parliament to make such funds as may be necessary available to purchase the entire contents of the said Hotel from the owners thereof.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
Petition received.
– I present the following petition from 626 citizens of the Commonwealth:
To the Honourable The President and Members of The Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth respectfully showeth:
We the undersigned citizens of Australia do humbly petition the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia that it might take such steps as may be necessary either to direct the Commonwealth Banking Corporation to preserve and restore The Palace Hotel or itself acquire the said Palace Hotel St George’s Terrace, Perth on its present site so as to preserve and restore it in perpetuity.
Further we do humbly petition this honourable Parliament to make such funds as may be necessary available to purchase the entire contents of the said Hotel from the owners thereof.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
Petition received.
– I present 4 petitions, identical in wording and from 15, 20, 20 and 40 citizens of the Commonwealth respectively, in the following terms:
To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned Citizens of the Commonwealth, by this our humble Petition respectfully showeth:
That the existing matrimonial laws in Australia are archaic, unrealistic, and cruel and so completely at variance with modern thought as to require their immediate repeal.
That there is such urgent need for reform that there must be no delay in presenting the Family Law Bill 1974 to Parliament for debate.
That the ground of Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage be the sole ground for divorce with proof of this determined by a maximum of twelve months separation.
That dissolution of marriage must come out of the legal system with people resolving their family matters between themselves according to guidelines and with assistance of a mediator. Family Courts only to be used for enforcement as a last resort.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
Petitions received.
– I present the following petition from 25 citizens of Australia:
To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth:
We, the undersigned, wish to lodge our objection to the passing of the New Family Law Bill, suggesting- Easier Divorce, No Innocent Party as regards Court Costs, or Maintenance for the Wife.
In our opinion it takes at least 3 years to consolidate a marriage and every effort should be made to make it work, with equal responsibilities on both sides. Children of all ages should be able to feel the security of a complete family and we should be looking to this most of all.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
Petition received.
To the Honourable, the President and members of the Senate of Australia in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:
That, in modern society which accepts divorce, the law of divorce should be fair to both parties. However, we are very concerned about proposals to alter the law in the Family Law Bill 1974.
The Family Law Bill 1974 would fundamentally change the institution of marriage itself; that is all existing and future marriages.
The said Bill does not protect the legal and social rights of women and children in the family.
The said Bill does not provide for either the training of suitable counsellors who can assist in conciliation procedures or for suitable initiatives to be taken prior to the breakdown of marriage.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that this Bill be tabled for six months and that all sections of the community be consulted on marriage, the family and the long term effects of such a Bill upon our Australian society.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
Petition received.
– I present the following petition from 69 citizens of Australia:
To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:
That the reduction of the allowable deduction of education expenses under Section 82J of the Income Tax Assessment Act from $400 to $150 is $50.00 below the 1956-57 figure.
That this reduction will impose hardships on many parents who have children attending school, whether non government or government; and particularly on parents with more than one child at school.
That this reduction will further restrict the freedom available to parents to make a choice of school for their children.
That some parents who have chosen to send their children to a non-government school will have to withdraw their children and send them to government schools already over crowded and under staffed.
That the parents to benefit most relatively from educational income tax deductions, in the past and even more in the future, are the parents of children in government schools and this has a divisive effect in the Australian community.
That parents should be encouraged by the Australian government to exercise freedom of choice of the type of school they wish for their children. The proposed reduction means an additional financial penalty is imposed on parents who try to exercise this choice and discourage them from making an important financial contribution to Australian education over and above what they contribute through taxation.
That an alternative system, a tax rebate system, could be adopted as being more equitable for all parents with children at school.
To compensate for the losses that will follow from the proposed reduction and to help meet escalating educational costs faced by all families your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should take immediate steps to restore educational benefits to parents, at least at the 1 973- 1 974 level either by increasing taxation deductions or through taxation rebates.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
Petition received and read.
– I present the following petition from 60 citizens of Australia:
To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:
That the reduction of the allowable deduction of education expenses under Section 82 J of the Income Tax assessment Act from $400 to $150 is $50.00 below the 1956-57 figure.
That this reduction will impose hardships on many parents who have children attending school, whether non government or government; and particularly on parents with more than one child at school.
That this reduction will further restrict the freedom available to parents to make a choice of school for their children.
That some parents who have chosen to send their children to a non-government school will have to withdraw their children and send them to government schools already over crowded and under staffed.
That the parents to benefit most relatively from educational income tax deductions, in the past and even more in the future, are the parents of children in government schools and this has a divisive effect in the Australian community.
That parents should be encouraged by the Australian government to exercise freedom of choice of the type of school they wish for their children. The proposed reduction means an additional financial penalty is imposed on parents who try to exercise this choice and discourages them from making an important financial contribution to Australian education over and above what they contribute through taxation.
That an alternative system, a tax rebate system, could be adopted as being more equitable for all parents with children at school.
To compensate for the losses that will follow from the proposed reduction and to help meet escalating educational costs faced by all families your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should take immediate steps to restore educational benefits to parents, at least at the 1973-1974 level either by increasing taxation deductions or through taxation rebates.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
Petition received.
– I present the following petition from 59 citizens of Australia:
To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:
That the reduction of the allowable deduction of education expenses under Section 82J of the Income Tax assessment Act from $400 to $150 is $50.00 below the 1956-57 figure.
That this reduction will impose hardships on many parents who have children attending school, whether non government or government; and particularly on parents with more than one child at school.
That this reduction will further restrict the freedom available to parents to make a choice of school for their children.
That some parents who have chosen to send their children to a non-government school will have to withdraw their children and send them to government schools already over crowded and understaffed.
That the parents to benefit most relatively from education! income tax deductions, in the past and even more in the future, are the parents of children in government schools and this has a divisive effect in the Australian community.
That parents should be encouraged by the Australian government to exercise freedom of choice of the type of school they wish for their children. The proposed reduction means an additional financial penalty is imposed on parents who try to exercise this choice and discourages them from making an important financial contribution to Australian education over and above what they contribute through taxation.
That an alternative system, a tax rebate system, could be adopted as being more equitable for all parents with children at school.
To compensate for the losses that will follow from the proposed reduction and to help meet escalating educational costs faced by all families your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should take immediate steps to restore educational benefits to parents, at least at the 1973-1974 level either by increasing taxation deductions or through taxation rebates.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
Petition received.
page 2113
– I give notice that at the next sitting I shall move:
That the following matter be referred to the Standing Orders Committee for consideration and report viz: The procedure for the presentation of petitions.
page 2113
page 2113
-In directing a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate I refer to the eulogy given by him yesterday on the merits of our arbitration system. I ask: Is the Government proposing that wage indexation provide a measure of regulation of future wage increases? Is not the acceptance of wage indexation a matter for the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission? Is it not also a fact that 4 States and the national employers body propose to oppose wage indexation as merely a restoration of the cost of living adjustments which, 20 years ago, were rejected by the Commission as highly inflationary? I therefore ask: What reason has the Government for supposing that the Commission will accept the Government’s wage indexation proposals?
– I suppose the answer to that question is that mostly it is a matter for the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission of the Commonwealth. In some respects, whether it be indexation or cost of living adjustments, it might also be a matter for a State body, such as the Industrial Commission of New South Wales or the State parliaments. Senator Greenwood would recall that the cost of living adjustments were introduced, I think, in New South Wales by legislation. They were fairly successful as I recall the relevant figures. But it is not fitting that I should be suggesting what kind of arguments might commend themselves to the Commission on such a subject. If the Minister for Labor and Immigration would want to add anything further on this, I am sure that he will. It is an area primarily for the arbitral authorities of Australia, whether Federal or State. We all recognise that it is possible for the Government to introduce legislation which, if accepted by this Parliament, would apply to the Public Service and certain other areas within Federal responsibilities. In doing this the Government would be acting in the same way as the States acted earlier. I shall leave the matter for the Minister to see if he wishes to add anything to my answer.
page 2114
– Has the AttorneyGeneral noted the remarks made by Mr Justice Head in Sydney last week in sentencing Jacob Suljak, Tomo Juricic and Ante Lasic? Is it a fact that these Croatian extremists have been recommended for deportation? Is this the second occasion on which New South Wales judges have recommended their deportation? Were these 3 terrorist persons named in the AttorneyGeneral ‘s report on Croatian terrorism in February 1973? Have 2 juries and judges found them guilty of violent behaviour? Is the AttorneyGeneral able to say why the previous Government rejected the advice of the judge and the recommendation of the Commonwealth Commissioner of Police in 1969?
– I am aware of what was stated by the judge. I have some note of it. He said:
Suljak, Juricic and Lasic have shown themselves to be quite unacceptable as continuing residents in this country. They have not shown any desire or made any move to become true citizens of Australia and to place allegiance to Australia ahead of their allegiance to Croatia. They have shown little respect for our laws whilst taking advantage of everything this country has to offer. I recommend that they be deported before they are permitted to go free again in this community.
It is true that Suljak was gaoled in South Australia in June 1969 for a period of 9 months for 2 brutal assaults. There were some other convictions. In the particular matter to which the honourable senator refers, there was a conviction of the persons either earlier this year or at the end of last year. After they had served some time in prison an appeal was lodged. As I understand the position- I am not quite sure of this- on some technical legal ground of admission of evidence the convictions were set aside and re-trial was ordered. It was on this re-trial that the jury again convicted them and the judge sentenced them to terms of imprisonment taking into account the previous time that had been served by them in prison. I think it was as early as 1 1 November 1969 that the Commissioner of the Commonwealth Police Force recommended that Suljak be deported because of his record of crimes of violence. All of these persons were associated in some executive degree with the United Croats of West Germany which, as the honourable senator and others would be aware, was dealt with in a statement made by me in the Senate, and which I think is accepted generally as being a terrorist organisation.
page 2114
– I direct a question to the Minister for Agriculture. I refer to the inquiry into the stabilisation of farmers’ incomes announced yesterday by the Prime Minister. Was the Prime Minister acting on his own initiative or did the Industries Assistance Commission invite a direction that the inquiry be conducted? Will implementation of Labor rural policy be suspended until the Industries Assistance Commission makes its recommendations? When does the Minister hope that the recommendations will be placed before the Government?
-Stabilisation of farmers’ incomes has been a matter not only of Government consideration but also of public debate ever since the publication of a Green Paper earlier this year. The Government, as I have stated on many occasions, has been considering those aspects of the Green Paper which include income stabilisation. To my knowledge there was no invitation or suggestion by the Commission to refer income stabilisation. It was done as a result of the consideration which the Government has been giving to these matters over the past few months. We realise that referring the matter to the Commission is the most effective way of drawing up the various methods by which an income stabilisation scheme could be implemented.
page 2114
-I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Housing and Construction. Is the Minister aware that examination of the various State statistics regarding housing shows that the Australian housing market has undergone a very large drop and as yet shows no sign of hitting a low? Is the
Minister further aware that with the rundown of the building and supply sectors that we are now experiencing, when the Government does decide to reduce interest rates shortages and consequent higher prices will only add to the cost of buying or building a home? Does the Minister realise that in order to obtain a $20,000 building society loan a borrower must command a salary of almost $2 10 a week and thus a loan is out of the reach of most young people trying to buy a home? Finally, will the Minister ask the Government to review housing policy and take steps so that young people particularly can look forward to owning their own homes in the Australian tradition and not just being tenants of the Government?
– On behalf of the Minister I indicate that the Government clearly wants people, especially young people, to be able to obtain their own homes on reasonable terms which will not be oppressive to them. It is a fact that interest rates are high. It is also a fact that the lending of money and the operations in the housing field are in the private sector of the economy. It is also true that the Government is doing whatever it can to enable young people to get their homes at reasonable rates. It is quite clear that even in the last few weeks the Government has taken steps to have interest rates lowered, and there have been indications that the direction of Government policy is to see that interest rates are lowered. But I think there is something which ought not to be forgotten when we are looking at all the problems of inflation.
I suppose it is true in our society, which is a great home-owning community, that one of the side effects of inflation is that many people who have acquired homes over the years, especially fairly recently, with a mountain of debt have, because of the operation of inflation, found it comparatively easy to pay off those debts which would otherwise have seemed astronomical. This is one of the ways in which inflation has worked to the benefit of home owners who have a mortgage. That is very often forgotten. People constantly enter into arrangements to pay enormous sums with which they could probably cope only if they remained healthy and able to earn constantly. They enter into these arrangements optimistically and it is a fact of life that inflation has paid off for them. I am speaking of those who entered into these arrangements some time ago and Senator Townley agrees with what I say.
– Oh, no.
-Inflation has largely paid off for these people.
– How about the poor old lender and how he gets butchered?
-The Leader of the Opposition asks: What about the poor old lender and how he gets butchered? It is nice to know that he is on the side of the lender in such circumstances.
– I mean the Commonwealth Savings Bank.
-The Commonwealth Savings Bank can look after itself and show a handsome profit. The strength of what Senator Townley asks is: Will the Government keep taking steps to ensure that people can get homes at reasonable rates of interest? I indicate that clearly the direction of Government policy is that people, especially young people, ought to be able to get, at reasonable rates of interest, advances which are sufficient to enable them to get the kind of homes they want in which to bring up their children. I assure Senator Townley that that is what the Government is endeavouring to do.
page 2115
– My question is directed to the Minister for the Media. In reply to previous questions asked by me the Minister has referred to the international acclaim which has heralded the screening of the Australian Broadcasting Commission’s television drama series ‘Seven Little Australians ‘ in many countries throughout the world. Can the Minister inform the Senate whether the introduction of colour television next year is likely to increase the sale of Australian programs of this kind overseas, or was Seven Little Australians’ the kind of program that can be made only by a special arrangement and at infrequent intervals? If special arrangements need to be made would the Minister consider seeking a special advance to allow a project of this kind to be undertaken again?
– I can well understand the honourable senator’s concern to see that the publicity and the prestige that have come to Australia from the screening abroad of the Australian Broadcasting Commission’s program ‘Seven Little Australians’ should not be accepted merely as something that happens once in a while. I can also understand his concern that the Government should continue to encourage the production of programs of this kind. The honourable senator has asked me what prospects there are of having programs like Seven Little Australians’ produced by the ABC and sold abroad. I personally believe and I am confident that the advent of colour television in Australia- productions of this nature will in future be made in colour- will increase substantially the ability of the ABC to sell the product on the world market.
Let me tell the honourable senator that in the last 12 months a number of dramas have been produced by the ABC which are considered to be of world standard. Two of them that readily come to mind are the production ‘Marion’ which was scripted by an Australian, Mr Cliff Green, and also ‘Three Men of the City’ which was scripted by Mr Ted Roberts. Both of these Australian writers have won awards for the excellence of their programs. I understand that in recent times they have expressed their appreciation to the ABC for having had the opportunity to work on the production of these programs. With programs and script writers of this high quality I am quite confident that the ABC will be able to put a number of products on the international market in the near future.
page 2116
-I ask the Minister for Agriculture: Following the Prime Minister’s statement that an inquiry will be undertaken by the Industries Assistance Commission into stabilising farmers’ incomes, can the Minister state what are the terms of reference submitted by the Government to the IAC? Were they discussed with the leaders of the Australian Farmers Federation to obtain their views?
-I think it extremely unlikely that the Australian Farmers Federation would have wanted to discuss the terms of reference with the Prime Minister, who is the Minister responsible for the Industries Assistance Commission.
– With the Government.
-Well, with the Government. I imagine that the leaders of the Australian Farmers Federation were only too pleased to know that the Government had decided to send the matter to the IAC. This is the first positive step that has ever been taken to implement an income stabilisation scheme for farmers in this country. The terms of reference are sufficiently wide to enable the Commission to exercise its discretion as to the suggestions it brings forward to the Government. I am not sure about the making public of the terms of reference. I will have to refer that question to the Prime Minister. If he sees fit to make them public I am sure that he will do so.
page 2116
– My question is directed to the Minister for Agriculture. Did the Prime Minister claim yesterday that no government had done more for farmers than his Government has done? Did he also state that his Government had replaced concessions and subsidies with much more valuable benefits? Can the Minister outline any measures taken by this Government which are more beneficial than the concessions estimated at $500m which were withdrawn? What has the Government done to alleviate the impact of increased levies and charges and the cost of production increases resulting from the Government’s disastrous financial policy?
-Mr President, may I ask how long I can take? The Prime Minister did make statements along these lines, and they are quite accurate. He made the point, as he has done on many occasions in the past and as I have done on many occasions in the past and I will do again, that if ever a Party misled the farmers of this country down the years it was the Australian Country Party. The only things it has ever done have been done with the thought of winning votes. That Party has not thought about what might happen to agriculture in this country in the future. This Government has changed that course. This Government was the first to reduce tariffs along the lines asked for by the farming community. It was the one that had the courage to put a floor price into the wool industry.
Honourable senators opposite talk about the taxation concessions which they allege have been taken away by this Government. When the last election was being held the test was whether the Opposition was prepared to reinstitute the taxation concessions which we had taken away and it was not prepared to undertake to reintroduce one single taxation concession. The Opposition said that it would send the matter of the phosphate bounty to the Industries Assistance Commission, but when the Industries Assistance Commission report came back and the Opposition did not agree with it, the Opposition did not say then that it would stop the phosphate bounty. These are the sorts of questions which will be asked and answered too before the next election. The fact of the matter is that this Government has done more for the rural community than has any other government in the history of this country. That is why today the future for agriculture looks better than it has ever looked in the past.
page 2117
-I draw to the attention of the Postmaster-General statements by some individuals on the Council of the Combined Overseas Telecommunications Unions with reference to the majority decision of the Vernon Commission of Inquiry into the Australian Post Office regarding the merger of the Overseas Telecommunications Commission with the proposed new telecommunications corporation. Can the Minister convey to the Senate the official viewpoint of those industrial organisations directly affected by the decision?
– Is this to be a ministerial statement without leave?
– Perhaps the honourable senator had better let me answer the question first. All honourable senators have received representations from a number of people who claim to represent the unions with employees in the Overseas Telecommunications Commission. Because of that I am aware of what has taken place and of the reaction from the unions which represent most of the employees. A great deal of propaganda is being fed into the media about this issue.
– Shame!
-Of course there is. The Government has decided that the merger should take place. In fact, only one union of which I am aware- it is a small union with fewer than 20 members; I think it has 16- is opposed to the merger. The largest union which has members working for the Overseas Telecommunications Commission, the Professional Radio Employees Institute of Australasia, has about 1,300 staff members in OTC out of a total membership of a little over 2,000. This union has come out in support of the merger. Yesterday its federal secretary said that he refuted the representations of some individuals who claimed to support the union movement. He said that his organisation was fully in favour of the merger. He also pointed out that representations were made to the trade union group which is now negotiating with departmental officers to make sure that the merger is satisfactorily completed. All those unions represented on the Council are in favour of the merger. What we are seeing now is a belated attempt by some people to misrepresent the position entirely. As I have said, the PREI is the largest union. It has a membership with OTC of 1,300 out of a total of 2,000 employees. The next biggest union has 140 members who favour the merger. Of all the other unions, some with only one or two members, there is only one of which I am aware which is against the merger.
page 2117
-Can the Minister representing the Treasurer tell us whether permission has been given for a foreign company, Ambreeds, to take over a New South Wales artificial breeding company? If so, was the Australian artificial insemination industry association asked for its views? Were the State and Australian Departments of Agriculture consulted? What was their advice? What were the conditions which led to the approval of this takeover?
-The general answer to the question is yes, this firm was taken over by an American company, if my memory serves me correctly, but it was not without investigation by the Foreign Takeovers Committee. That was done some time early this year. The artificial breeding association submitted evidence to the Committee at that time. The matter was also referred to the New South Wales Government where, I believe, some objections were raised. Subsequently the Committee agreed that the takeover should be allowed to proceed subject to the normal financial restraints on foreign exchange being approved by the Reserve Bank of Australia. I think that is as much as I can tell the honourable senator.
page 2117
– Can the Minister for Agriculture assure the Senate that the rural industry inquiry will not delay consideration by the Industries Assistance Commission of an application on behalf of Western Australian new land farmers for the continuation of the superphosphate bounty? Has the Government requested the Industries Assistance Commission to report on that application before the bounty ends on 31 December? Will the new inquiry include a general review of the bounty?
– The Prime Minister has requested the Industries Assistance Commission to take into account the effects of the use of phosphate on the stability of incomes of farmers. That is peripheral to the basic reference. With regard to the earlier part of the question, the Prime Minister has also specifically requested the Commission not to interfere with any inquiries it is currently undertaking in view of this fresh reference. In other words, the references already before the Commission will proceed in their normal way.
page 2118
– I direct a question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I preface it by referring the Minister to the statement he made during the sitting of Estimates Committee B on aid to African liberation movements. On that occasion he outlined possible uses of this aid and said that he had not yet decided on its distribution. Is the Minister yet in a position to inform the Senate of the proposed allocation of the sum of$ 150,000?
– This matter was raised at the Estimates Committee meeting. I said then that $ 1 50,000- not $ 1 50m, the figure I have seen some of the critics of the scheme using- will be used for non-military, humanitarian purposes. I repeated to the Committee what I said at the United Nations General Assembly last year. While we sympathise with the aims of the National Liberation Movement in southern Africa we ourselves stop short of endorsing the use of force to obtain its and indeed any other objectives. As to the allocation of funds, we still have not decided definitively, but we have firmed up our position quite a lot since I spoke to the Estimates Committee. The first thing is that we will allocate our aid through multi-lateral channels to projects that are jointly administered by United Nations agencies, liberation movements and host governments and which are sponsored by the Organisation for African Unity. These projects are designed to meet fundamental problems of re-settlement of refugees including malnutrition, lack of housing, and training- possibly to be provided in Australia. Examples of such possible projects are support for health clinics in southern Tanzania and in Zambia, assistance to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees -
– What independent movements are in Tanzania?
-I will repeat what I have said because I think that the honourable senator is a little off the beam. Examples of such possible projects are support for health clinics in southern Tanzania and in Zambia, assistance to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the Council of Namibia for subsistence crop farming near Lusaka to accommodate refugees, assistance to United Nations agencies in the training of boys in agricultural and technical skills, and relief to refugees from southern Africa living in temporary settlements in Zambia.
– Are you reading the reply?
– Of course I am reading the reply. Is there anything in the Standing Orders to stop me? Because of the very deliberate misrepresentation on this subject I have obtained written information. We will consult of course other countries such as West Germany, the Scandinavian countries and New Zealand, which are also giving aid to African liberation movements. When we receive the report from our Foreign Affairs man who is to visit Zambia to investigate the needs of refugees I will be able to inform the Senate of the precise allocation of this aid. I would like to take the opportunity to condemn in the strongest terms those people who have so stridently misrepresented the purposes of this assistance. There have been all sorts of lurid suggestions as to the types of non-humanitarian or indeed anti-humanitarian uses that this money might be put to. These suggestions testify to the powers of imagination and dishonesty of those who make them. Let me repeat that this aid is for humanitarian purposes and for no others, and indeed the Cabinet decision limits the purpose to just that.
page 2118
– That is understood. Questions without notice are before the Chair.
-Mr President, I have listened to your interpolation on this. This is a subject matter that could be discussed on a future occasion if you were agreeable.
– Please proceed with your question.
-I address my question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. As a suspect committee of the United Nations ventured upon a journey to the Cocos (Keeling) Islands over which Australia possesses unalloyed sovereignty, and as the visit to the Islands was at the Minister’s invitation, my question is as follows: Will the Minister table in the Senate the strictures of this committee which he invited to visit the Australian sovereign territory of Cocos (Keeling) Islands? Will the Minister further elaborate on the strictures of this committee about the Australian Government in its administration of this sovereign territory of Australia.
-Mr President, I shall read the answer to Senator Sir Magnus Cormack: The Australian Government has seen an advanced draft copy of the report of the United Nations visiting mission to the Cocos (Keeling) Islands and is presently giving the report detailed consideration. As the report has not yet been distributed officially, it would be premature to comment in detail on its findings, but the conclusions and recommendations of the report are in accordance with what we expected. When the report has been issued in its final form I shall ensure that a copy of it, together with a copy of the Government’s comments on the report, are made available to honourable senators in the Parliamentary Library.
– Why did you invite them, though? That is what I asked.
-The Government recognises the desirability and need for changes in the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, which will be directed towards ensuring for the people of the Islands higher standards of education, economic development and self-government. As has been stated in replies to questions on notice, the Government’s intention is that the future political status of the Islands should be determined with due regard to the freely expressed wishes of the inhabitants and in keeping with the principles of the United Nations charter and the relevant United Nations resolutions.
By way of interjection my friend Senator Sir Magnus Cormack asked me why we invited the United Nations mission to the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. I do not think anybody can challenge the statement that this Government has stood very firmly by the rights of self-determination under the United Nations charter. We have encouraged that in other countries. I do not see how any government having done that could then stand by and in relation to a country which was under its jurisdiction say that we were not going to give self-determination to that country or that we were not going to open up for inspection by the United Nations anything that was under our jurisdiction. We have moved towards granting independence in New Guinea. If there were such groups in any other area I would do the same thing. How can we go about arguing and saying that other people should have selfdetermination but that people who have a different coloured skin and who are working for somebody else ought not to have the same rights and privileges as everybody else? How can we then turn round and deny to the United Nations and the whole world the opportunity to examine the administration by the Australian Government?
page 2119
– My question, which is addressed to the Postmaster-General, relates to the report that Melbourne Cup day may be marred by some form of industrial action. I understand that this situation could arise because of the activities of postal unions which are seeking a public holiday on Cup day for their country members. My question is: Can the PostmasterGeneral inform the Senate as to the outcome of this matter?
– There was a situation causing a dispute between the postal unions, myself and the Public Service Board in relation to the Melbourne Cup day holiday. It arose because of a zoning application by the Public Service Board or a Public Service inspector. The position was that out of about 30,000 PMG employees in Victoria about 25,000 were receiving a holiday on Melbourne Cup day and the balance were not. The postal unions after some representations placed bans on certain Post Office works. Later on they threatened to impose bans which might affect transmission of the Melbourne Cup. I am pleased to say that only this morning Mr Watson, the Deputy Public Service Arbitrator, decided to meet the request of the postal unions. I would be confident that as a result there will be no more bans and the matter is satisfactorily settled.
page 2119
– My question, which I ask of the Attorney-General, relates to various reports of action taken by member exchanges of the Australian Associated Stock Exchanges against individuals following publication of the Rae report and arising out of its disclosures. Will the Attorney-General seek the following information and table it in the Senate at the earliest opportunity: 1. The names of members of the various exchanges and non-member partners of stock broking firms who have been charged by any of the exchanges with offences and penalised. 2. The details of such charges. 3. The verdicts and penalties imposed in respect to each charge. 4. The transcripts of evidence or other available records of evidence relating to each charge. 5. Details of any subsequent action taken by the appropriate State Government authorities in respect thereto. 6. Whether or not any other charges by stock exchanges are known to be pending or unfinalised
-I will seek the information requested by the honourable senator and, if it is supplied, I will consider tabling it in the Senate.
page 2120
-Has the AttorneyGeneral seen a report in today’s ‘Australian’ accusing the Senate Opposition of causing ‘a childish impasse’ over the Australian Parliament’s delegation to the Constitutional Convention by its insistence that Senator Steele Hall should be excluded from that delegation? Does the Minister recall that during the referenda associated with the 18 May election Opposition senators campaigned against the referenda on the basis that the proposed constitutional changes should be considered by the sessions of the Constitutional Convention which have now been abandoned? Does the Minister have any views on the desirability of continuing the Convention and the likelihood of its producing any solutions to Australia’s present constitutional difficulties in these circumstances?
– Yes, I have read the article. The remarks it contained seemed to be a fair reflection of the Opposition’s position. The Opposition certainly did cause an impasse but I think the people of Australia have become used to impasses and obstructions caused by the Opposition in the Senate. I recall the statements of Opposition senators in the pre-election campaign that various referenda ought not to be carried because matters ought to be considered at the Constitutional Convention. This is again part of the delaying tactics. When any proposition is put up to change the Constitution honourable senators opposite find some reason for voting against it here and then for delaying it. When there is to be a convention, as we know, by their actions here and also in Queensland it is wrecked.
– I rise to a point of order. I ask: How far can there be such gross misrepresentation and misstatement in the course of an opinion being given by the Attorney-General? Senator Button asked, contrary to the Standing Orders, for an expression of opinion. I think the Attorney-General will acknowledge that contrary to the Standing Orders he was expressing an opinion. My concern is not to stifle freedom of speech but it is to have accuracy as to what actually happened. What the Attorney-General has said is not the true position. It was the Government which said that it would not go to the Constitutional Convention, not the Opposition.
– I have already ruled that honourable senators may ask questions of Ministers and that Ministers may reply at their discretion.
– Addressing myself to the point of order, the Standing Orders are quite clear-
– I speak on a further point of order. This question was raised on a point of order taken by Senator Greenwood. The President has ruled on that point of order. Senator Sir Magnus Cormack had an opportunity to address himself to Senator Greenwood ‘s point of order before the ruling was given. Once the ruling has been given, it is not open to him to speak to that point of order. Whatever other course may be open to him, he has not taken it. The point of order has been decided and the matter is concluded.
