Senate
21 May 1975

29th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 29th Parliament
  3. 1975

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Justin O’Byrne) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers.

page 1613

PETITIONS

Australian Government Insurance Office

Senator BAUME:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present a petition from 451 citizens of Australia. I should like the petition read, but as it exceeds 250 words in length I ask that leave be given for the first petition to be read by the Clerk.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted? There being no dissent, leave is granted.

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament Assembled. The humble Petition of the undersigned employees and agents of the Australian insurance industry and citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

  1. 1 ) That Parliament should reject the Bill currently before it to establish an Australian Government Insurance Office.
  2. That while there is a need to establish in Australia a Natural Disaster Fund to provide compensation for property damage and other losses resulting from disasters such as earthquakes, floods and cyclones, such a Fund can be established, as in other countries, using the medium of the existing private enterprise insurance offices.
  3. That a plan for such a Fund was submitted to the Treasury in October 1974.
  4. That no sound reasons for the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office (other than the desire to provide non-commercial disaster insurance and Australian Government competition with private enterprise) has been given by the Government.
  5. That there is already intense competition between the existing 45 life assurance offices and between over 260 general insurance companies now operating in Australia, and that further competition from a Government Office would only be harmful at this time.

  6. That the insurance industry is already coping with

    1. the effects of inflation,
    2. b ) increased taxation on life assurance offices,
    3. the effects of recent natural disasters,
    4. other legislative measures already in train or in prospect by the Government, e.g. the National Compensation Bill, a National Superannuation Plan and improved Commonwealth Public Service Superannuation.

That as taxpayers your petitioners are greatly concerned at the huge costs (far more than the $2 million initial capital and loan funds which it is proposed will be allocated) of establishing an Australian Government Insurance Office.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will reject the Bill.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Australian Government Insurance Office

Senator BAUME:

– I present the following petition from 122 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

Lead to nationalisation of the Insurance Industry.

Create hundreds of public service jobs and cause serious unemployment in the private Insurance Industry in Australia.

By the ‘National Interests’ provisions of the Bill provide the opportunity for any government to introduce national schemes which should properly be the subject of separate legislation.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

Senator BAUME:

– I present the following petition from 1 14 citizens of Australia.

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

  1. 1 ) Lead to nationalisation of the private Insurance Industry, acquisition of its assets and thereby a nationalised control of a substantial part of the private sector of the economy.
  2. Provide no better insurance service to the public than that already provided by the existing 45 Life Offices and 260 General Insurers.
  3. Create hundreds of public service jobs and cause serious unemployment in the private Insurance Industry in Australia.
  4. Provide the opportunity for that office to obtain general and superannuation business by the application of Australian Government financial and verbal duress on State Government’s local and Semi-Government bodies, Australian or State instrumentalities or any other body, or their employees, which is funded by the Australian Government.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

Senator BAUME:

– I present the following petition from 8 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

. Lead to nationalisation of the Insurance Industry.

Eliminate private insurance for Australians.

Create hundreds of public service jobs and cause serious unemployment in the private Insurance Industry in Australia.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

Senator BAUME:

– I present the following petition from 15 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

Provide no better Insurance service to the public than that already provided by the existing 45 Life Offices and 260 General Insurers.

Lead to nationalisation of the private Insurance Industry, acquisition of its assets and thereby a nationalised control of a substantial part of the private sector of the economy.

Have a serious effect on the private sector of the economy by the passing over of further funds to be controlled by the Government through its intrumentalities.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

Senator BAUME:

– I present the following petition from 2 1 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

Cause serious unemployment in the private Insurance Industry in Australia.

Permit unfair competition from a Government sponsored organization operating under favoured conditions.

Open the way for ultimate Government control of private industry and commerce through acquisition of the shareholding assets of private Insurers.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

Senator BAUME:

– I present the following petition from 8 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

Create hundreds of public service jobs and cause serious unemployment in the private Insurance Industry in Australia.

Cost taxpayers far in excess of the $2 million capital and loan funds.

Permit unfair competition against private enterprise with inevitable losses met by the taxpayer.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

Senator BAUME:

– I present the following petition from 16 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

By the “National Interests” provisions of the Bill provide the opportunity for any government to introduce national schemes which should properly be the subject of separate legislation.

Permit unfair competition against private enterprise with inevitable losses met by the taxpayer.

Lead to nationalisation of the private Insurance Industry, acquisition of its assets and thereby a nationalised control of a substantial part of the private sector of the economy.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

Senator BAUME:

– I present the following petition from 37 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

Lead to the Nationalisation of the Insurance Industry.

Eliminate private insurance for Australians.

Create hundreds of Public Service jobs and cause serious unemployment in the private insurance industry.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

Senator BAUME:

– I present the following petition from 1 7 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

. Lead to nationalisation of the insurance Industry.

Eliminate private insurance for Australians and private enterprise will be restricted.

Create hundreds of public service jobs and cause serious unemployment in the private insurance industry in Australia as well as restrict private enterprise from obtaining finance.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

Senator BAUME:

– I present the following petition from 40 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

Lead to nationalization of the Insurance Industry.

Cost taxpayers far in excess of the proposed $2 million capital and loan funds.

Provide no better insurance service to the public than that already provided by the existing 45 Life Offices and 260 General Insurers.

Create hundreds of public service jobs and cause serious unemployment in the private Insurance Industry in Australia.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

Senator BAUME:

– I present the following petition from 20 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

Cost taxpayers far in excess of the proposed $2 million capital and loan funds.

Lead to nationalisation of the private Insurance Industry, acquisition of its assets and thereby a nationalised control of a substantial part of the private sector of the economy.

Provide no better insurance service to the public than that already provided by the existing 45 Life Offices and 260 general Insurers.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

Senator BAUME:

– I present the following petition from 84 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

1 ) Lead to nationalisation of the Insurance Industry.

Eliminate private insurance for Australians.

Create hundreds of public service jobs and cause serious unemployment in the private Insurance Industry in Australia.

Have a serious effect on the private sector of the economy by the passing over of further funds to be controlled by the Government through its instrumentalities.

Provide no better plan for the establishment of a National Disaster Fund than that provided by the Insurance Industry in its submission to the Treasury in October, 1 974.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

Senator BAUME:

– I present the following petition from 20 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

Cost taxpayers far in excess of the proposed $2 million capital and loan funds.

Permit the ultimate acquisition by the Government of the assets of private insurers which include substantial interest in the private sector of the economy.

Provide the opportunity for that office to obtain general and superannuation business by the application of Australian Government financial and verbal duress on State Government’s local and Semi-Government bodies, Australian or State instrumentalities or any other body, or their employees, which is funded by the Australian Government.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

Senator BAUME:

– I present the following petition from 171 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

An AGIO will have an unfair advantage over private enterprise.

Shrink the flow of funds to the private sector.

Increase the bureaucracy.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

Senator BAUME:

– I present the following petition from 14 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

Create hundreds of Public Service jobs and cause serious unemployment in the private insurance industry in Australia.

Cost taxpayers far in excess of the proposed $2 million capital and loan funds.

Provide no better insurance service to the public than that already provided by the existing 45 life offices and 260 general insurers.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

Senator BAUME:

– I present the following petition from 20 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

Cost taxpayers far in excess of the proposed $2 million capital and loan funds.

Permit unfair competition against private enterprise with inevitable losses met by the taxpayer.

Provide no better insurance service to the public than that already provided by the existing 45 life offices and 260 general insurers.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

Senator BAUME:

– I present the following petition from 20 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

Eliminate private insurance for Australians.

Lead to nationalisation of the private Insurance Industry, acquisition of its assets and thereby a nationalised control of a substantial part of the private sector of the economy.

Provide no better insurance service to the public than that already provided by the existing 45 Life Offices and 260 General Insurers.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

Senator BAUME:

– I present the following petition from 1 1 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of

Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

. Nationalise the Insurance Industry.

Eliminate private insurance for Australians.

Create hundreds of public service jobs and cause serious unemployment in the private insurance industry throughout Australia.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

Senator BAUME:

– I present the following petition from 1 7 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

Provide no better insurance service to the public than that already provided by the existing 45 Life Offices and 260 General Insurers.

Permit the ultimate acquisition by the Government of the assets of private insurers which include substantial interest in the private sector of the economy.

Provide the opportunity for that office to obtain general and superannuation business by the application of Australian Government financial and verbal duress on State Government’s local and Semi-Government bodies, Australian or State instrumentalities or any other body, or their employees, which is funded by the Australian Government.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

Senator BAUME:

– I present the following petition from 20 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

Provide no better plan for the establishment of a National Disaster Fund than that provided by the Insurance Industry in its submission to the Treasury in October 1974.

Cost taxpayers far in excess of the proposed $2 million capital and loan funds.

Permit unfair competition against private enterprise with inevitable losses met by the taxpayers.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

Senator BAUME:

– I present the following petition from 20 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

Permit unfair competition against private enterprise with inevitable losses met by the taxpayer.

Permit the ultimate acquisition by the Government of the assets of private insurers which include substantial interest in the private sector of the ecenomy

Lead to nationalisation of the private Insurance Industry, acquisition of its assets and thereby a nationalised control of a substantial part of the private sector of the economy.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

Senator BAUME:

– I present the following petition from 18 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

. Have a serious effect on the private sector of the economy by the passing over of further funds to be controlled by the Government through its instrumentalities.

Lead to nationalisation of the private Insurance Industry, acquisition of its assets and thereby a nationalised control of a substantial part of the private sector of the economy.

Provide no better insurance service to the public than that already provided by the existing 45 Life Offices and General Insurers.

Cost taxpayers far in excess of the proposed $2 million Capital and Loan Funds and cause serious unemployment in the private Insurance Industry in Australia.

Your Petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

Senator BAUME:

– I present the following petition from 1 1 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

1 ) Permit the ultimate acquisition by the Government of the assets of private insurers which include substantial interest in the private sector of the economy.

Create hundreds of public service jobs and cause serious unemployment in the private Insurance Industry in Australia.

Have a serious effect on the private sector of the economy by the passing over of further funds to be controlled by the Government through its instrumentalities.

Provide no better plan for the establishment of a National Disaster Fund than that provided by the Insurance Industry in its submission to the Treasury in October 1974.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

Senator BAUME:

– I present the following petition from 20 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

Eliminate private insurance for Australians.

Create hundreds of Public Service jobs and cause serious unemployment in the private insurance industry in Australia.

Have a serious effect on the private sector of the economy by the passing over of further funds to be controlled by the Government through its instrumentalities.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

Senator BAUME:

– I present the following petition from 27 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

. Increase the number of Public Servants.

The Government should instead concentrate on the solving of inflation.

Shrink the flow of funds to the private sector.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

Senator BAUME:

– I present the following petition from 52 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

Increase the number of Public Servants.

Have an unfair advantage over Private Enterprise.

Not assist in curbing inflation. Above all, the Government should fix the inflationary problems in Australia before considering competition against Private Enterprise.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-I present the following petition from 1 160 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

Nationalize Insurance.

Accelerate the growth in ratio of Public Servants to others.

Destroy private initiative and corporate enterprise.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate reject completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Australian Government Insurance Office

Senator WOOD:
QUEENSLAND

– I present the following petition from 16 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the Insurance Industry of Australia respectfully showeth:

That Parliament should reject the Bill currently before it to establish an Australian Government Insurance Office.

That while there is a need to establish in Australia a Natural Disaster Fund to provide compensation for property damage and other losses resulting from disasters such as earthquakes, floods and cyclones, such a Fund can be established, as in other countries, using the medium of the existing private enterprise insurance offices.

That a plan for such a Fund was submitted to the Treasury in October, 1974.

That no sound reasons for the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office (other than the desire to provide non-commercial disaster insurance and Australian Government competition with private enterprise) has been given by the Government.

That there is already intense competition between the existing 45 life assurance offices and between over 260 general insurance companies now operating in Australia, and that further competition from a Government Office would only be harmful at this time.

) That the insurance industry is already coping with

the effects of inflation,

b ) increased taxation on life assurance offices,

c) the effects of recent natural disasters,

other legislative measures already in train or in prospect by the Government, e.g. the National Compensation Bill, a National Superannuation Plan and improved Commonwealth Public Service Superannuation.

That as taxpayers your petitioners are greatly concerned at the huge costs (far more than the $2 million initial capital and loan funds which it is proposed will be allocated) of establishing an Australian Government Insurance Office.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate will reject the Bill.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

The Clerk:

– The following petitions have been lodged for presentation:

Australian Government Insurance Office

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned employees and agents of the Australian insurance industry and citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

  1. 1 ) That Parliament should reject the Bill currently before it to establish an Australian Government Insurance Office.
  2. That while there is a need to establish in Australia a Natural Disaster Fund to provide compensation for property damage and other losses resulting from disasters such as earthquakes, floods and cyclones, such a Fund can be established, as in other countries, using the medium of the existing private enterprise insurance offices.
  3. That a plan for such a Fund was submitted to the Treasury in October 1 974.
  4. That no sound reasons for the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office (other than the desire to provide non-commercial disaster insurance and Australian Government competition with private enterprise) has been given by the Government.
  5. That there is already intense competition between the existing 45 life assurance offices and between over 260 general insurance companies now operating in Australia, and that further competition from a Government Office would only be harmful at this time.

  6. That the insurance industry is already coping with

    1. the effects of inflation,
    2. increased taxation on life assurance offices,
    3. the effects of recent natural disasters,
    4. other legislative measures already in train or in prospect by the Government, e.g. the National Compensation Bill, a National Superannuation Plan and improved Commonwealth Public Service Superannuation.
  7. That as taxpayers your petitioners are greatly concerned at the huge costs (far more than the $2 million initial capital and loan funds which it is proposed will be allocated) of establishing an Australian Government Insurance Office.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will reject the Bill.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Missen, Brown, Button, Withers, Wood, Wright and Sir Magnus Cormack.

Petitions received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

  1. Permit unfair competition against private enterprise with inevitable losses met by the taxpayer.
  2. Permit the ultimate acquisition by the Government of the assets of private insurers which include substantial interest in the private sector of the economy.
  3. Lead to nationalisation of the private insurance industry, acquisition of its assets and thereby a nationalised control of a substantial pan of the private sector of the economy.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Jessop.

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will nationalize the insurance industry:

  1. Causing widespread unemployment.
  2. Stifling freedom of choice and virile competition, and
  3. Making mendicants of former industry employees and policy-holders alike.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate reject completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Jessop.

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament Assembled. The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

  1. . Nationalize the insurance industry.
  2. Reduce the flow of funds to industry and commerce from the private sector and increase their dependency on Government finance.
  3. Endanger the economy by undermining confidence in industrial and commercial company shares and by thereby causing share prices to tumble.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate reject completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Jessop.

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

  1. Nationalize the Insurance Industry.
  2. Make for mass unemployment in the Insurance Industry.
  3. Greatly increase taxation.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate reject completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Jessop.

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

  1. . Shrink the flow of funds to the private sector.
  2. Add to the Taxpayers burden.
  3. Trade unfairly.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Jessop.

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

To the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

  1. Nationalize the Insurance Industry. Increase bureaucratic control over the Nation ‘s financial resources.
  2. Lead swiftly to total socialization and complete subjugation of all the citizens to the State.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate reject completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Jessop.

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

  1. Provide no better plan for the establishment of a National Disaster Fund than that provided by the Insurance Industry in its submission to the Treasury in October 1 974.
  2. Permit unfair competition against private enterprise with inevitable losses met by the taxpayer.
  3. Permit the ultimate acquisition by the Government of the assets of private insurers which include substantial interest in the private sector of the economy.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Scott.

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned employees and agents of the Australian insurance industry and citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

  1. 1 ) That Parliament should reject the Bill currently before it to establish an Australian Government Insurance Office.
  2. That while there is a need to establish in Australia a Natural Disaster Fund to provide compensation for property damage and other losses resulting from disasters such as earthquakes, floods and cyclones, such a Fund can be established, as in other countries, using the medium of the existing private enterprise insurance offices.
  3. That a plan for such a Fund was submitted to the Treasury in October 1 974.
  4. That no sound reasons for the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office (other than the desire to provide non-commercial disaster insurance and Australian Government competition with private enterprise) has been given by the Government.
  5. That there is already intense competition between the existing 45 life assurance offices and between over 260 general insurance companies now operating in Australia, and that further competition from a Government Office would only be harmful at this time.

  6. That the insurance industry is already coping with

    1. the effects of inflation,
    2. b) increased taxation on life assurance offices,
    3. the effects of recent natural disasters,
    4. other legislative measures already in train or in prospect by the Government, e.g. the National Compensation Bill, a National Superannuation Plan and improved Commonwealth Public Service Superannuation.
  7. That as taxpayers your petitioners are greatly concerned at the huge costs (far more than the $2 million initial capital and loan funds which it is proposed will be allocated) of establishing an Australian Government Insurance Office.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will reject the Bill.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Scott and Senator DrakeBrockman.

Petitions received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

  1. . Add to the Taxpayers burden.
  2. Create hundreds of public service jobs and cause serious unemployment in the private insurance industry throughout Australia.
  3. Increase Bureaucracy at the time when Government spending should be curtailed.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Drake-Brockman.

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of the undersigned employees and agents of the Australian insurance industry and citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

  1. 1 ) That Parliament should reject the Bill currently before it to establish an Australian Government Insurance Office.
  2. That while there is a need to establish in Australia a Natural Disaster Fund to provide compensation for property damage and other losses resulting from disasters such as earthquakes, floods and cyclones, such a Fund can be established, as in other countries, using the medium of the existing private enterprise insurance offices.
  3. That a plan for such a Fund was submitted to the Treasury in October 1974.
  4. That no sound reasons for the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office (other than the desire to provide non-commercial disaster insurance and Australian Government competition with private enterprise ) has been given by the Government.
  5. That there is already intense competition between the existing 45 life assurance offices and between over 260 general insurance companies now operating in Australia, and that further competition from a Government Office would only be harmful at this time.

  6. That the insurance industry is already coping with

    1. the effects of inflation,
    2. increased taxation on life assurance offices,
    3. the effects of recent natural disasters,
    4. other legislative measures already in train or in prospect by the Government, e.g. the National Compensation Bill, a National Superannuation Plan and improved Commonwealth Public Service Superannuation.
  7. That as taxpayers your petitioners are greatly concerned at the huge costs (far more than the $2 million initial capital and loan funds which it is proposed will be allocated ) of establishing an Australian Government Insurance Office.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will reject the Bill.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Maunsell (2 petitions), Guilfoyle and Greenwood.

Petitions received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

  1. Nationalise the Insurance Industry.
  2. Increase Bureaucracy at the time when Government spending should be curtailed.
  3. Shrink the flow of funds to the private sector.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Guilfoyle.

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

Lead to nationalisation of the private Insurance Industry, acquisition of its assets and thereby a nationalised control of a substantial part of the private sector of the economy.

Provide no better insurance service to the public than that already provided by the existing 45 Life Offices and 260 General Insurers.

Provide the opportunity for that office to obtain general and superannuation business by the application of Australian Government financial and verbal duress on State Government’s local and Semi-Government bodies, Australian or State instrumentalities or any other body, or their employees, which is funded by the Australian Government.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Guilfoyle.

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

  1. Provide no better plan for the establishment of a National Disaster Fund than that provided by the Insurance Industry in its submission to the Treasury in October 1974.
  2. By the ‘National Interests’ provisions of the Bill provide the opportunity for any government to introduce national schemes which should properly be the subject of separate legislation.
  3. Provide no better insurance service to the public other than that already provided by the existing 45 Life Offices and 260 General Insurers.
  4. Lead to nationalisation of the Insurance Industry.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Guilfoyle.