– I merely address myself to the Standing Orders of the Senate. That is what I sought to do.
– On what point are you taking a point of order, Senator? On my ruling?
– I am not addressing myself to the ruling. I sought the opportunity of addressing myself to the point of order that had already been raised by Senator Greenwood.
– I have already ruled on that point of order and my ruling was that honourable senators may ask questions of Ministers and Ministers at their discretion may answer. I have ruled in that way and I will not allow a debate to ensue on my ruling. If the honourable senator wishes to dispute my ruling -
– No, I do not. I wish to raise a further point of order.
– You are entitled to raise a further point of order.
– That is all I wish to do. I address myself to Chapter XII of the Standing Orders of the Senate which deals with questions without notice addressed to Ministers. Standing order 99 reads as follows:
The following rules shall apply to Questions:
Questions shall not contain-
arguments;
inferences;
imputations;
epithets;
ironical expressions; or
hypothetical matter.
In the particular context of the question asked of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, I point out that standing order 99 goes on to say that questions shall not ask for an expression of opinion, for a statement of the Government’s policy, or for legal opinion. I think that this is fairly important because I think that Senator Button anticipated it in his question. The standing order goes on to say that questions shall not refer to debates in the current session or proceedings in Committee not reported to the Senate. Therefore in mentioning this matter I address myself to the Standing Orders because questions present a vexed problem to any Presiding Officer. My sympathy rests with you, Mr President. If question time is to be conducted in a proper way Standing Orders should be applied, and I suggest that the Leader of the Government in the Senate constantly offends against the Standing Orders.
- Mr President-
– Do you wish to ask a question, Senator Poyser?
– I wish to speak to the point of order. I want to mention this very matter that has been raised by the ex-President of this House.
- Senator Sir Magnus Cormack, I am not the ex-President.
– I want to mention the matter raised by Senator Cormack because I can recall many occasions, both when I have been on the Opposition side and on the Government side of this chamber, on which I have raised the very point that Senator Cormack has emphasised in relation to matters that are on the notice paper. On all of those occasions I was ruled out of order by both Senator Cormack and by you, Mr President.
- Mr President, I have been misrepresented. As soon as Senator Poyser sits down I will seek your leave to be given the opportunity of getting these cobwebs off my back.
– I repeat that on many occasions I have raised this very point of order about a question being asked on matters that are on the notice paper of the Senate and I have not at any time had that point of order upheld either by Senator Cormack or by you, Mr President. It has been ruled that that has been the practice in the past. Virtually it means that we cannot have any elasticity operating in the Senate. Question time would be killed if the Standing Orders were carried to this final position.
– Who is killing it?
– I do not know who is killing it. If we come back to the question of Dorothy Dixers I can speak on that also because I can recall when a certain Minister for Housing was in this House-
– Order! I ask the honourable senator to confine his remarks to the point of order.
– If I want to talk on the other aspect I have some ammunition on it.
Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK (Victoria) I wish to make a personal explanation.
– Does the honourable senator claim to have been misrepresented?
-Yes. The personal explanation I wish to make is that Senator Poyser has made a categorical statement that an examination of the events of the past years would indicate that Standing Orders have not been upheld. He has made this declaration without any knowledge. I suggest that you, Mr President, might require Senator Poyser to address himself to the record of the Senate in order to discover whether the circumstances as he has stated them are true.
– I call Senator Jessop.
– Thank you, Mr President.
– I rise to order. I had directed a question to the Attorney-General. Points of order were raised against the Attorney-General’s answer. He was interrupted in the course of his answer. The points of order were not upheld by you, Mr President. I say with respect that the Attorney-General should be entitled to continue his answer.
– I call Senator Murphy.
-Thank you, Mr President.
– Order ! I would ask the Senate to come to order. Senators are seeking to ask questions and we want to proceed with our business.
– I was asked the value of the continuance of the Convention. I must say that the way in which some of the operations of the Convention were conducted were not such as to induce in one a feeling that it would be very helpful in solving the constitutional problems. I would hope that one of the things which was done would not be repeated when the Convention resumes- if ever we get past the obstruction of the Opposition. That is to say I would hope we could have decisions made without the use of numbers. The Australian Parliament sent a delegation which was only slight in comparison with the total delegation from the States. It could probably have had higher numbers if it sought them but it deliberately did not seek to have a very large delegation because it was hoped that the Convention would not operate on the basis of using sheer numbers, especially in the committees.
– There was never a division in last year’s Convention, and you know there was not.
-I am talking about the committees. In some of the committees, particularly in one with which I was associated, it became obvious to everyone that what was thought to be a consensus operation was breaking down completely. That has cast a very severe shadow on the prospects of the Convention. But first I would think one would have to get past -
– The pigheadness of the Prime Minister.
-The pigheadness of the Opposition in this Senate. We would hope to induce the Opposition to accept the reasonable proposals which were made by the Government and accepted by the House of Representatives but which have proved to be utterly unacceptable to the Opposition here.
– I rise to order. I take this point of order because I am sick and tired of the way in which question time in the Senate is being debased. I am going to continue taking points of order until the narcotic influence of power is exorcised from the minds of the Government Leader and other Ministers. I direct your attention, Mr President, to standing order 100. I wish, Mr President, if you have any influence on the Leader of the Government in the Senate, that you would direct his attention to standing order 100. I will read it so that it will have the additional emphasis, not only of my reading it, but of your authority, Mr President. Standing order 100 states:
In answering any such Question, a Senator shall not debate the matter to which the same refers.
The Government Leader constantly debates the question. I ask you to uphold that Standing Order.
- Mr President, I rise to order. I support what Senator Sir Magnus Cormack has said. I sensed in the course of what Senator Murphy was saying that a point of order comparable to the point of order I had taken earlier could have been raised again, that is, that an opinion was being expressed. I need refer to only one expression which the honourable senator used- ‘the pig-headedness of the Opposition’. That is not an answering phrase; that is a debating phrase. I am sure that it is that type of response about which Senator Sir Magnus Cormack is concerned. I submit that the Standing Orders have to be upheld during question time otherwise there will be a continuance of points of order being taken and a desire on the part of members of the Opposition to have their debating points made alongside the debating points which Government senators are making. Of course, that is not what question time is all about.
- Mr President, I wish to speak to the point of order. If honourable senators were listening they would know that the expression ‘the pig-headedness of the Opposition’ which was used by me was quite obviously used in response to an interjection by the Leader of the Opposition who used the expression ‘the pigheadedness of the Prime Minister’. If these points of order are to be raised under the Standing Orders in regard to questions, it should be remembered that by long-standing tradition of the Senate, the Standing Orders have been applied in a liberal fashion. It is just laughable for the suggestions to be made that questions cannot be answered in the way they are being answered today. I suggest that if honourable senators were serious in wanting a strict instead of wide interpretation of these rules, it would mean that virtually no questions of the type that are being asked, including questions from the Opposition, would be permitted and almost every question would be ruled out of order. It seems to me that it would be much better either for the Opposition to want some change in the long-standing practice in the Senate and to seek an amendment to the Standing Orders or, if it does not want that, to just relax and let us get on with our question time in the usual way.
- Mr President, I rise to order. Opposition senators can stand a fair bit, but we do not want this sort of lecturing from the Leader of the Government in the Senate. It has been so obvious to any unbiased observer in the Senate like myself that Government senators have been trotting up not only the normal type of Dorothy Dix questions but also outrageous Dorothy Dix questions. Ministers have been using question time in lieu of making ministerial statements by leave. This is what has caused the bubble to burst today. Mr President, I put to you as a point of order that the semantic nonsense which has been indulged in for years that the Senate runs its affairs according to practice and not according to the Standing Orders should not continue. Perhaps we ought to go back a little to the Standing Orders. I for one do not resile from the fact that perhaps you, Sir, ought to be stricter on the type of questions that you allow. That would apply to both sides of the Senate chamber. The corollary to that would be that you apply standing order 100 also. We have had no trouble with question time in the Senate for a long time until quite obviously Government senators, with the support of their Ministers or by some sort of arrangement between them, have embarked upon this course of using question time to make ministerial statements.
– I state, in reply to the points of order that have been taken, that the Chair also does not need any lecturing. I assure honourable senators that the Chair looks upon honourable senators as being reasonable people who allow the business of the Senate to flow. But if honourable senators require stricter interpretations of the Standing Orders, they can be assured that the Chair will apply stricter interpretations. So I will allow matters to proceed for a little while to show honourable senators how the Senate’s business can be obstructed by strictly adhering to the Standing Orders. If that is the way honourable senators want it, that is the way we will have it.
page 2123
– I direct a question to the Postmaster-General-
– Order! There is too much audible conversation. Will honourable senators please resume their seats. I call Senator Guilfoyle.
– My question to the Postmaster-General-
– Order! Interjections are highly disorderly. I call Senator Guilfoyle.
– I refer to the Government’s recent policy to abolish licence fees for radio and television services. I contrast this with the-
– I rise to order. The honourable senator asks a question now concerning policy. It is my understanding that under the Standing Orders no question shall be asked seeking elucidation of any point of policy. Let us have the Standing Orders right out.
- Senator Guilfoyle has posed a question to the Minister and he will decide whether it is on a matter of policy or not. I leave it to the Minister. I call Senator Guilfoyle.
– I will continue, Mr President.
– I raise a further point of order. The matter which Senator Guilfoyle has raised refers to a debate which has taken place in this session of the Parliament and is therefore out of order.
– I ask Senator Guilfoyle to refrain from referring in her question to a previous debate.
– I will rephrase the question I had desired to ask the PostmasterGeneral. Is the Government aware that the policy to increase by 100 per cent the licence fee which has to be paid by amateur radio operators will disadvantage voluntary organisations such as the Surf Life Saving Association of Australia and the Volunteer Coastal Patrol which provide services to the community?
-I will look into the honourable senator’s question. The legislation which we passed increased those fees. The fees had been very small and the increases were generally accepted. As far as I am aware the exemptions which applied before still apply. I will look into the matter for the honourable senator and let her know the position.
page 2123
– Is the Minister for Foreign Affairs aware that last night Mr BjelkePetersen introduced into the Queensland Parliament a Bill to set up a treaties commission? Is it the aim of the Bill, under the guise of examining Australia’s treaties and relations with other countries, to allow the creation of a Queensland foreign service? Can the Minister say whether this commission, because of the provisions of the Australian Constitution, would really only have the power only to draw salaries and incur large costs at the expense of the Queensland taxpayer?
– It seems clear from the reports that I have received that Mr BjelkePetersen’s proposed treaties commission is a quite futile undertaking. He could easily have saved the Queensland taxpayers an estimated half a million dollars a year- I understand this is what the exercise is likely to cost- by going to any Australian Information Service bookshop and purchasing a copy of a book called ‘The Australian Constitution’ for 55c. That would make it quite clear that under section 5 1 matters in relation to other countries are the exclusive province of the Federal Government.
page 2124
-I ask the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation -
– I hope it is in order.
-I think you will find it is. I have had several inquiries recently about the progress of the Toose inquiry into repatriation. Can the Minister say whether the report has been completed and when he will be able to table it in the Senate?
-The question which Senator Jessop asks has been asked by a number of people. Mr Justice Toose has certainly been making a most thorough inquiry into the repatriation system since the previous Government appointed him. My last correspondence with His Honour was to the effect that the Government would like to have a report by the end of March next year. Mr Justice Toose has undertaken to provide it. I can only assume from this that his report is near completion and I am sure that all of us will be very interested to see this report when it is presented.
page 2124
-I ask the AttorneyGeneral: Is he aware of reports in today’s Press alleging that the Commonwealth Police Force has refused to co-operate with security protective arrangements for the visit by Prime Minister Tanaka? If so, is there any substance in the report?
– During all visits by dignitaries there is close co-operation between the police and the security authorities of the governments concerned to ensure the safety of the visitors. That course has applied in this case. Commonwealth police and other Australian authorities have co-operated fully in all the arrangements. Japanese authorities, including the visiting Japanese security experts, have not indicated any dissatisfaction with the arrangments that have been made. The Australian authorities consider that the security arrangements are both thorough and appropriate. As a result of the Press reports this morning an official of the Japanese Embassy has informed officials of the Australian Government that the reports in the Press do not reflect their views and are, to his knowledge, groundless.
page 2124
– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, in the absence of Senator Cavanagh. I ask: Is the Minister aware that some Aboriginal members of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs were not at work today? Is the Minister aware of rumours around Parliament House- if so, can he verify them- that there has been a lockout of those Aboriginal employees from that Department?
-The answer to those 2 questions is: No, I am not aware of the circumstances. By that I do not mean to convey that whatever the honourable senator is putting is not right. I regret that, representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, I just do not know.
– Could you make some inquiry? It is a matter of some importance.
-I will make some inquiry, but the present position is that I do not know.
page 2124
– Pursuant to section 45 (4) of the Industries Commission Act 1973, 1 present the annual report of the Industries Assistance Commission for the year 1973-74 together with a statement by the Prime Minister on that report.
Pursuant to section 45 (5) of the abovementioned Act, I also present a statement outlining the action taken during the year 1973-74 on reports made to the Prime Minister.
page 2124
– For the information of honourable senators I present the annual report of the Australian Fire Board for the year ended 30 June 1974.
page 2124
Senator BISHOP (South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral) Pursuant to section 53 of the Overseas Telecommunications Act 1946-1973, I present the annual report of the Overseas Telecommunications Commission for the year ended 31 March 1974 together with financial statements and the Auditor-General’s report on those statements.
page 2124
– In accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1 969- 1 974, 1 present the reports relating to the following proposed works:
Australian Radiation Laboratory at Yallambie, Victoria.
Animal Health Laboratory at Geelong, Victoria.
page 2125
Assent reported.
page 2125
Debate resumed from 23 October on motion by Senator Wheeldon:
That the Bill be now read a second time.
– I ask leave to take the Seamen’s Compensation Bill and the Compensation (Australian Government Employees) Bill together.
-Is leave granted? There being no dissent, leave is granted.
– The purpose of the Compensation (Australian Government Employees) Bill is to provide increases in benefits payable and to provide workers compensation for employees of the Australian Government and its statutory authorities. The Act provides for employees injured on or after 2 November 1972 to receive weekly compensation payments equal to their normal full sick pay rate during the first 26 weeks of total incapacity for work. However, for the long-term cases where the injury was sustained prior to 2 November 1972 or for cases where the injury was sustained on or after the date and the total incapacity has exceeded 26 weeks, the compensation is based on fixed weekly rates as specified in the Act. It is with those fixed weekly rates that we have a problem. The Minister for Repatriation and Compensation (Senator Wheeldon) has now brought in this Bill which will increase the specified rates in the Act. In this Bill the weekly compensation for a totally incapacitated employee without dependants will be increased from $43 to $57 a week. There will be other increases for the dependent spouse and for each dependent child. There will be other increases in what we call the lump sum payment to the dependants of the employee. It will be increased from $14,500 to $20,000. Funeral expenses will be increased from $300 to $450. The Opposition Parties support these increases. Honourable senators on this side of the chamber believe that it is only right that they should be brought into line with increased wages and so on.
Let me make a few points. This particular piece of legislation has a long history. In the debate in the House of Representatives in October 1972 the spokesman for the Australian Labor Party Opposition, Mr Clyde Cameron, moved a number of amendments during the Committee stage of the Bill by which he tried to work into the legislation the Labor Party’s objectives regarding compensation. Although he was not successful, he indicated at that time that, if the Labor Party were successful in the December 1972 election, he would bring before the Parliament shortly after it resumed a Bill to increase the rates of benefit in the compensation Act and would try to work into the new Bill the objectives of the Labor Party. Following the election and Mr Clyde Cameron’s taking over the portfolio of Labor, he introduced a Bill in April 1973 incorporating many of the benefits about which he had spoken. At the time that that legislation went through both Houses of Parliament in 1972 both Mr Clyde Cameron and Senator Bishop, who were the spokesmen for the Labor Party at that time, indicated that that particular piece of compensation legislation was the most up-to-date legislation in that form available in Australia at that time.
In 1973 the Cameron legislation, if we can call it that, went through the House of Representatives where the Government had the numbers. It came into the Senate on 12 April and was debated. During the course of the debate the legislation was referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs for examination and report. It will be recalled that at that time the Opposition stated quite clearly that some of the benefits in the legislation were too far-reaching, particularly the benefit which provided that on death the dependant of the employee would get weekly compensation at the rate the employee was getting at the time of his death. This would go on until the end of the life of the spouse.
When the report was brought down by the Committee the Bill was further debated. Then it was deferred. As honourable senators know, the Parliament was prorogued and the legislation disappeared from the notice paper. The Government did not see fit to bring that legislation back. I note that the new Minister for Repatriation and Compensation has decided, or the Government has decided through him, not to pursue that legislation. So that leaves a blank in that area. I think, looking back, that it proves quite conclusively, particularly when one looks at the Woodhouse report on compensation, that the Senate at that time did the right thing. I know that the Government was incensed that this legislation was put aside at that time, but looking back I believe that the compensation benefits advocated at that time were too liberal, particularly in comparison with those suggested in the Woodhouse report. This legislation now brings the compensation more into line with the Woodhouse report. The Minister tried to cover this matter in his second reading speech. I had the idea that he was more or less pointing the finger at the Opposition Parties and saying: ‘You should have passed it’.
I am just reminding the Minister of the background to this point. This is not the only time that the Senate has put back legislation for a committee to look at it. We did the same thing with the Trade Practices Bill. It was put aside, much to the disgust of the Attorney-General (Senator Murphy) at the time, but when he brought the Bill back into the Senate he, as representative of the Government, had 109 amendments to it. Then when the Parliament was prorogued for the double dissolution the Bill again went off the notice paper. When the Attorney-General brought the Bill back for debate there were a further 24 amendments to it. I think it does us good to look back over some of these pieces of legislation and not to be too hasty with them. In this case I believe we did the right thing. All that the Seamen’s Compensation Bill does is to bring the monetary payments to seamen and their dependants into line with the Compensation (Australian Government Employees) Bill. The Opposition does not oppose these 2 Bills. We wish them a speedy passage through the Senate. (Quorum formed.)
– in reply- Thank you, Mr President, for summoning honourable senators to hear what I have to say, but I am afraid that they will not find it terribly interesting.
– Give a few deathless phrases.
– It would be rather difficult to give too many deathless phrases on the topic which is now before us. I appreciate the co-operation of the Opposition in giving a speedy passage to both the Compensation (Australian Government Employees) Bill and the Seamen’s Compensation Bill which Senator DrakeBrockman quite correctly has taken together. Certainly I agree with all that he has said in his remarks during the second reading debate of the Bills. Although I am one of those who believe that there are occasions when the Senate is obstructive, I do not believe that the approach which the Senate took to the Compensation (Commonwealth Employees) Bill is an example of the Senate’s being obstructive. At that time I was a member of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs to which the Bill was referred although, as it happened, the time of the Parliament ran out before that Committee had completed its inquiries into the Bill. I agree that there were a number of matters which were deserving of some amendment if the Bill was to become law. I think that both Bills which we have before us at the present time are somewhat unsatisfactory. They are stop-gap measures. Certainly, if it were not for another proposal which is at present before the Parliament a great deal more would have been done by way of amendment to the law relating to seamen’s compensation and to the provisions which are contained in the Compensation (Australian Government Employees) Bill which is now before the Senate cognately with the Seamen’s Compensation Bill.
All that these Bills do, apart from one or two minor procedural amendments, is to make somewhat more adequate the compensation payments which are available to injured and disabled persons, bringing those payments rather more into line with present-day costs and wages than are the amounts prescribed under the present Act. I agree with Senator DrakeBrockman that this is a complex question. I think he knows that on another matter related to compensation the Government has taken the position that there should be inquiries by the same Senate Committee as that to which he has referred. To conclude, all I do is repeat that I would not wish the Senate or anybody else to think that anything very significant is accomplished by the passage of these Bills. They are stop-gap measures. A number of people in trade unions and elsewhere are far from satisfied with the provisions which are contained in these Bills. At least up to a point they bring up to date the provisions under the existing law so far as weekly and lump sum payments are concerned. I thank Senator Drake-Brockman for his assistance. I assure him that in my second reading speech I was not intending in any way to reflect on the Opposition with regard to the previous history of this matter. I commend the Bills to the Senate.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.
page 2127
– I draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the gallery of a Pakistani parliamentary delegation of senators and members of the National Assembly led by the Honourable Sahibzada Farooq Ali, the Speaker of the National Assembly. On behalf of honourable senators I extend to members of the delegation a warm welcome and hope that their stay in Australia is a pleasant one.
Honourable senators- Hear, hear!
page 2127
Debate resumed from 23 October on motion by Senator Wheeldon:
That the Bill be now read a second time.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.
page 2127
Debate resumed from 22 October on motion by Senator Douglas McClelland:
That the Bill be now read a second time.
- Mr President, the Senate is resuming the debate on the Australian Development Assistance Agency Bill. As the Minister for the Media (Senator Douglas McClelland) said in his second reading speech, the Bill was passed by the House of Representatives in the last Parliament. I think that we are all aware that it was the subject of some questions during the Estimates Committee examination of the Department of Foreign Affairs. In reply to my question during those hearings the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Willesee) indicated something of the nature of the Bill and the reasons for submitting the Bill and establishing the agency.
The Minister for the Media introduced the Australian Development Assistance Agency Bill and delivered his second reading speech. During the course of his second reading speech he pointed out that the purpose of the Bill was to establish an Australian Development Assistance Agency to administer the provision by Australia of aid for developing countries and to advise the Minister and the Government on matters relating to aid. He also indicated to us that the Minister for Foreign Affairs would be responsible for the Agency. He said also that in his view it was gratifying to note that the Bill received the support of both sides of the House and more generally in the community. It is true to say that the Bill is receiving the support of this side of the chamber. Such a Bill and such an Agency would have a certain amount of attraction for those people in our community who think about international aid at all. I think it should be pointed out to the Minister that, while there is acceptance of the Bill, there is also a considerable amount of questioning, a considerable amount of doubt and, perhaps even in some quarters, a little disquiet in relation to the establishment of such an Agency.
During the course of his speech the Minister advised that the Government had decided that some improvement should be effected in almost all aspects of its aid program- in the machinery for formulating policy, in ensuring greater attention to the welfare and distributive effects of Australia’s aid, in evaluating the effectiveness of our various programs, in bringing greater expertise into staffing arrangements and in more directly associating the community with the Government’s aid efforts. That is a very plausible series of phrases. To me it indicates that the Government is entrusting this most vital economic, educational and humanitarian outreach of foreign policy to this Agency. I suppose that the establishment of the Australian Development Assistance Agency is the first major innovation of the Labor Government in the handling of the Australian aid program. It should be emphasised that the aid program evolved during the course of 2 decades of the previous Liberal-Country Party Government.
When we look at the Bill and the functions of the Agency, it is very important that the setting up of the Agency be examined not merely in terms of some changes that might be envisaged or involved but rather in terms of whether the existence of a separate agency will lead to a better projection of the development issue. It is extremely significant to draw attention to this matter because if Australia’s international aid and foreign policy are to have any relationship, one with the other, we need to examine whether the existence of a separate agency will relate to the formulation of Australian foreign policy. This must lead to a more effective implementation of our efforts to come to grips with the most serious issue in international relationships today. We know the problems of underdevelopment. We have referred to them already many times in the Senate. They have been greatly exacerbated by the energy crisis and the deteriorating world monetary situation. Because underdeveloped countries are afflicted with these conditions they deserve a great deal more of our attention.
A structural change in the administration of aid, even if it involves an increase in staff from 145 which was the number of staff of the Office of the Agency, as it was previously called, to the present level of 477, will be of little benefit if it does not result in our gaining a better understanding of the issues of great significance to Australia because we are the only richly developed country located near South and South East Asia. We need to examine the functions of this Agency to see whether it will make for better application of our resources to help deal with this most dangerous and most difficult problem. The Minister’s speech, in which he outlined the function of the Agency, was noted not perhaps for what it said but for some of the things it did not say. The concept of an agency sounds well. The Bill will not be opposed. I have a concern as to how the Agency will work. There are questions in my mind regarding co-ordination, consultation and effectiveness as far as international aid is concerned.
It could be argued that the Agency with its much greater human resources would seem to be in a very much better position to administer our present aid programs and, more especially, our future aid programs, than was its modestly staffed predecessor. But it is not yet clear to me whether the Australian Development Assistance Agency will be able more effectively, as I have said, to project an understanding of developmental issues in their broadest context into our foreign policy formulation. A separate agency has an advantage in that it will undoubtedly enable the appointed director-general to have greater independence of action, and the professional staff which will be attached to him to have wider career and personal opportunity. But I point out that in a large structure- a bureaucratic structure, if you like- a division of responsibility and authority can and sometimes does weaken this co-ordination, co-operation and consultation to which I referred earlier.
I believe that is was clearly necessary to strengthen and promote the level of our aid administration. But I also argue that if the aid branch had been elevated into a division within the Department of Foreign Affairs, as an alternative to the establishment of this Agency about which we are speaking today, this injection of development considerations- and these are the important matters about which we are concerned this afternoon- into the formulation of foreign policy might well have been simpler, easier to administer, and perhaps more effective. The relationship between development assistance and the formulation and sustaining of foreign policy is very important. Of course, there is much more to our foreign relations than involvement in programs of development strategy. Foreign policy, foreign relationship, is a wide ranging discipline and it has many facets to it. But if one takes the long range view I submit to the Senate today that there are few other single issues that are more important or indeed more significant than development aid and other aid in their total dimension and application. So the Agency which is outlined in the Bill takes on a particular relevance and we are concerned with its effectiveness.
I have been interested to study very briefly the experiences of nations with separate aid agencies, such as the the one which we are considering today. Canada is one such country, and Sweden is another. From my general reading of the experiences of those countries, there is a suggestion that the role of these agencies to which I have referred tends to be confined to the administration of aid programs rather than the working out of overall policies of development for and by the countries concerned. The Swedish agency is almost solely concerned with aid administration and with development policies that have been worked out by a development aid section within the Swedish Department of Foreign Affairs and headed by a senior ranking diplomat. It could well be argued- and I would be prepared to accept the fact- that it might suit countries such as Canada and Sweden to work in this way. After all, they are much more remote from the developing areas than is Australia.
For Australia the development question has a regional significance which calls for a greater involvement on our part. Australia is located on the periphery of South Asia and South East Asia, the region where the world’s greatest area of need exists, where the greatest concentration of population is and where there are the most complex development problems of any part of the world. These problems are serious and unfortunately they grow worse every day. What is more, it is pertinent to observe that Asian nations on the whole are more conscious of Australia’s proximity and relationship. They are conscious of our prosperity and our well-being and people from many of them, as we all know, have seen this at first hand. Asian nations are much more conscious of our conditions than of the conditions in countries that are relatively remote. They are more conscious of our place as a donor country than of the positions of remote donor countries. Asian people undoubtedly see Australia as one whose conditions contrast sharply with their conditions in many respects.
Speaking generally, we could describe ourselves as a prosperous country, while the Asian nations are poor countries. Australia is sparsely populated while many Asian countries are subjected to the most intense pressures that arise from large and fast growing populations. We have the advantage of being rich in food and other resources which most Asian nations sadly lack. The economic difficulties that Australia is undergoing at the present time, serious though they may be, probably attract little sympathy from people in South Asia and South East Asia, most of whom are being forced, as a result of economic difficulties at an international level, to give up absolutely any idea of some slight improvement occurring in their already depressingly low living standards. They can only look forward to the prospect of abject poverty with little hope of any relief. The diminishing hopes of the millions of people in the developing countries present, as the Senate well knows, a fertile ground for discontent and instability.
So if one looks at Australia’s external relations, one sees that the development problem transcends any problems that we might have in State to State relationships. It seems unlikely that we can attain a permanent condition of what I will call regional security until we have come to grips one way or another with this essential issue of the development problems. We have to come to grips with it not as a cause for international charity but as a challenge to Australian diplomacy, ingenuity and compassion. This challenge exists. As I read the Bill and the Minister’s second reading speech I think that the establishment of the Australian Development Assistance Agency will not in itself meet the challenge. Its effectiveness will depend on a number of other factors. It will depend upon Government resolve in this very important area of Government policy. In particular, it will depend upon the Government’s recognition of the fact that considerations of the development issue, as I said earlier, should pervade all of the foreign policy planning.