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

  1. Permit unfair competition against private enterprise with inevitable losses met by the taxpayer.
  2. Permit the ultimate acquisition by the Government of the assets of private insurers which include substantial interest in the private sector of the economy.
  3. Provide no better insurance service to the public than that already provided by the existing 45 Life Offices and 260 General Insurers.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Guilfoyle.

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

  1. Permit unfair competition against private enterprise with inevitablelosses met by the taxpayer.
  2. Permit the ultimate acquisition by the Government of the assets of private insurers which include substantial interest in the private sector of the economy.
  3. Lead to nationalisation of the private Insurance Industry, acquisition of its assets and thereby a nationalised control of a substantial part of the private sector of the economy.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Guilfoyle.

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

Provide no better plan for the establishment of a National Disaster Fund than that provided by the Insurance Industry in its submission to the Treasury in October 1 974.

Cost taxpayers far in excess of the proposed $2 million capital and loan funds.

Permit unfair competition against private enterprise with inevitable losses met by the taxpayers.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Guilfoyle.

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

  1. . Nationalise the Insurance Industry.
  2. Create hundreds of public service jobs and cause serious unemployment in the private insurance industry throughout Australia.
  3. Add to the Taxpayers burden.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Greenwood.

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

  1. Have a serious effect on the private sector of the economy by the passing over of further funds to be controlled by the Government through its instrumentalities.
  2. Permit unfair competition against private enterprise with inevitable losses met by the taxpayer.
  3. Permit the ultimate acquisition by the Government of the assets of private insurers which include substantial interest in the private sector of the economy.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Greenwood.

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

  1. . Nationalise the Insurance Industry.
  2. Increase bureaucracy at the time when Government spending should be curtailed.
  3. Shrink the flow of funds to the private sector.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Greenwood.

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

  1. . Eliminate private insurance for Australians
  2. Create hundreds of public service jobs and cause serious unemployment in the private Insurance Industry in Australia.
  3. Permit the ultimate acquisition by the Government of the assets of private insurers which include substantial interest in the private sector of the economy.
  4. Lead to nationalisation of the private Insurance Industry, acquisition of its assets and thereby a nationalised control of a substantial part of the private sector of the economy.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Brown.

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of undersigned citizens of

Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

  1. . Eliminate private insurance for Australians.
  2. Create hundreds of public service jobs and cause serious unemployment in the private Insurance Industry in Australia.
  3. Lead to nationalisation of the private Insurance Industry, acquisition of its assets and thereby a nationalised control of a substantial part of the private sector of the economy.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Brown.

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

Cost taxpayers far in excess of the proposed $2 million capital and loan funds.

Permit the ultimate acquisition by the Government of the assets of private insurers which include substantial interest in the private sector of the economy.

Provide the opportunity for that office to obtain general and superannuation business by the application of Australian Government financial and verbal duress on State Government’s local and semi-government bodies, Australian or State instrumentalities or any other body, or their employees, which is funded by the Australian Government.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Brown.

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

Eliminate private insurance for Australians.

Lead to nationalisation of the private Insurance Industry, acquisition of its assets and thereby a nationalised control of a substantial part of the private sector of the economy.

Provide no better insurance service to the public than that already provided by the existing 45 Life Offices and 260 General Insurers.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Brown.

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of undersigned citizens of

Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

  1. . Lead to nationalisation of the Insurance Industry.
  2. Have a serious effect on the private sector of the economy by the passing over of further funds to be controlled by the Government through its instrumentalities.
  3. Cost taxpayers far in excess of the proposed $2 million capital and loan funds.
  4. Permit unfair competition against private enterprise with inevitable losses met by the taxpayer.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Brown.

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

  1. Provide no better plan for the establishment of a National Disaster Fund than that provided by the Insurance Industry in its submission to the Treasury in October 1974.
  2. By the “National Interests” provisions of the Bill provide the opportunity for any government to introduce national schemes which should properly be the subject of separate legislation.
  3. Provide no better insurance service to the public other than that already provided by the existing 45 Life Offices and 260 General Insurers.
  4. Lead to nationalisation of the Insurance Industry.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Brown.

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

To the Honourable, the President and Members of the Senate assembled. We, the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully refer to the Bill concerning the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office.

We are not necessarily against the formation of such an organisation. We do however, feel that the Bill could be rushed through Parliament without sufficient deliberation.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Bill be referred to a Senate Select Committee or Public Enquiry Committee. In this way submissions from interested parties can be called for. Recommendations from this Committee would then reflect the true wishes of the Australian electorate.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Sheil.

Petition received.

Family Law Bill

Tothe 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. by Senator Cotton.

Petition received.

page 1623

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 1623

QUESTION

MR S. D. O’DONNELL: APPLICATION FOR VISA

Senator GREENWOOD:
VICTORIA

-My question is directed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Does the Minister recall that one month ago he was asked by me, as was the Leader of the Government in the Senate, why the Government refused to allow an Australian citizen, Mr S. D. O’Donnell, currently working and living in Rhodesia, to return to Australia on a visit? Does he recall that he promised to check the facts and ascertain the position? Will he say why Wilfrid Burchett has been allowed into Australia, why supporters of the terrorist organisation, the Palestine Liberation Organisation, have been admitted into Australia, why countless other supporters of revolutionary movements and insurgencies throughout the world have been admitted into Australia, yet Mr O’Donnell, an Australian citizen, is denied the opportunity of visiting friends and relatives in his own country?

Senator WILLESEE:
Minister for Foreign Affairs · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

-I recall that Senator Greenwood asked me a question about this matter. I do not recall that it was exactly a month ago. I told him that I would get the details for him. I remember initialling the answer to Senator Greenwood’s question yesterday, so he should receive it either today or whenever the machinery processes bring it to him. Senator Greenwood should know the position in relation to - Mr O’Donnell as well as anybody else because it was his Government that withdrew Mr O’Donnell’s passport in the first place. I do not know why Senator Greenwood now suddenly thinks that we have done something radical about Mr O’Donnell. We have acted completely correctly because the decision on sanctions against Rhodesia included the question of the issuing of passports. The Liberal Party took this action; we supported it.

page 1624

QUESTION

MR S. D. O’DONNELL: APPLICATION FOR VISA

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I ask a supplementary question. Does the Minister not remember that when Mr O’Donnell’s passport was not renewed an express exception was allowed that if he desired to return to Australia for humanitarian reasons he could make application. Why did the Minister not advert to that? Has he given consideration to that aspect?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

-I do not remember that Senator Greenwood asked for that information in his question. I think the wise thing for him to do would be to wait until he gets my written answer and base further questions on that. However, what he has stated is the situation. If there were serious humanitarian grounds an application would be considered. I take it that there are not severe humanitarian grounds, but Senator Greenwood will have a written answer to his question shortly.

page 1624

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION: SALES OF RADIO PROGRAMS TO PAPUA NEW GUINEA

Senator PRIMMER:
VICTORIA

-I ask the Minister for the Media: Can he inform the Senate whether the Australian Broadcasting Commission is to continue to co-operate with the National Broadcasting Commission of Papua New Guinea after that country achieves independence?

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

-The Australian Broadcasting Commission has informed me that it will be continuing to supply Papua New Guinea after its independence radio programs free of charge until the date of the nation’s formal declaration of independence. From that date the ABC will supply its radio programs as they are requested by the National Broadcasting Commission of Papua New Guinea. These radio programs will be supplied by the ABC at cost based on the ruling rate at that time. The Papua New Guinea Broadcasting

Commission has indicated its willingness to pay for ABC radio programs under such an arrangement, and the estimated cost of providing the programs free of charge at the current level is of the order of $20,000 a year.

page 1624

QUESTION

CAR PRICE INCREASE

Senator MAUNSELL:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister for Manufacturing Industry. Is he aware that the car industry predicts retail price increases of at least $500 per unit this year for economic reasons alone? Is this a soundly based forecast? If so, does the industry face a crisis of last year’s dimensions, with a sharp downturn in sales and probable retrenchment of thousands of workers? Will the Government reduce sales tax as it did in the last crisis?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It is true that there have been increases in the prices of motor cars in the past few months and that more rises are forecast. I suppose we cannot forecast accurately what those rises will be until the outcome of the present round of wage applications and especially the outcome of the metal wage case emerge. However, I have seen many reports recently in the Press, and reports have been made to my Department, that forward orders for passenger vehicles have levelled off and in some cases have fallen since the market recovery which began in February. There is no firm evidence at this stage to establish that this is happening. Actual sales, as measured by registrations, continue at a satisfactory level. Of course, it must be remembered that today’s sales are the result of orders taken some time ago. Some falling away from the sales peak reached in February and March is bound to occur because, undoubtedly due to the inducement offered by the partial remission of sales tax, there was a certain amount of forward ordering. The important question which no one can answer at present is: How severe will the reduction be?

I think it would be incorrect to ascribe too much importance to the gradual increases in sales tax towards their former level which is now occurring in monthly steps of 2 te per cent on passenger vehicles and 2 per cent on commercial vehicles. The companies themselves have increased prices several times since 29 January because of cost increases unconnected with sales tax. Sustained recovery in the industry will depend on a general recovery in the economy but I stress that the difficulties, if they can be substantiated, in which the motor industry finds itself at present are not to be ascribed even mainly to the fact that the remission of sales tax is progressively being removed but primarily to increases in the price of motor cars. However, the Government is keeping the general state of the motor car industry under constant review. As a matter of fact, I will be seeing the managing director of one of the larger manufacturers tomorrow. I saw the Managing Director of General Motors-Holden’s Pty Ltd last week and I expect that I will be seeing the Manager of Chrysler Australia Ltd in the near future. It is not a matter about which the Government feels any complacency and we will, as I said, be keeping the matter under constant review.

page 1625

QUESTION

LIFE SAVING AID COURSES FOR MAKINERS

Senator GRIMES:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport refers to courses for mariners on the use of lifesaving aids introduced last month by the Minister. Have these courses been successful? Is it intended that the Department will continue to hold these courses?

Senator BISHOP:
Postmaster-General · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The first course has been held. It was planned by the Department of Transport together with the shipping industry and the shipping unions. It was part of the Government’s policy in marine education to ensure a higher competence of serving marine staff. According to all reports the courses ought to be continued. The Minister has decided to continue them, but in addition it is now being considered whether such courses might be extended to include persons serving on smaller ships.

page 1625

QUESTION

PENSIONER MEDICAL SERVICE CARDS

Senator TOWNLEY:
TASMANIA

– I preface my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security by saying that no doubt the Minister is aware that many people who receive an increase in State superannuation benefits, for example, are forced to surrender their pensioner medical service entitlement cards, they lose telephone rental concessions and in Tasmania they lose power and transport concessions. In fact some are worse off than they would have been if they had not received an increase in benefits. No doubt the Minister is aware also that the maximum allowable benefits before loss of fringe benefits are $57.50 a week and that this maximum has not been altered for many years. I ask: In this time of inflation is it not possible for the Government to adjust to a more reasonable figure the maximum allowable benefits before fringe benefits cease so that people will not be made worse off as a result of inaction on the part of this Government? I point out that an increase in the maximum allowable benefits would not involve additional revenue expenditure and therefore would not be inflationary.

Senator WHEELDON:
Minister for Repatriation and Compensation · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I will refer the question to the Minister for Social Security. I am interested to learn that Senator Townley, who now is known as a member of the Liberal Party, believes that not enough is being done by way of public activity in the social welfare sector, a view which I thought would not have been shared by the Liberal Party spokesman on these matters in another place, Mr Chipp. I see that Senator Wright disagrees with both of them. As 1 understood the position in regard to pensioner medical service entitlement cards- I would have thought that Senator Townley would have understood this too- the introduction of Medibank will reduce -

Senator Townley:

– That is not the point.

Senator WHEELDON:

– It may not be the point but that is Senator Townley ‘s fault, not mine. He is the one who raised the problem of people on superannuation losing their pensioner medical service entitlement cards. I understood that is what he was asking me about. If he would like to ask me another question he can certainly do so, but the question he asked me was about the loss of pensioner medical service entitlement cards. I would have hoped that Senator Townley might be aware that with the introduction of Medibank there will not be any pensioner medical service cards to worry about, so his problem will be resolved.

page 1625

QUESTION

PENSIONER MEDICAL SERVICE CARDS

Senator TOWNLEY:

-I wish to ask a supplementary question.

The PRESIDENT:

– I call Senator Townley on a supplementary question.

Senator TOWNLEY:

-I also asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security about the loss of telephone rental concessions and, in Tasmania, the loss of such things as power and transport concessions. Transport concessions, I think, are given to these people if they have a pensioner medical service card, which in effect is an identity card.

Senator WHEELDON:
ALP

-The problem of the power, gas and transport concessions in Tasmania is a matter for the Tasmanian Government . Whatever anyone in this Government may think about what ought to be done about that in Tasmania, it is something which cannot be resolved here. If State governments wish to give those concessions, it is up to the Tasmanian

Government or any other State government concerned to make such provisions. If they wish to continue to do so, 1 suggest that the matter be taken up within the State concerned. All I can say with regard to the other matters is that I will refer them to the Minister for Social Security and, when doing so, assure him that Senator Townley believes that there ought to be increased activity by the Government in the field of social services.

page 1626

QUESTION

TELEPHONE SERVICES

Senator McINTOSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Postmaster-General. I refer to a question asked by Senator Walsh yesterday relating to improved telephone communications between Perth and the eastern States. Is the Minister aware of the rising telephone and telegraph needs between Perth and Norseman? If so, what action is the Australian Post Office taking to meet those needs?

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

– I am aware of the position regarding the services between Perth and Norseman. The Post Office already is planning to meet the need. There will be an additional 600 telephony circuit capacity established. It will be added to the trans-continental system over a distance of 650 kilometres between Northam and Norseman. It is expected that that will be completed next year.

page 1626

QUESTION

ARMY RESERVE

Senator SHEIL:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. What significance does the Government place on the role of the Army Reserve, the former Citizen Military Forces, in Australia’s defence structure? Assuming that there is a real significance, I ask: Is it a fact that a married man in the Army Reserve is paid less for 5 days Army work than a married man on social service pay who does nothing?

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

– It was the Minister for Defence who decided that there ought to be an inquiry into the CMF, now known as the Army Reserve. That inquiry was an intense one and was very well conducted. Its recommendations generally were adopted by the Government. They included references to pay and other matters. Since that report was received the Minister has ordered an inquiry into the pay of this class of soldier. As a result, only recently- I think it was last week- I introduced here the report of that committee. That committee was the one that looked into the pay of serving soldiers. As a result, as everybody knows, there have been very extensive pay increases totalling, offhand, $80m or $90m. Almost immediately we applied the new pay conditions to the Army Reserve. The new pay conditions are the result of an investigation which would match the sort of proceedings involved in arbitration. That result has been well received. The only complaint I have heard is that now, because the standards of the Reserve have been lifted, some adjustments might have to be made in anomalies affecting the Regular Army. I will ask the Minister for Defence whether he can add to the reply I have given.

page 1626

QUESTION

INSURANCE INDUSTRY

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

-Has the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation read the publication ‘Competition, Regulation or Nationalisation?’ which was prepared by the general insurance industry for use as a text book in the campaign by the private sector of the insurance industry against the Australian Government Insurance Corporation? The introduction states:

It is not a formal analytical appraisal of the proposed scheme because the Australian Government has not made its plans public- nor has it consulted the insurance industry on any aspect of the scheme.

I ask the Minister whether that is a statement of fact.

Senator WHEELDON:
ALP

-The answer is that it is not a statement of fact. Since I became Minister for Repatriation and Compensation I think I have spoken more to representatives of insurance companies than I have to my wife. I have been engaged in constant discussions with them on all sorts of issues. If I may say so, I have found the contributions which some of the representatives have made very useful. Mr Le Page, the President of the Council of Fire and Accident Underwriters, for example, has been very courteous and helpful. One of the actions which the former Treasurer, Mr Crean, took was to establish consultative committees of the life assurance industry and the general insurance industry. As a result of consultations I have had with them, amendments have been introduced in the House of Representatives to what was the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill, in order to apply the Insurance Acts and the Life Insurance Act to the Australian Government Insurance Corporation. Apart from that, as a result of representations from Mr Lewis, the Premier of New South Wales, it has been agreed to amend the Bill so that the name of the office will be the Australian Government Insurance Corporation so that there would be no confusion with the Government Insurance Office of New South Wales. That suggestion was made by Mr Lewis, and it was readily agreed to. 1 know that that document describes itself as having been prepared by the general insurance industry, but, as 20 per cent of insurance business is conducted by the State Government Insurance Offices, which are certainly not taking part, as far as I know, in these representations, that is not correct. Part of the difficulty has been that the representatives of the companies have offered total opposition to the establishment of the office.

Senator Greenwood:

– That is their right.

Senator WHEELDON:

– I am not disputing that, but it is a little difficult to engage in fruitful negotiations when it is Government policy, which has been adopted at 2 elections, to establish an office, while the policy of the companies is that there should be no office whatever. I am not saying that it is not their right to have that point of view, but it becomes a little pointless constantly meeting and arguing the toss backwards and forwards about whether or not there ought to be an office. Over recent weeks, the Council of Fire and Accident Underwriters and some others have made suggestions, some of which have been adopted, and at present I have some proposed amendments which have been sent to me at my request by that Council. I am studying these amendments, and I do not doubt that, were the Bill to be passed, a number of those amendments would be accepted. It is quite untrue to say that there has not been consultation. There has been extensive consultation. I have met representatives of a large number of companies, and some of them, including Mr Le Page and Mr Pettigrew, of Sun Alliance Insurance Ltd, have been extremely helpful, but others have not been helpful at all. If what they want is talking, certainly there must have been enough talking to fill the Doomsday Book.

page 1627

QUESTION

INTERNATIONAL WHALING COMMISSION

Senator MARTIN:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate in his capacity as Minister for Agriculture. Has the Government received representations from the Queensland Conservation Council protesting at the votes cast by Australia’s representative, an officer of the Department of Agriculture, at the 1974 International Whaling Commission meetings? Will the Government give consideration to the proposal that from June 1975 the Department of Environment and not the Department of Agriculture represent Australia at future International Whaling Commission meetings? Is the Government considering re-adopting the Australian policy of 1972 and 1973 of a 10-year moratorium on the killing of whales?

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · TASMANIA · ALP

– I have received a number of protests concerning the representation on the

International Whaling Commission by the Australian officer, Mr Arthur Bollen. Most of the criticism has come from societies such as Friends of the Earth and certain conservation groups. Probably some have come from Queensland, but I cannot recall, as there have been so many of them. My answer to the honourable senator’s question is no. I certainly would not agree to the Department of Environment providing the representative on the International Whaling Commission. Australia has taken as responsible a role in the whole question of the conservation of whales as anyone could take. I think I have said so here on occasions in the past in giving details of Australia’s initiatives to improve the conservation of whales, especially the sperm whale, throughout the world, and I have also mentioned the difficulties of getting especially the major whale takers, namely, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Japan, to agree to maintain the quota system. Simply because Australia does not take the position of an outright ban on the Whaling Commission we become the subject of protest and criticism by groups which I think really do not understand the situation, despite our attempts to explain it to them. I believe that the course we have followed has been as responsible as it can be. We are not going to stop taking whales. I am quite sure that that is a world wide position even though the United States, for example, opted for a total moratorium and we did also. But the compromise which was initiated by Australia has been accepted by the Commission and to my knowledge, since its acceptance, is being observed.

page 1627

QUESTION

NOMAD AIRCRAFT

Senator MISSEN:
VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Manufacturing Industry. Has the Department of Transport amended regulations to allow the Nomad aircraft to be certified for short restricted landing strips so that the unique short take-off and landing capabilities of the aircraft can be exploited by civil aviation? What effect have the restrictions in the regulations had on sales of Nomad aircraft to this date?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I do not know the answer to the questions asked by the honourable senator but I shall take up this matter and let him have the information as soon as possible.

page 1627

QUESTION

ETHNIC RADIO STATIONS

Senator DONALD CAMERON:
Minister for Labour and Immigration · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Is the Minister for the Media able to tell the Senate who will be responsible for the ethnic radio stations to be established in Sydney and Melbourne? Is it not true that the licences for the stations were to be issued to a government department? Has there been any change in the position? If so, will the Minister tell us what it is?