All of this leads me to contemplate the role and influence of the proposed Agency on our total foreign policy. The Agency is being established as a statutory authority. It will have a certain part to play. It will have certain responsibilities to maintain. It will be responsible to the Minister. Various clauses within the Bill define the Minister’s relationship to the Agency. As the Minister said in his second reading speech, the
Agency will be responsible for giving advice in a wide range of areas. This leads me to inquire as to how far and how influential the Agency will be in formulating the Australian foreign policy program. One area in which it seems that the agency may have some responsibility came up for discussion in the deliberations of Senate Estimates Committee B, and it was raised again during question time this afternoon. It relates to the line in the estimates which refers to the allocation of $150,000 for the liberation movement in Africa. In the reply which the Minister gave in the hearings before the Senate Estimates Committee he pointed out a wide range of activities for which this money was being provided and emphasised that all of these activities were of a humanitarian nature. The Minister was questioned in relation to this, and he repeated that the activities have to be of a humanitarian nature and that the money cannot be used in any way in the struggles of the other side.
The Minister gave further details today in an answer to a question. I acknowledge the details of the Minister’s reply, and certainly I am not one to question the giving of aid, especially when it is for humanitarian purposes. However, I have some doubts and questioning in my mind when sums of money are provided under the terms of international aid and which can be used for what are called national liberation movements which could have a strong relationship with organisations of a terrorist or guerrilla nature. It could well be that national liberation movements of varying kinds arise in our part of the world. A situation acutely difficult for the Australian Government of the day and acutely dangerous for the Australian nation could develop. I suppose it is very proper that we should have measures of concern and sympathy for people in various countries who, for one reason or another, would seem as far as we can interpret it to be under persecution or downtrodden; but I raise in my mind the matter of whether giving aid, however small and symbolic, to organisations that are prepared to use terror for their purposes against a sovereign state, and especially organisations that have international links, might be an ill advised step. An Australian government should give this sort of step very serious consideration before embarking upon it, for once having embarked upon it it is aligning itself with that kind of activity within international affairs and is writing into its foreign policy that kind of procedure and behaviour.
What is the relationship of the new agency to steps of this kind, for the $150,000 set out in Budget Paper No. 9 is a program of aid? Will the new agency when it is established recommend to the Minister of the day that aid be given to liberation movements in this, that or another country? What will be the response of the Minister? Will the Minister invite the agency to undertake research or inquiry into various countries where he feels that there might be some national liberation movement which is in sympathy with the government’s various political philosophies and then decide to give it some aid for what might be called humanitarian purposes but without too much difficulty can be related, one way or another, to purposes with which the Australian community may have some serious disagreement? These problems arise in my mind as I survey the Bill and the Minister’s second reading speech. In the nature of politics, international aid and Australian aid programs there is a practical limit to the resources that Australia can place at the disposal of developing countries. One cannot question the priority order of our present level of aid. Clearly we have a responsibility to Papua New Guinea and our present level of assistance there must continue for some time. As I indicated earlier, because of our geographic situation much of our development assistance and of our foreign policy relations through development assistance must be concentrated on our near Asian and Pacific neighbours. But the matter of actual aid giving is only one facet of the development problem. Other areas in which we in Australia can play a part include the search for better regional security so that the developing countries can spend less as costly defence expenditure.
It is generally acknowledged that the success of development plans depends in the final analysis on the developing nations themselves. It is true that we receive in this country a great deal of comment from the citizens to the effect that a lot of effort and money is dissipated in most developing countries. There are charges of corruption and weakness within their structure of administration and these are unpleasant facts which I fear, for the present, we must accept because they are in themselves symptoms of underdeveloped countries. While on the one hand we could press for the most effective use of our development assistance we need to recognise that by the very nature of the problem some loss and some problems are inevitable. This highlights again the responsibility of the agency which is the subject of the Bill today. It has had the vitally important task of looking very seriously at projects and limiting the loss as much as possible.
However, I think we have to recognise that this is one of the hazards of our involvement as a donor nation and as a nation of some affluence which is placed alongside countries in very real need. There will be some loss and some maladministration of which we do not approve and it must be the constant resolve of the agency to establish such facilities as will provide for better administration of the funds sent to receiving countries. Edwin Martin, former Chairman of the Development Assistance Committee of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, is a man who devoted a great number of years and talents to the matter of development co-operation. He has been quoted many times in relation to this matter. A few months ago he said:
The lack of full commitment to development co-operation represents, in my view, the real and critical crisis of development, though one not widely accepted as such in developed countries. If we are to have any hope of building a world in which lack of resources does not prevent any person from having a decent minimum of opportunities, we must all give development a higher priority. Donors must make more aid available and a more flexible criteria and they must take bold initiatives with respect to trade opportunities.
Another person involved in the international aid situation is Robert McNamara. In speaking to the World Bank Group only a month ago, referring to the responsibility of the affluent countries, he said:
The basic problem, then, is a philosophical one- a problem of values. Will 1974 be best represented as the year that prices exploded? Or will it, perhaps, be better remembered in the longer perspective of history as the year when the word ‘interdependent’ stopped being rhetoric and started being reality? One thing is certain: the development task has not diminished. It has only become more urgent. The responsiblity of us all is to get on with it.
I hope that the agency which is the subject of the Bill brought forward by the Government today will get on with it and will through its own departments and instrumentalities make an opportunity for Australia to play a better and more effective part in the total development of the world that is immediately around us. While the Government can and must do a great deal in the field of international aid it must never lose sight of the fact that a vast sum of money goes every year in international aid from the voluntary agencies. While the Bill may make provision for representatives of voluntary agencies on the board I hope that the agency in its examination of Australia’s resources which can be applied to international aid will report to the Minister on the work of the voluntary organisations and on the sacrifices of a great number of people in a wide range of organisations, including churches. I hope that the Minister will persuade the Government to provide a greater opportunity and incentive for more people to have this kind of involvement. In speaking on another Bill of this kind a couple of weeks ago I drew attention to the importance of creating a community awareness of this very important and urgent but difficult area of government and international operations. If foreign policy is to be anything at all, the matter of international development must project itself into foreign policy.
Though I support the Bill and commend it, I ask the Minister and the Government to take into account the fact that there are doubts in the minds of people, there are unanswered questions in the Bill and there is the relationship between aid and foreign policy. If aid is to be any success at all, the Government must take into account the national reaction to its foreign policy. I hope that the Agency will not become top heavy, that it will not be weighted down with a great Public Service, so that its movement and its operations are choked. I hope that it will not only provide for the receiving nations greater opportunities but also provide an awareness for the Australian people of the opportunities we have and the responsibilities we hold.
-I do not intend to speak at any length on this Bill. The views that I express are also the views of my colleagues in the Australian Country Party. Whilst the Opposition is not opposing this legislation I, for my part, do not commend it. No justification is given in the second reading speech for removing aid from the Department of Foreign Affairs. The increase in the volume and complexity of aid is no excuse for setting up a new agency. After all, as my collague, Senator Davidson, pointed out, aid and foreign policy have very close relationship. Personally I believe that that close relationship is best served by aid being handled by a branch of the Department of Foreign Affairs. It may be that the office now administering foreign aid required some expansion to be more effective. I ascertained during the examination of the estimates for the Department of Foreign Affairs that the office administering aid had a staff of some 145 people. In my view they were very effective, and I repeat that I do not deny that maybe there was an argument for increasing that staffing. But I find that the new Agency has a staff of some 477 people. Although I admit that I was delighted that the Agency has the new responsibility of Papua New Guinea added to the responsibilities of the former aid office, I find it hard to justify this very significant increase in staff.
I would like some intimation from the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Willesee) as to the appointments to senior positions. How many more senior positions at the moment have been created or have to be filled, and what staff will be required to service those positions? I also worry about and would like some assurances from the Minister in relation to aid conferences overseas. Are we to find that, whereas in the past many of the conferences overseas on aid were attended by staff from our embassies overseas, we are now to have the added expense of people from Australia going to these conferences in great numbers and thus ignoring the people on the spot who, in my view, have been in the past, certainly are now, and will be in the future quite capable of representing Australia? In other words, I would like some assurances from the Minister that we are not building a huge bureaucratic machine which adds very greatly to the administrative costs of our aid programs. These are some of the points that I would make in relation to the establishment of this Agency.
I would like some very complete assurances, despite the assurance we are given in the Minister’s second reading speech, that there will be a very close liaison between the Agency and the Department of Foreign Affairs. I have a healthy suspicion of inter-departmental committees and other such committees. People who are appointed to departmental committees are very busy with their own responsibilities and their duties on these committees become a sort of part time responsibility. If there is any breakdown in liaison I feel that the value of our aid will be affected. I am pleased to have the assurance that there will be a critical analysis and evaluation of our aid program. The Minister will remember that I raised this matter at the Estimates Committee’s hearing. I am pleased to have this assurance and I hope that it will be a critical analysis and evaluation as to the effectiveness of our aid, including our aid given through United Nations agencies. I always have a nasty suspicion that the bureaucratic nature- the top heavy administrationof the United Nations results in a lot of aid going in administrative expenses instead of going to the people whom we are aiming to help. So I would like some assurances from the Minister in relation to this matter. He need not necessarily give them now but perhaps he could do so during the debate on the Appropriation Bill when some of these matters could be raised again.
After all, it is not how much is spent on aid which is important; it is the effectivenes of the aid. It is all very well to say that we should spend a certain percentage of” our gross national product- we could all spend money ad infinitum. But surely the important criterion is how effectively the money is used. I believe that we have a pretty good record in relation to the effectiveness of our aid. I believe that we should concentrate on providing assistance to those areas in which we are most effective. I refer to such areas as the provision of technical and managerial skills in underdeveloped countries to help to provide an infrastructure. While we all accept the need for humanitarian aid to be given to Bangladesh, India and other countries suffering from these tremendous human problems, I believe that we should be having a very close look at providing the sort of aid also which will help these countries to help themselves. We could pour in year after year humanitarian aid, but unless we provide aid in the form of fertiliser plants and assistance in the proper use of fertiliser in order to help them build up their own agriculture so that they are better able to feed themselves, it becomes a sort of bottomless pit. I think that we, in conjunction with other countries, should be having a very close look at helping these countries to help themselves to a far greater extent than I believe is often the case.
As I said, I wish to speak only very briefly on this Bill. However, I wish to say that we in the Opposition will be having a very critical look at the new Agency and will be making a critical analysis of its effectiveness and its administrative costs. I wish also to make a comment on this question of aid to national liberation movements. I accept the Minister’s statement that the Agency will be used to provide humanitarian aid to refugees, but I merely wish at this stage to raise one query which is in my mind. Of course, it is very difficult to distinguish between genuine refugees and terrorists. We know of the experience in Lebanon, where terrorists live in refugee camps and operate from refuge camps. It is all very well to express sympathy for the aims of some of these liberation movements. I wonder whether we would have the same sympathy if they were acting against us. This could well be the case at some future date.
Despite the fact that aid is to be given through multi-lateral agencies and through the United Nations, it does not fill me with a great deal of confidence. Nevertheless, I would like assurances that we are going to be very careful that we do not give direct aid, in whatever form, to people engaged in acts of terrorism. It is all very well for us in this place to deplore, as we do, acts of terrorism by some people in our country, as was discussed today. But unless we are to have double standards we should equally deplore acts of terrorism by anybody regardless of the sympathy which people may have for a particular cause. I am still far from satisfied that this aid will not be used to assist any terrorist activities. If it is to be used purely for humanitarian purposes to assist refugees, then we have great sympathy with it. But I do seek some assurance that this aid, by whatever means it is to be given, will be controlled to the extent of ensuring that it is not directly assisting terrorist activities.
One could discuss the philosophy of aid and many other matters. I think those are matters which should be discussed at some time but I do not think this is the moment to discuss it. Therefore, while we do not oppose this legislation we will certainly be keeping a very critical eye on the administration of the new statutory authority that is being formed.
– in replyFirst, may I thank the Opposition, particularly Senator Davidson and Senator Sim for their remarks. I have already apologised to Senator Davidson, and I now apologise to Senator Sim, because I was not here to listen to all their remarks. I had an appointment with the Pakistani group. I could not foretell this morning that we were going to have 54 petitions to the Senate. It threw out my timetable a little but I do apologise to both honourable senators. Let me say that I appreciate their remarks very much. I feel that both honourable senators highlighted the attitude of the Australian people towards aid.
One of the great things, I think, about our aid program- going back before we were in governmentis that the Australian people have never begrudged the amounts of money that we have given for aid. But they have been critical, saying that we were not doing enough in some areas. That is a very human and understanding attitude because when they go overseas they see the problem. They are decent people and they are worried about it. They come back and say: ‘Why does not the Government do something?’ One of the things they often ask is why does not the Government do something specific in which they are prepared to help. The problem there is that we must first find out what the government of the country concerned wants.
I remember on one occasion I was very impressed with what was put to me by a doctor who had a complete proposal on what could be done by setting up a hospital. He had already been in touch with doctors skilled in that section of science and medicine. I was most impressed with his proposal. Even though it was a little outside our bailiwick I thought it was a good idea and wanted the Government to do something about it. The outcome was that the government of that country was not interested and that was the end of the matter. I just give that as one example. I am sure both Senator Davidson and Senator Sim have struck this. We can go along the track with people who want to do things but the problem is getting the aid across to people at the other end. I have been supplied with notes about what Senator Davidson was saying and I think he is completely right when he refers to the challenge of the development issue. This is one of the reasons that this body is being set up.
I understand, before I came into the chamber, that Senator Sim queried whether this body should be part of the Department of Foreign Affairs or whether it should be a statutory body. I think that is a conflict that will go on forever. Quite frankly, I do not know whether statutory bodies are the best way to administer a government function. I think in some ways they are but in other ways they are not. The Post Office is about to become a statutory body. It has been talked about for as long as I can remember. There has been an inquiry into whether the Post Office should become a statutory body and the Government has accepted the recommendations of that inquiry and the Post Office will become a statutory body. There is always this conflict.
On the question of liaison, I think Senator Sim put his finger on what is probably the crux of the whole matter: How to make this body efficient, how liaison will work to give effect to what the Commonwealth Government wants- whatever Party may form the Government from time to time- and where our aid is to be given. We just cannot give all the aid that we want to give unfortunately. The Government has examined this matter closely. I have had talks with the head of the Canadian statutory body before this Bill was introduced to set up this authority. We had long talks about the matter. I asked Mr Loveday, of my Department, to go from Paris on one occasion when we were at the Development Assistance Committee section of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, examining this matter to have talks about this special problem. The problems appeared to us to be manageable. The Canadian authority felt that somewhere down the line we would always find conflicts- as it had found- not only between the Department of Foreign Affairs and the body distributing aid but also with some of the other departments. This will need proper administration from the top to iron the problems out and keep them at a minimum. I suppose we have to live with these bureaucratic things all our lives. We just have to minimise the problems as much as we possibly can.
The question of effectiveness of the Agency was raised. This is the reason we are setting the Agency up in this way. It has been rightly said that it is not only the amount of aid which is important but it is the effectiveness of aid. I always think that we have just got to make sure that we get the greatest value for our dollar that we possibly can. The idea of setting up a special body of people is so that they can develop an expertise in this field, and concentrate on it over the years so that they will know how to apply policies better than any other department. That is the idea of establishing a statutory body. That is the aim the Government is hoping to achieve.
Over the years there have been changes in aid. We are looking more at the question now, when we project aid into a country, of ensuring that the aid employs a lot of people, particularly in agriculture. I have had long talks in the last couple of days with the Minister for Agriculture (Senator Wriedt), the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Overseas Trade (Dr J. F. Cairns) and the Treasurer (Mr Crean) because Senator Wriedt will attend next week what may be a very momentous conference- the World Food Conference in Rome. This matter received a lot of impetus last year at the United Nations. It was suggested by President Boumedienne of Algeria. At about the same time Dr Kissinger spoke on this matter. We ourselves raised this question in my speech to the United Nations and said that this was the sort of thing that we thought should be done.
Australia is one of the big food producing nations of the world. I am sure, out of the conference which Senator Wriedt is attending, will come forward planning for the planting of crops and this type of thing. At the same time other countries that cannot produce food have to weigh in on their side of it. Maybe countries which have a lot of ships may be able to help us with freight. Because of an initiative taken recently by the Government we have already attracted some help in this regard. The country to which I am referring cannot produce food but it can help Australia with the shipping. Australia, being where it is, has to spend a lot of money to freight foodstuffs. The Ethiopian situation is one I refer to particularly because not only did we have to get the wheat there but also we had to bag it to get it up into the area from which it could be distributed. Of course, this becomes tremendously expensive. It breaks one’s heart when one compares the amount originally allocated with the final cost. One’s heart starts to sink.
The question was raised of humanitarian aid to refugees. I answered a question on that matter today and Senator Sim and I had quite a talk about it on an estimates committee. I share his views on this matter. I would emphasise that the Cabinet decision is that this aid is for humanitarian purposes only. So, it is done by the direction of the Cabinet. If I go outside that, I am putting my head on the block. I do not want to put my head on the block and I would not want to see it happen anyway. The fact is that people have flown across borders because of the problems in places like Mozambique, Namibia, and Rhodesia where the fighting is going on. There is a flood of people from such countries who have settled in other areas. There has been a big influx recently since the fighting finished in Namibia. I do not know why some of the people have gone back into Mozambique. There was a big influx of people from Namibia into Zambia and Tanzania. Now the people are going back on the other side.
As I said today, our Ambassador from Dares Salaam is going to look at the situation. I like to get information from Australians and from people who are paid to do this job for us. This Bill is for humanitarian aid. It results from the unfortunate wars that have been going on and aid will be going to people who are indeed in very dire straits. So, there is no great argument about the setting up of this Agency. I am glad that Senator Davidson and Senator Sim have spoken of keeping a critical eye on this. I hope that they do. We are going to have, as honourable senators are aware, a body of outside people who will keep in touch with this matter. Those people will change from time to time and they will come from all sections of the community. The more constructive criticism the Government receives in relation to this matter the better it will be. It is always very easy to make destructive criticism. For instance, one could look at the figures for aid and say that they have dropped this September as against last September. Of course this happens because it is only at the end of the year that we can really see the amount of money that we have spent. Australia has a very proud record in the field of aid. I want to see it maintained. Last year we were fourth in the world on the criteria that the OECD applies to this. It is a proud position to be in.
I just want to make one other personal observation on this matter. Although we talk about aid being .07 per cent of the gross national product this, like all figures, can be distorted. If the gross national product is racing away, it makes it very much harder to keep expenditure at .07 per cent of the gross national product. The United States of America, with its tremendous and rising gross national product, does not get near that figure of 07 per cent. Nobody would suggest that the United States of America does not really pull its weight in regard to foreign aid. It would be a funny-looking aid program without the amounts of money that America puts into it. We always have to keep this matter in perspective. Although we hope to increase Australia’s amount of foreign aid in this decade to .7 per cent of our gross national product, nevertheless .7 per cent of Australia’s gross national product is not like .5 per cent of the American gross national product. In all these things, people often seem to think that we are the only country giving aid in an area whereas, of course, we are only one of the many countries.
The personal observation I want to make is that I do not think there is anything magical about the level of aid being .7 per cent of gross national product. Very probably, it is the lowest common denominator that was reached at an international level. I think that in the world in which we live it is little enough to expect that all countries should reach towards that level of aid. I thank the Opposition very much for its support.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time.
In Committee
The Bill.
– I direct the attention of the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Willesee) to clause 5(a) of the Bill largely for the purpose of asking him a question. I come back to the matter that we have discussed this afternoon and to the line which appears in Budget Paper No. 9 ‘Humanitarian Assistance to National Liberation Movements in Africa- $150,000’. Both during the hearings of the Senate Estimates Committee and during question time today the Minister outlined in detail some of the areas to which this $ 1 50,000 will go. Most of them, if not all, were under the auspices of international organisations that are well known and which are operating in all parts of the world. In that case, can the Minister explain why this money is not allocated specifically by description to, say, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees instead of National Liberation Movements in Africa?
– As the honourable senator knows, this is something new. When it was put before me as a new proposition I realised all the political dangers in listing the expenditure under this heading. But this was an area which had been largely neglected. It is true that those countries I mentioned todaythe Scandinavian countries, etc.- were contributing and had not been neglecting this area. But we want to direct this expenditure specifically to that area. It is only a small part of our whole budget. We are not directing all of the expenditure to that area. It is a question now of the most efficient way to incorporate the safeguards that honourable senators have mentioned today so that this money is spent for humanitarian purposes, and also the administration of it.
This is one of the problems. It arose particularly when we sent food to the Swahilian region during the African drought. It is not sufficient to say that we will send food, maybe made-up food, raw grain or something like that. We cannot have that food distributed at the other end, because we would have to set up a body to do this. In some areas we have been criticised. We have been told that although we get the food to an area, we do not distribute it. Honourable senators have to think about the problem for only a couple of moments to realise that to distribute food in some of the countries as large as the African countries we would need to have a transport system which would waste so much of the money. This is where the international agencies come into the picture in a very big way. As long as we can obtain an assurance that the aid can be distributed in the country concerned, this is what we do.
As I understand the position, we are giving the food or aid to organisations which distribute it around the world. We would be putting money into those organisations in other ways. Really, this small amount is being earmarked for this area. When the aid arrives at the country, there are small organisations such as the South West Africa People’s Organisation which would distribute aid, for instance, to the Namibian people. We have to look at the position to see whether any one of these organisations would not be acting in this way. Frankly, I do not think that that would be the case. Providing that people are starving, want training or hospitalisation, I do not think that we will really worry which organisation assists.
Bill agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.
Bill (on motion by Senator Willesee) read a third time.
page 2135
Debate resumed from 29 October on motion by Senator Murphy:
That the Bill be now read a second time.
-The debate on the Family Law Bill is resumed from last evening. In speaking to the Bill at that time I expressed the view in general terms that the existing matrimonial law is not appropriate to this society nor to this present time. I noted that the problems which occur in cases before the courts are of great disadvantage to the partners to the divorce proceedings. The necessity for fault to be established, the very harming effects of publicity being directed towards the faults of either party and the attitude that must be engendered in the minds of children who are party to a divorce proceeding lead me to believe that the law existing at this time is not necessarily appropriate to this day. I had made the point that no one I have met or with whom I have had discussions at any level believes that the existing law is fully satisfactory. That suggests that some alteration to the law is necessary. I paid a compliment to Senator Murphy last evening for his persistence in pursuing the introduction of a new matrimonial law, which he has called a family law, to the Senate. It has engendered great interest in so many areas throughout the community which are involved in the various problems connected with divorce.
All suggests that a new law is necessary. In that context, I must emphasise very clearly that it is wrong to say that the Senate, at any stage, has held up or delayed legislation. Submissions have been made to me which suggest that this Family Law Bill must not be delayed. Of course, that was the position in 1972 and early 1973 when the Attorney-General (Senator Murphy) first laid down those regulations which were supposed to be essentially to revise family law. Since that time, several Bills have been introduced by the Attorney-General. On each occasion, including this third Bill which we are debating at this time the Attorney-General has found it necessary to upgrade his thoughts and to make quite major changes to the Bill. It is reasonable to point out that even at this time there are many amendments which have been proposed by the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, which had this Bill referred to it for consideration and which did such an excellent job. The Committee has suggested amendments which change many clauses quite considerably. Indeed, I understand that the Attorney-General himself is taking advantage of the opportunity to alter the Bill which he presented originally as the Family Law Bill 1974. One matter of importance in this Bill is found in clause 26 which provides that the one ground for dissolution and nullity of marriage shall be that marriage has broken down irretrievably. The several subclauses of clause 26 speak of the decree of dissolution of marriage not being made if the court is satisfied that there is a reasonable likelihood of cohabitation being resumed. I received a letter from a constituent in my State who asked whether I would take into account his objections to this Bill when deciding how to vote on it. I quote some of his letter in relation to this clause. It states:
The new sole ground for divorce in clause 26 amounts to a unilateral allegation of breakdown. No judge can determine that resumed cohabitation is likely . . .
That is dealt with in clause 26(3). The letter continues: . . in the face of an obdurate petitioner; irretrievability is completely subjective. The allegation is unilateral because it may be made against the will and without the fault of the respondent.
It continues:
I cannot see how the enactment of this clause can be reconciled with any continuing belief in the benefit to the state of stable and continuing marriages. To allow unilateral divorce is to deny the desirability of the institution. To impose divorce on innocent respondents is to deny marriage the validity of a contract- and our society and its preceding civilisations, both in Christian and pre-Christian times, has judged marriage to be a desirable institution and a contract which the States should enforce.
One could readily argue for some time about that clause which is the basis upon which this new family law wishes to upgrade existing matrimonial law. But in speaking in general support of the concept of a new marriage law, I believe that people today expect something entirely different from marriage from tha which was accepted in years gone by. It appears to me that previously the union between partners mainly rested on the institution of marriage. The wife in previous years had a mendicant role. In past times the woman was really the servant of the family. Would it not be that in many instances today that situation still exists? But there is a changing role today, and the woman in the modern household in most instances is being alerted to the possibility of a changed role. Having got over the first flush of marriage and finding herself tied down to the management of a family and faced with many of the problems which go with the haste of life today, such as her partner finding the work in which he is involved a great strain- and there are many parts of marriage which are the cause of frustration- she realises that all this can be avoided under different marital circumstances.
Basically there is a changing role for women today. There is not the requirement that a woman has to serve one or two days a week at the wash tub. The work that a woman has to do in that area today in so many families consists of using a machine which can be left to do the work while she is away on other jobs. Today a third of the work force in Australia i» comprised of women. There must be an ongoing opportunity for women to take a role other than that forced on them in the past when they were tied down to the home. Of course, this new society in which we live is encouraging factors which can lead to a breakdown in a marriage. For instance, there is freedom for the woman and an opportunity for her to get away from the home during the day or mix with society in the evening. This gives her the opportunity to make comparisons with the people that she meets in relation to status, work capacity and the problems with which she is saddled at home. All this means that in today’s society, which we are unable to change, the marriage partnership could well be at risk. That will not be changed in any way by an updated marriage law. The expectation from marriage is different today, but still it is the living together in a married state which is apparently the attraction for most of us. The relationship between man and woman and the development of a home and family still bind us to the best institution there can be for people in our society.
In the law that is proposed there is the idea of marriage counselling for parties that come before the family law court, but that counselling may be applied only to those who are seeking at the court door some change in their marriage status. I put to the Senate that there is a necessity for marriage counselling in different areas. There is marriage guidance on the general problems of living together, the family relationship and sexuality in the community. There is a necessity for that type of counselling in the homes of many married people today. There are people from the lower grades of society, whom many honourable senators would have met, among whom the woman is still the servant within the home and pretty hardly done by by the partner to the marriage, and there is very little hope of her getting away from what she has to put up with. I have mentioned before that in the past 20 years of my life I have had relationships with many families of which one partner at least of the marrige is imprisoned. I have found many situations where unmarried people are involved in great consternation because one partner is still married while the other is single. There are so many relationships where counselling is necessary in the home and I believe , that the marriage guidance councils should be recognised for the benefits that they can give before the marriage reaches the court door.
There is another area of instruction which is necessary and must come through to us forcibly. It is a growing problem. I believe it is necessary that in every school there be some availability of discussion not only in the areas to which we have been alerted but also in respect of sex education, which was mentioned the other night. This matter needs to be extended because obviously discussion on sexual relationships is needed in all schools at the present time. Many young people who come from homes where the problems that I have suggested exist may find that there is a different way of life. They can be encouraged by people who have experience in this way of life.
At present human relationship discussions in schools do not deal with the very problems which are found in marriages and with the general concern that may be felt by either partner as the flush of a new marriage wears off and as both partners must get down to the business of living and the problems of rearing children. Many young people who go astray in the early part of their lives come from homes where the marriage relationship has been broken. There would be a great deal of benefit for the community if at the earliest opportunity the appropriate department -if it did nothing else- instituted some type of course whereby experienced counsellors could be available to conduct classes in every school. I believe that instruction in schools in creative relationships would be a very good thing.
There are many aspects of this Bill to which one can direct one’s attention. I have mentioned the fact that the Bill has changed in its 3 presentations to the Senate. By going through the various clauses one can indicate one’s objections in various areas. Let no one say that this Family Law Bill should be passed through this Senate quickly. Many factors need to be taken into considerationI will deal with them in the Committee stage of the debate- in deciding how one should vote. Let me mention 3 areas. The other night I referred to clause 5 1 of the Bill. It is a matter of concern to me that a Bill should have been introduced which states in relation to maintenance and property, as this measure does in clause 51:
A party to a marriage is liable to maintain the other party, to the extent that the first-mentioned party is reasonably able to do so, if, and only if, that other party is unable to support herself or himself adequately, whether by reason of having the care or control of a child of the marriage who has not attained the age of 1 8 years, or by reason of age or physical or mental incapacity for gainful employment or for any other adequate reason.
The report of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs stated:
The Committee agrees with the general object of the Bill in respect to maintenance where it seeks to encourage the parties to be financially independent. However it recognises that there are 3 shortcomings in the Bill as drafted and it suggests various amendments to meet them. The shortcomings are as follows:
The Bill does not take adequate account of the position of a woman of mature years who, by reason of her marriage, could not reasonably be expected to return to or enter the work force -
I am not satisfied that the Bill covers that situation. I hope that honourable senators will vote for an amendment to clause 5 1. It appears to me to be totally unfair that a woman who may have been married for 30 years without working outside the home could be obliged, if she is healthy and apparently capable of working, to look after herself.