Senator DOUGLAS McCLELLANDSenator Young:

asked me a question about this matter during the debate on the Supply Bills, I think last week. At that time I indicated that the licences would be issued to the Secretary of the Department of Labor and Immigration. I should say at the outset that the licences are issued by my colleague, the Postmaster-General, under the Wireless Telegraphy Act and not by me as Minister for the Media under the Broadcasting and Television Act, although when my colleague, Senator Bishop, does issue licences under the Wireless Telegraphy Act for broadcasting purposes he takes into account, as I understand it, the programming and technical requirements of the Broadcasting Control Board. Since I made the comment in the Senate last Wednesday that licences would be issued to the Department of Labor and Immigration, there have been, as I understand it, further discussions between that Department, my Department, the PostmasterGeneral’s Department and the Broadcasting Control Board. It is now the general belief that the licences should be issued to the Special Consultant on Community Relations.

The 2 stations concerned will be low powered stations, having a range, I think, of about 16 kilometres and will be licensed, as I have said, by my colleague, the Postmaster-General, under the terms of the Wireless Telegraphy Act. I think I should say also that my colleague, Senator Bishop, and I have been having some discussions about this matter over the last two or three days. We are considering making it a condition of the issuing of the licences that there be appointed a committee for the purpose of advising on the programming arrangements. The frequencies that are involved will be available to the stations for a period of only 13 weeks. Certainly that will give the Government the opportunity to experiment with ethnic broadcasting in Australia. My attention has been drawn to an article which appeared in the Adelaide ‘Advertiser’ yesterday concerning some broadcasting that was being done by the educational community broadcasting station in Adelaide, station VL5UV, on which has been arranged an Italian one-hour program which is being very well received by the Italian community. But, as I say, the licences to be issued will be issued by my colleague, Senator Bishop, under the Wireless Telegraphy Act.

page 1628

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN TELEVISION INDUSTRY

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minister for the Media. The Minister has stated that it is the Government’s policy to foster the local television industry. Can he tell the Senate why the Australian Broadcasting Commission has not produced a second series of the highly acclaimed television series ‘Rush’ or repeated the earlier series now that colour television has been introduced? Can he also tell the Senate why it is necessary to have so many repeat showings of second-class imported television programs in view of the ready availability of high quality local talent and expertise to the Australian television industry?

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

-The honourable senator will be aware that since this Government assumed office, additional operational expenditure has been made available to the Australian Broadcasting Commission, and that additional expenditure has enabled the ABC to advance considerably and step up its output of Australian television productions. Some honourable senators saw the series ‘Rush’ produced by the ABC. I think everyone would agree that it was a very well worthwhile production. The earlier series of ‘Rush’ was filmed in black and white, but I understand that the ABC now is considering producing a second series of that excellent program. Recently the ABC has been in production- I think it still is in production- on a joint basis with the British Broadcasting Commission producing the Ben Hall Series. It is intended, after that series has been completed, to use the facilities that have been developed at Belrose, in Sydney, for another production. Senator McLaren may be interested to know that the theme music from ‘Rush’ written by George Dreyfus, has become a national hit and a commercial recording of that music has been made. It has won the national music industry award for the best instrumental performance, and I understand it is bringing in thousands of dollars to the ABC by way of rights.

page 1628

QUESTION

INCOME AVERAGING PLAN

Senator BESSELL:
TASMANIA

– My question relates to the income averaging plan. Can the Minister representing the Minister for Labor and Immigration say what is the current number of people accommodated under this plan and what is the current monthly cost? Further, what was the highest number of people to be accommodated under this plan and what was the monthly cost?

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

– As the honourable senator will realise, I cannot give the figures offhand, but I will get them for him as soon as possible.

page 1629

QUESTION

KOOLYANOBBING TELEVISION COVERAGE

Senator WALSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question refers to television coverage for the Western Australian mining town, Koolyanobbing. Can the Minister for the Media tell the Senate what plans, if any, there are for providing such a service and whether the plans provide for a private translator I think that is the term used- or for an ABC transmitter?

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

– Information has been given to me at this moment on that matter and I will read it. In 1969 the Dampier Mining Co. applied for a repeater station to be established at Koolyanobbing. In January 1970 the Broadcasting Control Board approved the establishment of the Southern Cross Bullfinch Station, which was part of the seventh stage of television development, and the Board considered that the matter of a station at Koolyanobbing would be better assessed after the Southern Cross Bullfinch Station had been in operation for some time. The ABC is keen to have a station at Koolyanobbing as a translator in the national network, not just a repeater station.

I am now informed that an engineering officer of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board is currently visiting the iron ore mining township of Koolyanobbing, in connection with investigations relating to the prospects of the establishment of a national television translator station to serve the township. The Dampier Mining Co. has evinced interest in the matter. The Board expects to be in a position in the near future to furnish a report and recommendation for my consideration.

The honourable senator may be assured that the matter will receive the Board’s attention as expeditiously as possible. However, it must be pointed out that in examining the possibilities of extending television to relatively small centres, such as Koolyanobbing, which I understand has a population of about 350, an important consideration is the capital cost in relation to the number of people to be served. I am informed that the costs of the provision of a national television translator station to serve Koolyanobbing are likely to exceed the limit based on $45 per head of population to which the Australian Government would be prepared to provide funds. I also understand that the Dampier Mining Co. probably would be prepared to contribute some funds towards the establishment of the station, and this aspect will be pursued when the costs involved have been determined.

page 1629

QUESTION

NATIONAL POLICE FORCE

Senator BAUME:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Police and Customs. Has the Australian Government announced its intention to incorporate the police forces of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory in a national police force? Did the Legislative Assembly of the Australian Capital Territory on 2 1 April last pass a motion protesting against the Government proposals? Was this motion passed unanimously and supported by Liberal, Labor and Independent members of the Assembly? Is the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly also adamantly opposed to the incorporation of its police force in a national body? Does the Government intend to ignore the expressions of protest by the elected assemblies of the 2 Territories in this matter?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I will refer the honourable senator’s question to the Minister and let the honourable senator have an early reply.

page 1629

QUESTION

URBAN PROJECTS

Senator MCAULIFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– Can the Minister representing the Minister for Urban and Regional Development say why Queensland did not share in the $ 165m allocated to 4 States for urban projects, as announced by the Minister for Urban and Regional Development yesterday?

Senator CAVANAGH:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Yesterday I tabled documents from the Minister for Urban and Regional Development on his agreements with some States as to development. Queensland was not included as it is covered by a separate agreement. Agreements concerning the area improvement program, the National Estate and sewerage were signed on 14 February. The various allocations to Queensland from the Departmentalthough not included in the documents tabled yesterday- were $12,000,050 for sewerage, $912,000 for the National Estate and $2. 5m for the area improvement program. Under the area improvement program $2m was allocated for Moreton and $500,000 was allocated for Fitzroy.

page 1629

QUESTION

USE OF POISON GASES DURING WORLD WAR II

Senator JESSOP:

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Defence aware of a report which appeared in the ‘Sunday Mail’ in Adelaide on 2 February and which indicated that the Minister for Defence would, as a matter of urgency, make a statement to the Parliament relating to the entire operations involving the use of poison gases, including experiments, trials, transportation and destruction of stocks of mustard, phosgene and lewisite gases during World War II? When can the Parliament expect this to be presented? How many poison gas experiments involving Australian servicemen were conducted during World War II? Where and on what dates did those experiments take place? How many persons were involved in those operations?

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

– Since that statementwhich is a very old statement, as I think the honourable senator will agree- exhaustive inquiries have been made by the Minister and he has replied in detail in the other place. The general position, as I understand it, is that inquiries were made through United States sources, Pentagon records and so on. At that time there was no confirmation of intervention by United States forces in the experiments. I can only say that I understand that the Minister has made exhaustive inquiries and that he has given as much detail as possible of the supposed exercises. I understand that the details are in Hansard. If the honourable senator wishes, I will obtain a collection of those replies and any other answers which might apply to his question and let him have them as soon as I can.

page 1630

QUESTION

FILM CENSORSHIP BOARD

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for the Media. I refer to the membership of the Film Censorship Board about which there has been some inquiry and question. Can the Minister say whether vacancies exist on this Board? If so, what is the number of vacancies? Is it a fact that advertisements relating to vacancies were issued at the end of last year? As the vacancies can affect the work of the Board, can the Minister indicate to me and to the Senate the present position?

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

-No, I cannot indicate the position to the honourable senator because the administration of the Film Censorship Board comes within the ministerial responsibility of my colleague the Minister for Police and Customs, I think, or the AttorneyGeneral. Therefore, the question would have to be referred to one of my colleagues.

page 1630

QUESTION

BOUGAINVILLE: INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Labor and Immigration. By way of preface I refer to the action of the Australian Government in seconding some Australian personnel from the Department of Labor to devise an effective conciliation structure in Bougainville and in New Guinea as a whole. In the light of the recent industrial upheaval there, have we any assurance that such personnel will not be used as tools of the mining companies with their goon squads to suppress legitimate industrial complaints?

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

– I cannot answer that general question. I am informed that originally there were discussions with the Department of Labor and Immigration to afford that particular industry and others in New Guinea the benefits of the experience in Australia. In addition, as the honourable senator well knows, the Australian Council of Trade Unions sent delegations there. Before that other delegations were sent by the previous Government. I think I should ask the Minister for Labor and Immigration to supply in detail some reaction to Senator Mulvihills question about the Bougainville dispute, and I will do so.

page 1630

QUESTION

SAND MINING ON FRASER ISLAND

Senator STEELE HALL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. It relates to the somewhat confusing reports of the Government’s decision to approve mining on Fraser Island. Was the Government’s decision made on the basis that it had no authority to prevent the continuation of the mining, or was it made on the basis that the sand mining operation on Fraser Island is a desirable activity?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-The answer to the first part of the honourable senator’s question is yes. The Government was not in a position to alter the agreements which had been entered into. The State Government has the ultimate say so far as the workings on Fraser Island are concerned. The second part of the question is a matter of judgment. Part of the agreement between the company and the Queensland Government is that the company must observe fairly strict environmental procedures which have been laid down by the Queensland Government. I understand that they are being observed. It is not a question of the company concerned, DillinghamMurphyores Minerals, simply taking out quantities of material without regard for environmental factors. I believe that they were quite clearly laid down by the Queensland Government. I understand that they are being observed.

page 1631

QUESTION

RHODESIA

Senator WRIGHT:
TASMANIA

-I direct a question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Arising out of the recent Commonwealth Prime Ministers Conference a statement was published to the effect that Mr Whitlam for Australia supported the demands of black Africa for a black majority in Rhodesian government- I emphasise the next words- even to the extent of armed activity. Is that report correct? Did the Prime Minister pledge Australia to support armed activity in support of demands for a particular type of government in Rhodesia?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

-I shall read out from a statement on the question of Southern Rhodesia, which I did not have time to read as the honourable senator was speaking, arising out of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting. It reads:

Australia is concerned that every effort should be made to achieve a peaceful settlement in Southern Rhodesia providing for independence based on majority rule at the earliest possible time. The Government therefore fully supports the current moves by concerned African states towards a constitutional conference between the African National Council and the Smith regime to achieve such a settlement. It concurs with the statement in the Commonwealth Heads of Government communique that if a settlement is not achieved by peaceful means then an intensified arms struggle is inevitable and that the illegal Smith regime must accept moral responsibility for renewed warfare if this should ensue. Australia is prepared to support action for the reinforcement and extention of sanctions.

page 1631

QUESTION

ETHNIC RADIO STATIONS

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for the Media and follows his reply to a question asked by Senator Donald Cameron this morning. I ask: Is it a fact that the licences for the 2 ethnic radio stations to be established in Sydney and Melbourne are issued to the Special Consultant on Community Relations? Is not this special consultant Mr Al Grassby, who will take part in the organisation of the programs? Will these programs include such matters as legal aid and other Government policies? If not, will the committee that the Minister suggested may be established be completely independent of any influence by Mr Grassby? Will the programs come under the control of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board? If not, where will the control lie, what facilities will be used by these radio stations for transmission and who will finance them?

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

-First, the licences have not yet been issued, but it is proposed at this stage that they should be issued by my colleague, the Postmaster-General, under the Wireless Telegraphy Act to the position of the Special Consultant on Community Relations.

It is a fact that Mr Grassby occupies that position for the time being. Senator Bishop and I have been discussing the matter and, as I said to Senator Donald Cameron, we have recommended that a committee be formed to consider programming arrangements.

Senator Young:

– Excluding Mr Grassby?

Senator DOUGLAS McCLELLANDCertainly I would think Mr Grassby would have some part in making arrangements of the programs. I would not know what the arrangements are, but I think it would be terribly important that there be programs of an informational nature to advise ethnic groups of the rights of migrants with regard to legal aid, Medibank and such matters. One of the great problems of Australian governments of any political colour has involved trying to make migrant people who do not speak or understand English understand their rights and entitlements. The program arrangements would be subject to the approval of, or the standards of, the Australian Broadcasting Control Board. As far as I am aware, the funding arrangements are being provided by either the Special Consultant on Community Relations section or the Department of Labor and Immigration. When Senator Bishop and I have reached a conclusion I shall certainly give the honourable senator the advice.

Senator Young:

– What facilities will be used?

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

– I assume that they would be facilities that would be provided by the Postmaster-General’s Department. They would be low frequency stations with a range of only 16 kilometres and therefore the facilities that would be required would not be very spacious.

page 1631

QUESTION

BALTIC STATES

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. In the light of the Prime Minister’s reluctance to discuss the Baltic States issue when he was in the Soviet Union in 1974, will the Minister for Foreign Affairs, through diplomatic channels, undertake to make representations to Soviet authorities for the release of the 5 Lithuanian prisoners of conscience- S. Zukauskas, A. Sakalauskas. V. Povilonis, I. Rudaitis and A. Mackevicius? Will the Minister also press for greater human rights in the Baltic States of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania and keep the Australian public informed about progress of any negotiations?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

-No doubt the honourable senator is aware that on a number of occasions the Australian Government has made known to the Soviet authorities the concern felt in Australia about human rights issues. From the information that he gave in his question I take it that he has read the answer which the Prime Minister gave on 17 April last. There is no doubt that we have made it completely clear not only to the Soviet Union but also to every other country that the loss of civil liberties or the gaolings which are not really acceptable in other countriesI speak, quite generally now- make for difficulties in our relationships with those countries because the Australian public who are used to a form of British justice do not accept these things. I have done this in every country about which we have had complaints, including many of the Asian countries, and so has Mr Whitlam.

page 1632

QUESTION

TUNA INDUSTRY

Senator LAUCKE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Can the Minister for Agriculture indicate whether the Government is taking action to assist the local tuna fishing industry in its present difficulties arising, inter alia, from a lack of overseas markets?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-The difficulties which the tuna industry has been through in the last few months arose from the fact that in the 1973-74 season there was a marked decline in the catch, especially off the New South Wales coast. At the same time there were good catches in other parts of the world. It is true that there were big imports of canned tuna into Australia and that these, to some degree, had a competitive effect on the industry in Australia. However that level of imports has fallen off quite dramatically in the last 3 or 4 months. I understand that no actual submission has been made to the Government, that is, to the Temporary Assistance Authority, for a case to be considered- at least not to my knowledge. Because of the downturn in the imports of canned tuna in recent months the immediate crisis, as I understand it, has passed.

page 1632

QUESTION

GARBAGE DISPOSAL AT AIRPORTS

Senator RAE:
TASMANIA

– Has the Minister representing the Minister for Transport been able to obtain any information in relation to the question concerning the increase, by nearly 10 times, in the garbage disposal charges to airlines at the Tullamarine Airport?

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

– Yes, the Minister for Transport has supplied the following answer: The Department has increased the charges from 8.6c to 62.5c per cubic foot for garbage disposal and incineration. The previous charge was a nominal one related to earlier local council charges, and the new charge is the true assessment of the cost of providing the service in accordance with the Government’s policy of recovering airport costs. However, much of the high cost quoted is related to incineration of quarantinable garbage as laid down by the Department of Health. The Department of Transport with the Department of Health is actively pursuing the question of the necessity for incineration of specific categories of garbage and whether such categories could be disposed of at the airport by alternative means at a reduced cost.

page 1632

QUESTION

RHODESIA

Senator GREENWOOD:

-My question, which is directed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, follows on the question asked by Senator Wright and the Minister’s answer. Will the Minister, on behalf of the Government, repudiate the use of armed force by black Africa to impose a form of government on Rhodesia? Will he state that the Australian Government cannot and will not support resort to armed force by black Africa?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

-I remember that Senator Greenwood got very irate when I visited black Africa. He seemed to think that I was letting the team down even by going there, and thereby being the first Australian Minister to visit black Africa. I am sure that my trip there did not start any revolutions and that I did not in any way put Australia in a situation in which it would not want to be. We have made it clear that we will not give arms to these people. We gave the small amount of $ 1 50,000 in aid last year and everybody on the Liberal side became upset about that although it was for humanitarian purposes. It was given to people who had fled from the troubles in Namibia and Mozambique and who were starving in southern Zambia. It is accepted now that people probably are not very interested in what happens on either side, but if they are starving and wounded and we can make some contribution to help them, we do so. Nobody, neither this Government nor anybody else, wants to see resort to armed force. This Government particularly has not in any way suggested armed force or contributed to its use. Having regard to the approach of the Opposition and the Government parties towards Vietnam I would have thought that this would be patently clear. It was the Opposition when in government which resorted to armed force, and it was my Government which stopped it.

page 1633

QUESTION

RHODESIA

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether he will answer the question I asked. Will he, on behalf of the Australian Government indicate that the Australian Government cannot and will not accept resort to armed force by black Africa to impose a different form of government on Rhodesia?

Senator WILLESEE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Senator Greenwood asks whether we will accept war in another country. I can neither accept nor reject it. The question should be whether we would have troops there. That is the only question I can answer. I cannot accept or reject a war which breaks out in some other part of the world. I just point out that it was the Opposition which resorted to armed force, not this Government.

page 1633

SOCIAL WELFARE COMMISSION

Senator WHEELDON (Western AustraliaMinister for Repatriation and Compensation)For the information of honourable senators, I present a report prepared for the Social Welfare Commission by David Griffiths of the Brotherhood of St Laurence with recommendations by the Commission, entitled ‘emergency relief.

page 1633

DRIED FRUITS

Senator WHEELDON (Western AustraliaMinister for Repatriation and Compensation)Pursuant to section 1 8 ( 1 ) of the Dried Fruits Research Act 1971, I present the third annual report of the Dried Fruits Research Committee for the year ended 30 June 1 974.

page 1633

REMUNERATION TRIBUNAL

Senator WILLESEE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Foreign Affairs · ALP

– Pursuant to subsection 7 (7) of the Remuneration Tribunals Act 1973-1974, I table a determination by the Remuneration Tribunal of remuneration payable, first, to the Chairman of the Australian Defence Force Academy Development Council and, secondly, to the part-time members of the Petroleum and Minerals Authority.

page 1633

OVERSEAS PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS

Senator BISHOP (South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral) For the information of honourable senators, I present a report submitted to the Committee on Overseas Professional Qualifications by its working party on interpreting, dated August 1974.

page 1633

AUSTRALIAN LEGAL AID REVIEW COMMITTEE

Senator James McClelland:
Minister for Manufacturing Industry · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– For the information of honourable senators, I present the second report of the Australian Legal Aid Review Committee dated March 1975.

page 1633

URBAN PAPER: RURAL RETREAT

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP

– For the information of honourable senators, I present an urban paper prepared by Claire Wagner entitled: ‘Rural Retreats’.

page 1633

ILLNESS OF SENATOR

The PRESIDENT:

– I have just now received a message from Senator Devitt advising that he has returned home from hospital where he has been indisposed. Doctors have diagnosed his illness as an angina attack, but he is doing well.

page 1633

JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

The PRESIDENT:

– I inform the Senate that I have received a letter from the Leader of the National Country Party in the House of Representatives (Mr Anthony) nominating Mr Hewson as a member of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory in place of Mr Fisher, resigned.