Clause 57 relates to the declaration of interests in property. I disagree with this clause, which says:
Lengthy debate could take place on this clause. The interests of children, particularly those over the age of 1 8 years, are not dealt with.
I direct the attention of the senate to clause 92 which states:
It appears to me that the words I used in the early stage of my speech this afternoon are appropriate. It appears to be entirely unfair that an innocent party, and perhaps one who does not want a divorce, is forced into court by the wishes of the other partner. I do not think the respondent, who has no liability in the matter so far as the court is concerned, should be forced to pay costs, which could be quite considerable even under this Bill. That was one of the main factors that prompted the introduction of new divorce legislation. It is necessary that the view that has been put forward by the Attorney-General, that costs will be much less under this type of law, be followed by the courts. I imagine that in the early years of the courts ‘ establishment either the work of lawyers will proliferate or the possibility of excluding the high cost of legal debate will be discussed. I hope that that is so and I hope that the cost of securing satisfactory relief from a contract which is not desired by either party will be minimal.
In general the Family Law Bill has my support. I intend to vote in favour of its second reading. But I believe that many clauses of the Bill require amendment. I feel that it was unfair of the many people who have sent letters to honourable senators saying that they must not oppose the Family Law Bill, but I feel that in many areas it needs amendment. Indeed the many recommendations which have come forward as a result of the excellent work done by those associated with the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs suggest that a great deal of variation is required to the Family Law Bill which is before the Senate. I wish the Bill well. I envisage that in the future Australia will have the most modern divorce law to be found anywhere in the Western world. I believe that it will be a guideline for other countries. I congratulate the Attorney-General for the introduction of this legislation.
-I rise briefly to support this Bill because I think it is a measure for which we in this country have been looking for a long time. The lawyers have had their say in this debate and their lucidity has painted a very broad picture of a very good measure, but I think that before we finish the debate the point of view of the consumer- the customershould should be put. I am very much in favour of the Bill from that point of view because I think it takes out of divorce the shoddy, dirty aspect, and that is what I am sure the majority of the community is very anxious to do. It is a great advance to have one ground for divorce- the irretrievable breakdown of marriage. I accept that. I look forward to the Committee stage when we can convince ourselves that all contingencies have been covered. Senator Webster expressed some fear that one ground for divorce might break down or tear aside the fabric of society. In answer to that point I cite the words of the Bishop of Durham who, speaking in the House of Lords in June 1 937, stated:
If the number of divorces were a safe indication of social morals, it were indeed possible to make the whole community pure at a stroke by prohibiting divorce.
I think the fact that we have come to the point of having a 12-months separation period as grounds for divorce is a very good idea. I believe this will do away with the long period of bitterness which only grows with time. It is the more corrosive the longer it goes on. By the time people come to the point of actually signing the papers for a divorce they have been apart for a long time. The time of travail and agony has gone on before that 12-months period. In many instances hope of reconciliation is long past. The reconciliation procedures which are taken into account in the present circumstances are a farce. They are no more than a phrase read to people by a law clerk. One law clerk told me that when she read the requisite phrase to the petitioner she almost had the book thrown at her because the petitioner was so incensed that at that stage the law clerk should talk about reconciliation. The petitioner asked: ‘Whose side are you on, anyway?’.
– We used to have to do that when the ground of divorce was the disappearance of one of the parties.
– That was just to prove it. It is still there and they still say it. They say it woodenly and automatically. It has nothing in the world to do with reconciliation. I think the fact that we are moving towards no fault in divorce is an excellent idea. We will not get there quickly. I am afraid that the bitterness, the spite and the revenge will go on for some time. But at least if we establish that we believe there is no fault in divorce then I hope this will filter through the community. Some of the gentlemen who sit on the bench are apt to blame people where perhaps they could take a slightly lesser view of the position. While children from the marriage exist they are a reminder of an association that has gone wrong. Bitterness remains and can build up. Every effort must be made to do away with so much of the bitterness because of the very bad effect this has on children. Out of that our hope is this concept of a family court. I think that the definition of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs should be noted. It states:
It generally involves the creation of a special court (or division of a larger court), the assimilation of all family matters into one court, with active pre-divorce and post-divorce counselling not merely to assist reconciliation, but also to provide for the reduction of bitterness and distress and in alleviating on-going post-divorce problems. It is the concept of the ‘ helping court .
I think this is a most important thing to bear in mind. It is so badly needed. If we talk about free and post-divorce counselling we must see that the personnel who carry out that counselling and the provisions under which they carry it out are brought into effect. So often those sorts of phrases are used by Parliaments and governments and in legislation to pay hp service to an idea to make it more palatable for people. If ever there were an area where that sort of counselling should be made available it is in this area because in no other areas are human beings torn apart as much as they are in the divorce area. The circumstances of the present courts, if nothing else, would be grounds for wanting changes in divorce legislation and procedures. For one thing, the gentlemen on the bench so very often feel degraded. One can hear judges talk about being in the divorce jurisdiction, with a curl of the lip and a smell under the nose, as though they were being soiled by the very fact that they were in it. The whole emphasis is on sex. The only thing that seems to come out of the marriage as far as those courts are concerned is sex. There is no regard for loyalty, for companionship which might have been built up or for the people who are being ripped apart. I noticed the report of the Committee states:
It is of the essence of our recommendation that the Judges appointed to this Court (men and women) -
I am pleased to see that- should be chosen for their experience and understanding of family problems and should be drawn from existing Judges, members of the bar and solicitors, according to their particular suitability. They would need to recognise their responsibility in developing a new type of court, acting with a minimum of formality, co-ordinating the work of ancillary specialists attached to the court encouraging conciliation and applying, only as a last resort, the judicial powers of the court
At the moment one gets the feeling that the first and only thing to be applied is the judicial power of the court. The physical circumstances of these courts into which people go are appalling. Ordinary people who do not know anything about the law are confused by the formality. They are covered with a feeling of guilt. If they have families, there is no place to leave the children or have them cared for while their parents attend these courts. There is no possible way for one to know how long one will be there. One could turn up one day and at the end of the week one could still be waiting in the line for one’s turn. People are confused by all this formality. They are overwhelmed by all the unnecessarily complicated procedures which these courts insist on going through.
One of the worst things about courts- there may be courts in Australia which are better- in Melbourne are the wretched circumstances in which one meets with barristers and solicitors. One can walk around those dirty, cold, miserable, stone corridors and find people literally taking their lives apart bailed up in corners with nowhere to sit. They are bailed up in one corner with their barristers. The opposing party- the terms in this case give one a picture of what it is all about- is around the corner with his barrister and solicitor. The bargaining goes on from one to the other- ‘If we get that much, how much will you give?’ The question is not what we are doing to people’s lives or to children’s lives but bargaining, and usually over money. The thing that occurs to me out of this pre-divorce counselling is this: We all know that people are liable, because we are all human beings, to have an argument. It builds up into what seems to be an overwhelming thing. People could rush out and decide that divorce is the only answer. At the moment there is nobody to whom they can go in privacy and dignity, without filling out papers, and going through that indignity to ask what will happen to them and where they can go. There should be somewhere people can go before the papers are signed, where they can be told that bank accounts have to be closed, other accounts have to be closed, property has to be divided, insurance has to be changed, new wills have to be made, the welfare of the children has to be concerned with and schooling arrangements have to be made for the children.
These are the far reaching effects which will apply in the change from the current situation. I feel that if they could take a deep breath and have another look at the situation this might lead to some real reconciliation. I hope that the Government will look to the fact that local facilities are much more accessible to people than a room tucked away in the High Court in the middle of Melbourne. That building itself is enough to put anybody off. A woman with small children should feel she can go to the local town hall or some such place and find out factually what happens, what to do, how much it will cost because, really, there is nowhere she can find out these things other than by making an appointment and fronting up to a solicitor. Then things are moving and people wonder whether they can pull back.
One hopes that in this new Bill a new atmosphere will be engendered which will take the bitterness out of the fights over the custody of children. If there is any more terrible thing in society than seeing children used as pawns between bitter and spiteful people, each feeling hurt and wanting revenge, I do not know what it is. One hopes that people will stop and consider children, not as part of their property to be allotted like a lump of land, but as human beings who have to be cared for. Under this Bill the Court has the right to place children with people other than parents. I suppose we all know of cases in which grandparents and aunts were in fact, if not in deed, parents and children have almost literally been dragged out of their arms to be sent to strangers whom they did not know merely because they were part of the property of those people. The main aim of any divorce Bill should be the welfare of the children, I believe. I hope that in this instance it will not be a tongueinthecheek effort, which other attempts have been in the past, but a real striving to make sure that no matter what happens to the adults the children have been catered for. One can be sorry for adults who are caught up in all sorts of difficult circumstances, but children cannot help themselves. I note that under this Act no decree will be issued unless the Court is satisfied about the welfare of the children. I hope that although welfare workers will be used to ascertain the needs and desires of children, not too much emphasis will be placed on what have become known as welfare workers, with all that the term implies, but that a lot of emphasis will be placed on a great deal of informal, friendly, helpful discussion to find out what truly is needed for children.
Like other speakers in this debate, I am concerned about the maintenance provisions. I can imagine people saying: ‘Oh, well, she is a woman, so she would be concerned.’ I was pleased to hear one senator forecast amendments to take some of the harshness out of those provisions. I truly believe that they are very harsh on a wide section of women. It is not enough just to say that equality is desirable and is being attained by women. Equality or independence, or call it what you will, is being achieved slowly. In this instance, ‘slowly’ is the operative word. Many women can and will manage. They have the capacity, the training and the sheer determination to manage and to manage very well. There is a whole generation of women who have devoted their lives to home, children and husband. They have achieved a great deal. They have had a very honourable profession. There is no more honourable profession than having brought up children well, in a good home and provided all the ancillary services that husbands need so they can earn a livelihood. Because she and her husband proved incompatible does not mean that this woman, who probably received no training to earn her living, or if she did it was at best 25 years since she did, and who has no assurance in her own ability, should be forced out into the community to earn her living.
Some women, whether they come from the working class or the most affluent, have never had any money of their own. They have had to ask their husband even for their tram fares. It seems to me hardly fair that we then force them out onto the world. They are entitled to assistance for the years of work that they gave to the children, the home and the care of a husband. While I am waving the women’s lib banner, let me point out that even some of the younger wives are not trained to earn their living and do not expect to go out into the work force, and it is hardly fair of us to force them out. I quote from the Melbourne ‘Age’ of 30 September 1974. A woman teacher stated:
One high school student delegate claimed she had been actively discouraged from continuing her education after fourth form.
My maths teacher called me aside after the School Certificate exam and told me I was making a grave mistake by going on to sixth year because I could not hope to marry if I were better educated than my prospective husband ‘.
While that goes on- we all know that it does; it is not a thing of the past- we have not a work force or a community of women who are fitted for outside work. They do not have the confidence; they do not have the jobs. They must be looked after. Those who do work generally work in the lower paid jobs at the moment, and many women in professions are more lowly paid than the men in those professions are. The women who do work ease the financial burden on their husbands. They contribute to the family welfare and still have 2 jobs. They must be a mother, homemaker and housekeeper and they must be a bread winner as well. Even those who after the divorce say I will manage and I will look after my children and my home’, still have 2 jobs. The community should take some cognisance of this fact.
I know that the question of maintenance orders rouses deep bitterness in the community. A newsletter published by the Divorce Law Reform Association states:
Section 90 has been introduced as a substitute and it is possible to foresee that most divorces in the hands of the neurotic, the greedy and the vindictive will proceed under this section grabbing the assets of the marriage. The new wife and her children also have rights and should not be expected to be deprived and forced out to work to provide for the lazy, good for nothing and often neurotic woman whose own ineptitude or greed caused the breakdown of the marriage.
For people to write that, one can imagine the sort of bitterness there is in this area and the very real job that a family court, a family law commission and those who give post and pre-divorce advice will have to do. I am interested in the Committee’s recommendation regarding certain social welfare laws that make it mandatory for a wife to take out a maintenance order before she can get any sort of social welfare pension. They are confusing, humiliating and useless because the woman must show that she has tried to implement it. How can she with the sort of facilities that she has?
I feel that society is placing more and more pressure on people at the moment, and it is certainly placing more pressure on women. One must admit that older women are sometimes abandoned when their sexual attraction fails. Young women are abandoned when the pressure of supporting a family forces husbands to desert them. This Government must take note of human frailty and safeguard these people until they can care for themselves. Every chance must be taken to make sure that we are safeguarding children and those who are unable to take care of themselves, remembering that our prime aim is to establish a decent divorce law without the concept of fault. I am very much in favour of a family law court and a family law commission which will work to the greatest advantage of all concerned and do away with the spite and bitterness as much as possible. The fabric of our society is changing. I quote from ‘Reform of the Grounds of Divorce: The Field of Choice’ published by the English Law Commission:
A good divorce law should seek to achieve the following objectives:
To buttress, rather than to undermine, the stability of marriage; and
When, regrettably, a marriage has irretrievably broken down, to enable the empty legal shell to be destroyed with the maximum fairness and the minimum bitterness, distress and humiliation.
The second objective has two facets. First, the law should make it possible to dissolve the legal tie once that has become irretrievably broken in fact. If the marriage is dead, the object of the law should be to afford it a decent burial. Secondly, it should achieve this in a way that is just to all concerned, including the children as well as the spouses, and which causes them the minimum of embarrassment and humiliation. Above all, it should seek to take the heat out of the disputes between husband and wife and certainly not further embitter the relationships between them or between them and their children. It should not merely bury the marriage, but do so with decency and dignity and in a way which will encourage harmonious relationships between the parties and their children in the future.
I ask the Senate to acknowledge that, although our society is changing, the cry of women’s lib is not an excuse for bypassing social and economic justice. I look forward to the Committee stage of this Bill.
– I believe that we are debating the most important subject that could ever come before a parliament. I say that despite all the current concerns about the economy, unemployment, resources and so forth. But I think it is incontrovertible that the status of marriage and the relationship between the parties to marriage and the children of the marriage are absolutely of fundamental human importance to all those who enter into marriage and indeed to those who decide not to enter into it. I believe that the question of divorce can be approached only if one begins from the standpoint of marriage itself and what one’s view of marriage is. I think that a number of honourable senators have pointed out that this Bill, although it is styled the Family Law Bill, does in fact fundamentally alter, in their opinion, the nature of marriage. Although not agreeing with that, I believe that the question of divorce cannot be approached without having a clear view of what marriage is or what one’s views of marriage are.
In my view, the institution of marriage is absolutely fundamental to our society. This has been so for centuries not only in our society but in all societies. I believe that it is just as fundamental today and that it will continue to be so. I fully agree with those honourable senators who have spoken about the popularity of marriage today. They have quoted statistics to show the percentage of people in the community who marry, the number of people who are divorced, and even more interestingly the number of people who divorce and in fact marry again. I think it is of great interest and importance to note that the vast majority of people who are divorced do in fact marry again. Having that view of marriage, I approach this Bill with some very fundamental beliefs which I should like to express. Although today there is talk about changes in marriage- I believe that there are quite significant changes in the relationships in marriage, and Senator Webster spoke about that this afternoonnevertheless, I still believe that the view of marriage in our society, whether it is regarded as a Christian society or not, is still basically the Christian view, and that is the voluntary union of a man and a woman for their joint lives to the exclusion of all others. I believe that that is the accepted view, and it is certainly the ideal for marriage.
The incredible network of personal and social responsibilities which derive from the mere fact of a man and a woman joining their lives together for any reasonable length of time necessitates a legal institution to protect those rights and to enforce the duties which undoubtedly flow from a marriage. Other members of the community, particularly the children of a marriage, are also vitally affected. So it is not just a relationship that 2 people happen to be entering into. That is why a marriage cannot be looked at as just an ordinary contract It is clear that there is this need to establish rules for the preservation and the dissolution, if appropriate, of that institution. The intervention of the law into such a relationship as this requires the application of the basic legal principles of justice, certainty and practicability, which we always try to apply. However, these rules must be flexible, they must be kept under constant examination and they must be changed and be changeable according to movements in social ideas and habits. I think that is why, after many years of the present divorce laws, it is necessary to look at the laws again. That is why this Bill has now been brought forward.
However, I must emphasise again that I reject any concept of marriage other than the one man, one woman, one family institution. But I am prepared to recognise that in certain unfortunate circumstances this institution may well break down, and in that event it is in the interests of all concerned, including the children, that it should be dissolved. In this event one or other of the parties may hopefully form another and more satisfactory and permanent marriage. Indeed, as I have said, that is the case, because three out of four people who are divorced marry again, and in most cases the second marriage works out as a permanent institution and a happy relationship for the party who, by misfortune, had entered into an unhappy relationship in the first place.
From these basic views that I hold in relation to the nature of marriage, honourable senators may rightly assume that I approach the question of divorce law or divorce law reform with great caution. I believe that the divorce law must be designed, as Senator Melzer has just said, to buttress the institution of marriage. Therefore, the divorce law should not be one which will encourage people to enter into marriage lightly and unadvisedly, as the marriage service says. I also believe that the law should be one which encourages people to work at their marriages and to try to make them as satisfactory as possible. If there is so-called easy divorce, not only will people be more inclined to enter lightly into marriage because they know that they can easily get out of it, but also, having entered into it, many people may not make the effort which I think all marriages, to some extent, require. All marriages have their ups and downs and their strains. If people, after having some tiff or another, can immediately run off to the divorce court, the law will not be a law which will buttress the marriage relationship, as the Church of England’s Commission has suggested the law should do.
I agree that it is high time that the present divorce law should be reformed, and I therefore welcome this Bill. I will certainly support its second reading. But at the Committee stage many amendments will be moved. I will move some amendments myself and I will support other amendments. But broadly, having been a member of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs for many months, indeed years, I will be supporting the recommended amendments of that Committee. I should like briefly to refer to the Senate Committee inquiry because there has been a good deal of ill-informed talk about this matter, both in the Senate and outside it. The fact of the matter is that the Senate Committee commenced its inquiry on the reference, which was given to it in December 1971, early in 1 972 when it advertised widely for submissions from interested groups in the community, or indeed from anyone interested in the subject. At that time as the Chairman of the Committee I wrote to a number of people who I thought would be able to give us special help. We received a great response. Many valuable and interesting submissions were received, and they are detailed in the appendix to the report.
In the early days of the inquiry- speaking now about 1972, more than 2 years ago- one feature was that we did not receive submissions, or very many submissions at that stage, from churches and church groups which I would have expected to come forward then with their views. Early in 1973 I personally wrote to Archbishop Loane and Cardinal Knox, who was then the Catholic Archbishop of Melbourne. I wrote on 17 April pointing out to them the lack of submissions and seeking to encourage their respective churches to lodge submissions with the inquiry. As one would expect, I received courteous and prompt replies from both of those eminent ecclesiastics. Writing to me on 30 April 1973 Archbishop Loane indicated that the General Synod of the Church of England in Australia in 1969 had appointed a commission to consider marriage, divorce and re- marriage with a view to bringing in a canon for the then next session of the General Synod to be held in May 1973. In fact the commission did report and the report was sent to the Senate Committee.
Cardinal Knox referred in his reply to me to a forthcoming report of the Australian Episcopal Conference- that is of Catholic bishops- and their report has been received by the Committee. So back in April/May of last year two of the leaders of the Catholic and Anglican communities in Australia had clearly had their attention drawn to the inquiry and had responded to the requests made. That is why I find it a little curious now for the Senate to be confronted with a very concerted move to delay our further debate on this subject for 6 months because it is, as I have said, perfectly clear that for a long time leading members of the churches in Australia had had their minds directed to it and had been working on it for some considerable time.
Before going on to consider the changes that the Bill makes to grounds for divorce and maintenance, to the courts and so on, I would like briefly to refer to the view that not only should the law on marriage and divorce buttress and encourage the marriage state and the permanent union of the parties to marriage for the sake of their own happiness and that of their children, but I believe the Government also should be more active in this field. I agree with honourable senators who have spoken at length in this debate about the need for adequate counselling services to be provided. I mention in particular Senator Baume, Senator Webster and Senator Melzer.
I know we have marriage guidance councils and that they have done very good work but in this year’s Budget only a little over $lm is provided for that work. I think it is a responsibility of government to make much more generous provision for the work of marriage guidance counselling, research into marriage and matters such as education for marriage and sex education. I ask for leave to continue my remarks as I understand that another matter is to be interposed.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.
page 2143
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Standing Orders suspended.
Bill (on motion by Senator Wheeldon) read a first time.
That the Bill be now read a second time.
The National Compensation Bill 1974 will provide the framework for the compensation aspects of the report of the Committee of Inquiry into Compensation and Rehabilitation in Australia. I tabled Volume 1 of that report, dealing with compensation, on 10 July 1974 and Volume 2, dealing with rehabilitation and safety, on 26 September. Volume 3, the Compendium, was tabled on 17 October. I repeat what I have said outside the Senate on previous ocasions, namely that, so far as the total report is concerned, the Government places primary emphasis on the matters contained in Volume 2, namely, safety and rehabilitation, rather than compensation, which is dealt with in Volume 1 , and is the subject of the present Bill.
I should like to pay tribute to the work of the Chairman of the Committee of Inquiry, the Right Honourable Sir Owen Woodhouse, D.S.C., of the New Zealand Court of Appeal, and to his learned colleague, the Honourable Mr Justice C. L. D. Meares, of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, who is also Chairman of the New South Wales Law Reform Commission. These gentlemen have performed a most admirable task and presented to the Government a scholarly and challenging report for which we are in their debt. The Government is grateful for the co-operation and assistance of the Governments of New Zealand and the State of New South Wales in making available their services.
The Bill now before the Senate introduces a social measure of great significance. This Bill is based upon the draft Bill contained in Volume 1 of the Committee’s report, with some amendments resulting from the Government’s examination of the report, and from consideration of representations already received. Further amendments were introduced by the Government in the House of Representatives to give effect to the principles outlined in the report and to meet further representations made. I emphasise that, while the Government has adopted the measure in principle, it is not irrevocably committed to every detail of it. As I have already pointed out, we have made amendments to the Bill as the result of representations received and we remain open to consider further amendments in the light of representations, both now and in the period between the enactment of the Bill and the coming into operation of the scheme. The Government sees this measure as being of such importance to the Australian community that we have welcomed any views which any person or organisation, including representatives of the insurance industry, women’s organisations, trade unions, and of course the Opposition parties in this Parliament, wish to place before us.
The Bill provides for earnings-related compensation to all people incapacitated as a result of injury or sickness and to the dependants of deceased persons. The scheme envisaged in the report of the Committee embraces injury, congenital disability and sickness. The Government, at this stage, cannot see its way clear, much as it would like to see this done, to the immediate implementation of the whole scheme and has decided that it should be introduced in 4 stages. The draft Bill has been amended accordingly.
Stage one, which will extend to personal injury and congenital disability occurring on or after 1 July 1976, will come into operation on that date. The Government sees the period between now and 1 July 1976 as being necessary to phase out existing systems, allow the insurance industry to make adjustments, and enable the Government to prepare the administrative machinery to implement the scheme. Stage two, which will extend to personal injury and congenital disability occurring before 1 July 1976, will come into operation on a date to be proclaimed. Stage three, which will come into operation on a date to be proclaimed, not earlier than 1 July 1979, will extend to sickness occurring on or after that proclaimed date. Stage four, which will extend to sickness occurring before the date proclaimed for stage three, will come into operation on a date to be proclaimed.
As honourable senators will see, this is a longterm program. An initial waiting period of 18 months between the enactment of the legislation and the coming into operation of the scheme was recommended by the Committee. The operation of the first stage of the scheme will be closely watched, and decisions to implement the ensuing stages will be taken in the light of experience and the economic and other circumstances existing from time to time. It would not be possible for me, in the short time available, to explain all the implications of the scheme. I have arranged for the printing of an explanatory memorandum on the scheme and on the details of the Bill. This will be distributed to all honourable senators.
Honourable senators will note that entitlement to benefits under the scheme replaces the present remedies for personal injuries at common law and under workers’ compensation legislation. These remedies have an important place in the history of social justice, but they are both inadequate and unnecessarily expensive. These issues are well explained in Volume 1 of the report of the Committee. With the discontinuance of common law and workers’ compensation remedies, the need for compulsory insurance in the motor vehicle third party and workers’ compensation fields disappears. As honourable senators are aware, experience in these areas over the last 10 years or more has shown the need for the type of drastic re-thinking which has led to the development of this scheme. This is a measure which is designed to replace what we have now. This is a new scheme. It brings a fresh approach to compensation. It more efficiently, cheaply, and justly provides that compensation for the injured, sick and disabled, towards which those jurists who built our present system of common law remedies, were striving. It is interesting and relevant to note that both Sir Owen Woodhouse and Mr Justice Meares, are outstanding representatives of a judiciary founded upon our English common law.
The Committee of Inquiry recommended in its report that the scheme be financed from a levy of 10c a gallon on petrol and diesel oil used on the road, replacing the third party insurance premiums; the imposition of a levy of 2 per cent on the wages bill of employers and on the net earnings of self-employed persons, replacing the present compulsory workers’ compensation premiums; and the raising of any residual amounts from general revenue. The Government has considered this matter, but it has not committed itself to this or any other method of financing. The Treasurer (Mr Crean) is investigating the options available to the Government and will bring forward proposals for later consideration.
The abolition of the present remedies will, of course, affect the insurance industry. With the cessation of compulsory motor vehicle third party and workers’ compensation insurance, there may be a diminution of income to the insurance industry. However, the present experience of many insurance offices shows that, in recent years, both of these fields have become increasingly unprofitable to such an extent that many companies have either withdrawn or are anxious to withdraw from these socially essential forms of insurance. For example, in an address at a symposium conducted in Sydney on 7 June 1973 during the Australian Insurance Institute Annual Conference, Mr D. G. Pettigrew, the Managing Director of Sun Alliance Insurance Ltd, said:
Workers’ compensation insurance poses special problems for the insurance industry due to the natural desire of governments to increase compensation rates in response to increasing community wage levels.
While this is essentially desirable the insurance company must pay this compensation out of the premium fixed, in many cases, years previously.
Mr Pettigrew then went on to say:
Obviously, the estimation of claims costs poses difficulty and raises the question whether private enterprise is the proper medium to provide protection when liabilities are emphasised by statute and potential liabilities are unpredictable.
The Committee of Inquiry was unable to assess the full effects which its recommendations would have upon the insurance industry, and hence was unable to make specific recommendations as to how they should be met. This matter has been placed in the hands of the Treasurer who is setting up a consultative committee comprised of representatives of the insurance industry and Government officials to look into the problems of the industry resulting from the Government’s plans to introduce this national compensation scheme.
I have been in constant touch with the representatives of various organisations representing insurance companies operating in Australia, and with the Australian Insurance Staffs Federation, and have invited these organisations to make suggestions as to amendments to the Bill, including necessary transitional provisions, and have undertaken to give my careful consideration to any advice I may receive from these quarters. I recently visited New Zealand where I discussed these matters with representatives of the insurance industry in that country, and learned something of the problems which may be expected. It is to be noted in this regard that the New Zealand compensation proposals, contained in the report which was made to the New Zealand Government by Sir Owen Woodhouse in 1967, were amended later in many respects.
The Bill provides for the payment of benefits at the rate of 85 per cent of earnings, calculated on earnings of up to $500 a week, for any person unable to work because of injury or sickness. The upper earnings limit of $500 a week was reached by the Committee of Inquiry after consideration of income levels payable in Australia. Any person in receipt of an income in excess of that amount would have his benefit calculated on the basis of earnings of $500 a week. We support the principle stated by the Committee of Inquiry at page 105 of Volume 1 of its report that:
Real compensation demands the provision of incomerelated benefits for lost income through the whole period of incapacity and the opportunity for every incapacitated person to maintain the living standards he or she had earlier achieved by energy and hard work.
The Bill makes provision in respect of permanent incapacity. A person who suffers permanent total incapacity would be entitled to a continuation of his benefit at the rate of 85 per cent of average earnings. A person who suffers a permanent partial incapacity would be paid a benefit calculated on the percentage of his incapacity and based on national average weekly earnings. Special provision has been made by a Government amendment in the House of Representatives to ensure that compensation would be payable for loss of earning capacity if the benefit payable in any case for permanent partial incapacity were to be insufficient. The Bill also provides for payment of benefits to widows and other dependants of persons who die from injury or sickness. Once again, the benefit is related to the average weekly earnings of the deceased spouse. Benefits will be payable also to non-earners. These include housewives and others who are not members of the workforce. In these cases, the benefits payable will be based on a notional earnings figure of $50 a week.
One of the most significant advances in the law of accident and sickness compensation proposed in this Bill is the recognition of the right to compensation of non-earners, such as housewives and children. In particular, it should be noted that although no-one could deny the important contribution made to the economy by housewives and mothers, they have until now been excluded from any scheme of workers’ compensation. The report and this Bill propose that this gross injustice should be remedied, and the community should accept the same responsibility for these citizens as it does for employees receiving a wage or salary. In the same way, this Bill proposes that compensation should be paid in the appropriate circumstances to another important group, also excluded from the present workers’ compensation laws, namely selfemployed persons, of whom the farming community, for example, forms a substantial part.