SUPPLY BILL (No. 1) 1975-76 In Committee

Consideration resumed from 20 May.

Senator COTTON:
New South Wales

– The Committee is dealing with Supply Bill (No. 1 ), consideration of which was deferred for a week as a result of a request for more information from the Treasurer (Dr. J. F. Cairns) about a number of areas of expenditure, in particular some further information about the Treasurer’s advance account. Yesterday we received from the Treasurer a 14-page answer to the various queries, which I acknowledge. It seems to me from my reading of this document that it begins to develop in this place a greater understanding, which I think is very necessary, of what the Treasurer’s advance account is all about, what it seeks to do and how it is operated, inspected and audited. But the statement does not make up in quantity what it lacks substantially in quality. It seems to me to be largely a wordy exercise in non-answers and it seems to me equally to be an inadequate response in respect of the massive increase in expenditure which we are contemplating in total and in the Treasurer’s advance account in particular. It seems to me to paper over many areas of expenditure in which there are massive increases. My colleagues and I naturally will be seeking more information than we now have. In particular, there are some areas which I am quite sure my colleagues will want to develop and about which they earlier were asking questions which do not seem to me to have been replied to in any way adequately.

Looking at the Treasurer’s advance account in particular, I develop what I call a ladder of events in that account. I begin by observing, in respect of the expenditures out of that account as contained in the Appropriation Bills- not the Supply Bills, although they tend to be rather intermingled- in the year 1973-74 which concluded at the end of June last year, that the Public Accounts Committee sat, inspected and checked those expenditures and tabled a report on 26 November 1974. The Auditor-General, in his report for the same year at page 14, made certain comments about the Treasurer’s advance account. So it is clear that there are points of time when expenditures out of this account can be checked by Parliament- on the basis of 2 pieces of evidence-the Auditor-General’s report and the Public Accounts Committee report, both of which are very valuable documents. The Public Accounts Committee report in particular is of great value.

It is now May 1975. The Supply Bills that are now brought into this chamber contain requests for approval of a massive amount of money for the Treasurer’s advance account which is explained only partly in this 14-page document. We will be told that in August 1975 these amounts will be largely picked up by bringing them into account in detail in the Appropriation Bills for 1975-76. Those Bills-Appropriation Bill (No. 1 ) and Appropriation Bill (No. 2)-will again seek an amount of money for the Treasurer’s advance account, which normally expands the bid that is put down in May. Then in the period from 1 July this year to June next year, 1976, that money is taken up, spent, apportioned, allowed for, adjusted and becomes used up. In about December of that year we get from the Parliamentary Public Accounts Committee a statement of its inspection of that expenditure and in about September or October we get from the Auditor-General a report as to the position. What we are looking at really is expenditure which is approved in May of 1975. The money begins to be spent from about that point of time on in anticipation. It really is not inspected in detail by this Parliament until something like 18 months after it is spent. That seems to me to be the appropriate position to come to.

When I turn to reports by the Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts I find 2 interesting observations. The report of 1954 contains in paragraphs 16, 17 and 18 the following observations which I think the Senate would be well advised to note. This report by the Committee relates to the general area of Treasurer’s Advance as put down in 1 954. It states:

  1. To the extent that the Executive disregards the convention of prior Parliamentary approval it weakens the authority of Parliament over expenditure.
  2. The procedures which have been adopted in respect of new commitments for new civil works indicate the administrative difficulties during the Supply period where prior Parliamentary approval is strictly observed.

That is fair comment.

  1. The presentation of Estimates of expenditure to the Parliament in time to enable it to complete its consideration of them before the beginning of the financial year would preserve the authority of the Parliament, vindicate the power of the Executive, and resolve many administrative problems.

This is an argument that we ought to see the appropriations for the year beginning 1 July 1975 before the beginning of that year, not some time in August or September. When we look at the latest issue of the report of the Public Accounts Committee on this subject, which is for the year 1974, we find some other observations. In the Chairman’s speech it is pointed out that the Committee for many years has conducted combined inquiries relating to general expenditure and the Advance to the Treasurer. I will not read the lot of it but the Committee made some particular comments which I think are important. It was dealing specifically with the Advance to the Treasurer and it said:

As the report shows, there were cases where expenditure from the Advance to the Treasurer was confined to urgent and unforeseeable requirements for which provision could not have been made in the Appropriation Acts.

That is fair enough but the comment continues:

In other cases, however, there was evidence of clerical errors, inefficient estimating procedures and delays which caused expenditure to be charged to the Advance when provision should properly have been made in the Additional Estimates. Attention has been drawn to these inadequacies where they have been discovered.

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

– What was the date of that report?

Senator COTTON:

-This is the Public Accounts Committee report dated 26 November 1974. The reference would be the 152nd report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts. We are all very well served by the Public Accounts Committee’s examination of these areas but once again I have to observe that such examinations take place a fairly long time after the expenditures have been committed.

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

– The reason I interjected was that you originally said 1954.

Senator COTTON:

-I was dealing with 2 different reports. The year 1954 really was the beginning of Public Accounts Committee work in examination of this area and reference was then made to certain things that it thought were desirable and to the patterns to be followed. I referred to 1974 because that gives us a span of 20 years. In those 20 years we find that the Committee’s concern is fully justified. Honourable senators will find there is reference to the need to see Appropriation Bills earlier rather than later. This would be a valuable exercise.

The Treasurer has made comments on the Advance to the Treasurer. In addition honourable senators will find that there is a parliamentary paper on Commonwealth transactions dealing with this subject. I do not think there is any need for me to refer to those but the Treasurer’s comments are available in his estimates presentation for the Senate last year. The matter is itemised, both as to Appropriation Bill (No. 1 ) and Appropriation Bill (No. 2), and I think the points are still the same. The same point is picked up in the paper on Commonwealth transactions. I turn again to the concern I expressed when first looking at this matter as a parliamentary exercise. I pointed out that in 1 974 the bid for supply for government carry-on for the first 5 months of that year, 12 months ago, was about $2,300m, and the bid now for 5 months, 12 months later, is $3, 800m. The expansion of the supply bid in total is 63 per cent. In that context one must ask in the Senate what is the reality and the truth of the Government’s claim that it is seeking to restrain and reduce expenditure. So far in the financial figures brought forward by the Government there is no evidence to show that there is any truth or expectation in that promise.

I refer to a comment made by my colleague, the shadow Treasurer in the House of Representatives, when he was discussing these Supply Bills on 1 7 April. He said:

The Supply Bills now before the House, however, indicate the likelihood of a higher rate of increase. Expenditure by way of the Supply legislation before the House is to be 62 per cent higher in the first 5 months of 1975-76 than it was during the same period of the previous year. If the Supply appropriation has the same proportional relationship to overall outlays as it did last year, Federal spending for 1 975-76 will be around $29 billion. This would be nearly 3 times greaternearly 300 per cent higher- than the $ 10 billion spent during 1972-73.

I am sure that all honourable senators have a great concern about what is really happening in the expenditure programs of the Government and of this Parliament, because although last year we all regarded the 46 per cent increase in expenditure as massive, it now seems to be growing at a much greater rate. Irrespective of political attitudes, these increases are of such magnitude that they impose potentially great dangers on Australia and its economic position, leading, I believe, to a massive acceleration in inflation possibilities and, out of all that, to the concern that I have always expressed in this place, namely, the possible destruction of the Australian currency and the future of the Australian people. I think that is something to which all honourable senators should direct their minds.

The shape of the coming Budget therefore begins to emerge, and it is one of alarming proportions. One might ask oneself where this country is heading. On 14 May I asked the following:

Why does the Government need $240m? What are the general areas that it thinks will call for emergency expenditure? Does the Government propose to embark on new projects which have not been explained to the Parliament.

I do not think these questions have been adequately answered, although I must say that the Treasurer’s 14-page document contains information which I think the Parliament is very well advised to have and should continue to seek. If honourable senators look at the following figures they will find them illuminating, once again bearing in mind that a supply bid containing Treasurer’s advance is not the same thing as the Treasurer’s advance bid in the Appropriation Bill which follows three or four months later. In 197 1-72, which was the last year of the previous Government, the actual amount of money expended under Treasurer’s advance account was not quite $1 lm. In 1975-76, 5 years later, we are looking at a bid for the same thing in Supply for $240m. This is 2 1 times greater in 5 years, allowing for all the explanations, thin as they are, in the statement made available to us yesterday.

Senator Cavanagh:

– But we are doing something.

Senator COTTON:

-Yes, the Government is getting the country in a first-class financial mess, and the Minister should be ashamed to admit it. When we look at these situations we have to say to ourselves that we are obviously expanding massively the area of parliamentary discretion to a government to expend money in areas of bad estimating, bad budgeting, lack of consideration, massive inflation and massive expenditure increase. When Government members say that to themselves they, as a Government, therefore would understand fully the apprehension of the Opposition that these things need to be put under a very careful review. One would hope very much that Government members, as a Government, would feel prepared to take the same interest in this area as we are trying to take.

I would now like to allow my colleagues to join in this debate. I want to involve myself later in the debate on certain areas of specific expenditure which seem to me to be not adequately explained. However, I think the real issue before the Parliament is whether the people and the Parliament should be prepared to expand continuously this amount of money for the Treasurer’s advance without continuing adequate explanations being given to the Parliament and without our trying to get from the Government a much greater precision in relation to the allocation of potential expenditure and much more detail before the amount is finally spent, because many of us feel that to give this kind of overall authority to an extravagant government of the present character, with its incumbent Treasurer, would have the potential of placing Australia in some quite massive danger in the future.

Senator MCAULIFFE:
Queensland

– It is obvious to me that the Opposition is playing politics in this matter, and from its point of view it is probably regarded as good politics. That is what it is here for and it is entitled to adopt those attitudes. But it reminds me of the chap attending the annual meeting of his sporting organisation who wants to make some impact on the audience because he is aspiring to be appointed to an office in the club. He continually attacks, line by line, the balance sheet. Of course, anyone who has had any experience in these organisations knows that, no matter how well prepared and presented the balance sheet is, one can always get up and ask a question that can create some innuendo and doubt.

That is all that the Opposition has been doing. It has tried to make out that the Government is acting unconstitutionally and that it is not acting within the framework of the Audit Act. That is so much rot because the Government is following the same procedures and is receiving the same advice from the Treasury as the previous Government received. It is working within the same Treasury directions as did the previous government. So I think it is about time that we stopped pussy-footing around and placed on the record just what are the procedures required of any government, whether it is a Labor government or an anti-Labor government, and what is required of the Party which is occupying the

Treasury benches. So for the record I would like to say that long ago Parliament recognised that a new measure was necessary to provide funds for needs not covered by existing appropriations. Yet that measure had to conform with the requirements of the Audit Act. That was done under a heading which is now known as Advance to the Treasurer.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– We know this.

Senator McAULIFFE:

-Apparently the Opposition had forgotten it. From the way that it has been acting in this Parliament in relation to these Supply Bills, apparently it has forgotten the procedures, and it might be a good thing to remind it of them again. The legislation clearly spelt out the kinds of uses for which the Advance to the Treasurer may be put, and the definitions of those uses in relation to the Supply Bills which we are now discussing are exactly the same as those which applied in comparable legislation in previous years when those who are now attacking them occupied the Treasury bench.

Senator Missen:

– Only 20 times as big.

Senator MCAULIFFE:

– I am coming to that. As I said earlier, the same advice from the Treasury is available to this Government as was available to Liberal-Country Party governments, and the same Treasury directions apply under the Audit Act. So why would we be less responsible than our predecessors? One may well ask at this stage for what purposes moneys are available under Advance to the Treasurer. These are clearly laid out under 3 main avenues: Firstly, pending the passing of an Appropriation Act to meet expenditure which was not covered by an appropriation, the particulars of which will afterwards be submitted to the Parliament as they cannot be submitted to the Parliament at any other time than afterwards; secondly, pending the issue of a Governor-General’s warrant for moneys already appropriated by Parliament; and, thirdly, to make an advance which will be recovered within the financial year. The legislation also says that approvals will be given only in urgent or special circumstances. In other words, these circumstances or requirements might arise- and the ‘might’ is spelt in big capital letters. All governments, irrespective of their political persuasion- as I said, whether they are Labor or anti-Labor- have operated along these lines ever since the first days of Federation. So, where is there any substance in the indecent spectacle of the Opposition claiming that the Government is being deceitful or wishes to hide something?

Of course the Opposition has the right to ask these questions and to inquire why the amounts in the Advance to the Treasurer in the Supply Bill in each case have been increased from $60m in 1974-75 to $120m in 1975-76.I consider that the Leader of the Government in the Senate, when he made his statement, answered these questions adequately. The answers honourable senators have sought from the Leader of the Government have been forthcoming. I think he explained the matter clearly to honourable senators when he told them that the total of Supply Bill (No. 1) 1975-76, namely, $2,692m, with an Advance to the Treasurer of $ 120m, compared with a total of $ 1,804m in the Supply Act (No. 1 ) 1974- 75, with an Advance to the Treasurer of $60m. The expenditure in the Supply Bill has almost doubled and the Advance to the Treasurer has increased in about the same ratio. Again, the total amount in Supply Bill (No. 2) 1975- 76 is $ 1,802m, and it has in it an Advance to the Treasurer of $ 120m. This compares with a total of $5 13m in Supply Act (No. 2) 1974-75, with an Advance to the Treasurer of $60m. The proposed increase in the appropriation for the Advance to the Treasurer is a little less than a pro rata increase and is along similar lines to those adopted when Opposition senators were in government. So what is all the fuss about?

If honourable senators thumb through the pages of previous Appropriation Bills and Supply Bills, they will see the pro rata increase. The increase has been at the same rate as the increase in the Supply Bills and Appropriation Bills. However, the Opposition has merely picked out this item and is hammering away, trying to create suspicion about why the amount of the Advance to the Treasurer has increased from $120m to $240m. Years ago the amount of the advance was only $20m. Yesterday I told the Senate that we used to have penny postage but that it did not exist now. Additional cost brings about additional expenditure and provisions for what may arise must be made proportionately. This Government has done what previous governments have done. It is using the Advance to the Treasurer to meet emergent needs. This is well within the framework of the Constitution and- this is important- is subject to the same degree of scrutiny by the Auditor-General as any other government expenditure. The Opposition senators have made great play about accountability and have referred to the Advance to the Treasurer as being petty cash. This Government has to account for every dollar, just as the present members of the Opposition had to do when they were in government. All governments are bound by the same regulations and procedures, which are well defined.

It may be of interest to remind honourable senators about these regulations and procedures. Firstly, there are the usual Budget documents, Appropriation Bill (No. 1) and Appropriation Bill (No. 2). These are scrutinised by the Estimates Committee and usually are passed in November. I do not need to remind the Senate of the intensive inquiring and scrutiny carried out in Estimate Committees. Appropriation Bill (No. 1) and Appropriation Bill (No. 2) come under special scrutiny in the Senate. The next procedure is when Appropriation Bill (No. 3) and Appropriation Bill (No. 4), which are known as Additional Estimates, are passed in April or May. These are the Bills which we recently passed and which came under close examination by the Estimates Committees. So, what is all this fuss about our trying to pass expenditure and Appropriation Bills without having them closely scrutinised? The expenditure is examined in 2 instances, firstly in considerating Appropriation Bill (No. 1) and Appropriation Bill (No. 2) and secondly in debating Appropriation Bill (No. 3) and Appropriation Bill (No. 4).

Let us have a look at the remaining period, the period from July to November. Supply Bill (No. 1) and Supply Bill (No. 2) are introduced to cover expenditure for the period. These Bills are currently being debated in this chamber. Now for the contentious part that is being highlighted at this moment- the scrutiny of the Advance to the Treasurer. An Advance to the Treasurer is attached to all appropriations, whether Appropriation Bills or Supply Bills. All these Appropriation Bills show an amount for an Advance to the Treasurer. Honourable senators might well ask: When will the scrutiny of the Advance to the Treasurer take place? I have heard it said here that it takes place after the event. Some honourable senators have been making out that all this is done by the Public Accounts Committee. What rot!

Previously I made the point that Advances to the Treasurer are used for 3 purposes. Nothing can be done until the items eventually appear in the Appropriation Bills. An examination cannot be made of the money beforehand because it is not known how it will be spent. This is taken on board when the relevant Appropriation Bills come into existence. The Parliament then has scrutiny of them. This occurs only three or four months later. If there has been any wrongdoing or misappropriation by the Government it is picked up then. So why are honourable senators saying that there is no scrutiny of the Advance to the Treasurer? The second step with the Advance to the Treasurer is the issue of a warrant by the Governor-General. This has already been approved, scrutinised and authorised in Appropriation Bills. I now refer to the third procedure. The Treasurer (Dr J. F. Cairns), in the statement that was tabled in this chamber yesterday, gave the perfect example covering this third procedure when he referred to overseas posts. I shall not bore honourable senators by repeating it but I suggest they look at the statement which explains away the third use of the Advance to the Treasurer.

We have heard a lot about the Public Accounts Committee. I was very pleased to hear Senator Cotton eulogise the Committee as he did, because the Committee does give valuable service to the Parliament. But he exaggerated the role of the Public Accounts Committee in examining the Advance to the Treasurer. He tried, I would say innocently, to convey to the Parliament that the scrutiny of the Advance to the Treasurer is carried out by the Public Accounts Committee, but unfortunately he said this occurs after the event, when the money is all spent. This is not quite right. The scrutiny which is carried out by the Public Accounts Committee of the Advance to the Treasurer relates only to those moneys that are left in the Advance to the Treasurer at the end of the financial year. The amount is very small compared with what was there at the beginning of the financial year.

It is true that the role of the Public Accounts Committee in the scrutiny of the Advance to the Treasurer is important because the Committee carries out the parliamentary scrutiny of moneys charged to the Advance to the Treasurer at the close of the financial year- moneys that have been left after all else has been appropriated. Other items in the Advance to the Treasurer are taken on board in the various Appropriation Bills. It is only what is left that comes under parliamentary scrutiny by the Public Accounts Committee. The Treasurer tables a report showing details of the expenditure and this is then adopted by the Parliament. Again, as a further safeguard in the case of the Senate, the Senate withholds the adoption of the statement of the Advance to the Treasurer that has been made by the Treasurer until such time as the Public Accounts Committee tables its report in the Senate showing that it has carried out and reported on its investigations into the Advance to the Treasurer.

What further scrutiny do honourable senators want? They can see that scrutiny is carried out by the Estimates Committees in considering the 4

Appropriation Bills. The Advance to the Treasurer that is attached to these Bills comes on board eventually and has the scrutiny of the Estimates Committees and the Public Accounts Committee, which has an oversight of the expenditure that is left at the end of the financial year in the Advance to the Treasurer. So that Parliament can see what has happened, the Treasurer tables a statement of heads of expenditure and the amounts charged thereto pursuant to section 36A of the Audit Act 190 1- 1 973. This is tabled in the Parliament. I repeat that, in the case of the Senate, the statement is not accepted until the Public Accounts Committee tables its report.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator

Georges)- Order! The honourable senator’s time has expired.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– I raise a point of order. The procedure in the Committee of the Whole is that honourable senators relate to the heads of expenditure which we are discussing. It is quite proper that, as a result of events last week, Senator Cotton moved that further consideration of these Bills be postponed, in the sense that the Committee report progress, until such time as the Treasurer brought down a statement. It was proper, therefore, for Senator Cotton to make some observations on the statement that was tabled. Senator McAuliffe replies to that and takes 1 5 minutes. Are we to proceed, in 15 -minute chunks, making second reading speeches for the rest of the day, or will you, Mr Temporary Chairman, rule that we confine ourselves to the items of the Supply Bills? I do not mind which way you rule but I would like to know your intention.

Senator Cavanagh:

– It is on the item of the Advance to the Treasurer.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– I should like to know whether we will have a general discussion on the theory of the Advance to the Treasurer or deal with the items. I just want to know what your intentions are, Mr Temporary Chairman, so that we can at least address ourselves and keep within your ruling.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– My intention is to take account of what Senator Sir Magnus Cormack has said but I also take account of the precedent which has been set in this debate. Some very general statements have been made and I agree they were not confined to certain items. Nevertheless I think they were pertinent. Senator McAuliffe ‘s response was to certain implications made by Senator Cotton and others. I will take account of what Senator Sir

Magnus Cormack said and I hope all other honourable senators will do so.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Victoria

– I want to address myself in general terms to the Supply Bills, as have the honourable senators who have spoken previously this morning. I think we are forced into this course of action by the style of the response which we had to the question which was submitted to the Treasurer (Dr J. F, Cairns) through the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Wriedt). I want to refer to the response which we have had and also to some of the comments which have been made. I waited with some interest for the response from the Treasurer in view of some of the remarks of the Leader of the Government when we were dealing with the Supply Bills. The Leader of the Government made a statement to the effect that he was quite sure that over the years it had been traditional to allow the Government to exercise its judgment in the light of its program and what it was endeavouring to do in order to ensure that sufficient funds were available to meet temporary shortages which do arise. He went on to say that bearing in mind the levels of expenditure and costs, especially in Government programs where expansion is rapid, it is inevitable that it will be necessary to reassess the amounts of money that are involved and in particular the Advance that is made to the Treasurer.

I waited with some interest for details of the matters which were regarded as being the requirement for the expenditure of $120m in each Bill, but before referring to that I think it is appropriate, because we are having an assessment of the role of the Senate in passing these Bills, that we take note of some of the matters to which Senator McAuliffe referred and some to which 1 want to refer. I refer to the role of the Public Accounts Committee with regard to the Advance to the Treasurer. I quote again from the report of the Committee of 1954 which very thoughtfully expressed the constitutional principle. I am quoting from page 13 of the eighteenth report of the Public Accounts Committee. It states:

The principle which the Committee has examined is whether or not the Parliament’s approval of the Estimates of expenditure for the financial year should be obtained before or after the beginning of the year. This in turn involves the question of the approximate time when the Parliament’s approval of the Estimates of expenditure is to be obtained.

Section 83 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901 states:

No money shall be drawn from the Treasury of the Commonwealth except under appropriation made by law. The restraint placed on the Executive is that it cannot spend public funds before the Parliament’s approval has been obtained to that expenditure. Prior parliamentary approval to expenditure is therefore fundamental to parliamentary government.

Other matters are referred to at page 13, but I now quote from paragraph 85 which states:

A further principle of parliamentary government which is being whittled away by Executive expediency is that the Parliament’s approval must be obtained before the commitment is made. The principle is recognised as a ‘practice’, or a ‘convention’ and in general, a wide respect is paid to it. It is not written into the Commonwealth Constitution, indeed both practice and convention permit commitments to be made before the Parliament is consulted.

Paragraph 86 states:

If this principle is regarded as unimportant, the Executive may tend to regard its power to enter into commitments as unfettered, and the position of the Parliament will have become still further subordinate to the Executive.

In paragraph 87 we have this philosophy:

The solution must lie somewhere between the two extremes of prior parliamentary approval of all commitments, and the lack of attention by the Executive to the rights and privileges of the Parliament.

In the field of principle, the alternatives are clean Either the Executive will act as if its powers were unfettered, or the Parliament must insist that its prior approval shall be obtained by the Executive.

I think it was on that basis that Senator Cotton, on behalf of the Opposition, questioned the inclusion of the amount of $120m in each of these Bills. The Public Accounts Committee of 1954 referred specifically to the terms of the Treasurer’s Advance Appropriation and stated that that Advance:

This Advance is to enable the Treasurer to make Advances which will be recovered within the financial year and also to meet expenditure particulars of which will afterwards be included in a parliamentary Appropriation. These do not specify that the expenditure is to be on projects which have already been submitted to the Parliament, directly or indirectly, and received its approval. Nevertheless, the Treasury stated that it observed generally the traditional constitutional principle of prior parliamentary approval.

Senator McAuliffe:

– For 20 years the previous Government did not take any notice of that Committee ‘s advice.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– I think that remark could be challenged in terms of reality, but I want to refer to Senator McAuliffe ‘s statement about the role of the Public Accounts Committee and to acknowledge that the work that is done under scrutiny by that Committee concerns the amount of expenditure which remains after we have passed Appropriation Bill (No. 3), Appropriation Bill (No. 4) and Appropriation Bill (No. 5). I refer the honourable senator to the figures for 1973-74. He was giving the impression that they were very limited amounts. In Appropriation Act (No. 1) the amount was $20m. In Appropriation Act (No. 2) it was $42m. I now ask Senator McAuliffe, as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, this question: How much of the $120m under each of these Bills does he envisage will be the responsibility of the Public Accounts Committee in the forthcoming year? Those amounts of $20m and $42m were from the somewhat more limited Treasurer’s Advance which we had in 1973-74. 1 think it would be appropriate to consider how much of the expenditure under this appropriation to the Treasurer’s Advance will be dealt with by the Public Accounts Committee outside Appropriation Act (No. 3), Appropriation Act (No. 4) and Appropriation Act (No. 5 ), when the time comes.

Senator McAuliffe:

– You know that the Treasurer is not bound to spend the $ 120m.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– I know that the Treasurer is not bound to spend the $ 120m, but I know also that the Public Accounts Committee, in conjunction with the Auditor-General and the Treasury, has given a great deal of time to place emphasis on the need for accuracy in estimating and accuracy in budgeting. Senator McAuliffe would know the competing demands that each department makes when Ministers are formulating a national budget. He would know the competing demands for the funds within each department and for the amounts to be expended under each head of expenditure. I refer to a couple of things which I think show instances of inaccuracy in budgeting or sloppy attention being paid to requirements of departments having been shown by the Public Accounts Committee to be needs under the Treasurer’s Advance which otherwise should not have been claimed. I refer to the Public Accounts Committee’s one hundred and fifty-second report. An amount of $466,000 was required for Colombo Plan and other aid. It was sought under the Advance to the Treasurer. After public examination, the conclusion of the Committee was that that amount should have been known by the department concerned to be required within its normal appropriation budgeting and its estimating. The Committee considered the fact that two important letters were overlooked by the Department which meant that it had to call for funds for post graduate courses. This was the sort of thing that should have been known at the time it was putting forward its normal appropriation. Another instance of a somewhat large amount from the Advance to the Treasurer was an amount of $212,300 for the Australian Government Gazette. The conclusion of the Public Accounts Committee was:

A thorough review of expenditure at the time requirements from additional estimates were being considered would have alerted the Department that additional funds would be required. The Committee hopes that the action taken by the Department to increase the staffing position and to tighten up its estimating procedures will allow a more accurate estimate of expenditure in the future.

That is the sort of thing to which we have been referring when we suggest that the amounts of $120m at this time, as requested in the Advance to the Treasurer, could be excessive.

Senator McAuliffe:

– The Government has fulfilled all the requirements of the Constitution and the Audit Act in the way it has sought the money.

Senator GUILFOYLEI wonder whether it is upholding the spirit and the convention of the Parliament when we are working under a system in which prior parliamentary approval is required before funds are requested, that is other than those in the Advance to the Treasurer. It is the magnitude of the Advance to the Treasurer in this instance that is being placed under scrutiny. In the few moments which I have left to me I refer to the statement which has been provided by the Treasurer. It states:

Appropriations, other than Advances to the Treasurer, in the annual Appropriation Acts and Supply Acts are not designed to provide for requirements which might arise during the periods for which they are available.

We acknowledge that fact. The statement continues:

They are prepared on a more restricted basis than that.

It states also:

Not infrequently, funds are required for new programs approved by the Parliament after the Appropriation or Supply Bills have been prepared.

We acknowledge that fact also. It is the amount that we have under scrutiny that we feel should have some explanation. I would like a specific response from the Minister for Agriculture, who is handling the Bill for the Treasurer, to this sentence:

Apart from domestic price and cost trends, trends abroad are also very relevant, particularly as regards funds requirements for payments under defence and other procurement programs.

What does that mean? Are we asked to deal with that under the Advance to the Treasurer? Are we talking about a rolling program of expenditure under our defence planning? Are we talking about something that could even be foreshadowing a currency revaluation? What does that sentence mean when it asks us to deal with appropriation of funds under the Advance to the Treasurer?

The statement referred also to the Medibank scheme, to which I referred specifically when dealing with the Bills earlier in the Senate. Why not more accurate budgeting in respect of Medibank? Why is it that in the Advance to the Treasurer there may be calls for specific funds under Medibank, which surely has been under scrutiny by the Government for a number of years and to which adequate and accurate budgeting could be applied? Structural assistance and the Regional Employment Development scheme are referred to in the statement. Are these amounts to be in the Advance to the Treasurer when they are programs of government which ought to be able to be estimated? The Government is taking the attitude that it can budget up to a certain proposal and then include large amounts in the Advance to the Treasurer from which funds can be drawn without the scrutiny of Parliament until after the event.

These are matters on which I think the Opposition would seek a response in more specific terms than the 14-page statement that has been given to us as an explanation in response to the questions that we raised previously. I would be seeking some further detail in this context so that we may proceed in more detail with the examination of the statement that has been provided; but I felt that as an introduction to this discussion today we should put into context the constitutional principle, which has been upheld, of prior parliamentary approval for expenditure by government.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP

– I do not enter financial discussions a great deal, but I am trying to discover what the talk is about, why all the concern on the other side is occurring and what the Opposition proposes to do. We are discussing a money Bill which the Opposition may not amend, but which it can simply reject or to which it can add a request. We have heard no suggestions of anything specific other than the Opposition saying: ‘We are not satisfied about this but what are we going to do about the whole question?’ I find it very difficult to understand what the concern is all about. It is a higher appropriation for the Treasurer’s Advance account -

Senator Wright:

– It is not an appropriation.

Senator CAVANAGH:

-No, it is a higher allowance to the Treasurer’s advance account. As Senator Wright says, it is not an appropriation; it is not an authorisation of expenditure. An authorisation of expenditure must be contained in an Appropriation Bill. The reasons for which the money can be expended are contained in the Audit Act and the various Acts that have been operating over the years. There is a restriction upon the Treasurer. By this legislation we are permitting him to make loans, which are redeemable, before he obtains the approval of Parliament, following which there is accountability to the Parliament. The Treasurer cannot spend any money without accounting to the Parliament. This money is for emergencies that arise on matters that could well be covered in legislation that the Parliament has passed, such as the legislation in relation to Medibank. While Senator Guilfoyle thought that the amount could be estimated, Medibank is an innovation and we do not as yet know the extent of the expenditure necessary in the States.

The question is whether the Treasurer should be restricted so that he must stop payments under the Medibank scheme, perhaps at a stage when some people have received benefits and other people cannot receive them, until Parliament is reassembled to advance further moneys for a scheme that Parliament has approved. If another cyclone Tracy should occur, should we be placed in the position where we would be unable to offer support for the victims until such time as Parliament had approved the expenditure? Of course the Advance to the Treasurer is made and then there is accountability to the Parliament. All we are doing is restricting the Treasurer to an amount of money for the matters for which he would normally make advances. Apparently at one time $60m was regarded as sufficient. The Treasurer has doubts and seeks a latitude on this occasion to make sure that he has sufficient money to meet those expenses that Parliament will approve. The Opposition is saying that it wants some restriction to ensure that the Government at least reduces its power to advance.

It could well be that from time to time an advance to a department is concerned, where an approval is in the normal appropriation. Do we approach the matter by trying further to restrict the Treasurer? It is not a question of saving expenditure. It is a question of repeated applications to Parliament for an increase in the Advance to the Treasurer because he has spent his last advance. We make due provision for what may be required and if the Treasurer does require that amount he accounts for the expenditure in the various appropriations. There must be complete accountability. The Advance to the Treasurer must be made with Parliament’s approval, but the Opposition wants to restrict the Treasurer so that there must be repeated applications to the Parliament for an increase in the Advance to the Treasurer rather than have a single vote. I should have thought that to permit the Treasurer to continue carrying out the duties that he has under the various Acts of Parliament he could well be given an unrestricted power to appropriate with the knowledge that he must come to the Parliament and obtain approval, and with the knowledge that the Advance must pass the scrutiny of the Auditor-General and the scrutiny of the Public Accounts Committee.

I see that Senator Wood is rising to his feet. He will know that at the time the Regulations and Ordinances Committee was constituted a lot of money was being spent by governments without authorisation or power to spend it. This necessitated the passing of an Act of Parliament. If Parliament refused the appropriation the money was recoverable from those who received it. That does not happen today because of the accountability to the Parliament. The Opposition should not get the idea that we are authorising a big increase in expenditure. We are authorising no expenditure. We are giving power to the Treasurer to advance a certain amount of money to various causes which will be approved by Parliament before he must ask for more. By wishing to restrict the Treasurer more and more the Opposition, I think, is pursuing an avenue of political advantage. It is raising this question as though it involved an increase in expenditure from appropriations when it does nothing of the sort.

Senator WOOD:
Queensland

– I should like to ask a question concerning Division 815, item 04, Commonwealth Brickworks (Canberra) Ltd- Compensation for resumption of lease, $300,000. I should like to know the purpose of expanding a brickworks in Canberra when one reads that the various companies in Canberra which make bricks at the present time are either just making ends meet or are not making ends meet. It would appear that at present brick making is not such a profitable venture. That might be because of the lack of demand or some other factor. It seems to me rather odd that the Government is expanding in this direction when it looks as though there is already a sufficient supply of bricks for Canberra.

During the debate Senator McAuliffe spoke about utilising the finances of this country through Government avenues as though it were irresponsible. I think it is recognised that it is a right of the Parliament to investigate expenditure. None of us here would sign a cheque for the payment of an account unless we made sure that the account was correct. Therefore it is the right and the responsibility of honourable senators to act in the same way with regard to the public’s money.

Another aspect that concerns me is that it has been announced that the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) says that he will spend $500,000 on advertising in order to inform the Australian people what inflation is and what it is all about. I do not know under what item this amount of money has been provided in the Supply Bills. I have looked through the items of expenditure for the various departments, but I cannot see anything about it. I wonder whether anybody could tell me just where this money will come from, because it seems to me to be a waste of money. With the raging inflation in Australia, which has seriously reduced the value of people’s savings and assets, I think what the people want to know is not what inflation is but what the Government will do to cure it. I know that the Government has said that inflation was imported into this country. In the other place last week it was asked why, if inflation was imported from other countries and if inflation in those countries is now going down, it did not import a reduction in inflation. Instead of talking about what inflation is, I think that if the Government made a clear statement about what steps it will take to reduce inflation it would give the Australian people much more confidence and happiness. They would like to be told in a positive fashion what the Government proposes to do to reduce inflation. I ask: Has an amount of $500,000 to be spent on a campaign about inflation been provided under another head in the Supply Bills that we are discussing?

Senator SIR MAGNUS CORMACK:
Victoria

– I do not intend to detain the Committee for very long, but I should like to get back into the minds of the members of the Committee of the Whole the statement which Senator Cotton made last week. He said that the Senate Opposition would not combine to reject Supply and that all that the Opposition required- it was conceded by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Wriedt)- was a statement for the information of the Committee about how the Government arrived at the quantum of the Advance to the Treasurer. That has not become clear either from Senator McAuliffe or from Senator Cavanagh who responded on the Government side. At this stage I address myself momentarily to the statement concerning the Advance to the Treasurer that has been brought down. In one paragraph it states:

While we do not acknowledge any automatic relationship between the level of Government expenditure and the appropriate size of the Treasurer’s Advance provisions, it is reasonable to expect that larger Advances will be required as the level of expenditure rises.

I emphasise- the members of the Committee should note this- the words ‘we do not acknowledge any automatic relationship’. But there is an automatic relationship, and this is the essence of the problem; this is what really concerns the Opposition at present. In 1973-74 there was an appropriation of $30m in the Advance to the Treasurer against a total vote of $ 1,556m in the Supply Bill (No. 1). In 1974-75 the appropriation in the Advance to the Treasurer doubled from $30m to $60m against a total vote of $ 1,840m in the Supply Bill (No. 1). For the financial year 1975-76 there is an appropriation of $120m in the Advance to the Treasurer against a total vote of $2,692m in the Supply Bill (No. 1 ). There is an automatic movement in the appropriation provided in the Advance to the Treasurer, yet the statement says that the Government does not acknowledge any automatic relationship. There is no automatic relationship between the total votes, but there is an automatic relationship between the appropriations provided in the Advance to the Treasurer.

Senator Baume:

– They have indexed it.

Senator SIR MAGNUS CORMACK:

-I thank Senator Baume for the interjection. It is indexation in the Treasury. All we want to know is how that figure of $ 120m has been arrived at. It could have been arrived at only by snatching a figure out of the air- by indexation, as Senator Baume suggests. The appropriation in the Advance to the Treasurer has increased from $30m to $60m to $120m. Are we to anticipate that next year the appropriation in the Advance to the Treasurer will be $240m? I do not know. When we move through the Supply Bills item by item I shall endeavour, as I am sure other honourable senators on this side of the chamber will endeavour, to ascertain how the Government and the Treasury have arrived at this figure of $ 120m- whether it is just a piece of indexation, as Senator Baume suggests, or whether there are definite discernible matters. At this stage I can only agree with Senator Guilfoyle when she says that there is bad estimating. I mention in passing, for example, that surely the Government knows how much it will pay the State of Tasmania for that State’s broken down railway system. It must know that, yet that is claimed as one of the mysteries in the Advance to the Treasurer. With those opening remarks I will subside. I repeat: There is an automatic indexing of the appropriation provided in the Advance to the Treasurer and no attempt has been made to make it clear to the Parliament, which has to approve of these appropriations, how the Government arrived at the figure in the Advance to the Treasurer.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– If there were indexation as commonly understood, that is to say, a proportionate increase according to the consumer price index, I would not be so concerned, but we see the automatic increase to which Senator Sir Magnus Cormack refers. The sum is multiplied by two each year. Two years ago is was $30m, last year it was $60m, and this year it is $120m. I wonder whether it is worth while rising to speak in this debate. I myself think that a matter of this sort should be followed by resolute action and that the amendable Bill dealing with the item should be amended to cut the sum at least in half. Parliament is becoming a charade and that charade is extending in this instance. A few minutes ago there were 2 honourable senators on the Government side and now there are four. I am pleased that the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee has returned to the chamber because to him we owe the averment that the listing of an item in these Supply Bills does not indicate that the Parliament has given its authority for the expenditure; that is given by the Treasurer. It is a pitiable state of affairs when that is the outlook of the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee.

At the present time we are standing in a calamitous state of irresponsibility as regards public finance. We have a degree of inflation which has been unknown in this country and a magnitude of budget deficit of which nobody ever dreamed. I think one statement crept comparatively unnoticed into the statement issued by the Minister for Agriculture (Senator Wriedt), in his capacity as the Minister in this chamber representing the Treasurer (Dr J. F. Cairns), in answer to Senator Cotton’s demand for some explanation regarding the Advance to the Treasurer. In that statement the following appears:

At present, prices and costs are increasing rapidly.