Provision is made for the automatic adjustment of benefits each quarter based on movements in the consumer price index plus an element to reflect productivity growth. This will enable beneficiaries to retain relativity of income with movements in the cost of living. The minimum income figure of $50 a week and the maximum income figure of $500 a week will also be brought up to date. These will be adjusted annually on the basis of movement in seasonally adjusted average weekly earnings. As I have indicated, the Government has made some admendments to the original draft Bill. One major change which we have made is to provide that payment in respect of injuries arising from work, that is the type of industrial injury presently covered by workers’ compensation, will be made for the first week of incapacity. Payments in respect of other injuries will commence, as recommended by the Committee, from the second week of incapacity in the case of injuries to earners and from the fourth week of incapacity in the case of injury to non-earners and in the case of sickness. The Government believes that it would be retrogressive to deprive workers of the rights already existing under compensation law to receive payment for the first week in respect of injuries arising at work. Equally, it would be inequitable to expect employers to be responsible for payment in the first week in these cases which at present are covered under their workers ‘ compensation insurance.
Another important amendment has been made to ensure that wage earners on the lower incomes are specially protected from loss of income during incapacity. Other amendments have been made to guarantee rights of appeal against all determinations under the legislation; to give right of access to documents upon which determinations are based; to provide for payment of costs of an appellant, where a tribunal awards costs; and to protect applicants against possible administrative delay. A common criticism which has been made of the national compensation scheme, is that its administration will be left to public servants. It is, of course, necessary that public servants will be involved in handling the day to day operations of any scheme such as this. We recognise that it is undesirable that public servants be allowed any large measure of discretion without appropriate methods for holding them accountable for the decisions that they make. To this end, provisions are already contained in the Bill for appeal procedures which will protect the applicant for compensation and at the same time make it difficult for public servants to use their discretionary powers arbitrarily. Many of the amendments already made and to which I have referred are designed to protect the rights of the citizen in these circumstances.
The permanent head of my Department will be studying a number of methods which might be used to train the sections of the Department of Repatriation and Compensation which will administer this scheme, to ensure that we have available in the Department officers especially sensitive to the needs of the people whom the scheme will serve. He will also be looking into the possibility of building into the administration of the scheme a means whereby the operation of the scheme will be continually watched so that its efficiency can be constantly under scrutiny and the returns for every dollar spent can also be regularly gauged. I am advised that some excellent methods have been developed which deal with such crucial matters as staff and man-power development, operational effectiveness, internal administration and mechanisms to ensure budgetary realism with economy. These are matters to which the Government gives the highest priority and on which it places the greatest importance.
As honourable senators are aware, the Committee of Inquiry did an amount of research and calculation to arrive at cost estimates for the scheme recommended in the report. Work is still proceeding on the analysis of these cost figures. The major costs will, of course, occur when stage 3, related to sickness is implemented. Revised estimates have been prepared for stage I, in respect of anticipated expenditure in its first year of operation from 1 July 1976 to 30 June 1977. It is estimated that the net cost for that first year of operation, taking account of the amendments made in the House of Representatives, will be $306m. Work on the cost estimates will continue and they will be revised and brought up to date on the basis of the Government’s staging of the scheme. The estimated costs in respect of each of the ensuing stages will be one of the factors which the Government will take into consideration before proclamation of those stages.
I should like to repeat that this Bill introduces a most important social measure. We are dealing in this Bill only with the compensation aspects arising from the report, which covers also rehabilitation and safety. These are 3 arms of a total concept, namely that we must provide a safe environment at work and elsewhere, rehabilitate those unfortunate enough to suffer incapacity and ensure compensation during rehabilitation and for residual handicap.
We must seek first to prevent, so far as humanly possible, the occurrence of injury and sickness. Already in Australia in the post-war period great advances have been made in accident prevention, particularly in industry and on the roads; but much more remains to be done. Where, in spite of all endeavours, incapacity occurs, the payment of compensation in itself is not the answer. The prime and important issue is rehabilitation to the maximum degree that society can provide. The role of compensation during the early stages of disability is to remove the financial worries which could interfere with effective rehabilitation. If all rehabilitation efforts fail to restore a person’s total capacity, then compensation is paid to recompense the individual for that permanent residual incapacity.
Until now, insufficient stress has been placed upon the rehabilitation role. This is particularly so in the common law area and has been the subject of comment by many learned judges, medical practitioners and others who see delays in litigation and settlement as being against the best interests of the injured person and, in fact, often worsening his condition by encouraging the mental approach, commonly referred to as litigation neurosis’, which may lead the person to reject improvement until settlement of the claim. Through this comprehensive program, of which compensation is but one part, the Government intends to ensure that the people of Australia will enjoy the benefits of this scheme and so avoid the problems, delays and weaknesses inherent in the existing systems.
The accident compensation scheme now operating in New Zealand, which has many similarities to the scheme proposed in this Bill, was introduced by a National Party government, and supported in principle by the New Zealand Labour Party. I am sure that all honourable senators will consider and debate this Bill in a positive and constructive manner and I assure the Senate that the Government will welcome suggestions which will allow the resultant legislation to provide an even better framework for the proposed scheme. I undertook to make available to representatives of the Opposition Parties all of the facilities and information available to me, including discussions with the officers of my Department, and the perusal of any relevant documents and statistics. I am pleased to be able to say that this offer was accepted by members of the Opposition. On several occasions, Sir Owen Woodhouse has met groups of Opposition members, and others have had discussions with officers of the Department of Repatriation and Compensation, and members of my personal staff. I arranged for the Opposition spokesman on repatriation and compensation, Senator Drake-Brockman, to visit New Zealand, and assisted him to meet those people in that country who could speak with some authority on the New Zealand scheme.
It is naturally the Government’s hope that the passage of this Bill will not be delayed for so long that the proposed date for the introduction of stage 1 would have to be postponed. At the same time, it has been the Government’s wish that the exchange of ideas should in no way be stifled or that representatives of those persons in the Australian community who have an interest in this proposal should be precluded from offering suggestions to the Government. To this end, the Government has welcomed the opportunity to consider such suggestions and to support those amendments which will assist in the establishment of the national compensation scheme. I commend the Bill to the Senate.
Debate (on motion by Senator DrakeBrockman) adjourned.
page 2147
-Mr President, I seek leave to move a motion for reference of the clauses of the National Compensation Bill 1974 to a Senate standing committee.
-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.
– I move:
The purpose of the motion is to ensure that before debate on this Bill proceeds in the Senate to any length the appropriate Committee should have the opportunity to examine the details of the clauses of the Bill. I think that that course is desirable because, judging from the debate in another place last Thursday, the attitude indicated by the Liberal-Country Party Opposition was such that if it were maintained in the Senate the Bill would not pass. I believe that would be a retrograde step. Even conceding that there are some areas in which the Bill could be clarified or could be improved it would be against the public interest for the measure to be defeated.
It is not appropriate that in moving this motion I should canvass the merits of the Bill which have been explained at length by the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation (Senator Wheeldon) in introducing it, but I wish to make 3 points in support of the motion that the Bill be referred to the Committee: The first is that the Bill is an extremely important one. If it were passed it would affect potentially every person in Australia. I repeat the words ‘affect potentially’. Secondly, the Bill seeks to replace an outmoded, legalistic, conservative system with a comprehensive scheme of social insurance. Thirdly, the 5 basic principles on which the scheme is based are set out in paragraphs 254 to 258 of the Woodhouse report. I do not pause to read those paragraphs but I suggest that each of those principles should, from a philosophic point of view, stir the public conscience to a point at which it will be obvious to the Senate that it should embrace and not reject this legislation and, in particular, the fundamental philosophy of the Bill.
Just how the Committee would go about its task if this motion is agreed to is something for the Committee to determine. But I imagine that it would acknowledge that there were 2 groups of individuals which are vitally concerned. The first group is the trade unions and the second group is the insurance industry. Of course, there are other groups. I imagine that the Committee would not- indeed, I personally think it should not- reembark on the task which the Woodhouse Committee has itself performed. It has taken numerous submissions throughout the nation. They will be available to members of the Senate Committee. It has rationalised the bases on which the scheme rests and it will be for the Senate Committee to do in this case what it did in relation to the Family Law Bill, that is, to consider all the material, to take evidence from such persons or groups as it considers appropriate and to submit to the Senate a report on the clauses of the Bill in, I imagine, very much the same way as it did in relation to the Family Law Bill. I do not pause, because that matter will again be before the Senate in a few minutes, to remind the Senate of the advantage which individual senators who have spoken on that Bill consider they derived from a consideration of the report of the Committee.
On the basis that there is a very recent precedent for this motion, I move it in the hope that it will achieve the object of preserving for the Australian people a piece of legislation which I do not think has been described extravagantly as one of the most important to come before this Parliament since Federation.
– I speak to the motion for referral of the National Compensation Bill to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. I make it clear that in doing so I am not referring to the second reading speech that the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation (Senator Wheeldon) has just delivered. I say, firstly, that this is a far-reaching, all-embracing piece of social welfare legislation. I think that it needs to be studied very carefully and in great depth. I noted that Senator Everett stated in his motion that he desired referral so that the Committee could study the clauses of the Bill. I take it that in studying the clauses of the Bill the Committee would have to study the Woodhouse report in depth at the same time.
– I would quite agree with that.
– If that is the case, I am pleased to say that I accept that this matter should be referred to the Committee.
– That is the intention of the Government.
-Yes. I take the opportunity of saying that the Minister in handling this Bill has been very good to me as the Opposition spokesman on this matter. He has extended every courtesy to me. He has kept me informed of what he is endeavouring to do and he has explained his next moves. I am very grateful to the Minister for this. He made available to me the opportunity to go to New Zealand- I thank him for that- to study the scheme in operation there. He has made the staff of his Department available to me. I see the Head of the Department and other members of his staff in the premises. Each of them made a contribution in his assistance to me and I thank them for this. I thank the Minister’s personal staff who were very good to me and who did everything possible to see that I was fully informed of what was involved in this legislation.
I hope that the Minister will give this Committee sufficient time time to study in depth the clauses of this Bill and the Woodhouse report in detail. I hope also that the Minister will give the Committee sufficient time to take representations and submissions from the people who are interested in compensation in this country. If that is not to be the situation, then the referral of this matter to the Committee will be only a token exercise. If a time limit were imposed on the Committee so that, say, in a month’s time it had to make a report to this Senate, the Minister or the Government could be charged with creating a situation in which it could say: ‘We have referred the matter to the Committee and the Committee has been compelled to make a report. What else do you want?’ This legislation is far more important than that. After listening to the Minister’s second reading speech and to Senator Everett’s remarks, I think that both of those gentlemen realise the importance of this legislation.
There are few people who could contradict me when I say that there are very grave deficiencies in the current compensation schemes. These deficiencies are well known to all of us- to State Governments, judges, lawyers, employers, employees, union officials and everyone associated with compensation. All of us will admit that. I believe that the deficiencies in the present compensation schemes- we dealt with one of them today, and honourable senators will recall that the 6 States each has a compensation scheme providing varying benefits, varying upper limits and lump sum payments and so on- could be reduced if we had compensation schemes operating not just to and from work and while at work but for 24 hours a day. I believe also that third party insurance compensation schemes would be much more effective if they were made available on a no-fault basis. This is what Woodhouse envisages being incorporated in a new scheme.
Having had the opportunity of looking at the Woodhouse report, I have a number of difficulties with it. However, I would like to say at this stage that I pay tribute to Owen Woodhouse. I have spent a tremendous amount of time with him, through the Minister, endeavouring to understand what he had in mind. I think the man is quite honest and has tried to make a very good attempt at rectifying the position which exists at present. I have a number of problems with his report but before I go on to deal with them I should refer to some of the steps taken by the Minister. The Minister tabled volume 1 of the Woodhouse report in this place on 10 July. He then tabled the second volume on 26 September this year and at the time of tabling it he gave us to understand that there was a further volume to be tabled, an important volume which he called the compendium, which contained all the statistical information. Unfortunately this could not be tabled at the time of the tabling of the second volume because of printing problems. But when he did table it, it was after he had introduced the legislation in the other place. This is a most important volume. It contained all the statistical information and the information that the Committee used in compiling statistics of the cost of funding its scheme.
This compendium contained all the information which the Committee had compiled after over 15 months of work and two or three trips overseas by members of the Committee to get this statistical information. Yet the Government saw fit to provide this information after the Bill had been introduced in the other place and Opposition members had to debate the Bill without having had any time in which to substantiate the satistical information contained in the report. That is one of my criticisms. Leaving the Minister’s actions aside, I go to some of the points in the report that worry me. Woodhouse talked about the funding of the scheme- the Minister has just made mention of it- and suggested a levy on employers of 2 per cent of wages paid by them, a levy of 2 per cent on the taxable earnings of self-employed people, plus a levy of 10c a gallon on petrol and dieseline. In his second reading speech the Minister said that the Government would like the Treasury to look at alternative methods to the 10c per gallon levy on dieseline and petrol. What are the alternative methods? The Minister has referred this question to the Treasury and to his Department to examine, but we are to discuss this Bill, it having been discussed already in the other place, knowing that the Government is not in favour of the suggested levy, yet not knowing what the Government is in favour of.
In his second reading speech the Minister said that there will be a running down of the insurance industry before the Government commences operations, and that the Government, through the Treasury if I remember correctly, would discuss this matter with the general insurance industry. But we are told nothing of where the discussions may lead us or what is to be the outcome, and we do not know at this stage what the objections of the insurance industry are. So I believe that the Committee should have this opportunity to study these points I have raised. Earlier I made mention of the fact that we have 7 compensation schemes operating in Australia at the present time, with six of them conducted by the State Governments. I have seen no announcement about what the Government intends to do or what negotiations there are between the State and the Australian governments on this matter. I recognise that if the Commonwealth scheme comes into operation it will take precedence over the State schemes. In fact the State schemes will fold up. I have been in touch with some of the States and I know their reactions to this proposal. I also know that the States are not enjoying the best of the situation in regard to their present compensation schemes. Some of the States, like the insurance industry, are finding difficulty in managing their present compensation schemes. I believe that the Senate should know the reaction of the States to this legislation.
I should also like to know what is the reaction of the insurance industry. Like the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation I have had the opportunity to meet representatives of the insurance industry. I am sure that the Minister and anyone interested in compensation and third party insurance can tell us that the insurance industry is a quite divided industry. It contains a number of sections and none of them are in agreement. I thought that the farmers were bad enough but I have found that the insurance industry is a little worse. Representatives of the insurance industry have come to me and told me that they have an alternative scheme to put to the Minister. I think they have probably skirted around it. They have skirted around it with me but they have not put anything substantive to me. I believe that they should put something substantive and that they should have the opportunity of talking to the Committee about their views, about what proposals they have and about what should be done from the point of view of general insurance. I have also talked to members of the legal profession.
– They are all in agreement.
-They are all in agreement all right. They are in agreement one way. I believe that they have some points that should be expressed to the Committee. I do not say that I agree with the submission that they put forward but I believe it is a submission that should be heard by the Committee. I see my friend Senator James McClelland sitting over there. Tonight he is a great ally of mine. I am talking about the Compensation (Australian Government Employees) Bill. I think that Senator James McClelland will recall that when this Bill was before the House last year Senator Rae and I made certain submissions to the effect that the Government should wait before doing anything about that legislation until the Woodhouse report came out. Senator James McClelland said to me and to the Senate: ‘You cannot possibly do that because the Woodhouse report is going to take at least 5 years before it comes out’. If Senator James McClelland wants confirmation of that I will read into Hansard what he said on that occasion. But I do not think it is necessary.
– I accept your assurances but I would like to hear my ipsissima verba.
– I suggest that he has a look at Hansard of 5 June 1973 at pages 2307 and 2308. He will see that he went to great lengths to explain to the Senate that the Woodhouse report would take some years. He even referred to the New Zealand situation. I mean to go on and talk about New Zealand. In that country it took some 6 years from the time the royal commission was appointed in 1966, under the chairmanship of the same gentleman to whom we are referring here- Mr Justice Woodhouse- until the Bill was presented. The royal commission reported in 1967. In 1969, following that report the Government ordered a White Paper to be prepared on the report of the commission. After that White Paper had been discussed the Government set up a parliamentary select committee which reported on the matter in 1 970. Working parties studied the draft Bill drawn up by the select committee, and the legislation was presented late in 1971. 1 think Senator Everett- or was it the Minister- referred to the fact that the Bill was introduced by the National Party.
– Yes, I did.
– It was the Minister.
– It was in his second reading speech.
– I did not listen to his second reading speech because I knew what would be in it. The legislation was introduced by the National Party, and the Labor Party, when it came into office, added the nonearner section to the legsilation. So both parties in New Zealand had a bite of the cherry. There was great uniformity between the 2 parties in New Zealand on this matter. I look at Senator Durack, at Senator James McClelland and at a few more like them -
– Will you wake Senator Webster?
-He is listening with his eyes closed. There are one of two other points about which I am concerned. When I went to New Zealand I talked to the officials there. I recall that when the legislation went through the Parliament an offer was made to the insurance industry to take over the agency for the commission. The insurance industry had put up proposals to the New Zealand Government opposing such legislation. When this offer was made the industry had to about face and think very deeply about whether it should take over the agency. But in the meantime the Government made an offer to the State Insurance Office and it quickly accepted the agency. The situation that worries me is that the State Insurance Office immediately went out and bought, hired or rented office space- I do not know the correct terminology and perhaps the Minister’s officers will be able to tell him- in every regional centre throughout New Zealand in order to set up offices.
I notice from looking through the Bill that the secretary of the Department of Compensation is to be given the discretion to do what he believes is right in this situation. I wonder how far he will go. I questioned the Minister and his departmental officials about advertisements that have already appeared in the newspapers throughout Australia seeking staff and senior officers for this new department. When I suggested that the legislation might not go through this House I was told that the staff could be used quite easily in other places. I do not doubt that for one minute but I am afraid that there might be a great build up of staff. I am a little concerned at this, particularly when I read tonight in some papers provided to me, arising out of the questioning of the Estimates Committee, that in one place $25,000 will be spent on typewriters. Another line shows that an additional $12,500 will be spent on more typewriters. A lot of people must be going to use those typewriters or they must be pretty dear to purchase. These are some of the things that worry me.
As I said today in relation to the Compensation (Australian Government Employees) Bill, when legislation was introduced in 1973 the Senate delayed it so that it could be examined further. The legislation was referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs for examination and then the Senate debated the matter further. Today we debated legislation in this place which the Minister decided not to pursue in 1973. 1 believe it is well worth that extra time in examining legislation in this place, particularly when one recalls the Trade Practices Bill which was introduced into the Senate and then, because of the proroguing of the Parliament, it disappeared from the notice paper. When next introduced into the Senate it contained 109 amendments put there by the Attorney-General (Senator Murphy). Surely that is good reason, for extra examination of legislation which comes through this place. I see the Attorney-General in this place. I recall to him that after the Bill disappeared from the notice paper for the second time because of the double dissolution of Parliament and when he brought it back for final debate, he had added another 24 amendments to it. That bears out the suggestion that we should take legislation of this sort carefully and examine it in depth and in detail.
– This Minister is just as reasonable.
– I agree with Senator James McClelland that the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation is just as reasonable. He has referred this legislation to the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee. I am only saying that I hope the Committee will have an opportunity to examine the legislation in detail and in depth. My other concern is the common law aspect. This is a very important matter. I am not a lawyer. I am sometimes called a bush lawyer. I am told by my legal friends that in matters of common law where one sues some 80 per cent of cases are settled out of court. How are they settled out of court? I am told that they are settled out of court because of the vast experience of lawyers who believe that they know what the court will say. I smile. A lawyer can do that, but if we refer this matter to a commission the commissioners cannot do that. Why? I would like the Committee to have a look at that aspect. On the other hand I am quite sure that there must be people who, if they have cases settled by the Commission, do not always get satisfaction.
Perhaps they should have the opportunity of endeavouring to get satisfaction through common law. I do not know whether I am right or wrong. Perhaps the Minister can have the commissioner deciding in the main, but if one does not believe that he is getting satisfaction through the commission then he can take his case to common law. Is anything wrong with that? Mr Justice Woodhouse says that it is not necessary. I am not sure whether it is necessary but I hope that this Senate Committee made up of lawyers will have a look at this point to see whether we cannot have the 2 aspects running side by side.
– For a person who was not going to make the kind of speech one makes in a second reading debate the honourable senator is not going too badly, is he?
-I am not making that kind of speech. I am giving some guidance to the Committee. When I make a speech in a second reading debate Senator Georges will know it. I am only indicating to the Committee what I believe should be done. I think I have been on the Government’s side tonight most of the way.
– Order! The honourable senator’s time has expired.
– I think it would be quite improper for me not to offer some comment on what Senator Drake-Brockman has said. In fact, I was aware that he was going to make a non-second reading speech of a somewhat second reading nature and we had agreed that this procedure would be followed. When I constantly hear my reasonableness being referred to I feel somehow that over recent years I must be slipping because 1 now find myself in the position of Warren Hastings of being amazed at my own moderation. There are some matters on which Senator DrakeBrockman has touched and on which I could perhaps briefly comment. First of all, it was a proposal from the Government- an honourable senator on the Government side- which we agreed to quite some time ago before the debate took place in the other place, that this National Compensation Bill should be referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs for further investigation.
I certainly do not want to achieve some footnote in history as being the Minister who was responsible for some disastrous piece of legislation. Obviously any legislation of this sort needs to have very careful consideration. I did not write the report. I do not accept responsibility for all of the things which are in the report. All I say is that this was a report which we believed was prepared by the best available jurists who have worked in this field. The Committee had the best available advice and it produced the best possible report and the Bill is based on that. In fact, the Bill is part of the report which was prepared by a very distinguished parliamentary draftsman who worked with members of the committee of inquiry and particularly Professor Palmer, probably one of the leading authorities in the common law world on the law of compensation. I am well aware of the matters which Senator DrakeBrockman has raised about the necessity not to be unduly hasty with this BDI. That is one of the reasons, for example, provision is made that that part of it applying to sickness will not come into effect for some 5 years from now, at the earliest. That part relating to accident will not come into effect for almost 2 years from this date. It is not a precise parallel to compare this Bill with the Trade Practices Bill or with the Compensation (Commonwealth Employees) Bill 1973 which were due to come into force immediately.
It is provided in the nature of this Bill itself that it should not come into force immediately; that the application should be delayed. I have made clear, and I have meant it, that we believe that this Bill, while it is still a Bill and indeed once it becomes an Act is something which, of necessity, will have to be subject to constant scrutiny and, I believe, constant amendment. I do not think it would be possible for anybody to devise a perfect piece of legislation which would remain unamended for all time. We have taken that fact into account in the way in which we have approached this Bill.
I have had conferences with representatives of the insurance industry. One of the very great difficulties, as Senator Drake-Brockman said, in making predictions about future arrangements with the insurance industry is to know precisely to whom one should be talking. As far as I can tell, there seems to be 3 main streams in the general insurance industry with regard to these proposals. One of them is a group which appears to be quite categorically opposed to them. Another is a group which does not like them particularly but which thinks that in due course something like them is inevitable, that no-fault insurance of one form or another has come into force in many parts of the Western world, that, in any event, in the long run the present system is becoming a losing proposition and that somehow private insurance companies ought to be phased out of it. There is another group. One member of this group was named in my second reading speech. I refer to Mr Pettigrew, the general manager of the oldest and one of the biggest insurance companies in the world, who said that he is completely in favour of these proposals and that compulsory insurance work of a third party or workers’ compensation nature is not a suitable field in which private enterprise insurance should engage. I think this indicates some of the difficulties that one has in actually finding out what one should do with insurance companies.
One company with which I have had some dealings- I do not want to put words in anybody’s mouth- seemed to believe that a scheme similar, if not identical, to the one that we have before us tonight will be adopted. It has a problem with regard to clinics which it has had for some years as part of its activities in the workers’ compensation field. Arrangements have been made for me to inspect those clinics. I think the company is anticipating that in due course it will be going out of the workers’ compensation field. It wants to make some arrangements about transitional provisions. I am prepared to do this. If I were asked to state the transitional arrangements I could not answer because the insurance companies have been unable to tell me what they want to have done. All I can say is- it is my view, and I believe it is the view of the Government- if people, because of legal obligations, have been acting as insurers in a field in which insurance is compulsory, obviously if the law is changed they should be protected. There should be transitional provisions to cover any difficult situation in which they find themselves. The reason that they are in this field of insurance is largely because Government legislation required somebody to be in that field.
I deal now with the aspect of common law and lawyers. I am afraid that one finds a disagreement among lawyers on this subject. The closer lawyers are to practice in the field of third party insurance, running down cases, and workers’ compensation, the more enthusiastic they would appear to be about the retention of the existing system. The further they are from it, whether they are working as academic lawyers, sitting as judges although their practice before they became judges was in this field, or practising in other fields, the less enthusiastic they seem to be about the retention of the existing common law remedies. All these matters can be considered by the Committee. I appreciate Senator DrakeBrockman ‘s contribution tonight. All the issues which he has raised are very real problems. It would be quite useless and futile to deny that they are real problems.
I suppose that the only thing which can be said in addition to what I have said already is to stress again the very real problems which are involved in the existing system. In the existing system, if one is not injured in the course of one’s employment but is injured as a result of negligence, one is able to obtain quite substantial damages. If one is injured outside the course of one’s employment but not as a result of somebody else’s negligence, generally speaking one obtains nothing. There is absolutely no moral virtue possessed by the person who is injured as a result of the negligence of a motor vehicle driver as compared with the person who is injured as a result of being struck by a car whose driver died of a stroke, was stung by a bee, or whatever happened, and who was not behaving negligently. It seems rather strange that we should have a social welfare system, which is virtually what compulsory third party insurance is, which provides payments enforceable by law to one group but not to another and there is no more moral worth about one than about the other.
Under the existing systems of workers’ compensation and common law damages vast sums are spent on litigation and on all the machinery which is required to maintain these systems. For example, in Victoria, for each $1 that is paid in workers’ compensation something like 50c is spent on administration and litigation. Our view is that this scheme would introduce considerable savings, however big the staff may be and whatever the number of typewriters may be, compared with the present colossal expenditure on litigation in relation to workers’ compensation. Like Senator Drake-Brockman, I am not taking part in a second reading debate. I am discussing the reference of the matter to the Committee. I trust that the motion moved by Senator Everett will be carried.
-in reply- I join the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation (Senator Wheeldon) in thanking Senator Drake-Brockman for his co-operative attitude to this proposal. I believe that Senator Drake-Brockman uttered 2 fundamental truths. Firstly, he acknowledged the grave deficiencies in the present compensation system. I believe that was a fundamental and a true acknowledgment. If the present system has grave deficiencies, as the Government would assert and as Senator Drake-Brockman has acknowledged, it is the task of the Government and of the Parliament to substitute for such a gravely defective system a system which will not have those defects. It was with that thought in mind that the Government put forward this legislation. It was with that thought that I moved to refer the Bill to the appropriate committee.
The second fundamental truth which I think Senator Drake-Brockman uttered was about the attitude of the insurance industry. As I recollect his words, he stated that there was a division in the ranks of the insurance industry in relation to this legislation. From discussions which I have had and from inquiries which I have made about this legislation, that is true. It will be the task of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs to probe this difference of opinion and to determine where the balance of judgment lies so far as the insurance industry is concerned. I do not think that Senator DrakeBrockman or the Senate need have any worries about the question of time. I do not doubt that the Committee will faithfully carry out the reference that is given it. If it needs more time beyond the end of next month, I do not imagine that it will hesitate to do what it did in relation to the Family Law Bill and seek an extension of time from the Senate. I repeat my thanks for the co-operation of the Opposition.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
page 2153
Debate resumed.
– The principal object of this Bill is to change the basis of divorce. Under our present law and historically under divorce laws the basis of divorce has been the fault of one of the parties and the so-called innocence of the other party. However, that statement is not strictly true because in Western Australia since 1944, and throughout Australia since 1959, there has been the well known non-fault ground of 5 years separation. But I should also like to point out to the Senate that there are a couple of well known grounds of divorce of long standing which cannot be said to be fault grounds. One is based on the unsoundness of mind of one of the parties, and another ground arises if one of the parties has been absent for such time and in such circumstances as to provide reasonable grounds for presuming that he or she is dead. There are at least 3 clearly non-fault grounds of divorce as features of our present law.
However, there is no doubt that the present Bill changes the whole emphasis of grounds for divorce from a fault basis to a non-fault basis. I fully agree with that provision, and I do so for 2 principal reasons. The first is the weight of the evidence which was received by the Senate Committee and to which I have referred generally. There is no doubt that the overwhelming evidence from a great number of persons and organisations indicated that the changing and changed attitudes of our community today are opposed to the old fault concept and favour the non-fault basis for divorce. In particular the submissions which weighed heavily with me were the one from the National Council of Women and the one from the Family Life Movement of Australia. The representatives of both of these organisations gave evidence at length to the Committee and were examined by the Committee. I was most impressed with the arguments that were presented by the representatives of these 2 bodies.