Indeed they are. If ever there was a time for Parliament to begin to understand its real responsibility it is now, with a record deficit and this continuing rapid increase in expenditure. Yet the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee was supported by a Minister of the Crown, Senator Cavanagh, who said that during the next 5 months the Treasurer ought to be given unrestricted power to expend what he will.

Senator Cavanagh:

– In accordance with the Act.

Senator WRIGHT:

-The Minister attempts to recover the sand and mud of his speech by saying: ‘In accordance with the Act’. If the Act specified the expenditure there would be no argument; there would be a specific appropriation and, therefore, we would have to be only quantifying the amount. But here the Treasurer is asking for the right to expend $240m upon matters which are unspecified and the amounts for which are not indicated in any way. In other words, what we want, in the terms of Senator Cotton’s demand last week, is a statement of the expenditures upon which it is proposed to embark with this $240m. Because they are contingent and because they have not yet been quantified, it is not expected that they can be announced in detail; but a range of expectation could be given. Giving us a general statement such as this is just mocking the request. We would have been better never to have entered upon the exercise than to be content with this armful of dunnage, which is all this 14 pages of verbiage is.

Let me take one example. The statement says that the amount involved under the Glebe Lands (Appropriation) Act was financed by the aid of the Supply Bill. The Act for the appropriation of that money was assented to on 6 August. It specifically included an appropriation of $ 15.75m out of Consolidated Revenue for that matter. Senator Guilfoyle has shown me the item on page 1 1 of Supply Bill (No. 2). It is under division 975 and provides an amount of $800,000 for the Glebe Estate rehabilitation. The contract for that expenditure was made on 14 May 1974; the appropriation was given by this Parliament on 6 August 1974. What circumstances of urgency or a special nature can be advanced to show the reason for pre-payment of that amount before 6 August 1 974?

Senator Cavanagh:

– The property would be lost to the Government.

Senator WRIGHT:

– What asinine, stupid rot! A contract was entered into. I guarantee that it could not be completed within 3 months, much less lose the property, and I guarantee that there are hundreds of contracts still waiting completion where the acquisition has been made and the payment has not followed in 3 years. So much for that. I find sufficient in this statement to be suspicious. I think the Government wants this huge amount of money so that the Treasurer can advance it for the programs the Government will get under way before Parliament can recover them or control them; make no mistake about it. At page 7 of the statement it is said:

In general, they are related to approved policies, current activity levels and current prices at the time they are prepared.

I emphasise the words:

In general, they are related to approved policies . . .

On page 5 of the statement the Government was careful or cunning enough to say:

Not infrequently, funds are required for new programs approved by the Parliament. . . .

If it had said ‘new programs approved’ and not added ‘by the Parliament’ we would have known that it was a Government decision to be taken behind our backs as soon as the doors of Parliament were closed; but on page 7 it refers to approved policies’, which is apt to include such things as legal aid which has not yet had the approval of this Parliament except by specific appropriation.

The Government talks on page 8 of important programs which have not been in operation for very long and in respect of which therefore the Government is incapable, it is supposed, of putting in an expenditure appropriation. At least if these important programs are of that dimension we ought to pay sufficient respect to ourselves to require the Advance to the Treasurer to include a range of expenditure on, say, an important program such as Medibank. If, contrary to what Mr Hayden said over the air at the weekend, it is possible for any new State to come in so as to attract expenditure before October- he thought it was quite improbable before January and therefore no expenditure could accrue until long after that time- it is quite possible to say that this Advance to the Treasurer includes $600m to $800m for Medibank, $100m to $300m if New South Wales accedes to the scheme before 1 December, and another amount if Western Australia accedes to the scheme before a certain date. But to give us this bagful of dunnage shows that the Parliament is expected to eat fodder worse than is usually served to a donkey. It is obvious, when we hear it supported by Senator Cavanagh and Senator McAuliffe and observe the outlook that they are using, that they do not begin to understand the very basis of Parliament’s responsibility to control the expenditure of the country. Before we give a general authority for the Treasurer to spend $240m in addition to a record Budget in a year of a record deficit, when inflation is red hot and the greatest menace to the stability of this country,’ we ought to reconsider the situation and provide an amendment to the amendable Bill to reduce the amount unless more specific material is provided to us than is in this statement.

Senator STEELE HALL:
South AustraliaLeader of the Liberal Movement

– I believe that the furnishing of the report of the Treasurer (Dr J. F. Cairns) in response to the demand from the Opposition for more information has been valuable in the sense that, as Senator Cotton and others have said, it has shown that the Treasurer has no intention of being frank with the Senate and has not supplied even a moderate range of expectations which- this appropriation is to meet. He ought to know those details. I believe that he has shown in this statement the attitude that he had adopted right through the administration of his portfolio, and that is that he continues to under-estimate the situation. He now admits that in his early days he simply had no idea of the responsibilities that he had to meet or the impact that inflation would have on the Australian community. What we are seeing here is a dramatic example of the inflation which the Government now tends to accept as a normal part of the Australian economic scene. I am not so worried about the lack of control or the lack of knowledge specifically involved in this appropriation. After all, in this chamber the Opposition has a majority while the Government prevails in the lower House, and as detailed an examination as one may make of probabilities for the next 4 years in Australian politics leads one to conclude that that situation will not be reversed in the sense of Labor having a majority in both Houses. If Labor is to be in office in the next 4 years then most certainly it will be faced with a counter-balancing effect in the Senate. I hope that it will not be in office for those 4 years, but that is a known factor, and therefore it is the Opposition Parties which have the final say as to whether the Government will put its full programs into effect. I am not so concerned as to the, I think, more mundane factor as to whether the Treasurer has been frank enough with this chamber. The testing time is yet to come for the Government, as to whether it will try to have the public accept a 20 per cent rate of inflation or thereabouts as a normal aspect of our economic life.

One becomes very concerned when one hears reports that the Government is spending a huge sum of money on educating the Australian public as to the detail of the inflationary situation which exists. What would it tell the Australian public? Would it say that 20 per cent, 15 per cent or 10 per cent is a normal occurrence? This is what we need to be frightened of, especially when we have reports such as that which has been issued this morning by the Melbourne University’s Institute of Applied Economic and Social

Research, which is probably one of the most prestigious private economic groups in Australia and which predicts an inflation rate of about 20 per cent. What the Treasurer is doing is confirming this prediction by the huge subvention that he is seeking under this legislation.

Senator Cavanagh:

– What you say justifies a higher appropriation.

Senator STEELE HALL:

– It may do, but what I am saying is that any government that tries to build into the economics of Australia an inflation rate of 20 per cent as a normal occurrence will not live politically, and I am quite sure that there would be a very great public demand for the removal from office of a government that maintained a 20 per cent inflation rate. This prediction is based on an inflation rate which existed last financial year and which was not much less than 20 per cent, so we are getting to a stage of permanence about this figure. But what the Treasurer’s inadequate report clearly says to the Parliament is that finance shall follow our programs rather than our programs follow our financial resources. This is clearly the fact of the matter. The Treasurer simply says that additional funds are needed because prices are rising. That is about what he says and it was confirmed by interjection by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Cavanagh).

So the financing of government will follow government programs and it will in no way be governed apparently by the availability of finance to support those programs. So we are to see a deliberate policy by the Government to inflate currency to support its programs. What we do know, I suppose, if we look at this objectively is that this cannot go on. The Government is, therefore, faced with its greatest trial between now and the introduction of the next Budget in the Australian Parliament. It has been widely predicted that Ministers will fight Ministers and we can expect from yesterday’s spectacle which continued on television programs last night that it will be of a most vicious nature as one Minister fights another for the retention and growth of his own programs, with the overall prospect of there being a cut, and a substantial cut, in the rate of growth of Government spending.

Senator Baume:

– And the need for it as well.

Senator STEELE HALL:

– Well, I am sure that no Government Minister would get up in this Parliament and say that he can double the deficit by continuing into next year’s financial arrangements with the same verve in relation to expenditure that the Government applied this financial year. So we can expect that this is probably the last of the bland statements that this Parliament will get from the Treasurer and that from now on- that means the next sitting, several months hence when the Parliament resumes- we will see some real fact of management come back into Government finance in Australia. I can only say that the lesson for me at least, as one individual sitting in this place, is that so far the Minister has revealed in his statement that the programs will come first and financial management will come second, and the result has been the economic mess which Senator Cotton so rightly, I thought, referred to.

Senator JESSOP:
South Australia

– I think it is quite proper that the Opposition has some concern about the inflation that is rife in Australia today. Certainly the Government itself has paid no regard to the constant suggestions of the Opposition that it ought to be watching public expenditure. I think that the presentation of this paper by the Treasurer (Dr J. F. Cairns) is justified because the Opposition made a request to the Government to give us some idea of the money that might be required to be spent by the Government in the next few months. I agree with Senator Wright who has said that this statement is so much garbage or dunnage, or whatever was the expression he used, because it fails really to give us anything specific at all as to what might be required. I think it is quite interesting to note that the Government is seeking approval in Supply Bill (No. 2) for expenditure of an additional amount of $569m as compared with last year, and $888m in Supply Bill (No. 1). I think it is quite incredible that in respect of Supply Bill (No. 2) the Government should say: ‘Righto, the expenditure is substantially higher and as an amount of $60m was sought last year for contingent matters it is reasonable to expect that we need $122m at this time.’

Senator Guilfoyle referred to an amount of $335m being provided for Medibank. I have no details relating to this expenditure. No adequate details are provided in the item relating to Medibank- certainly nothing which satisfies me. I would like to know, for example, what the large building under construction in King William Road, North Unley in South Australia is for. I understand that the building is almost completed.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Georges:
QUEENSLAND

- Senator, can you identify the line to which you are referring?

Senator JESSOP:

-I was talking about Medibank because I have been informed that this building is being constructed for use in connection with Medibank. I believe it is a proper question to ask. I want to know the cost of the building. I would like to know how many other buildings are being constructed throughout Australia at the present time for Medibank. The cost of these buildings would be considerable.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– Order! It seems necessary for me to explain that we are dealing only with Supply Bill (No. 1), but the Committee has before it a statement from the Treasurer and it is debating that statement as well. I understand that in debating this statement honourable senators may relate it to both Supply Bills. The honourable senator will have an opportunity to raise the subject of Medibank if there is a line relating to it in Supply Bill (No. 2). Does the matter the honourable senator has mentioned arise out of the Treasurer’s statement or does it arise out of something in Supply Bill (No. 1) or Supply Bill (No. 2)?

Senator JESSOP:

-Thank you, Mr Temporary Chairman, for drawing my attention to that matter. At the moment I am referring to the document presented by the Treasurer. In that document there is mention of Medibank and a sum of $335m. I will raise this with the responsible Minister at the appropriate time. We hear about Government programs and hardly a day goes by without some reference to a grant being made under the Regional Employment Development scheme, under the Australian Assistance Plan or under the auspices of the Minister for Tourism and Recreation (Mr Stewart) in respect of a netball association or some other community project. I believe it is quite responsible for us as an Opposition to question the matters before us at present in this light. While such exercises are being carried out on programs launched by the Government without appropriate opportunity for parliamentary discussion, these moneys are being spent at the expense of providing incentives for private industry in the primary and secondary sectors in order that they might expand their activity to provide job opportunities for the people desperately in need of jobs at the present time. It is proper that the Opposition has drawn this matter to the attention of the Government.

The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Senator Cavanagh, raised the question of cyclone Tracy and the possibility of another cyclone occurring. That is a very weak argument. I am quite certain that the Government is competent enough to be able to present a special Appropiration Bill should such a contingency arise. I support the concern expressed by the Opposition.

Senator BUNTON:
New South Wales

– I am somewhat surprised at the tenor of this debate. Originally when this matter came before the Senate it was stated by Senator Cotton, on behalf of the Opposition, that he would be prepared to pass the Supply Bills but he desired information from the Treasurer (Dr J. F. Cairns) to justify such action. We now have received certain information from the Treasurer. I do not think it is as complete as it might have been. I think however some matters mentioned will assist to bring about the expenditure of the extra funds sought. According to the report of the Treasurer, the extra amount of $ 120m sought is barely sufficient to compare with the $60m extra sought on the previous occasion to which reference was made. It is very dangerous to compare one year with another. No doubt these estimates were prepared by departmental officers as a result of legislation passed by this House.

I am not going to throw all the blame for this position on the Government. The Government and the Opposition are equally to blame for the state of affairs which exists in this regard and which was mentioned by Senator Hall. Senator Hall used words to this effect: ‘We decide to take legislative action to do certain things and then decide afterwards how we are to pay for them’. That is putting the cart before the horse. We find today that we are having a party discussion on a matter which should not be dealt with on party lines. I have no hesitation in saying that in many respects we are expanding at an inappropriate time. We are expanding at the height of an inflationary period, the worst we have ever known. Not only the Government but also the Opposition and this Parliament generally are responsible for a good part of that expansion. This Parliament and not only the Government is responsible for legislation in connection with increased pensions. There has been no opposition to the Government in connection with the regional and urban development which has taken place, at a most inappropriate time, but it has to be paid for. I could give many other instances of this having taken place.

I know it is suggested by the Opposition that the Medibank scheme is hidden in this legislation. Possibly the Government’s insurance scheme is hidden here also. But if such is the case it does not matter because when all is said and done there is a complete safeguard available in the accountability that has to be made of such expenditure. After all these figures are only an estimate based on legislation passed and legislation envisaged for the future. The amounts will not be made available until the decision of this Parliament permits of it. Why is it when estimates are prepared along normal lines that we find this debate reaching the dimensions it has reached? When all is said and done the full requirements of our legislation have been carried out in presenting these Supply Bills. The only thing at stake is the quantum and we have a safeguard in that regard. I would like to see these matters discussed purely and simply on nonparty lines.

I am not going to blame the Government for the inflation we have today. People generally, governments and individuals, are responsible for the state of affairs which applies. The greed of people generally is bringing about this state of affairs. There is misunderstanding between capital and labour. This attitude is not doing this country any good. We as a Parliament should be meeting as one entity, having thrown aside all party lines, with a view to endeavouring to rectify the position. This Parliament, by increasing its own members’ salaries, by increasing pensions, and other welfare benefits and by introducing costly legislation has aggravated the trend of inflation. Provision has to be made in order to get away from that trend. Let us view these things in their right light.

I think the Treasurer has erred in not being more precise in his reply. He has treated this matter, in the main, as a generality. He mentioned two or three matters with not a great money content and left unsaid other things. I think Medibank and the Government’s insurance office are included in his thinking. I think he should have said so but, be that as it may, the funds which are being sought for expenditure will not be used until such time as legislation permits. Therefore I do not think there should have been the lengthy discussion which has taken place on this matter. It should be approached in a more affable manner. Then we could come to a decision acceptable to all.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Government in the Senate · Tasmania · ALP

– I am pleased that, I hope, the debate is closing.

Senator Guilfoyle:

– You are not closing it?

Senator WRIEDT:

-No, I realise I cannot close the debate. I said that I hope it is closing because of the things which Senator Bunton highlighted. He made the only sensible and balanced contribution to the debate. He did not attempt to get mileage out of it, which was in contrast to other honourable senators.

Senator Marriott:

– Stop smiling. You could not have been listening.

Senator WRIEDT:

– I know it must have been difficult for honourable senators opposite to sit and listen to a temperate voice expressing a temperate opinion which was basically right. I did not agree with all that Senator Bunton said but basically he was right. The Treasurer (Dr J. F. Cairns) has provided the Senate, as far as possible, with the information he could provide and which was sought by the Senate last week. I understand that this is the first occasion- certainly it is the first occasion for many years, if not since Federation- that a debate of this nature has taken place and that the debate on the Supply Bills has been deferred pending further information about the Treasurer’s Advance. I believe that in that 1316-page document the Treasurer has given all the information it is possible for him to give. The procedures which have been followed this year are no different from those which have been followed in the past, and I was glad to hear that principle corroborated by 2 members of the Opposition, one of whom was Senator Guilfoyle, who agreed when questioned in an interjection by Senator McAuliffe that the Government had not broken any legal or constitutional provisions, although she said that it had broken the spirit of them. She said: ‘It is the amount we are concerned about’, as I took it down. Senator Sir Magnus Cormack also interjected: ‘It is the quantum we are concerned about’. If that is the case and if we accept that the prinicple over the years has been to allow that degree of flexibility to any Treasurer, the point at issue is not that flexibility. But if, as the Opposition says, it is the amount, why should we be querying the very things that are contained in the Treasurer’s statement, because, if he is granted that flexibility, he cannot be more specific than he has been. Surely that is the crux of the issue that faces us here today.

I do not believe for one moment that any Treasurer, Labor or Liberal, could have given more information than Dr Cairns gave in that statement. I do not intend to take up the bait thrown out by statements that we should spend less on the Regional Employment Development scheme, that we should not be spending more to assist sporting clubs or that we should give less money to pensioners in order to get the deficit down, and so on. Such matters are not the subject of the debate today. It is a question of whether the amount sought in the Treasurer’s Advance is a reasonable amount within the context of tradition in the Supply Bills. I will give figures which go back to 1969-70, and from them we will see whether, if the quantum argument is the key argument, this Government is doing more than it should reasonably do, bearing in mind its massive programs under way in the areas of education, health, social security, urban development- such as Albury-Wodonga- and many other initiatives taken by this Government which I am sure the majority of Australians would agree were long overdue. In view of those initiatives and the increased amounts of spending, let us look at the relative position of this Government in relation to its predecessors.

I refer first to the Appropriation Acts, and I shall be seeking leave to have the tables incorporated, Mr Chairman. The percentages I will give are the percentages of the Treasurer’s Advance to the total amount in the Appropriation Act, and later to the Supply Act. In 1969-70, the percentage of the Treasurer’s Advance to Appropriation Act No. 1 was .8 per cent; in 1970-71 it was .74 per cent; and in 1971-72 it was .83 per cent. In 1972-73 we saw no less than a 60 per cent increase to 1.31 per cent. That increase was under a Liberal government, and we are being castigated and criticised today in very different economic circumstances, with very different government economic programs. In 1973-74, the first full year of a Labor government, the percentage actually decreased to 1.23 per cent, and in 1 974-75 it was 1.61 per cent.

In respect of Appropriation Act No. 2, in 1969-70 the percentage was 3.26, in 1970-71 it was 2.72 per cent, in 1971-72 it was 3.05 per cent, in 1972-73 it was 3.05 per cent again, in 1973-74 it was 3.75 per cent, and in 1974-75 it was 4.49 per cent. There has been this horrendous increase this year, after 6 years, to 4.49 per cent. What I have said puts the matter in its proper context. This is the only way in which to see the significance of the increase in the Treasurer’s Advance.

I will now deal with Supply Acts Nos 1 and 2, and to save the time of the Committee I will not read all the figures. The percentage of the Treasurer’s Advance to Supply Act No. 1 in 1969-70 was 1.96, and in the first year of the present Administration it was 1.88 per cent. In the meantime the percentage fluctuated to some degree under the previous Government, and why should it not have fluctuated? It was surely the right of that Government to use the flexibility which is built into this system, and I do not think we ever precipitated a debate of this nature in order to try to screw the government of the day to account for every dollar it was going to spend under the Treasurer’s Advance account. We accepted that the Treasurer in any government had the right to do that; but all of a sudden we have come under challenge. The percentage of the Treasurer’s Advance to Supply Act No. 2 was 9.03 per cent in 1969-70. This year it is 1 1.09 per cent, which represents a 2 per cent increase in the 7-year period. I really do not know what we are debating here today. Would it not be reasonable in similar circumstances to allow any Treasurer the same degree of flexibility which this Government claims to have and which I feel in all traditional appropriations and use of the Treasurer’s first Advance any Treasurer ought to have? Mr Chairman, I seek leave to have these tables incorporated.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Georges:

– Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The documents read as follows)-

Senator WRIEDT:

-Another matter raised concerned Medibank. This was raised by Senator Guilfoyle. I feel it would be more appropriate if I wrote to her and gave her the information she sought last week, which I have in some detail. I close by restating the need to observe the tradition that has obtained over the years. I would hope that we are not going to get into a longwinded debate about inflation and all those other matters which were appropriately dealt with during the debate which took place in this chamber a week or so ago. I ask all members of this Committee to bear in mind that we could be creating a dangerous precedent by interfering with the traditions that have been established over the years. If there were indications of some subterfuge or irresponsibility by the Government, there might be some justification for action being taken by this Senate, but I do not think anyone is suggesting any deceit or deceitful motives by the Government. As I have shown by the figures which I have given, the pattern is little different from that which has been established over the years. I hope that we can dispose of these Bills quickly, because they do affect the machinery of government, and I think the Government is entitled to have them carried, and carried quickly.

Senator COTTON:
New South Wales

– Supply Bills deal with what might be called an instalment method of handling the problem for the first 5 months of the financial year. As I said earlier, many of the details in them, including the Treasurer’s Advance, are picked up in the Appropriation Bills, which it would be very useful to get before the beginning of July instead of in the middle of August, but that is a separate issue. The Opposition clearly spelt out its concern about this matter and gave a clear understanding that the Supply Bills would be passed. We were concerned about the massive expansion in expenditure, in particular, in the Treasurer’s Advance. The statistical evidence that Senator Wriedt has produced does not impress me in the slightest degree. I am not at all interested in getting involved in a statistical maze with him or with anybody else. However, I have some information which bears upon the position as the Opposition sees it. It is simply that in 1972-73 the revised total expenditure was $ 10,227m; last year it was $ 17,891m; and, on the projections of Mr Lynch, it could be $30,000m in the coming year. Nobody has denied that possibility. I prepared my own table, which indicates the amounts for Advance to the Treasurer in the Supply Bills and in the Budget appropriations, as well as the total budgeted expenditure and the revised total expenditure. I seek leave of the Committee to have that table incorporated in Hansard.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Georges:

– Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The table read as follows)-

Senator COTTON:

-What we in the Opposition are concerned about is not to change the parliamentary practice but to put under scrutiny in the Parliament massive increases in expenditure. To say that that should not take place by some reference to an earlier point is history is to suggest that human endeavour and human aspiration are to be locked up for all time in the cement of the past. That would be a futile proposition to put to what is supposed to be a body of enlightened legislators. I suggest to the Committee that this is the clear proposition: The total expenditure of the Government appears to have multiplied by three time in about 4 years. In the same period one finds, on analysis that one can make at various levels, that the Advance to the Treasurer has increased massively. Any Parliament ought to be putting those matters under test. No Parliament should be passing those matters as though they did not concern it.

I refer now to the one particular point that seems to me to illuminate what my colleagues have said about the lack of precision in the statement that the Treasurer (Dr J. F. Cairns) supplied to the Parliament in response to our request. I refer to division 662, under the Department of Transport, in Supply Bill (No. 1 ). At the same time, for the sake of convenience- I hope we are all grown up- I refer also to division 958 in Supply Bill (No. 2). An examination of those 2 divisions reveals that substantial sums of money have been allocated to Commonwealth Railways. Supply Bill (No. 1) refers to the TransAustralian Railway, the Central Australia Railway, the North Australia Railway and the Seat of Government Railway, and Supply Bill (No. 2) refers to expenditure under the Adelaide-Crystal Brook Railway Agreement of $3m. That is spelt out there. In his statement the Treasurer says at page 10 that he cannot be more specific about what he is going to do about the South Australian Railways and the Tasmanian Railways.

In the eyes of the Opposition, that is quite simply untidy estimating or untidy budgeting. That matter ought to be capable of being spelt out in the Supply Bills. The amounts involved should not be just lumped together somewhere in the Advance to the Treasurer. That gives point to what we have been saying. I hope honourable senators understand, as Senator Bunton observed to us all, that we are engaged here in a parliamentary exercise of a scrutiny of massive expenditure increases by the Australian Government. That is a proper function for us all to undertake, even if it does take a few hours of our time.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Victoria

– I wish to refer to one specific matter to which I referred earlier, and that is the following statement which appears on page 8 of the document the Treasurer (Dr J. F. Cairns) supplied for us:

Apart from domestic price and cost trends, trends abroad are also very relevant, particularly as regards funds requirements for payments under Defence and other procurement programs.

I want to have the meaning of that statement interpreted. What does it foreshadow with regard to funds requirements under defence and other procurement programs? The statement is unclear to me. I refer to it specifically because I think it may have some implications which ought to be stated.

Another matter to which I wish to refer concerns the figures which were quoted by the Minister for Agriculture (Senator Wriedt), who is in charge of the Bill, with regard to the comparisons of the Treasurer’s Advance over a range of years. Those figures, which I have before me, have been broken down into items of temporary finance and actual expenditure remaining in the Treasurer’s Advance after Appropriation Bills (No. 3), (No. 4) and (No. 5) have been passed. I think it would be of interest for the Minister to reflect on the situation in which we are now placed with regard to the $120m which is being asked for in each of these Bills. I assure him that it would be of interest to the Opposition to know how much of that amount will be expended from the Treasurer’s Advance after the Appropriation Bills have been passed in this forthcoming year. I think that comparison will be an interesting study for all of us.

Another matter about which I would like to have some more specific information is the statement made by the Treasurer on page 9 of his document with regard to structural adjustment assistance and the Regional Employment Development scheme. If the Treasurer or the Minister for Labor and Immigration (Mr Clyde Cameron) can estimate and require, in the case of the National Employment and Training Scheme, an amount of $5.7m under division 3 10, subdivision 4, of Supply Bill (No. 1), why is it that the structural assistance program and the RED scheme are not able to be included in the Supply Bills? I would like to have some specific response to those queries which I have raised because I think they show some inconsistencies.

Senator WOOD:
Queensland

– I asked the Minister a question in connection with the $300,000, 1 think it was, appropriated for the expansion of the brick industry, in view of the situation in the brick industry; but I did not get a reply.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Georges:

– Order! On that point, I did not draw your attention to it it the time, Senator Wood, but I think you are referring to an item in the Appropriation Bills and not to an item in the Supply Bills. Perhaps I should have pointed that out to you before, but I did not.

Senator WOOD:

– I want to know what is the purpose of expanding the brick industry, in view of the present situation in the brick industry. Also I asked a question in regard to a statement made about $500,000 being made available for propaganda about inflation. I would now also like to ask: Is there any provision in Supply Bill (No. 1 ), which is presently before us, for a propaganda campaign in relation to the establishment of the Australian Government Insurance Corporation? I have not had a reply to the first 2 questions.

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

- Mr Temporary Chairman, you were quite correct; the first matter to which Senator Wood referred was contained in the Appropriation Bills and he should have raised the matter when they were under consideration. Certainly it is not a matter which is relevant to this Bill. I turn now to his question about the Government’s campaign to make the Australian people more aware of the matter of inflation and its effects on all of us. I understand that the cost of running that campaign will be appropriated from these Bills; but the Government has spelt out quite clearly its intention to expend a certain amount of money for that purpose, and I would think that it has the right to do so. The amounts involved with regard to the Australian Government Insurance Corporation are considerably smaller. The Government has announced already how much will be involved- a total of $2m. I presume that the Treasurer again will exercise his discretion as to the source from which he obtains that money.

Senator Wright:

– Is that the sum in the Appropriation Bills?

Senator WRIEDT:

– I do not think there is any specific provision for it, no.

Senator Wright:

– Do you give an undertaking that the Advance to the Treasurer will not be used for that purpose?

Senator WRIEDT:

-No, I certainly cannot give any such undertaking. Senator Guilfoyle earlier raised a question about what the Treasurer said in paragraph 2 on page 8 of his statement. She wanted an elaboration of that paragraph. It simply means that it is extremely difficult to contemplate the cost factors involved in the procurement programs which the defence services place overseas. The costs rise very substantially. I understand that no particular item is referred to or implied. Of course, the Government and the Department of Defence have a continuing procurement program, the costs of which, as we know, escalate very rapidly. That is reflected in the very high increase in the costs of general goods which we import. They increased by 25 per cent last year.

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.15 p.m.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– I enter this debate today because of a remark made by the Leader of the Government (Senator Wriedt) when he was seeking to explain why there should be this enormous increase in the Advance to the Treasurer. He said that it was not being suggested that this Government was being deceitful, or words to that effect- I know he used the word ‘deceitful’. I do not want it to be suggested for one moment that that accusation is not being made. This is a Government which lives on duplicity and deceit. This issue of the amount of the Advance to the Treasurer evidences that deceit, and it is one of many points of evidence, ranging from the false election promises about maintaining full employment and controlling inflation to some of the hypocritical utterances about respecting Parliament and exposing for parliamentary approval legislation which the Government proposes to introduce. This particular issue involved in the Advance to the Treasurer is the means by which so much of what the Government introduces is able to be secured without the Government’s having asked Parliament for approval.

It was amazing that the Leader of the Government was not prepared to give an undertaking that any part of this money will not be used to establish, in advance of parliamentary approval, an Australian Government Insurance Corporation. It is quite clear that a Bill for that purpose has not been passed by Parliament, and it may well be that it will not have been debated by the Parliament before we go into recess at the end of this month or early in June. I cannot understand why the Minister is not prepared to say that; if the Bill has not become law when Parliament adjourns, no part of this money will be used to establish it, unless he fears that people who have the responsibility in this particular area will use the money for that purpose

The face is that, by making a grant called the Advance to the Treasurer, we authorise the Treasurer to spend money on any subject at all and we require of him only that he ask the Parliament at some stage in future for approval of the particular legislative measure in respect of which the money is spent. If there is no legislative measure, Parliament has no control over the expenditure. That much is self-evident, yet in one specific area the Minister is not prepared to indicate that money will not be spent there.

Of course, the theory of the Westminster system is that the control which Parliament exercises over this type of expenditure and conduct is that Parliament refuses to give the money to the Government to enable it to carry on its business, but where a Parliament does that- and in this case the Senate has the power- that action is tantamount to inviting the Government to have an election. The Opposition knows that there would be such a challenge implicit in any rejection by the Senate of this Supply Bill, and we have said quite specifically that we shall not reject the Supply Bill. If we were to move an amendment or to request an amendment, unless we were prepared to sustain our amendment or request by refusing to pass the Bill unless such amendment or request were acceded to, we would be in the same position; so there will not be amendments or requests. However, this indicates how this Government treats the Parliament with contempt.

Last week, in a short, succinct and clear speech, Senator Cotton explained why we were seeking an adjournment of this particular item. It was to enable the Treasurer to explain why this Advance to the Treasurer item had increased in the way in which it had, and to explain why the 63 per cent increase in the rate of Government expenditure which the comparative increase in the Advance to the Treasurer would suggest is involved was being engaged in after so many assurances had been given that there was going to be a cut in the rate of Government expenditure.

Senator Cotton and all other Opposition senators expected that an explanation would be forthcoming as to those matters about which clear notice had been given, and today we have had a response from the Treasurer which I think is remarkable for what it does not say. It is the sort of material that we could find in any elementary text as to why an Advance to the Treasurer was needed, but it does not disclose one item of information that is of value. I repeat that in this and succeeding Supply Bills we are being asked to grant $240m to the Treasurer to spend as he pleases, without any circumscribing as to the way in which it will be spent.

Senator Cavanagh:

– You know that is not true.

Senator GREEN WOOD:
QUEENSLAND

-It is true.

Senator Cavanagh:

– He cannot spend it as he pleases. It is subject to parliamentary approval.

Senator GREENWOOD:

-He can spend as the Audit Act requires, but the objects of the expenditure are matters that the Minister and the Government determine. That is the accurate position. The sum of $240m is for a period of only 5 months.

If we were to carry that rate of expenditure through for the full 12 months period, it would amount to almost $600m which the Government could spend without express parliamentary approval of any of the projects on which the money was actually being spent. This amount of $240m contrasts with a total of $150m for the whole of 1974-75, $120m for the whole of 1973-74, and $40m for the whole of 1972-73, which was the last year of office of the Liberal Government. We have not been given any explanation of the purposes for which this money is to be spent. I do not accept the so-called explanations in the Treasurer’s document, because they are not explanations at all. Before the luncheon adjournment Senator Guilfoyle pointed out that some items were covered by the actual appropriations or specific items in the Supply Bill, and there is no reason why other items mentioned could not have been so specified. I refer to one paragraph in the Treasurer’s explanation. He states:

There are a number of other programs in respect of which it is difficult to estimate expenditure during the Supply period because the incidence of applications for assistance under these programs is not predictable with any degree of accuracy- for example, Structural Adjustment Assistance and the Regional Employment Development Scheme.

It may well be that the applications for assistance as a result of hardships caused by Government policies will increase in a way that the Government cannot predict, and that is the meaning of the expression used by the Treasurer, but it is also unreasonable to say that, if the Government can predict with some reasonable certainty what the expenditure will be under the National Employment and Training Scheme, which is designed to take up some of the unemployment that the Government has caused, there cannot be a comparable estimate in these areas. The fact is that Parliament has not been asked to give approval to the structural adjustment assistance plan. This is something which the Minister administers entirely, which has no guidelines and which certainly has no approval by the Parliament. Whatever rules the Minister lays down he can change with the stroke of a pen. The same applies to the RED scheme. Again it is a scheme devised by Ministers without parliamentary approval.

Senator Cavanagh:

– You voted for it in appropriations for the scheme.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– We voted for it in appropriations because there was a line item, I think, for structural assistance and for the NEAT scheme. It was anticipated, particularly when these items first appeared, that legislation would be introduced in due course, but we have not seen the legislation. It appears we will not be told the legislation. The Government is throwing down the challenge to the Opposition and saying: ‘If you do not like the scheme use all the traditional procedures available to you. Reject the Supply Bills, put forward amendments or. requests which we will not agree to and face an election, if you dare. We will simply tell the country that the Senate is withholding moneys’. That is the standover tactic which is involved. In the circumstances, as we have made it clear, we want to highlight the matter, without going to the ultimate step of an election, in the hope that we might get an explanation. If we do not get an explanation the people will be better informed as to the way in which this Government is making a mockery of the Parliament. It is an added mockery when the Treasurer takes some 13 pages to explain, as he would say, the reasons for the increase in the Advance to the Treasurer.

Senator Steele Hall:

– He explained that prices are rising. That is about all he said.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I am indebted to Senator Hall. I appreciated what the honourable senator said earlier- that the Treasurer, who now confesses that 12 months or so ago he really did not know what he was letting Australia in for in terms of inflation in policies which he was espousing, is responsible for the nation’s economy and is putting forward this explanation as an explanation of this grossly inflated Advance which will enable the Government to spend money as it pleases without parliamentary authority. The Opposition takes this time to highlight the matter vainly hoping, but ever hoping, that the Government might be prepared to explain why the Advance has risen.

Senator DAVIDSON:
South Australia

– I enter briefly into this discussion because of my dissatisfaction and disappointment first of all with the document which was tabled yesterday by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Wriedt) and further by the Minister’s response a little earlier in the debate. I consider that in raising the question last week Senator Cotton put forward a reasonable and reasoned request. I suggest to the Senate that that reasonable request has been ignored by the Treasurer (Dr J. F. Cairns) and by the Government. The Treasurer’s paper, as has been said several times before, runs into some 14 pages and takes up some 5 pages in Hansard. Unfortunately it does not provide the explanations which we were seeking, which the Senate was seeking and which I firmly believe the nation was seeking.

The paper seeks to justify the expenditure in the first paragraph by appealing to something of precedent, but it has completely overlooked the fact that the Opposition is not querying whether there ought to be an Advance to the Treasurer and that there have been Advances to the Treasurer before. Rather we are querying the excessive amount of the Advance that is proposed in this Supply Bill. I repeat what other honourable senators have said: We are tremendously concerned at the massive increase in the amount of the Advance. From an amount of, I think, some $50m in 1 972 we now have before us proposals running into an amount of $240m. I suggest that the paper, whilst purporting to justify the increase, if examined closely does exactly the opposite. It does not give me or the nation any degree of confidence that the Treasurer has any expertise in economic management. I am alarmed at the Government’s failure to control public expenditure and to control the rapid increase in the growth in the public sector. The paper, in an apologetic way, says the Government will increase spending but it really does not know by how much or to what particular purpose the expenditure will be applied.

The Government attempts to justify the increase in the Advance on the basis that the Government is unsure of costs in a great many areas because of what it calls the inflationary situation. We are all aware of the inflationary situation, but it should be remembered that the Government carries a considerable degree of responsibility for it. A survey carried out in relation to Australia in 1974 by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development pointed out that the available evidence suggests that the change in the rate of inflation has been greatest in those countries where the increase in the share of public expenditure has been the most rapid. This very clearly applies to Australia and it is reflected in the uncertainty of the figure which is quoted in the Supply document which has led to the presentation of the Government’s so-called explanatory document. We not only see a massive increase in Government expenditure but also we are told of a series of possible programs to which the Advance might be applied. I complain that we have not been given sufficient detail regarding those amounts. The Government’s evasiveness- I use the term deliberatelyindicates that these programs have not been costed adequately. I think that the document- a week was available for its preparation- might have included more detail which would have satisfied both the Opposition and those people who are very concerned about the massive growth of Government expenditure and its effect upon the economic situation throughout the country, and indeed the uncertainty which has been created by this successive % increase in the Advance to the Treasurer.

Never before have we in this country seen such a wide range of vehicles upon which Government expenditure has been undertaken. We lose count of the number of commissions and committees, all of them established at the taxpayers’ expense and all of which seem to be handing out money right, left and centre without any degree of qualifications or sense of responsibility or indeed calling for any requirement from those who receive it. I protest that we, as taxpayers, are seeing very little return in terms of value for money. Now, as everybody knows, the latest indication is for the establishment of the Australian Government Insurance Corporation. As Senator Greenwood mentioned only a few moments ago no indication has been given of whether any part of the large amount of $240m is to be used for preliminary work or anything relating to the establishment of that office.

Senator Greenwood:

– Before it has been enacted into law.

Senator DAVIDSON:

– That is perfectly true. As the honourable senator reminds me; even before it has been enacted into law. Still the Minister gives no indication or guarantee to the Senate, to the Parliament or to the nation as to whether any part of this extensive sum of $240m will be used in this way. I am disappointed at the unwillingness of the Government to give adequate information in regard to this Advance to the Treasurer. Indeed it creates a suspicion in the minds of members of Parliament and especially in the minds of the public. There is no doubt that under funding from this Advance to the Treasurer programs could be initiated and steps taken which could not at a later date be reversed, corrected or improved. Therefore I think the Government, if it had any sense of responsibility in this matter, would make available facts and information which would allow for the scrutiny of the Senate and for the information of honourable senators. I join in questioning the document because I do not think that the document which has been prepared for the Senate adequately explains the Advance to the Treasurer. 1 would expect that if the Government wants to get the support of the Senate for this Bill it would exercise a greater amount of responsibility.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Government in the Senate · Tasmania · ALP

– I do not want to speak at any length because both Senator Greenwood and Senator Davidson have come into the chamber this afternoon and repeated virtually all that was said this morning. They have said nothing new.

Senator Cavanagh:

– We are on the air.