But the change from a fault to a non-fault basis also accords with my own experience as a practising solicitor for some years. I did not do a great deal of work in the divorce or matrimonial jurisdiction, but I certainly did an amount of work in that jurisdiction. I also accept the criticisms that have been made of the system, of the indignities that are associated with the system and in particular of the provisions relating to discretion statements by a petitioner, in which a petitioner has to set out all the details of his or her adultery and so on, which all seems to be part and parcel of this fault approach or guilt approach to matrimonial relief.
In regard to this aspect I should also like to refer to some comments that were made to the Senate Committee by Archbishop Woods, the Primate of the Church of England in Australia and the Anglican Archbishop of Melbourne. In a letter to the Committee on 29 August last year he said:
I judge that the majority of Australian Anglicans would agree that marriages which have been undertaken mistakenly or which by an acceptable definition can be said to have irretrievably broken down after all reasonable efforts at counselling and reunion have been attempted, may find remedy in divorce.
Further on he said:
Again, I think nearly all Anglicans would agree that the tenor of the English report called ‘Putting Asunder’, which believes that State courts should be no more than formal inquiries as to whether a marriage has irretrievably broken down or not. In this connection I find that many Anglicans have difficulty in accepting that 12 months is an adequate period of separation other than in cases of total abandonment.
It seems to me that the case for change to the non-fault basis and to an acceptance of the sole ground for divorce as irretrievable breakdown of the marriage is overwhelming. The only problem is how best to prove the irretrievable breakdown. I have said that the law in this and in any other respect seeks to achieve the principles of justice, certainty and practicability. Although the attempt to prove irretrievable breakdown itself is no doubt the just basis, it is deficient in the requirements of* certainty and practicability, because I could well envisage that an inquiry as to whether a marriage had broken down or not may well involve investigations that are just as unsatisfactory, as lengthy and as expensive as are investigations in relation to many of the present grounds for divorce. Therefore, I believe that the right approach is to endeavour to select a period of separation as the best way, the most certain way and the most practical way, as well as the just way of establishing that a marriage has broken down.
It is a matter of argument as to how long the . period of separation should be. As we all know, this Bill provides for a 12-months period. I, along with Senator Chaney, have already indicated that I will move that the period of separation should be 2 years, and I will give reasons for that at the Committee stage because my time is somewhat limited now. Broadly speaking, I am concerned that a period of 12 months may not be a sufficiently long period ‘firstly to establish that a marriage has clearly broken down but also in regard to those matters of which I spoke earlier, that we should not have a divorce law which may be such as to encourage people to enter into the marriage state lightly and unadvisedly, or which may not encourage them to work at their marriages if something is going wrong. I also think it is very important that a divorce law should not be in any way ahead of community standards and concerns. I have found a very widespread concern in the community that the period of one year’s separation is too short. I note a passage from the letter of Archbishop Woods that I have just quoted that he, speaking on behalf of himself and, he believes, the Anglican community generally, also feels that the period of one year is too short.
I wish to move on from the question of grounds for divorce to another major provision of the Bill, and that is the establishment of the Family Court. The Bill itself does not provide for the Family Court, and that is, I think, perhaps its major deficiency. Of course, the Senate Committee has recommended the establishment of the Family Court, and I am pleased to find now that the Attorney-General (Senator Murphy) has accepted that recommendation and has already submitted to us a detailed amendment which is designed to set up the Family Court in the way in which he envisages it. The amendment to the Bill which the Attorney-General will move in due course sets up a purely Federal court; in other words, a court set up by this Parliament with its members appointed by the Federal Government. One can argue whether it ought to be a Federal court, a State court and so on, and I do not want to get into that argument now, and I think it would be unfortunate if that argument took over one’s consideration in relation to the Family Court.
But one absolutely fatal deficiency in the proposal to set up a purely Federal Family Court is the requirement in the Constitution that all judges appointed by the Federal Government under the Constitution have to be appointed for life. I just cannot conceive that we ought to have a Family Court system where the judges could be in their 80s. This has been our experience in Australia. Some judges in Australia are getting to that age. I think it would be ridiculous to have a family court composed of people of this age who will have to deal with these very sensitive personal issues, changes in social attitudes and so on. In this field we must have men who have their feet very much on the ground, who are part and parcel of the community and who understand the changes that are taking place in the community. The only way in which that can be done is the way which was suggested in the Senate Committee’s report, namely, that the Family Court should be set up under a co-operative arrangement between the Federal Government and the State governments so that a majority of the judges of the court will be appointed by the State governments and will be subject, as State judges can be, to retirement at a suitable age. I suppose that would be at 65 years or even 70 years of age. The only way that that can be achieved is to have an arrangement for a court whereby the appointment of the majority of the judges is by the State governments. I believe that that should be overseen by a federal court of appeal. We have to accept that there the judges are being appointed for life, but they would be judges who would be dealing more with legal problems. The only way to get around it would be to amend the Constitution.
– What about a referendum by consent?
-I must really laugh at the thought of having a referendum on a subject like that. I just do not see it as practicable. I think our experience shows that you can never have a referendum by consent. I believe that this important responsibility should be accepted by the Federal Government. It should start talking immediately with the State governments to set up by a process of co-operation the type of family court which we all envisage as desirable. That family court according to the amendment prepared by the Attorney-General is envisaged as a court which will be well serviced by experts in behavioural science and counselling activities. This must be available at the very beginning of the signs that a marriage is breaking up. When all is said and done those of us who have practised in this field will know that when a marriage starts to break up one of the parties acts first in many cases by consulting a solicitor or a marriage guidance service. The parties to the marriage at that stage are not thinking about divorce. By and large they are concerned about their marriage. Many wives are concerned about getting maintenance and custody of the children. At that early stage there is always some hope that the marriage can be repaired and that is where the marriage guidance services should be available. People should be encouraged at that early stage to seek the services of people who are expert in this field.
The Bill provides for marriage guidance services but under the present matrimonial causes law that sort of advice is available at the stage when people are talking of petitioning for divorce. It is then far too late and therefore a major change is contemplated by the Bill in that regard. I fully support it. I hope the Government will meet its promises with adequate finance to provide these most important services. I would have liked to refer to the maintenance provisions but they have been well canvassed. I am fully in agreement with the concern expressed by the Senate Committee about that area. I will be supporting amendments which will improve greatly the position of wives, particularly wives of mature years who have given their lives to marriage and to raising families and then find that the marriage has broken down. I think women in that position must be very much more adequately protected than this Bill would provide.
-I wish to speak briefly on the Family Law Bill. I commend the Attorney-General (Senator Murphy) for his patience and persistence with this measure over the years and also for his willingness to accept amendments to improve the Bill. Credit should be given to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs which worked so hard and helped all of us so much to understand and to improve the Bill. I give credit to all the previous speakers in this debate for the compassionate and objective way they have spoken. I wish that the public debate on the Bill had been equally compassionate and unemotional but I suppose that that is asking a bit too much. Senator Baume mentioned one group which persisted in using cituperation and all sorts of tactics in an attempt to prevent this Bill even being debated.
I have read a newspaper article which announced that this Bill is an evil socialist plot which may be disturbing to honourable senators opposite who support it. Today I had a rather offensive telephone call in which I was told that we were perpetrators of promiscuity. The caller used other alliterative phrases which I am sure I would not be allowed to use here if I wished to do so. I think we can expect this sort of public debate on such an emotional issue. The same sort of reaction occurred to the original Matrimonial Causes Bill. Some honourable senators will remember the personal abuse received by the present President of the Senate. I am sure that those people who condemned him for voting the way that he did then would no longer wish to go back to our old divorce laws.
I have no intention of canvassing all the clauses of this Bill which were so very well considered and looked after by our legal friends and some others. However, I think it is worth while giving reasons why I am likely to support the amended Bill. Probably the most important change to me, and to many of the opponents of the Bill the most objectionable change, is the replacement of the concept of fault in the present law with the one ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. Many speakers in this debate have pointed out that this is an extension of the changes brought about when the present matrimonial causes law was introduced. It introduced the concept of divorce with no fault after 5 years of separation. At the time the change was predicted to bring about the dissolution of society and the opening of the divorce floodgates. Senator Missen cited figures yesterday showing that that has not happened and that the use of that means of acquiring divorce has diminished in the last few years. Although this Bill does away with the concept of fault in the situation of divorce it does not completely do away with the concept of fault and or responsibility in the amendments, as I see them, when maintenance and custody of children are involved. These sorts of amendments which aim particularly to protect wives I will certainly support.
The Bill also has very important provisions for counselling and attempts at reconciliation. It can in no way be considered a bill for the production of quickie, Reno or Mexican types of divorce, which seems to be the worry of many people. I believe that a basic and serious misconception is held by some opponents of change in these laws. The misconception seems to be that the divorce rate in the community is a direct measure of unhappiness in marriage or a measure of morality or immorality in the community. Some people assume that in the past all the unhappy marriages ended in divorce and that the remainder were all happy marriages. It is an absurd proposition considering expense, legal barriers and the personal denigration and public disapproval which has hampered divorce proceedings in the past.
One would assume from the argument of those people that the Victorian era with its low divorce rate was a period of unparalleled marital bliss, but today few men and women would wish to return to those days when a wife was frequently just one of her husband’s chattels. Like Senator Baume I have had experience in my professional life dealing with problems associated with divorce. I have seen otherwise decent people resort to lying, hypocrisy and personal denigration to end a disastrous relationship. I have seen lawyers, who have sworn to uphold justice, knowingly connive in this sort of charade.
The most distressing side effect to me has been the bitterness and personal hatred, which has split family and friends, arising out of the legal and psychological warfare which seems to have been associated with prolonged divorce proceedings. If this Bill partly reduced this distress I would support it, and I believe it considerably reduces this distress. I have also seen the misery of the unhappy marriage in which one or other partner, usually the woman, is unable to escape from this disastrous partnership for social, economic or psychological reasons. This Bill may help some of these people but probably not enough of them, because, as other honourable senators have pointed out, marital breakdown is a social and psychological problem, not a legal one.
I believe that the provisions in the Bill in relation to counselling and guidance will help and will show the way in the future. The change from the extended biological family we had in the past to the more fragile nuclear family, the increase in the breadth of education for women in our society and the changing role of opportunities for women have all made marriage a more stressful situation. But I cannot see that harsh, inequitable divorce laws, and a situation of warfare in law courts where personal recriminations are the norm, will do anything to strengthen the marriage bond. I sympathise with Senator Baume and Senator James McClelland who both made the observation that it would be perhaps better to make the marriage contract harder to achieve.
If they can produce a fair and reasonable method of doing this, I would support them. But in the meantime the future of stable marriage, I think, lies in education in human relationships, in education in the home, in education in the schools, and in our whole way of life. This is where our emphasis should lie before the years of breakup.
I cannot see, as some people apparentyl assume, that retaining the present divorce laws will make any difference to the situation. I cannot see how the passage of this Bill will hinder any such program to improve our human relationships and perhaps prevent more marriage breakdowns. This Bill deals with the legal problems associated with divorce in a more humane manner than in my view has ever been legislated for before. The setting up of a family court, which Senator Durack mentioned, will, one hopes, remove the sort of stigma of criminality which was associated with divorce proceedings in some people’s minds. The provision of counselling services will help some marriages which are not beyond saving. The reduction in the period of separation necessary before divorce can be obtained will prevent a lot of bitterness and frustration which I think all of us have seen and which certainly those of us in the legal profession have seen very frequently
I look forward to the Committee stage of this Bill. From what I have seen and from what I have heard from my colleagues, the maintenance provisions and the provisions concerned with the custody of children will be explained and will be made clear to us all. From the discussions which I have had, I think that I can support those provisions. I am sure that these aspects will be adequately covered. The problems of marital breakdown are enormous, and they are not solved by this Bill. I have not heard anyone who is associated with this Bill pretend that they will be solved by it. But I believe that the principles behind the Bill are a giant step forward in our social history.
I repeat that I remember well the bitterness with which the proposals which brought in the present Matrimonial Causes Bill were attacked. I remember the predictions of the end of marriage, of the floodgates opening, of people being divorced every second year. There were even predictions of impending social dissolution and destruction of our civilisation and all sorts of things like that. As I said before, I do not think any of those people who made those statements in 1959 or 1966, except the most rigid and the most doctrinaire, would want to go back to the days of divorce as we had it before that time. I feel sure that after the Committee stage and after the amendments have been explained and passed this will be an excellent Bill which will be a credit to this Parliament. I commend the Bill to the Senate.
Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON (New South Wales) (9.35)-The Family Law Bill 1974 is a Bill in relation to which any honourable senator will, as we say in parliamentary language, have a completely free vote. All honourable senators will have an open vote on the Bill; they are not obliged to vote according to a decision taken by their Party. So when honourable senators cast their votes they will be doing so completely, absolutely and utterly according to their own views and their own approach to the Bill. I have a view about the Bill and I feel that I have a personal obligation to express that view. I believe, as does Senator Grimes who preceded me in the debate, that the Bill has been dealt with with restraint in this place, and I certainly will do that myself. Nevertheless, I would be failing in my duty if I did not express the views that I have in relation to the Bill. In due course I will be moving an amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Bill. Before I formally move that amendment I want to talk in some generality, but perhaps before I do move that amendment to the Bill the terms of the amendment could be circulated to honourable members, if that conforms with your requirements, Mr Deputy President.
Before I move more particularly to my amendment I want to talk in terms of the overall pattern of the Bill, because I think that my amendment really contains the thrust of some of the things that I need to say. I shall address my remarks to the Bill in the form in which it stands as a document of the Parliament at the present time. I do not choose to talk about some possible amendments that somebody may move at the Committee stage and which may be agreed to or not be agreed to. We must debate this Bill in the form in which it has been circulated, and not in relation to some prospective amendments which might emerge if it is considered in Committee. In my view, if the Bill is passed by the Senate in the form in which it stands at the present time- it was, of course, put down by the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Murphy)- it will be to many people, including young people and people who may wish to marry in the future, a threat to the sanctity and ultimate security of marriage.
The Bill removes the existing grounds for the dissolution of marriage which are provided for in the Matrimonial Causes Act 1959-1966 and substitutes a single no-fault ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. In certain circumstances I am choosing my words when I say that- if this Bill as it is circulated becomes law, I believe that it will encourage some young people to regard marriage as an easy-come easy-go thing into which they can enter. The overwhelming majority of the community in this land of ours wants to preserve marriage. We have to live with our divorce laws, but the point I want to make is that the overwhelming mass of the Australian community wants to preserve marriage as a sacred ceremony and as a contract. They want marriage to remain as an honourable estate. Perhaps I could paraphrase some of the beautiful lines which we find in the marriage ceremonies as they are conducted, I think, by all denominations. Marriage is an honourable estate, not to be taken inadvisedly, lightly or wantonly. I know that to some this may sound corny but it represents the conditions to which people who marry in church still adhere in this day and age. Indeed those conditions are adhered to by those who undertake a civil marriage.
Marriage is not to be entered upon wantonly. It is to be entered upon reverently, discreetly, advisedly and soberly. We all know the famous words ‘in sickness and in health ‘. It may be funny to the Attorney-General but it is the way in which I was married and it is the way in which thousands of people still get married. Thank God for that. I can only speak as I feel on this matter because there is to be an open vote. I would be failing if I did not say what I had in my heart. I believe that marriage is undertaken on the basis of forsaking all others. I think the famous words are: ‘till death do us part’. I am prepared to accept that those who get married other than in a church, when they enter into this contract, sincerely and faithfully accept this condition of the union. The contract is voluntarily entered into between one man and one woman for life.
It is true that the law of our land very properly has to provide grounds for divorce. I do not need to canvass those grounds here. We are all aware of them. Briefly they are adultery, desertion and separation for 5 years. I think Senator Grimes, who preceded me in this debate, said that the period of 5 years separation was not regarded as a fault ground of separation. Other grounds for divorce are habitual cruelty and, I think, bestiality. This Bill eliminates the concept of matrimonial fault. It makes the contract of marriage more easily terminated by a single act of one of the parties. Because the Attorney-General (Senator Murphy) was not present when I made this point earlier, I mention that we are talking about the Bill as it is before the Senate not in terms of any projected amendment because we are still in the second reading stages of the debate.
I turn now to an extreme absurdity which is contained in the Bill. In relation to the single no fault condition in the Bill there could be, regrettably in my mind, a circumstance where a marriage could take place and be almost immediately consummated and the conditions for a separation could be established by one of the parties almost within a matter of days. Even though this period of separation is on the basis of 12 months, or some other term which may be suggested, the period contained in the Bill is completely inadequate. Of course, we have the second absurdity that the no fault separation can be due to an act by one of the parties which takes place while both parties remain within the one home. Provided the conditions of the Bill were observed, the separation could take place within the home. I could think of nothing more humiliating, more degrading or more calculated to do irreparable harm to the contract of marriage than provisions for such a separation. So I hold the view- as I have said I feel obliged to say this-that the single no fault proposal should in fact not stand in its own right.
This no fault proposition takes away the fundamental responsibility of the parties to make the marriage endure. That is my complete feeling in relation to that provision. Honourable senators who have spoken for the Bill and others who have some reservations believe that marriage requires a lot more than the glamour and all the other things that precede the union. It needs understanding on behalf of the parties. It needs the parties to be thoughtful to one another, to be tolerant to one another, to be patient with one another and to attempt to be compatible. The partners have to learn to live with one another in terms of habits, language and their inclinations in relation to behaviour. They require adjustments to make a success of marriage- adjustments which in fact may enter a whole field of areas which I do not need to canvass here because I am sure all honourable senators understand them. I believe those conditions for a successful marriage are more asserted in the young than is inherent in those of us who are in the older brackets. With all the experience, judgment, efforts to co-operate, and all the love and affection that can be present between husband and wife, there is a necessity for adjustments in living.
Clause 26, which contains the thrust of the Bill and which I believe is the gravamen of the whole
Bill relies on this one condition- no fault separation for a period of 12 months. It is something which could be carried out, conforming to the requirements of the legislation, as we have it in front of us; yet we could have the horrific situation of people living in the one home who could be regarded as being separated under the Bill.
I read in the paper this morning a letter which was signed by the Rev. Alan Walker, superintendent of the Central Methodist Mission in Sydney. In fairness to him, I say that he dealt with the pros and the cons and he brought out the good points in relation to certain aspects of the Bill and also criticism of the Bill. But in relation to my argument about the main thrust and the gravamen of the Bill he said:
However, the heart of the Family Law Bill is weak, even dangerous.
He was referring to this particular no fault clause. There have been strong statements made for the defeat of the Bill. Here again, I think that one could deal with many views of various people who have advocated the defeat of the Bill. I have in my hand a letter signed by His Eminence, Cardinal Freeman, Archbishop of Sydney- a Roman Catholic Cardinal of Sydney- and His Grace, Archbishop Loane of Sydney, who is the head of the Anglican Church in New South Wales. Having regard to their position in the community I think it is fair that I should read what they have said in relation to this Bill. In a letter addressed to the editor of the ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ on 10 September they stated:
We wish to draw attention to certain basic changes which will be made to the nature of the marriage contract if the Family Law Bill 1974 becomes law.
Marriage is now, in the eyes of the law and of the Church, the voluntary union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others for life. From the Christian standpoint, this union ought not to be terminable during the lifetime of the marriage partners. From the broader viewpoint of law, it can only be terminated by due legal process when the Court, representing the interests of the community, determines accordingly.
So, they acknowledge the reality of divorce laws. The letter continues:
The Bill also effects a fundamental alteration in the obligations of the parties of the marriage contract towards each other. Section51 (1) of the Bill, which is significantly different from Section 51 of the 1973 Bill, effects this in two ways:-
The final paragraph states:
For these as well as other reasons, we are opposed to the Family Law Bill which has been introduced to the Senate by the Attorney-General and hope that it will be rejected by both Houses of Parliament.
I could pick up references from a whole variety of people and organisations who have written to the Press and who have expressed themselves on this subject. Indeed, they have written to parliamentarians. I am sure that all members of Parliament have received arguments on the pros and cons of this legislation. But the fact is that there is a group of people within the community- petitions to this effect have been presented in the Parliament- which suggests that this Bill as it now stands should be rejected. I am prepared to acknowledge that apart from clause 26 which has been referred to, there are other provisions in the Bill some of which, I believe in certain circumstances, could be incorporated into a matrimonial causes Bill. There are other provisions in the Bill that I find completely unacceptable and these urgently need further examination, examination beyond the limited examination that was made of them by the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. I will make some reference to that, subject to time, in a short while. I find great difficulty in accepting some of the proposals particularly in relation to the wife who is wholly dependent on her husband and, indeed, in the final analysis in relation to the welfare of children. I propose to move an amendment to the Bill that will seek its deferment. It is proper to point out that as at today some 82 petitions containing the signatures of 5,520 people have been presented in the Senate asking for the deferment of the Bill. Today I received a telegram from His Grace, Archbishop Little of Melbourne. As I understand it, he is the Head of the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic faith in Melbourne. The telegram is addressed to me and states:
I would support strongly suggestion to defer consideration of Family Law Bill for 6 months to enable interested people to examine report of Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs presented 2 weeks ago.
I move:
I understand that copies of the amendment have been circulated to honourable senators.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Marriott)- Is the amendment seconded?
– I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak to it.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT- I call Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson.
– I think it is competent for me to say that whilst many petitions have been presented to the Senate suggesting a 6 months deferment, we have a connotation in the Senate that a 6 months deferment of the Bill possibly could be interpreted as being a defeat of the Bill. That is not the intention of this amendment. This amendment is intended to defer the Bill for further consideration. Of course, if this amendment is defeated I reserve my personal right to consider whether I can in fact vote for the motion for the second reading of the Bill. But it is clearly demonstrable that throughout this country there are humble people, indeed people in high places, who believe that in this issue of divorce which is linked irrevocably with marriage there needs to be the maximum time for people to understand the full and absolute implications of what the Bill proposes. My proposed amendment will give such people that opportunity. I have received an open letter dated 25 October 1974. 1 understand that other honourable senators also have received this open letter. It is signed by the Reverend Thomas J. Connolly of St Patrick’s College, Manly, New South Wales; Mr K. Harrison; Dr Clair Isbister of the North Shore Medical Centre; the Reverend B. Judd; Mrs J. Lonergan; the Rev. F. Nile; Dean Lance Shilton of St Andrew’s Cathedral, Sydney, and Mrs Margaret Slattery. It is a very long letter and obviously, I cannot do other than read passages from it. At a later stage perhaps I may have it incorporated in Hansard if it is the will of the Senate so to do. These people make many points in this letter. In fairness, I must admit that I have selected the words which are germane to the points I am making for deferment of the Bill. They say:
However we must, in good conscience, speak out against the radical changes proposed in the new Family Law Bill 1974, and ask for six months’ delay in any further debate on it, so that the clauses of the Bill and the extensive amendments proposed by the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, can be properly and responsibly assessed.
In this regard we are attaching a submission which points out, amongst other things:
This is a matter to which I feel I must make reference because the interim report is now a public document that everybody is able to read. The letter goes on: the Interim Report of the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs appears to give a false impression of the Hon. Mr Justice Selby’s view of irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a single ground of divorce.
I will come back to that in a moment or two. The letter continues: the evidence taken by the Standing Committee with regard to the Family Law Bill, 1974, appears to have been taken in camera, thus putting it out of the reach of Parliament and the public, and therefore being inconsistent with the concept of Open Government. there’ are likely to be far-reaching changes in the structure of marriage and society if the Bill is passed in its present form. the full implications of the setting up of the Australian Family Court are not yet realized. Proper research and investigation is necessary to see that any such Court does not overlap and undermine already existing facilities.
Other points are made that I do not need to read. However, as I have said, any honourable senator who wishes to read this letter subsequently is at liberty to do so. It goes on to deal with Mr Justice Selby’s evidence. As the Senate is dealing with something which is within its own perimeter, as it were, I think I should read part of what is said:
Several persons are cited as supporting that view and extracts from their evidence quoted. The Hon. Mr Justice Selby, Chief Judge of the Family Law Division of the N.S.W. Supreme Court is one of the persons cited as apparently supporting that view.
However examination of the evidence given to the Committee by Mr Justice Selby indicates that he does not support that view, and indeed supports the opposite.
On being approached on 10th October, 1974, in regard to this apparent conflict between his remarks quoted in the Interim Report of 24th September, 1974, and his original evidence, his Honour states:
I propose now to read the quotation contained in the letter of what the judge is reported to have stated:
I have consistently advocated a combination of grounds providing for dissolution of marriage where the Court is satisfied that the marriage has broken down but also providing for such dissolution on the petition of a person against whom specified matrimonial offences have been committed.
The portion of my answer which has been quoted in paragraph 17 of the Interim Report does appear to conflict with the submissions which I made and which represent my view. The Interim Report conveys the false impression that I held the opposite view. This false impression could be reinforced by the fact that my remarks are cited amongst those of several others who are quoted as advocating irretrievable breakdown as the sole ground for divorce.
I have looked at the Senate transcript of evidence and have the interim report in front of me. I say no more than that it is apparent both from what is attributed to the judge and from the evidence of our own parliamentary documents that there is a misrepresentation. Because my time is running out I want to go back to my main theme. This new virtually single ground for divorce, the no-fault ground resting only on the break-up of the matrimonial home, standing in isolation as the ground for divorce, has in it an inherent risk that it could prejudice in some circumstances the concept of and adherence to the marriage contract.
I believe that not enough organisations and not enough people, other than lawyers, who have constant contact with matrimonial affairs and the break-up of marriages have been consulted. I particularly refer to people in the church organisations. Do not let it be thought that the only people who have anything to do with matrimonial affairs are in the legal profession. They are consulted very properly when there are break-ups or threatened break-ups of marriages, but there are people in Australia, and in any country- people in the church, people in charity bodies and people helping others, who have a very constant day to day concern for and contact with marriage. In the short time that we have had to deal with this Bill and look at the report of the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee, there are people who are saying: ‘Please defer it; let us take a little bit more time ‘.
I am suggesting that because of the mechanics of the Senate the Bill should be deferred until the first day of sitting next year. If the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Murphy) does not want to deal with it on the first day of sitting next year he could bring it forward on the second, third or fourth day or any day thereafter. He is not obliged to do it, but we are asking him to hold the Bill until at least the first day of sitting in 1975 so that all those people of good heart who want to do everything possible to preserve, build and maintain marriage when it is under threat will have an opportunity better to examine the Bill. Who knows- it may well be that if that is done there will be, as there has been with some other Bills, an opportunity for further adjustment and further amendment which will make the Bill meet more appropriately the wishes in the minds and hearts of so many thousands of people.
We are all aware of the hurt and suffering of people who have to go through a break-up of marriage, but, whatever else we do, let us not prejudice the marriages that survive by what we are trying to do for the unfortunate marriages that have failed. We have to make certain that whatever we do will not prejudice marriage, and I say that because I believe it. This is an open vote. People can say that I am right off the target if they like. They are entitled to say that. But that is what I believe. There is a group in the community, including the leaders of our churches, which believes that this Bill should be defeated. There is another huge section of the community which says: ‘Let us have some deferment’. And, in fairness to the Attorney-General, there are some in the community who want this Bill passed quickly. My views are clearly expressed.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Marriott)- Order! The honourable senator’s time has expired.
- Mr Acting Deputy President, I would appreciate your guidance on a matter of procedure. I take it that the debate on the second reading proceeds at this stage pending the motion being put.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Marriott)- I rule that the honourable senator is speaking to the second reading of the Bill and the amendment. The amendment is before the Chair.
– 1 had some doubts about whether I should speak in the debate on this Bill because already there has been a large number of contributions. I am sure that we have a lengthy Hansard. Most of the general issues of principle that ought to be debated in a second reading debate have been dealt with by various honourable senators in, I think, a most admirable and competent fashion. But in a sense my doubts about speaking in the second reading debate have been removed by the speeches made by Senator Laucke and Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson. I express my respect for the point of view they have put forward before I go on to explain why I disagree with it. I believe that point of view arises from a deep respect for the institution of marriage, a respect which I share. I hope that they can acknowledge that the difference between us and the difference between them- and other honourable senators who have spoken- is not a difference in attitude to marriage but in the belief as to what this Bill is about and what it achieves.
I think it would be unfortunate if the people of Australia saw this Bill as an attack on marriage. If the people of Australia do see the Bill as an attack on marriage, to some extent the critics of the Bill will have indulged in self-fulfilling prophecy because a good deal of this argument is about the sort of attitude that people in the community have towards marriage. If enough people say- and people such as honourable senators and leaders of churches who are entitled to express their opinion- that this Bill fundamentally breaks down the concept of marriage, that in a way is telling the community that that is the sort of law which is being put before it. I do not believe that it is the sort of law that is being put before the community. Therefore I have an obligation, along with other honourable senators of my mind, to explain that point of view both to the Senate and to the electorate. Many of the people who share the fears that have been expressed here tonight and by Senator Laucke last night are people who have not read the Bill and never will read it. The detailed speeches made on the Bill by many of my colleagues will not be read by them and would mean little to them if they were read. What concerns people is the general tenor of this legislation.
It is said that the Bill will weaken marriage and is an attack on marriage and that society will suffer from what might be described as permissive legislation. I have already made it clear that I do not accept that accusation although perhaps when I started my consideration of the Bill I did. As a member of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs which considered the Bill, I think it is fair to say to the Senate that when I started my consideration of the Bill I had deep misgivings about what the Bill might achieve. In the course of considering the evidence that was available to the Committee and of the issues that arose- the evidence has already been extensively canvassed by other honourable senators in this debate- I came to the conclusion that I should support the Bill subject to the amendments which are recommended by the Committee and subject to the further recommendations of Senator Durack and myself that 2 years, rather than 12 months, is the appropriate period of separation.
There is a lot of dispute about the Bill which is before us. There is little or no dispute about the value of stable marriages and stable families to the community. In the main the family unit- the combination of husband and wife- is responsible for both the procreation and the rearing of children. It is clear that the pattern of our community, the social attitudes of the individuals comprising the Australian community are the product of family influences- both good influences and bad. There is also little or no dispute that the law ought to provide for divorce. In his speech Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson conceded the fact that divorce did exist and that the law has to provide for it. Even those churches, which generally deny that divorce ought to be available to their adherents, seem to agree that civil divorce should be available for the protection of parties to the marriage which has in fact broken down and for the regulation of the affairs of parties to such a marriage. I think that it is in the light of those facts that this Bill has to be consideredfirstly, the importance of the family to the community and, secondly, the fact that marriages do break down.
When those 2 facts are taken into consideration it is almost impossible to quarrel with the generalised principles which were enunciated by the English Law Commission and which have been quoted several times in this debate. Because they are, in my view, such an adequate summary of what a divorce law should be about I would like to quote them again in the form in which they were quoted by the Attorney-General (Senator Murphy) when he introduced the Bill originally in December 1973. He said of a good divorce law:
That it should buttress, rather than undermine, the stability of marriage and, when a marriage has irretrievably broken down, it should enable the empty legal shell to be destroyed with the maximum fairness and the minimum bitterness, distress and humiliation.
Generalised as those criteria might be, in my view they adequately summarise the principles to be applied by this legislature. We must ensure that the Family Law Bill when it is passed- if it is passed by us- meets those criteria.
I think it is appropriate that on a measure of this importance we are dealing with it as a nonparty matter. Each of us is forced to examine the Bill and make judgments on what it proposed and on the amendments that have been foreshadowed by the Committee, Senator Durack, myself and others. As a member of that Committee I believe that in the main the amendments proposed will bring the law into compliance with those criteria.
Let me examine the criteria for a moment. The first question that is clearly raised is how a law providing for divorce can buttress marriage. The question can be put in the alternative as: How can a law which provides for the dissolution of marriages undermine the stability of marriage? I think that most people would find a ready answer to the latter question. It seems a matter of common sense that to allow immediate divorce by consent or after a very short period of time, or to permit divorce for less than serious reasons, would have 2 negative effects on the institution of marriage. Firstly, it would mean that parties to a marriage undergoing the normal stresses and strains to which every marriage is subject, might be tempted to take the easy way out. There can be no doubt that a successful marriage is based on a degree of mutual effort by the parties. I adopt the description of what makes a successful marriage which was put forward a few minutes ago by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson. In all but the most fortunate marriages periods of happiness are punctuated by periods of strain. If divorce is too easily available there could be a temptation to take the easy way out over relatively minor difficulties.
The second way in which an easy divorce law could undermine the stability of marriage is that it could affect the community attitude to marriage and hence the attitude of the parties who are entering into marriage. At present, notwithstanding that divorce is presently available, most people enter marriage in the hopeful belief that the marriage will succeed and that a lifelong relationship is being formed. To provide a legislative framework for marriage which suggestes anything less, which suggests that marriage could be lightly dissolved, would be to encourage the idea that marriage should be lightly entered into, as a matter of no great importance. I appreciate that honourable senators preceding me in this debate have quoted words from the marriage service which make clear the nature of Christian marriage, which I think is broadly the concept of marriage accepted by our community. I assure Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson that I am not one of those who would regard the words he used as corny. I have a great deal of sympathy for both the propositions which I have put forward as being reasons for not having a divorce law which is too easy.
I accept that the pattern of marriage which is established by the legislature is a factor in establishing community attitudes towards marriage. It is therefore a factor in determining the attitudes of people who are entering into marriage. In the long term the success of individual marriages will be affected by it. So I accept that it is our obligation to ensure that divorce is available only in these circumstances where it is clear that there has been a complete and irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. Divorce, like marriage, is something which ought not be undertaken lightly. Also I think it is important that the law must be seen to have marriage preserving provisions. But I think that the marriage preserving provisions which have been incorporated in the Bill and the further marriage preserving provisions which the Committee has recommended should also be incorporated, provide the sort of framework of respect for marriage that I require of the law.
I say to the Senate that this Bill does not make divorce easier, and that surely is what the argument is about. If divorce were made uniformly easier by this Bill there would be some great validity in what has been said by both Senator Laucke and Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson in putting forward a view which is held by others outside this chamber and obviously clearly held by them. The fact of the matter is that in many cases divorce will take longer to achieve than under the present system. In all cases of adultery, for example, which comprise a substantial number of divorce cases brought before the courts, the immediate remedy will no longer be available. In other cases where a spouse has had an extended period of cruelty inflicted on him or her, an immediate divorce will not be available because the party leaves and decides to take some action. In those cases divorce will be harder to obtain. So it is a misrepresentation to say of this Bill that it is aimed at making divorce easier. It is a pity that that misrepresentation should be noised abroad, for the reasons that I hope I have already made plain.
In trying to put this Bill into some sort of context it should be remembered that ultimately the decision of whether or not a marriage has irretrievably broken down is something that has to be decided by somebody other than the parties themselves. If it is left to the parties- if ones goes along with the system which says that the parties merely declare the fact that the marriage is finished and permits immediate divorce by consentthat would mean that the community is washing its hands of its interest in marriage. So we have to introduce a third party to make a decision on whether or not a marriage is to be dissolved. But if a third party is to adjudicate on that question, the problem that this Senate has to face is whether it is fair to impose on the adjudicating person the job of deciding on a subjective basis whether a marriage has irretrievably broken down. I adopt the argument which was put forward by Senator Durack tonight, that to impose that job on a judge or indeed on anybody else would be to impose an impossible burden. We can not leave it to a matter of subjective judgment in each case.
Just as the present law sets a series of objective facts which have to be proven if a divorce is to be granted, we have to accept that the real decision before us is whether we accept a single ground or multiple objective grounds in determining whether a divorce should be granted.
It is clear, both from what has been said here today and from the evidence that was put before the Committee, that almost everyone who is involved in divorce, either personally or professionally, finds the present fault grounds unsatisfactory. In many cases those fault grounds are a sham because the parties are able to manufacture the ground that they require to obtain a divorce. In others where the parties contest the existence or otherwise of the ground they are the cause of bitterness, distress and humiliation, and in that they breach the second of the criteria to which I have already referred. I believe and I say to the Senate that the law and the community would be better off if inquiry into the subjective personal lives of the parties to an unhappy marriage could be reduced to a minimum.
I draw the attention of the Senate to the fact that there has been a no-fault ground of separation for S years since 1959 throughout Australia and for many years prior to that in Western Australia. So I say it is not true that this Bill represents a wholly new legislative attitude to marriage. The law of this country for many years has been that unilaterally a party can bring a marriage to an end. While on personal moral grounds that might be regarded as offensive, I do not believe that the present Bill which is before us now represents a complete change of direction. I suggest to the Senate that proof of fault which has been defended by many people is of no value in itself. I do not regard it as a function of the divorce court to brand one of the parties to the marriage as being the party at fault. Again, anyone with experience in this field seems to find it impossible to lay fault at the door of one party.
The real question is whether the position between the parties can be sorted out fairly without reference to the concept of fault. Clearly, on the evidence which was before the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, it can be insofar as dissolution of marriage is concerned. The real problem seems to arise with the question of ancillary proceedings, that is, questions of custody and maintenance. I refer to the speech which was made by Senator Laucke yesterday. As one of the objections to the Bill he stated:
But maintenance and custody decisions issued by the court cannot take into account irresponsible parental behaviour on the pan t.i’a husband or wife because the Bill itself eliminates the present concept of matrimonial fault which is very often the cause of irresponsible parental behaviour.
Again, that statement is based on a misapprehension of what the Bill actually does. In fact, under this Bill the concept of fault is preserved with respect to proceedings relating to the custody of children. The conduct of the parties remains a factor to be considered when maintenance is being decided. So, in these areas where I think there is common ground between all people interested in this Bill the concept of fault needs to be retained, in fact it is retained. I do not deny that there is a change of emphasis but it is simply not true to say that fault has become irrelevant in these areas.
In relation to the basic question whether a marriage ought to be dissolved the position is quite different. I submit to the Senate that there can surely be no better proof of the actual breakdown of a marriage than the fact that parties, for an extended period, have ceased to live together, have ceased to share their together in any sense. I find it hard to imagine that any other ground could be put forward as more legitimate proof of the fact that a marriage has broken down. I think it is clear that I support the abolition of the fault concept as far as it is possible, and it is possible with respect to proceedings for dissolution.
One of the very odd features about the debate which has raged around this Bill and about the submissions which have been sent to me and, I am sure, to all other honourable senators is that some of the opponents of the Bill have strenuously objected to the fact that immediate grounds for divorce, such as adultery, have been abolished. They say that this is something which is unjust or potentially unjust to the parties. But I find it very hard to understand that argument in the context of a concern which is expressed at the same time that divorce should not be made easier.
I am not offended by the loss of the right on the part of a spouse to obtain an immediate divorce because of a single act of adultery. I believe that the principle which we ought to be considering here is trying to avoid hasty decisions being made by parties to a marriage about bringing a marriage to an end. That is the principle which I think pays respect to the need in the community to preserve marriage. I favour the fact that this Bill will make it harder under certain circumstances to get a quick divorce. I welcome the fact that in every case now both the affronted party and the affronting party are forced to take time to consider the position. If, at times, that leads to periods of hardship for individuals then I think it is to be regretted but it is something which we have to tolerate in the interests of stable marriage.
I think a practical problem is raised by opponents of the Bill in this area. They say: Well, look at the position of a wife whose husband illtreats her, behaves badly, perhaps enters into an adulterous liaison with another woman, who physically illtreats her and so on. Why should that woman be denied the right to immediate relief?’ Of course she is not denied the right to immediate relief. The only denial is that she cannot obtain an immediate divorce. Under clause 90 of the Bill she has the power to obtain the protection of the court against bad behaviour, just as a husband has power to obtain the protection of the court against his wife’s bad behaviour. She, or the spouse to adopt a neutral term, has the right to apply for maintenance and for custody. The only relief which is postponed is that divorce will not be available until the period of separation has expired.
I will not weary the Senate with an account of the improvements to the Bill which have been proposed by the Committee. I think the proposals have been admirably outlined by various members of the Committee who have already spoken, including Senator Missen and Senator Durack. But I take the time of the Senate to remind honourable senators of the proposals for a family court; the proposal that proceedings for dissolution should not be commenced until the ground for dissolution has arisen and the proposal that counselling should be brought in before dissolution proceedings, if possible. All these are positive suggestions which go to the family strengthening aspects of the Bill. I advert to Senator Baume ‘s suggestion that there is a fault in the Bill that counselling is being tied up with the court. I point out to the Senate that, in fact, all that is being done is to improve the counselling procedures which are available to the court without inteference to those counselling procedures which are available independently of any court, such as the various marriage guidance organisations.
I have already referred to the maintenance problems which have concerned many critics of the Bill. Again, I commend the Committee recommendations which I believe meet the problem of the wife of mature years who is left in circumstances of need after a lifetime of service to her husband. There has been so much difficulty in getting across accurately just what this Bill does. For example, it has been said on several occasions that it is a revolutionary thing that a wife might have to maintain her husband. I assure honourable senators that that is nothing new in the law. For many years in Australia it has been possible for a husband, in particular circumstances, to obtain a property settlement or even maintenance, in some circumstances, from a wife. I believe that honourable senators have to take account of the fact that provided reasonable protection is given to any party to a marriage which has broken down, we have to acknowledge the fact that social mores are changing and that more and more women in fact are undertaking lives which are independent of the home, of their family and so on.
I think it reasonable that the law should be taking into account the changing standards in this area. The obligation which is on us as senators is to ensure that no person is left in an unfair position. I will be very interested to hear contributions during the Committee stage on where the amendments which we have proposed will leave gaps which could give rise to injustice.
I refer briefly to the notice which has already been given by Senator Durack that he and I propose to seek an amendment to clause 26 of the Bill when it is being dealt with in Committee. We wish to amend the Bill to provide that the period of separation required under clause 26 should be 2 years. Clearly, the judgment as to what is an appropriate period of separation is subjective and no more than a matter of judgment. I ask the Senate to consider a couple of points which I think bear out the fact that one year is not an adequate period. We have already heard the opinions of various churchmen cited by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson and others about a concern that one year is not enough. We had a quotation from the Rev. Alan Walker who apparently wrote to a newspaper this morning. I, in common with other honourable senators, received a circular containing an extract of a speech by the Rev. Alan Walker within the last week. I was fortified by the fact that he chose the period of 2 years as being the appropriate term of separation which should be provided in the Bill.
The present period provided in the Bill, one year, is subject to the provisions of clause 29. 1 think honourable senators should examine that clause when they are trying to decide whether one year is adequate, because it provides that in assessing the period of 12 months separation the Court is entitled to ignore a period of up to 3 months cohabitation which takes place during that 12 months separation period. I have not put that quite clearly because a full period of 12 months separation is required. If the parties can show that over a 15-month period, they have been separated for 12 months but together for three of those months, there is still a ground for dissolution available to them. I am in agreement with the objectives of clause 29 which is there to ensure that parties who are already separated are not discouraged from attempting reconciliation.
I think that is obviously desirable. If we are trying to promote reconciliation we should be prepared to allow people to come together without their being held apart by the thought that perhaps they are destroying the ground for divorce if the coming together does not succeed. So the principle in clause 29 is good but it means that parties might commence divorce proceedings after perhaps only a few months apart, since they have been together for a period of up to 3 months. I think that when we consider the situations which could arise, they give us cause to reconsider the period of 12 months.
The most important fact which we must consider in this regard is that many marriages go through periods of strain and tension. Reasons for strain and tension in a marriage may be psychological, physiological or economic. A lot of married couples have periods of separation which do not culminate in a final marital breakdown. Many young married people face difficult periods of adjustment which may involve periods of separation. My judgment is that I cannot be sure that a period of one year, particularly when it is subject to clause 29, is adequateadequate in terms of final proof that a marriage has irretrievably broken down. I believe that if other honourable senators share my doubt they should support the amendments which we will be moving.
I think that the period of 2 years has the added advantage that it is almost hallowed by precedent because at the moment we have a ground which is desertion for a period of 2 years. In many cases the ground of desertion runs very close to consensual separation. I think that in the interests of approaching what is a very useful and necessary reform we ought to do so with caution. We ought to do so because marriage is important to the community, for the reasons which have been emphasised by Senator Laucke and Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson. I think that those reasons are shared by every senator who has spoken in the debate. I commend to the Senate the principle of no fault, proven, by a period of separation of 2 years rather than one year.
I refer those people who believe that the Bill is inadequate because it does not deal with the whole range of family law to page 35 of the report of the Senate Committee. It deals with the proposals for the Family Law Council. I believe that it is in this area that we get the final rounding off of the legislative provision of family law at this moment. The Committee has recommended that the Family Law Council be strengthened and given extensive powers to advise the Parliament on the improvements which are required in the law in this area. The first proposal of the Committee is that the body which is established in the Bill, as it stands at present, should not be merely an advisory agency but should have a broad and continuing role in reviewing the operation of the Act and directing attention, in a formal way, to all matters which are relevant to a sound family law system. I emphasise the words ‘to all matters which are relevant to a sound family law system’. There is another proposal which is not particularly relevant. The third provision is that the Council should have the express right to advise and make recommendations not only at the request of the Attorney-General, but also of its own motion. The fourth is that there should be provision for representatives of churches to be appointed to the Council. The fifth is that the Council should meet frequently. The final provision is that it should present an annual report for tabling in Parliament.
I think that in putting forward those proposals the Committee was clearly actuated by the same motives which I contend have moved all senators who have taken part in the consideration of this Bill. I do not think that in any case there is any disrespect or lack of feeling for the family or for marriage- quite the reverse. Those people who deal with the unfortunate end of marriage, the people who deal with the dissolution of marriage, believe that the present system causes injustice, ill feeling and hardship and that it should be changed. I commend the Bill in the form I trust it will be in when it is amended. I support the motion for the second reading of the Bill. I trust that it will be the first of further measures which will look to the strengthening of the family in Australia.
– In addressing myself to the second reading debate on this Bill, I express my gratitude to all senators, in particular those members of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs who have given searching and deliberate consideration to this Bill. Many points of view have been put, and I am satisfied that all the broad aspects have been fully covered in the second reading debate in the Senate on this occasion and in speeches on other occasions when the matter has been discussed in this place. I am fully aware that a number of attitudes will be expressed during the Committee stage. It would be reasonable to assume that ample opportunity would be given then to canvass fully any aspects of the Bill which in the minds of certain senators still remain obscure to some degree.
Like other senators, I have had many representations made to me about this subject. During my term as a senator I have had personal approaches from people pleading that steps be taken to eliminate the high costs, the delays and, above all, the indignities which they were experiencing under the existing Matrimonial Causes Act. Being a happily married man for over 33 years, I have a very deep concern for those people who have not been as fortunate in marriage as I have been. To my mind, the people who have approached me with their personal plea have been more convincing than have those people who posted a stereo-type letter to me. They have been more convincing than the 5,000 eople who signed petitions and about whom Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson spoke. I believe that in any matter such as this, when one can sit down and talk to a person, one gets right to the heart of the problem. I have done this on numerous occasions. My opinion is that everything that could be said in a second reading debate has been said. I think it would be appropriate at this stage for the Senate to express itself on the broad terms of the Bill. Accordingly, I move:
– The question is that the second reading of the Family Law Bill 1974 be now put- I am sorry, that Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson’s amendment that the words proposed to be left out be left out. Those in favour say aye, against say no. I think the noes have it. The question is that the Bill be now read a second time. Those in favour say aye, those against say no. I think the ayes have it.
– Oh, no.
– A point of order, Mr President.
– I put the closure motion moved by Senator McLaren. Senator McLaren moved that the question be now put. I put the motion and it was declared to be carried.
– A point of order, Mr President. I believe that the motion which you put was that the words proposed to be left out or added should be left out or added. It may have been a mistake, but we should have had the motion put that the question be now put.
– I put the question that the question be now put.
Opposition Senators- No.
– I did. I put the question that the question be now put.
– On a point of order, Mr President, could I ask that you put the question again for the clarification of the Senate?
– I will, yes. I go back again to Senator McLaren’s motion. The question is: That the motion moved by Senator McLaren, that the question be now put, be put.
Question put.
The Senate divided. (The President- Senator the Hon. Justin O’Byrne)
AYES: 26
NOES: 29
Majority……. 3
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the negative.
– I thank you for your introduction, Mr President. I think I will have the distinction of being the only speaker to be welcomed twice as a maiden speaker in the one session. When I made my maiden speech you, Mr President, were not in the Chair for unavoidable reasons, so I was not able to pay you the courtesy of congratulating you on your election to the position of President and to say that I look forward to learning my trade as a senator under your Presidency. I feel very strongly that I should speak to the motion for the second reading of this Bill. Much debate is yet to take place at the Committee stage but there are a number of points that I would like to make generally as to how this Bill affects or will affect the women of the community. I am moved to do so particularly as statements which have been made so far do show some ignorance of the needs of the situation. I would like to say initially that I do not intend to support the amendment which has been moved by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson. I appreciate the great sincerity with which he moved it and I appreciate his reasons. However, I think that the grounds are not substantial on this occasion to move for any sort of deferral and certainly not for the deferral that the honourable senator requested. It would mean a deferral of at least 4 months. From those who have been supporting the deferral there is an indication that they wish to see quite substantial changes to this Bill, or they believe that there are outside groups who want to see quite substantial changes made. We run the risk of an endless process so that whenever a substantial change is brought forward as a result of a proposed amendment to the Bill or a report on the Bill it will be deferred yet again.
The whole question of divorce in Australia has had quite an exhaustive public debate for some years. Certainly senators and very many members of the public know the need for change and they wish to see that change come about. I would not on this ground support a hasty move on the Bill but I think the report we have received from the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs is excellent. It assisted me, a senator encountering the Family Law Bill for the first time, enormously in my appreciation of the problems, of the need for change, and of the potential of this Bill. I will agree that there are some things left out of it. I will agree that in some ways it cannot truly be called a Family Law Bill. However, it does make some very positive and worthwhile moves in the area of divorce law in Australia. I believe the need is so great that we should proceed with the business of passing good divorce laws.
It is a little futile to talk about the points of view of groups. The churches themselves are not unanimous. Different churches have taken different stances on different aspects of the measure. There are, of course, other pressure groups also working within the community. I am a little concerned at some of the pressure that has been put on the women of the community in relation to this Bill. I have had many approaches from women who have expressed their concern, not necessarily for their own cases, but for what they believe to be the potential of this Bill and its possible effect on women in Australian society. I believe that the people who have approached me have been grossly misinformed about the actual content and intent of the Bill but their alarm was genuine. It is necessary that we debate the measure cleanly. Not all the debate that has taken place in the public arena has been clean or fair. I think the lead-up to the Bill has been fair. I think the presentation of the Bill has been fair. I believe that we and the public are equipped to proceed with this Bill, so far as it goes.
I will address myself very briefly to the matter of grounds. I welcome the elimination of the guilt notion in divorce. There is much concentration on the fact that because we have taken away the guilt notion one partner to a marriage can unilaterally break that marriage, that that partner can take action which will end the marriage against the wishes of the other party. Many personal contracts are undertaken between individuals in our society and between men and women which are voluntarily broken. The stage before marriage is the formal engagement stage. It is a fact that individuals at that stage can break the engagement. It can be broken unilaterally very much against the wishes of the other party. The reason that that situation is different from the question of breaking or dissolving a marriage, that the latter is so much more emotional, is because there is the matter of justice in the area of property, joint property which has been earned through joint effort which must be justly and reasonably settled and because, crucially, it is highly likely that the marriage will include a giving birth to children and the welfare of the children of the marriage must be paramount. With that substantial difference those are the areas, I believe, on which we should concentrate.
I am not totally persuaded by religious argument. Speaking personally, I have had a lot of pressure put on me by religious groups with the notion that marriage once undertaken is a permanent contract. I have never yet had sufficiently explained to me the logic behind the situation when 2 parties enter into this contract and one party breaks it, or never attempts fairly to keep it according to all the conditions that they undertake when they go through a religious marriage. It is not just an agreement to live together as man and wife. It is not just an agreement to be legally in the state of marriage. It is an agreement that covers very many aspects of human conduct in marriage. I cannot understand why when one of the parties breaks those aspects of the contract the other party is obliged to maintain them unilaterally. I think that is a matter for individuals.
Nevertheless, we must respect the religious beliefs and religious scruples of very many sincere people in our community. For that reason I hope that at the Committee stage the section of the Bill which requires or appears to require a move towards actual divorce before a proper settlement can be made in the matter of support and property will be amended. It is a poor one. We should leave the way open for those who will recognise that they are living together in the state of marriage and as it is a very poor state and a sham, continuation of that state is bad for their children and bad for them as individuals. They may agree to live apart but they may have strong personal and religious reasons for not wishing to proceed to divorce. Those people should not be forced to proceed to divorce.
In the matter of guilt I think it is very important that a mutual termination of marriage with dignity be possible. I think there is a greater chance of termination with dignity if there is not a guilt basis. At present where there is a requirement to prove guilt there is an altogether unhealthy interest in the community as to the grounds on which individuals are divorced, who divorced whom, who was the defaulting party, when we all know in fact that in a very large percentage of cases the actual grounds used in the divorce court were not the cause of the breakdown of the marriage. More often they are symptoms of the breakdown of the marriage but we force members of our society to go through a wholly undignified and in many cases extremely degrading process in order to terminate a relationship which has left in it no potential for good for them, for their children or for the community.
The ground has also been used as a bargaining point by parties to marriage in the matters of maintenance, property and custody. This has been strongly to the detriment of children. Mr President, I wish to speak at quite some further length on the effects of this aspect on children and on the potential effects of this Bill on the status of women in our society, as a reflection of their status and on just how we can hope through a Bill which deals with personal relationships to come to a fair law which will enable reality to be reflected and will enable people to live believing that they have been justly treated, knowing that they have behind them what is regarded as a social failure but also knowing that they at least have an equal chance of living a decent life. However, I understand that this debate is scheduled to be adjourned at 1 1 o’clock this evening. May I proceed, Mr President?
– Yes. If you would like to discontinue you should ask for leave to continue your remarks at a later stage.
– When the debate on this Bill is resumed, presumably on the next day of sitting or soon thereafter, I hope to be able to continue my speech. In that case I do not wish to pursue this matter and thereby cause the debate in the Senate tonight to run any longer than it has to. I seek leave of the Senate to continue my remarks when the debate is resumed.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
page 2169
– Order! It being 1 1 p.m., under the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I put the question:
That the Senate do now adjourn.
– I rise on the motion for the adjournment of the Senate to say that it is a matter for regret that the Constitutional Convention scheduled to be held in Adelaide next week has been postponed. Possibly the use of the word ‘regret’ is too moderate an expression of feeling. The postponement need not have happened, but the fact that it has happened dashes the hopes of those who saw in this Convention a real hope for an impetus to desirable constitutional reform. The Convention ought to have been regarded as a forum for the expression of differing views, as a place where consensus could have developed, as a place where a great deal of work which had been done could be brought to realisation. It could have been a forum which could have provided a stimulus for action. Both yesterday and today Senator Murphy used the forms of question time to express himself strongly in saying that the
Constitutional Convention had not taken place because of the action of the Opposition. He used today the expression ‘the pigheadedness of the Opposition’.
The editorial in this morning’s ‘Australian’ newspaper likewise sought to place the entire blame for the fact that the Constitutional Convention was not being held upon the Opposition. Both accusations are totally false. They are made in defiance or in ignorance, and possibly both, of the true facts. The Opposition will not sit back tamely to have a totally false picture deliberately pervaded by the Government and its uncritical lackeys in the newspapers. One is accustomed on occasions to speaking to an empty Senate and substantially empty Government benches but I will not be daunted by that fact. All I say is that there ought to be a record of what has taken place, and this is the occasion on which that record can be made.
I refer to the editorial in today’s ‘Australian’ because I would have thought that that editorial would take a lot of beating for the sheer falsity of the accusations which it makes. In the first place there was the allegation that the obstinacy of the Opposition members had caused the Convention meetings to be abandoned. This is a statement which, on the face of it, is plainly untrue. Insofar as it reflects an opinion, it is an opinion which cannot be based on fact. It discloses a completely one-sided view which accepts either that the Government can do no wrong or that the Opposition can do no right. Why, one might pose, is the Government’s insistence on a point of view unquestionably correct? Why is it that the Opposition ‘s insistence on its point of view is unquestionably wrong?
Another point which is made in the editorial is that Opposition senators knew better than the Government and used their numbers to reject Mr Whitlam ‘s arrangement of a 16-member party simply because Senator Hall was included as an Opposition representative. The Government knew, as proved to be the fact, that the Opposition would not accept that the Government should nominate who should be one of the Opposition’s representatives, particularly when the representative it nominated was not a member of the Opposition. The Government knew that the Opposition must resist any such assertion by the Government to determine who were the Opposition members. Accordingly it must have known that the course it was pursuing was a course which would lead to the deadlock which ultimately occurred.
The third point which arises from the editorial is the reference to what has happened in the past as in some way determining the Opposition’s attitude. It refers to an incident which took place during the Joint Sitting and says specifically that personal insults were poured on Senator Hall by the Opposition members during his speech. I have looked at the Hansard record and I find that that statement just has no basis on which it can supported. But there are certain facts which I would repeat again for the record, and that record is something which ought to be replaced because, even if the newspapers give no credence to the Opposition’s viewpoint, there is a subsequent time at which one ought to be able to refer back to what the actual facts were. The fact simply is that Senator Hall is not and does not claim to be a member of the Opposition. He is not recognised as a member of the Opposition. He claims to be and is a member of the Liberal Movement and he is its leader in this place.
– Are you saying that’ the Democratic Labor Party was in the Opposition? Its members were included amongst the Opposition previously, were they not? Why was the DLP in the Opposition and Senator Hall is not in the Opposition?
-Senator Wheeldon, I find, adduces an interesting argument because I recall that it was very vigorously asserted- I do not recall whether it was asserted by him or one other of his colleagues- when the Labor Party was in Opposition that there was only one Opposition and that was the Australian Labor Party.
– Who said this?
-This was said by the spokesmen of this Labor Party in this place. When the Labor Party was in Opposition it never claimed that the Democratic Labor Party was the Opposition or was entitled to be the Opposition. Indeed, .the forms of the Senate acknowledged that it could not be the Opposition any more than Senator Hall today could be regarded as the Opposition. If the record is to be referred to, I am not sure what Senator Hall’s voting record is, but I know that he votes with the Labor Party as much as, if not more than, he votes with the Opposition. I would submit to anyone who wants to examine the picture that this is not a fair measure of the proper measure by which to determine whether a person is a member of the Opposition. The record shows that Senator Hall supports the Government more than he supports the Opposition.
Another point which is made in the editorial and which has been made on other occasions is that last year’s representation at the Constitutional Convention included the Demoratic Labor Party. But what is failed to be noted is that the representation which was fixed in 1 973 was a representation which was agreed upon by the Government, by the Opposition and by the Democratic Labor Party. In fact, my recollectionI have a personal knowledge of this- goes back to the time when the previous Government was in office. During that period, by a letter which I know was dated 13 April 1972, the then Leader of the Opposition, Mr Whitlam, in fact nominated what the Labor Party then believed should be the size of the delegation to the Constititional Convention, what should be the Party composition and what should be the respective composition from the Houses. That letter- I am sure that that letter must be in the file somewhere- will show that the Labor Party decided and suggested to the Government of the day- the Government accepted the proposalthat there should be 10 members of the House of Representatives and 5 members of the Senate, and that the Senate representation should be 2 Government senators, 2 Opposition Senators, and one senator from the Democratic Labor Party.
– I rise on a point of order, Mr President. My point of order is that now that precisely enough senators are within the House as would be able to make up a table of bridge, can the Clerk provide playing cards to those of us who are left?
– It would appear that the Chair’s attention has been drawn to the state of the House. Ring the bells. (Quorum formed).
– I am grateful to Senator Wheeldon for restoring some life to a debate which was somewhat flagging. The position in 1972 was that the Labor Party itself, through the agency of Mr Whitlam, decided that the representation at the Constitutional Convention would be in the numbers which I have indicated. When in 1973 the composition of the delegation to the first session of the Convention was fixed it again was fixed by agreement. The agreement was between the leaders of the parties and it was that the delegation would be increased to sixteen.
As far as the Senate was concerned there would be 3 government senators and there would be a representative of the Liberal Party, the Australian Country Party and the Democratic Labor Party. But that was an arrangement which I would emphasise was mutually agreed upon by all the parties then represented in the chamber. The appointments were made by resolutions of the House of Representatives and the Senate on 3 1 May 1973 and the fact that they were each agreed to, without debate, indicates the consensus which had been arrived at. It should not be forgotten that the Democratic Labor Party was a Party of 5 senators established in the Senate for approximately 15 years whose individual representatives had polled approximately 1 8 per cent of the vote in each of 2 States and whose national vote approximated 10 per cent. The Democratic Labor Party was and had long been recognised as an established Party. As I said, their participation as part of the Convention delegation was by arrangement and agreement between the various parties represented.
Another point which was made in the editorial in this morning’s Press to which I have referred was the credibility of the Opposition’s commitment to constitutional reform which must, it said, be seriously questioned. That, Mr President, is a statement which reflects more on the ignorance of the writer than on the Opposition which is sought to be questioned. But ignorance fed by blind acceptance of whatever the Government asserts is commonplace among the critics of the present Opposition. It is a matter for some alarm that this is the standard of editorial writing in the Australian’. But if this is the standard for the Australian’ so be it. We know the freedom of the Press involves taking the good along with the bad. But we must take some comfort from the fact that the ‘Australian’ does have other editorial writers.
The Opposition, when it was in government, had committed this Parliament to participation in the Convention. This present Opposition, when in government and since it went into Opposition, has supported the work of the Convention. It committed the Commonwealth originally to the major share of the costs of the Convention. It has attended and participated in the work of the Convention sessions and the committees. It has sought on many occasions to popularise the working of this Convention. Its policy documents have emphasised the reliance it places upon the Constitutional Convention as the forum in which a consensus can be developed from which constitutional changes can be developed. These are matters of record and they are matters which indicate the Opposition’s commitment to the purposes of the Constitutional Convention. Any objective observer would question, however, the degree of the Commonwealth’s Government’s commitment to this Convention. Notwithstanding that it has right from the outset agreed with the Opposition parties that it would participate in the Convention, the Government has shown by its conduct that it regards the Convention as a less than satisfactory medium for securing support for constitutional changes.
Since this Government came into power we have had 6 referenda, not one of which has been carried and not one of which was submitted to the Constitutional Convention beforehand in an effort to obtain support from the representatives of the States as a means of achieving that sort of consensus which experience ought to have demonstrated was necessary for the carrying of referenda in this country. One further proposal was suggested by the Government at the Constitutional Convention last September. It was taken up initially by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) with the States. But at a fairly early stage the Commonwealth decided to go it alone and the proposal for the referendum question on the reference of powers was not taken back to the States and instead it was brought prematurely to this Parliament, where the Senate rejected it. The Senate rejected it because it had not the support of the States and because it seemed proper that the matter ought to go back to the Constitutional Convention from which it had originally emanated.
This failure to support the Constitutional Convention as a forum where the referendum proposals could have been considered does suggest that the Government did not see any value in the Constitutional Convention as a place where support might be obtained. This, of course, is a denial of the very purpose for which the Convention was established. The present Government appears to have regarded the defeat of the referenda as matters of pride and in petulance it has decided not to proceed further with the Constitutional Convention. This is not evidenced only by what has happened in the last week. There is a pattern which can be demonstrated and which has been sought to be testified to by statements which have been issued after various other matters have occurred but which have not been taken up by those who now want to criticise the Opposition.
There was a meeting of the Executive Committee of the Constitutional Convention which was held in Melbourne in June of this year. The Prime Minister and the Commonwealth Government were not represented. They had been invited to attend and they chose not to attend. It had been agreed at the previous session of the Convention and at the previous executive meeting that the second session of the Convention was to be held in Melbourne in September of this year. The Commonwealth indicated, though the Prime Minister did not appear, that that time was unsatisfactory and the Commonwealth would not be able to attend. Nevertheless the Commonwealth did not indicate what date would be satisfactory. I well recall that there were officers- not Ministers- of the Government who were present at that meeting of the Executive Committee who were very embarrassed because first, they did not have any instructions, secondly they could not give any information and, thirdly, many efforts to telephone the Prime Minister who was at a meeting in another State were unavailing because the Prime Minister was not available to come to the telephone.
This was a fact which caused considerable annoyance amongst members of the Prime Minister’s own party from other States. But at the time that that occurred, of course, an indication was given- I certainly made it by way of a Press statement afterwards and I understand the Chairman of the Executive Committee made a similar statement- which criticised the absence of the Prime Minister and the Commonwealth Government from that meeting. It appeared reasonable to assume that the Commonwealth was not interested in fixing a date on which the Convention could be held. The upshot of the meeting was that the Chairman was to endeavour to ascertain at some stage in the future when the Prime Minister would be available to attend a meeting of the Convention. Subsequently, it was discovered that the Prime Minister would be able to attend in the first week in November. Whether or not he thought that might daunt the Convention because the first week in November in Melbourne was Melbourne Cup week and it might be difficult to hold the Convention in that week is purely a matter for speculation.
The organisers of the Convention decided to transfer the meeting to Adelaide. That was the arrangement which was made to suit the Commonwealth’s convenience. Thereafter we had in September a resolution which was proposed by the Government which sought to make Senator Hall one of the Opposition representatives. It is a matter of record that the Senate declined to accept the Government’s proposal. It is equally a matter of record that this Senate declined to accept the Opposition’s proposal- which in all the circumstances ought to have been regarded as the fairest proposal- that there should be 3
Government representatives and 3 representatives from the official Opposition and the Australian Country Party. But, as I said, the Senate declined to accept that proposal.
If it becomes a matter of obstinacy I would have thought that in the workings of Parliament when representatives are to be appointed representing the Opposition side of the Parliament, any Opposition would assert its right to nominate its own Opposition members. I notice that Senator Hall smiles at that statement. But I am quite sure that when he was a member of a party which had representatives in the Parliament when he was in South Australia, he would have asserted as the Leader of the Liberal Partythe Liberal Country League as it then washis right to nominate who his Party’s representatives would be and not concede to the Labor Party the right to nominate who any members might be for the purposes of a particular function. I am quite sure that the Australian Labor Party would not concede to another Party the right to nominate which of the Labor Party’s members would attend a particular conference.
The autonomy of political parties in the determination of who shall be their representatives is vital to the functioning of any Party. The attempt by the Prime Minister not only to nominate 8 Government representatives but also to nominate one of the Opposition representatives is something which I do not believe any reasonable minded person could accept. In those circumstances for it to be suggested that there is, on the part of the Opposition, an obstinacy which is to be described as pig-headedness or a refusal to submit to a reasonable proposition is totally unfounded. At the Constitutional Convention there was every opportunity for the proposition which prevailed in regard to all the other State delegations to prevail in the case of the Commonwealth delegation, that is, that there was a representation from each House of the Parliament and that there was equality of representation between the parties represented in the Parliament. That principle of representation ought to have prevailed on this occasion as it prevailed in the Commonwealth on the previous occasions when agreement was made between the parties as to the composition of the delegation.
Senator Hall, as the representative of the Liberal Movement, was unable to secure nationally one per cent of the votes. He has a base which is in South Australia. The South Australian Parliament has given to his Liberal Movement a representative at the Constitutional Convention. There was no occasion, even if it were a proper argument to be adverted to on the national scale, for saying that his Party would not be represented. But in terms of the national picture, it is completely unreasonable to seek to say to the Opposition Parties that they must accept that a person who is not one of their members is entitled to representation. If that is to occur, let it be by agreement or let it be by the Government conceding one of its places to a person whom it believes should attend the Convention.
As I have said, I have raised this matter for the purpose of making the record clear in fundamentals as to what has taken place, and to explain why the Opposition Parties regard the Government as having taken a course which was calculated to produce the result which has ensued. I believe that for reasons best known to Mr Whitlam he decided that the Commonwealth should retire from the Constitutional Convention with what grace it was able to muster. The grace which it has been able to muster is sustained only by a few erroneous statements provided for it by some docile writers in the media who accept the Government’s point of view. I would have thought that if blame is to be attached to anybody for the failure of this Convention to proceed, it is the blame which goes to a Government which sought to assert that the Opposition representation should be as the Government decided and not, as would be customary in parliamentary circles, as the Opposition itself wanted it.
– When Senator Greenwood first began to speak I felt sorry for him. He was reading from a prepared statement and obviously was under some Party discipline to explain to the Senate why he had led the fight to wreck the Constitutional Convention. Tonight he was trying to get out of the responsibility which he has as Deputy Leader of the Opposition in wielding the numbers that he can help to wield in the Senate to be obstructive. If there is one word that the Opposition does not like, it is the word ‘obstruct’. It does not like that word because it fits. Week after week and month after month we have seen obstruction in the Senate in which Senator Greenwood has been the leading figure. He does not like it when the Press accurately reports his antics in the Senate as were indicated quite clearly in the editorial of the ‘Australian’ newspaper this morning.
– Are you accepting that article as true?
-Let me finish, Senator Webster. Senator Greenwood has raised other matters of great moment as far as his attitude in politics is concerned. While I have regarded him as a fairly authoritarian person, I really did not realise he harboured the dictatorial attitude that he revealed tonight, in his statement that he believed that the Liberal Movement could be represented on the Constitutional Convention only if his Party said so. That is his view of democracy in the Senate.
– He did not say that.
-He did say it quite clearly. If the honourable senator wants to play with words, he may do so, but the Senate Hansard will reveal clearly that Senator Greenwood said that the Liberal Movement should not be represented unless this had been cleared by the Opposition. He also said that the Liberal Movement was not part of the Opposition. So the Liberal Movement is not part of the Government; it is not part of the Opposition; it does not sit in the aisle, but it does not have the approval of Senator Greenwood. Therefore, it should not have a seat as part of the Senate at the Constitutional Convention because Senator Greenwood has not said so. I acknowledge Senator Greenwood’s dictatorial and authoritarian attitude in relation to the activities of other parties in the Senate. He does not want to give them any freedom and he wants to oversee them in his position as Deputy Leader of the Opposition. (Quorum formed.)
I was saying that Senator Greenwood has exhibited authoritarian views in the Senate tonight in that his Party should control the activities of other parties in the Senate. I reject that proposition. My first feelings were something of regard for his position when he began to read his prepared statement trying to escape the responsibility for his action in the Senate. I felt sorry that he had been caught up in his own use of power to obstruct the work of the Senate. But as he ended, any regard that I had for his position evaporated as he attributed to the Government less than noble sentiments and said that it had set out to wreck the Constitutional Convention by including me as one of the delegates. I ask the Senate to examine what proof Senator Greenwood may have of that assertion. What proof has the noble lawyer to substantiate the charge he has made that the Government has deliberately wrecked the Constitutional Convention? This is the standard of the man. I wonder what the Press will report on the criticisms that he has made tonight. What proof does the honourable senator have to substantiate his charge against the Government in that regard?
– You will see it in Hansard tomorrow.
-The honourable senator has none and Senator Webster would do well to study his remarks tomorrow. The honourable senator has attacked the Press for interpreting his obstruction to the Constitutional Convention. The honourable senator said that only his Party should say, by agreement with others, who can be a member of the Constitutional Convention. He went on to criticise in some unknown and unsupported fashion the failure of the referenda to pass. I am not quite sure how he brought that matter into the debate. What part did the honourable senator play in the failure of the referenda to pass? There were three, I would agree with him, that should not have passed, but one referenda question it was completely proper should pass and in regard to which his Party brought no proper opposition at all.
That was the matter of putting the Senate and House of Representatives elections together again. The senator set out with his Party to defeat even that referendum proposal which could not be properly criticised. He therefore assisted in building into the future of Australian politics a great area of instability because he would not support the putting together of the 2 elections. Consequently he will increase the number of elections of which already, I understand, there have been five on the Federal scene since 1966. So this great democrat who bemoans the failure of the Constitutional Convention because his view as an Opposition member was not acceptable to the rest of the Senate and who has helped increase instability in Australian politics for years to come, is now trying to find an excuse. His excuse is that the Government has deliberately set out to include me as a delegate to wreck the Constitutional Convention.
I invite Australia to examine his argument. Senator Greenwood said in this Senate rather revealingly a few months ago, in reply to a question asking whom he represents in this Senate, that he represents himself. By the numbers he attracted when he started speaking tonight that is about correct, because before the bells were rung in the first instance when he was reading his prepared excuse there was one Minister in the chamber and, I think, one other member of what he terms the Opposition Party. I was here, of course, but I am not a member of the Opposition by the honourable senator’s definition. That was the attention that the honourable senator could attract in this House until the discipline of the bells was used to bring in under the provisions of the Standing Orders other honourable senators who had not wanted to hear this lamest of all speeches tonight.
I advise Senator Webster, who is interjecting, not to take up bad cases. There are plenty of cases in this Parliament which he could argue very well indeed. I admire Senator Webster’s ability to debate and to take part in the proceedings of this chamber but he would be much better advised not to assist Senator Greenwood who is rapidly passing from favour in the Liberal Party because of his well-known obstructionism. I am finding that there is a demand from Liberals in this country for a far more positive attitude in the national Parliament, and if they are not going to get it through Senator Greenwood they will demand to get it through someone else. There are hot breaths on his neck within his own Party as he well knows.
South Australians are rather amused and yet bewildered to find that their own members of the Senate on the Liberal side have voted in this chamber to deny a Liberal senator from South Australia a place on the Constitutional Convention at a meeting held in South Australia. South Australians are very keen to know why their own so-called Liberal senators have voted in this fashion. I suppose they could be led on by Senator Jessop who is first on the casualty list to go at the next election. I suggest that Senator Greenwood and whoever else might like to support him- perhaps Senator Webster- should forget all the excuses and trying to run away from the responsibility they hold in this place and attend a State Fair in South Australia- a Liberal promotionon Saturday 16 November. If Senator Greenwood would like to mix with South Australians he might find other views. But if he attends his Liberal Party State Fair on 16 November he will find a great list of activities. Among them he will find a pigeon release, a balloon bonanza, a dog obedience demonstration. I am sure that in looking at his own senators he sees a sort of dog obedience demonstration. And he will need to take note of it because I can tell you, Mr President, that there are people who are becoming alarmed about him. In any case he cannot look to the Liberal Movement for a dog obedience demonstration because he will find quite the opposite. He will find, going through the list of activities at the fair, a corroboree, a white elephant stall and other delicacies which I am sure would better occupy his time than being here in the Senate.
In conclusion, Senator Greenwood should understand that the Liberal Movement is quite a separate party from his Party. It rejects the Liberal Party of Australia as it is represented in
South Australia as being a completely reactionary group which has lost the confidence of the South Australian community, so much so that of the 8 House of Representatives seats for the metropolitan area of Adelaide the Liberal Party holds but two. My opponents in politics in the Australian Labor Party hold six. The reason for that is the type of representation that South Australia has. There are very few Liberals there but they give the type of representation which repels the general community and enables my political opponent to win three-quarters of all metropolitan Adelaide seats in the House of Representatives and, coincidentally, in the State House of Assembly. It is with pride that I continue to enunciate my difference from the Liberal Party of Australia and my personal difference from the authoritarian attitudes illustrated, announced and enunciated by Senator Greenwood in this House tonight. I may be yet but one representative of the Liberal Movement, but may I in a sense encourage Senator Greenwood ‘s remarks and attitudes tonight because he is certainly hastening the day when I am joined by others.
– On some occasions I very much enjoy listening to Senator Hall, but on other occasions I am delighted that he chooses to accentuate his difference, and this is one of them. I am pleased that his antics amuse the Government; they merely make me tired. I rise merely to make a couple of comments on some inaccuracies in what was said by Senator Hall. In particular I refer to his major criticism or statement that Senator Greenwood got up and read a prepared statement at the direction of his Party. That is ludicrously and laughably false and the record should be put straight in that regard.
The attitude of Senator Hall in this debate is typified by an aside he made when a quorum was called. He said then that Senator Greenwood has got to take his medicine. I believe that if Senator Hall sees himself as the dispenser of medicine to the Senate that attitude should be publicly known. I am in no way satisfied from what I have heard tonight that the prescription he has chosen to administer is of any value whatever. I defend the case put forward by Senator Greenwood and laugh at the proposition put forward by Senator Hall. If honourable senators want to see how foolish is the proposition put forward by Senator Hall they have only to extend it a little. If he is suggesting, for example, that the Government should have nominated as the Opposition’s representatives at the Constitutional Convention himself, the other Independent and perhaps a member of the Australian Country Party and that that would have been reasonable and something which ought to have been acceptable to the Opposition, his thought processes are quite extraordinary. Quite clearly the Opposition was supposed to be represented at the Convention and not merely some rump group.
– There was a story that used to circulate around the Senate a few years ago- I do not know what truth there was in it and could not vouch for it- that after the Senate adjourned at night Senator Greenwood would hide under the table and when the attendants had gone would come out, turn on the lights and stay here all night speaking. Whether he did this or not I do not know but certainly it would be preferable to what he has done tonight in keeping the rest of us here having to listen to him. I suppose that one has to take up some time dealing with what he has been telling us tonight. Senator Webster is trying to interject. He has had an opportunity to speak, but if he would like me to sit down so that he can speak again I will do so; otherwise I would like to get this over so that we can all get home where we should have been a long time ago.
– Say something.
– I will say plenty. The proposition has been put forward that the Government set out deliberately to destroy the Constitutional Convention by proposing an additional Government member in place of the one of the 3 senators to whom the Opposition was entitled and that that Government member apparently was Senator Hall. I understand that this is what happened. The Liberal Party heroically opposed it and some malicious journalist, who apparently had not carried out the instructions of his employer, wrote an article which was critical of Senator Greenwood and therefore he would have to denounce this journalist to the Senate.
– He is a very little man, really.
-Thank you. This is the nonsense that has kept us here for the best part of three-quarters of an hour. Senator Greenwood has talked about who constitutes the Opposition. I would like to have a look back at the days when the Liberal and Country Parties were the government and at how they set about appointing the membership of committees. Let us take as one example the Senate Select Committee on Securities and Exchange, How was that constituted by the previous Government? It was constituted by having 3 members of the Liberal Party, 1 member of the Australian Country Party- that is, 4 Government members- 3 members of the Australian Labor Party and 1 member of the Democratic Labor Party. It is said that Senator Steele Hall on occasions votes with the Labor Party, which he does. I will come back to Senator Steele Hall in a moment because I think that something ought to be said about him for the edification of Senator Greenwood. If it can be said that because Senator Steele Hall sometimes votes with the Labor Party, which he does, that makes him in some way not a member of the Opposition, what can be said about the DLPthe Party that kept the Liberal and Country Parties in office for 17 years? Is it going to be suggested seriously that in some way Senator Steele Hall is not part of the Opposition whereas the DLP was part of the Opposition?
Let us have a look at another committee- the so-called Senate Select Committee on the Civil Rights of Migrant Australians- and see how Senator Greenwood and his friends constituted it. In fact that Committee was constituted while the Australian Labor Party was in Government It was set up as a kangaroo court to pre-judge the issue. How was it set up? It comprised 1 member of the Liberal Party, 1 member of the Australian Country Party, 1 jocularly described independent from Tasmania- Senator Townley- 1 member of the DLP and 3 members of the Australian Labor Party. That was 4 members of the Opposition to 3 members of the Government. That was the record of Senator Greenwood in dealing with these matters.
If this matter was so serious, if it was such an affront to the Liberal and Country Parties, can the Opposition inform us why it was that not one voice was raised in the House of Representatives when that proposition was put there? Why was it that Mr Snedden, Mr Lynch, Mr Anthony and Mr Sinclair did not discover this sinister plot that Senator Greenwood has been able to flush out tonight in all this fury at the impudence of a newspaper reporter in criticising him? It was because members of the House of Representatives who belong to the Opposition Parties and who obviously are becoming just as fed up with Senator Greenwood as are members of the Senate who have to listen to him every day, did not think that such a preposterous point could be sustained because the practice has been to have 3 members from the Government and 3 members from the Opposition. Three members were allocated to the Opposition. Senator Steele Hall is either in the Government or he is in the Opposition, and he is not in the Government. He is a member of, the, Opposition, and much more a member of the Opposition that the Democratic Labor, Party ever was while, the Liberal, and Country Parties were in office. ,
I would like to say something’ about Senator Steele -Hall as the matter has been raised.’The trouble with Senator Greenwood is that he is really a very primitive person. What he has hot been able to understand is that unless somebody behaves like one of Pavlov’s dogs-.-
– He does not have the reputation of leaving the Liberal Party as you did. “ Senator WHEELDON- I. find it very difficult to follow Senator Webster’s. interjections but if he would like to raise them another night on the adjournment debate we could deal with him. Senator Greenwood believes that somebody who does not have a reaction like one of Pavlov’s dogs-a knee jerk reaction- every time Labor is mentioned, or social security is mentioned, or Russia is mentioned, or China is mentioned, has a seizure, cannot be a member of the Opposition to this Government. I can assure honourable senators- and I speak as a socialist and make no denial of being a socialist - -
– You were once a member of the Liberal Party.
– Yes, I once was a member of the Liberal Party, and I grew. up. I was a very silly young man. I would rather be a silly. young man than a silly. old man, of whom there are many in this chamber. A number, of consistent, philosophical, theoretical positions can be put with a certain measure of clarity.
– You are a failure.
-! did hot say they could be put by Senator Jessop, but one could put them. .There are certain . theoretical, philosophical positions which can be put with logic and clarity and with some system which take a position different from that of the Australian Labor Party. As it happens, and as it is late at night and no one will report this debate to the Press and only a handful of people who read Hansard will ever discover that we were sitting in the middle of the night, I think it should be said that Senator Hall really is the most dangerous opponent that the Australian Labor Party has.
– Hear, hear!
– I am interested to hear Senator Jessop say hear, hear, because Senator Hall puts forward a systematic, consistent, theoretical position. I think he would be more dangerous than he is if there were people with more political understanding in- the Opposition parties. I think that most of them though are Pavlov’s dogs like Senator Greenwood. 1 do not think they can understand a consistent theme of private enterprise laissez-faire: libitarianism, if I may use that expression, of the kind Senator Hall puts to us. This is probably what they find so bewildering about him. This is why the indigation of somebody like Senator Greenwood raises itself whenever Senator Hall’s name, is mentioned. We have had our time wasted tonight by the antics of Senator GreenWoOd.’I only’ hope that in the future he will follow his bid practice, hide under’ the table and speak after everybody else has gone and not inflict on the rest of lis the agony of listening to the nonsense he has- made us listen to this evening. ; . . ;
-We have heard a lot of tripe this evening.- The gripe we had from Senator Hall is consistent with his usual gripy-type speeches. I was surprised to hear the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation, Senator Wheeldon, speak as he did because Senator Wheeldon- made1 statements indicating that Senator Hall has occasionally voted with the Labor Government. If one looks at the records one will find th’at Senator Hall has voted mostly with the Labor Government and rarely with the Opposition. Regarding the matter of the Constitutional Convention I think it is right that if the Opposition is: to have? representatives on that body it should have the right to select those members. Senator Wheeldon referred to the Senate,Select Committee on Securities and Exchange and said that the (Democratic Labor Party . had a member on that Committee^ .It should be remembered that the DLP had 5 senators in this, chamber at that time. The position then was entirely different to the situation we now h”ave: where -one person in- this chamber represents another segment of politics. To suggest that one person rates the same as 5 people in selecting -
- Senator Townley was made a chairman of a committee on the honourable senator’s vote.
– If the Opposition desires to elect somebody, that is a matter for the Opposition. But for the Government to say that the Opposition must have a person, a single honourable senator in this chamber, as a member of its delegation I think is entirely wrong. As far as the situation is concerned, I think the ‘Australian’ took a wrong view. As a matter of fact, over a period of time the ‘Australian’ has shown an attitude towards the Senate which indicates that it has not a true assessment of the Senate and its work. Its editorial is in accordance with the warped mind which a number of editors, such as the editor of the ‘Australian’, has evidenced over some time in relation to the Senate. There is no question that the recognised principle is that the Opposition has the right to select who represents it at such things as this Constitutional Convention.
– What happened to the shareholders in Nicklefield?
– Does Senator Poyser like to cast personal reflections?
– No, but the honourable senator might like to explain it.
– The honourable senator is casting personal reflections in relation to a matter which is entirely outside this subject. I advise him that my record is clean. I believe that the correct principle is that if delegates are being sent to any institution, organisation or convention by the Opposition, then the Opposition has the right to select whom it desires to go there. I do not think it is the right thing for the Government to say that an individual outside the official Opposition should go if the Opposition does not feel that that person should represent it. That is a simple answer to the question. Because the Government might like to make a pay-off to one of the members of the Parliament because of the patronage which has been extended to it by that member, that is no reason why this Opposition should fall for such a trick by the Government.
Senator STEELE HALL (South AustraliaLeader of the Liberal Movement)- Mr President, I wish to make a personal explanation.
– Does the honourable senator claim to have been misrepresented?
– Yes. Senator Wood has raised the basest of all motives and has attributed that motive to the Government and to myself. He said in closing words to the effect that the Government had made a pay-off to someone who had given it patronage. That is a base remark. It is untrue. It is a complete misrepresentation and an utter falsehood concerning the position.
– A suggestion has been made by the Opposition side as to the Government’s attitude. It is not open for Senator Wheeldon to speak again, so I say on behalf of the Government that in no way is what Senator Wood has said a correct statement of the facts. A motion was introduced in the other place by the Government. To my understanding, it was accepted in the House of Representatives by the Opposition as a proper basis upon which representation should go from this Parliament to the Constitutional Convention. The proposition which was put forward by the Government came here but it was not accepted by the Opposition. Members of the Opposition took their objection so far that they were prepared to wreck the Convention. They did wreck the Convention by their obstinate refusal to accept the inclusion of Senator Steele Hall in the delegation. The suggestion by Senator Wood has no basis. I think all of us would regret, and I think the honourable senator would regret, that he made a suggestion that there was some kind of pay-off, as he says, or patronage. There was nothing of that kind at all, and it is regrettable that that should be suggested against the Government or any honourable senator. I suggest that on reflection Senator Wood would want to not persevere with any suggestion that there has been anything such as that.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Senate adjourned at 11.56 p.m.
Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 30 October 1974, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1974/19741030_senate_29_s62/>.