Senator WRIEDT:

-As Senator Cavanagh points out, this debate is being broadcast and therefore I think the attitude of the Opposition is that it will get what little political mileage it can by restating what was said this morning. I wish to make only 2 comments. Senator Greenwood is the last person who should come into this chamber and make accusations of deceit against anyone. When he was Attorney-General every bit of information he had on things such as Ushtasha had to be dragged out of him step by step by people who persisted with their questions to get that information from him. I would say that this Treasurer has been a lot more co-operative than Senator Greenwood was when he was Attorney-General. He ought to be the last person to talk the way he does in here. It seems to me that the only significant point that arises from the discussion is that slowly but surely there is finally emerging a pattern by the Opposition of commitment to where it would cut expenditure if it were in government.

Senator Marriott:

– We are only asking you how you propose to spend the extra $ 120m.

Senator WRIEDT:

– That question has been answered this morning as far as it can possibly be answered under the traditions of the Treasurer’s Advance. When all is said and done, it is the Opposition which is continually telling this Government that it must get its expenditure down, but it will never accept a commitment in straight terms. We are beginning to see the first signs that things such as the Regional Employment Development scheme would obviously get the chop under a Liberal government. It is obvious that all our regional programs, including Albury-Wodonga -obviously I would not need to remind Senator Bunton because I bet he can see it- would get the chop. All these moves to restrain the Australian work force, in the light of the changing circumstances of the economy, would go. Structural assistance, assistance to industries to change under our changing economy would go under the hammer also. As time goes by we will gradually see these points emerge, and we will get a slightly clearer picture of what the Opposition would do if it had the opportunity. I am quite sure that the tens and even the hundreds of thousands of people who would be affected would realise what might happen in the event of these programs which we want to pursue and develop being interfered with. The object of the exercise is to try to create a feeling of insecurity and fear in the minds of the people of what the Government is trying to do. I can assure the Committee that the statement by the Treasurer is a clear indication that there is no intention on the part of the Government or of the Treasurer to subvert in any way the processes of this Parliament. We are continuing precisely the traditions and the procedures which have been adopted for many years by our predecessors and which substantially are not altered in these Bills.

Senator COTTON:
New South Wales

- Mr Temporary Chairman, as you would expect, I have listened with great interest to the whole of this debate. To me, just 2 points which ought to have been dealt with in the interests of a better informed Committee appear not to have been dealt with. I refer to the statement of the Treasurer (Dr J. F. Cairns). I refer to this matter under division 680- Advance to the Treasurer. The Treasurer’s statement was to this effect:

I appreciate the concern of honourable senators in seeking explanations in respect of these proposed appropriations. But 1 reject the suggestion that the Government would use the funds capriciously or spend them on purposes for which it would not be prepared to seek specific parliamentary approval in advance of undertaking the expenditure, if time permitted of this.

Another observation bears upon this matter because these matters are the specific areas at which we will be wanting to look in later months. I refer to the reference to the Audit Act which prescribes the areas in which the Treasurer’s Advance might be spent. The Treasurer’s statement continued: . . pending the passing of an Appropriation Act, to meet expenditure which was not covered by an appropriation, particulars of which will afterwards be submitted to Parliament, pending the issue of a Governor-General ‘s Warrant for moneys already appropriated by the Parliament, and to make an advance which will be recovered within the financial year.

The Directions state in respect of the first three of the circumstances above, that approval ‘will be given only in urgent or special circumstances’.

I conclude now by saying that in due course we will see put down in this Parliament a statement of expenditure of Advances to the Treasurer. We will see also an account of that from the Public Accounts Committee and reference to the matter from the Auditor-General. When that time comes we will be looking at the expenditures so stated to see whether the conditions that have been stated here have been adhered to.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without requests; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 1655

SUPPLY BILL (No. 2) 1975-76

In Committee

Consideration resumed from 14 May.

The Bill.

Senator BAUME:
New South Wales

– I desire to address some remarks to division 853- Capital Works and Services- subdivision 1, Plant and Equipment, Department of Health. The item allows for expenditure of $2,774,000. I wish to speak about the nonavailability of blood clotting factors for use by patients in Australia for treatment of the disease called haemophilia. Very briefly, people with this disease cannot stop bleeding normally. Until recently it was a fatal illness. People very seldom lived to adulthood. Their lives were marred by frequent attacks of severe bleeding, with blood clotted joints. It is only in the last 1 5 years or so that effective treatment has become available. The Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Commission, to which I will refer later, has been a pioneer in the treatment of this disease by replacement treatment with blood factors. It has done a great job. It brought out to Australia the pioneers of this kind of therapy. It is doing all it can to keep up with technological advances. The problem is that in Australia we have quite inadequate amounts of the blood clotting factors needed to treat haemophilia, and some Australian patients have died in the last year because of a lack of these blood clotting factors. Therefore it is appropriate that the Committee should know about this situation and about the urgency of proper treatment.

Two kinds of treatment are available for this disease. One is a form of concentrate prepared by the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. The other is a product prepared by the blood banks in each of the capital cities. At present about 750 people in Australia have this disease. All of them spend a considerable part of their time in hospital. Of those, 350 would be severely affected. This means that they would be in hospital once or twice a week for urgent treatment of bleeding- a very serious disease with very serious consequences for them. If they are not treated properly there is very considerable morbidity. Their joints become immobile. Adults lose a lot of time from work. Children lose a lot of time from school. There is quite a death rate. The cost to society is extreme, and when problems of surgery or dentistry arise the situation becomes really extreme.

If a person with haemophilia is involved in a road accident or otherwise sustains an injury it can be catastrophic. For example, if someone required a simple operation, such as having a hernia repaired, he would require approximately 200 bottles of the product which is produced by the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories just to carry him through the period of the operation. As of yesterday the supply of this product available to the leading hospital clinic in Sydney, the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, was 37 bottles. It was impossible as of yesterday for one haemophiliac to have an operation in Sydney. If a haemophiliac was involved in a road accident the total supply available in Sydney yesterday was 37 bottles of the anti-haemophilic factor produced by the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories together with 143 bags of the product produced by the local blood bank. A very serious situation exists.

The life of a person with this disease has been altered by the technological advances of the last 15 years, which the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories have done their best to add to and keep up with. But the situation is that patients are being seriously disadvantaged.

I think it appropriate to place on record just how bad the situation is. The needs for surgery and dentistry at present are not being met. On 2 May there were 8 patients requiring surgery moderately urgently at the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital. They had all been assessed by the Associate Professor of Surgery. Some of them have been waiting 4 or 5 years for sufficient material to become available to cover their surgical needs with safety. On 2 May there were 12 patients requiring dentistry. All of them had been assessed by the Department of Dentistry at the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital. Some of those patients have been waiting 2 to 3 years for sufficient material to become available to cover their dentistry with safety. That is the scope of the problem facing these people.

Senator Cavanagh:

– What is the solution?

Senator BAUME:

– I will come to that. It is a two-pronged attack. First of all, we will need more supplies of the material and we will need some rationalisation of the use of the material. In addition to that, the needs regarding trauma as a result of road and other accidents are not being met. I was informed by Dr Kevin Rickard, the senior staff specialist in haematology at the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, that in the last 12 months to his knowledge 2 patients in New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory had died following trauma simply because of inadequate supplies of these blood clotting factors. So we have a difficult and serious situation requiring some attention.

Senator Cavanagh:

asked what we should do about it. I am not sure that the Department of Health entirely appreciates the seriousness of the situation. I asked Senate question no. 459 and received a written reply in which the Department of Health asserted that sufficient supplies of antihaemophilic factor or cryoprecipitate, which is the factor produced by the blood bank, are available in Australia to treat all patients requiring admission to hospital. But the evidence from the clinics that I have checked does not appear to bear out that assertion. The Department says that sufficient stocks are available for requirements in surgery, dentistry and trauma. Dr Rickard ‘s assertions do not bear that claim out. The answer of the Minister for Health (Dr Everingham) is that the annual need in Australia is some 13 million units of material. Taking the 13 million units figure as being accurate we are still short some 5 million units a year to cover our needs as estimated by the Minister in his answer to my question.

The Coagulation Sub-Committee of the National Blood Transfusion Committee estimates the shortfall at some 7 million units a year. This is a problem of major magnitude. The Minister admits the limited capacity of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories to provide enough material. This is easily understood, because over the last 5 or 10 years it has become possible to offer surgery to these patients in a way which was not possible previously. They are living longer, more material is needed and more surgery is being undertaken. The Commonwealth Serum Laboratories are planning an expansion of their services, and it is recognised that more of this material will be needed. However, the expansion which they are planning will not be adequate to meet even the minimum needs as estimated by Dr Rickard and the doctors who work with him. At present whenever there is an emergency situation we must divert the blood banks into producing more of their products and we must ration the available amount of these products to patients who would like to have dentistry or surgery carried out for perfectly proper reasons.

There are 2 solutions. The first of these is to seek a situation in which all but urgent surgical treatment of people with haemophilia is undertaken by only a limited number of centres of excellence so that in any city there might be one or two centres which do all the non-urgent work and which assess all the patients. Then the available products should not be wasted in any way. Secondly, we need quite urgently a massive increase in the production of the product put out by the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. I believe the amount mentioned in the Minister’s answer to me, $250,000, is a start, but I would make a plea that this expansion program be hastened and that a realistic estimate of national needs for these factors be undertaken by the Department of Health. It is not just a question of asking the Government to spend more money. In cost-benefit analysis terms this expenditure returns an economic benefit to the community. For example, if enough of the factor were available we could give it to people to keep at home and parents can actually learn to treat their own kids who have haemophilia from the moment they start to bleed. The result of this would be less absenteeism from school, fewer admissions to hospital and less of the product needed, because if these attacks of bleeding can be treated early one can get on top of them quicker. For parents it means less absenteeism and more time at work. Altogether it has been estimated that in terms of cost-benefit analysis there are real yields to the community.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Could we make this available under the Advance to the Treasurer?

Senator BAUME:

– That is a matter for the Government. I have noticed that there is an advance of $2%m for plant and equipment under the Department of Health in one of the Supply Bills and I should think that might be an adequate way to examine the matter. I quote from an article in the ‘Medical Journal of Australia’ last year which discusses home care for haemophilia. The article states in part:

The advantages of home transfusion are prompt treatment of bleeding; reduced hospital attendance and admission; reduced need for joint aspiration; improved school attendances; reduced cost to family; and greater self confidence and independence of the boy with haemophilia.

The same applies to adults who may have the disease. We have the situation that this Government produces these blood clotting factors. The Government has increased its production as fast as it could during the last few years, but I think even the Government has been surprised by the technological advances and the demand for these factors which is emerging in society.

If we are to offer the normal rights of medical care and treatment to the increasing number of surviving patients with haemophilia, it is quite clear that what is being offered today by the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories is just not enough for the task. I make a plea to the Government to examine urgently and sympathetically the need for extra production of these factors and to take into special account the opinion of a very senior haematologist that people have actually died in New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory not because of the accidents they have sustained but because not enough of these factors was available to stop the bleeding when technologically speaking that should not have happened. We should have these facilities for giving treatment in emergencies and we should be able to offer these people the same health care as we offer the rest of the community.

Senator JESSOP:
South Australia

- Mr Temporary Chairman, I raise the question in respect of which you advised me earlier in debate. It relates to division 939- Capital Works and Services- and to item 3 which refers to an appropriation of $500,000 for payment to the Health Insurance Commission established under the Health Insurance Commission Act 1973 for the purposes of the Commission. I refer to the fact that a substantial building is being completed in King William Road, North Unley, South Australia, and to the fact that I have been informed that this building is being constructed for Medibank. Can the Minister for Agriculture (Senator Wriedt) inform me- not immediately if the information is not available, but later- whether this building is being constructed for Medibank and, if so, at what cost? If the building is not being purchased or built by the Government, can the Minister inform me of the details concerning the rental of the building and who will be accommodated in the building?

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– I am not able to answer the question that Senator Jessop has asked. I understand that there is no determination of which we are aware as to the actual purpose for which the building will be used. I shall obtain the information from the Minister concerned and forward it to Senator Jessop. Obviously the matters that Senator Baume has raised are very important ones which should give all of us some concern if the statements in his remarks are factual, and I am not questioning for a moment his good faith. I believe that the Minister for Health (Dr Everingham) is aware of these matters and is taking appropriate action. Nevertheless, the question raised by Senator Baume should be brought to the Minister’s attention, and I undertake to do so. No doubt Dr Everingham will contact Senator Baume again and give him further information.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 1658

VICTORIAN ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES

Consideration resumed from 14 May, on motion by Senator Willesee:

That the report and map be printed.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1658

NEW SOUTH WALES ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES

Consideration resumed from 14 May, on motion by Senator Willesee:

That the report and map be printed.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1658

NOTICES OF MOTION

Victorian Electoral Boundaries

Senator WILLESEE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Foreign Affairs · ALP

– by leave- I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:

That the Senate approves of the redistribution of the State of Victoria into electoral divisions as proposed by Messrs L. J. Abbott, J. E. Mitchell and D. W. Rawson, the Commissioners appointed for the purpose of redistributing the said State into divisions, in their report laid before the Senate on the 14th day of May 1975, and that the names of the divisions suggested in the report, and indicated in the map referred to therein, be adopted except that the name of Menzies be substituted for Doncaster and Templestowe.

New South Wales Electoral Boundaries

Senator WILLESEE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Foreign Affairs · ALP

– by leave- I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:

That the Senate approves of the redistribution of the State of New South Wales into electoral divisions as proposed by Messrs R. F. Mallon, L. N. Fletcher and J. B. Enfield, the Commissioners appointed for the purpose of redistributing the said State into divisions, in their report laid before the Senate on the 14th dayofMay 1975, and that names of the divisions suggested in the report, and indicated in the map referred to therein, be adopted except that the name of Gilmore be substituted for Eastwood, the name of Evatt be substituted for Toongabbie and the name of Evans be substituted for Concord.

page 1658

PUBLIC SERVICE ACTS AMENDMENT BILL 1975

In Committee

Consideration of House of Representatives message.

Senate’s amendments:

Senate’s amendment No. 1 -

After clause 20, insert the following new Part:

“PART IV-RESTORATION OF OATH OR AFFIRMATION OF ALLEGIANCE

Section 34 of the Principal Act is amended-

by inserting after the words ‘appointment to’ the words ‘, or to remain in, ‘;

by omitting from paragraph (b) the word ‘and’ (second occurring);

by inserting after paragraph (c) the following paragraph:-

he has made and subscribed, as prescribed, an oath or affirmation in accordance with Schedule 4.’.

by adding at the end thereof the following subsection:

Nothing in this Section shall affect the right to remain in the public service of any person appointed priortothe 19th day of December 1973.’.

Section 50 of the Principal Act is amended by inserting after sub-section (5B) the following sub-section:- “(5c) Every member of a Promotions Appeal Committee shall before proceeding to perform the duties or exercise the powers of a member of a Promotions Appeal Committee take an oath or make an affirmation in the form of Schedule 6.”.

Section 55 of the Principal Act is amended-

by inserting after paragraph (1) (f) the following paragraph- “(g) having made or subscribed an oath or affirmation in the form of Schedule 4, does or says anything in violation of that oath or affirmation; or”; and

by inserting after sub-section (6) the following subsection: “(7) Every member of an Appeal Board shall, before proceeding to perform the duties or exercise the powers of a member of an Appeal Board, take an oath or make an affirmation in the form of Schedule 5.”.

Section 82 of the Principal Act is amended by inserting after sub-section (8) the following sub-sections:- “(9) A person shall not be engaged for employment in a temporary capacity under this Act unless he makes and subscribes an oath or affirmation in the form of Schedule 4. “(9a) Where it is proposed to engage for employment under this section a person who is not a British subject, or a person who is a British subject but is also a national of another country, the Minister may, after a report from the Board and if it appears to him that the employment of that person would not be prejudicial to the national security, the preservation of official secrecy or any other interest of the Commonwealth, determine that the last preceding subsection is not to apply in relation to the engagement of that person. “( 10) A person who is employed in a temporary capacity at the date of the commencement of this sub-section, or who is transferred to such employment by virtue of any provision of this Act, shall not be continued in that employment unless, when required by the Board so to do, he makes and subscribes an oath of affirmation in the form of Schedule 4. ‘.

For the purposes of section 34 of the Principal Act a person appointed to the Service between the nineteenth day of December 1973 and the date when this Act comes into operation shall forthwith after this Act comes into operation make and subscribe as prescribed an oath or affirmation in accordance with the Fourth Schedule to this Act.

For the purpose of section 82 (9) of the Principal Act a person engaged for employment to a temporary capacity between the nineteenth day of December 1973 and the date upon which this Act comes into operation shall forthwith when required by the Board as to do make and subscribe an oath or affirmation in the form of Schedule 4. ‘.

Senate’s amendment No. 2-

In Schedule 1, at end of proposed Schedule 3, add the following new Schedules:

“SCHEDULE 4

Oath 1, … do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to the Queen of Australia her heirs and successors according to law and that I will loyally as in duty bound uphold the Constitution and the laws of Australia.

Affirmation 1, … do solemnly and sincerely affirm and declare that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to the Queen of Australia her heirs and successors according to law and that I will loyally as in duty bound uphold the Constitution and laws of Australia.

“SCHEDULE 5

Oath

I, … do swear that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign Lady the Queen as a member of the Appeal Board constituted under the Public Service Act 1922-19 , for the purpose of the appeal made by (here insert name of appellant) (or in the case of the Chairman or elected representative of the Division to which the appellant belongs as a member of any Appeal Board constituted under the Public Service Act 1922-19 , of which I may be a member) and that I will perform the duties and exercise the powers imposed or conferred upon me as such member without fear or favour affection or ill-will.

Affirmation

I, … do solemnly and sincerely affirm and declare that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign Lady the Queen as a member of the Appeal Board constituted under the Public Service Act 1922-19 , for the purpose of the appeal made by (here insert name of appellant) (or in the case of the Chairman of elected representative of the Division to which the appellant belongs as a member of any Appeal Board constituted under the Public Service Act 1922-19 , of which I may be a member) and that I will perform the duties and exercise the powers imposed or conferred upon me as such member without fear or favour affection or illwill.

“SCHEDULE 6

Oath

I, … do swear that I will and truly serve our Sovereign Lady the Queen as a member of a Promotions Appeal Committee constituted under the Public Service Act 1922-19 , and that I will perform the duties and exercise the powers imposed or conferred upon me as such member without fear or favour affection or ill-will.

Affirmation

I, … do solemnly and sincerely affirm and declare that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign Lady the Queen as a member of a Promotions Appeal Committee constituted I under the Public Service Act 1922-19 , and that I will per- ‘ form the duties and exercise the powers imposed or conferred upon me as such member without fear or favour affection or ill-will.” ‘.

House of Representatives amendment to Senates Amendments.

That the amendment be disagreed to.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Georges:

– I shall read the message from the House of Representatives to the President. It is as follows:

The House of Representatives returns to the Senate the Bill intituled ‘A Bill for an Act relating to the Australian Public Service’, and acquaints the Senate that the House of Representatives has disagreed to the amendments made by the Senate, for the Reasons shown in the annexed Schedule.

The House of Representatives desires the reconsideration by the Senate of the Bill in respect of the said amendments.

GORDON SCHOLES Speaker

House of Representatives, Canberra, 16 April 1975

Motion (by Senator Willesee) proposed:

That the Committee does not insist on the amendments of the Senate to which the House of Representatives has disagreed.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

-On this occasion the Opposition will not oppose the motion which has been proposed by Senator Willesee. I think that this is the fifth occasion on which this issue has come before this chamber as part of a Public Service Acts Amendment Bill. I think that on the last 3 occasions not one word has been spoken by the Minister who has proposed the Government’s position as to why the Government’s position should be upheld. The Opposition recognises that the Public Service Acts Amendment Bill will not pass the Parliament while this issue remains unresolved. An earlier Public Service Acts Amendment Bill did not pass the Parliament because the Senate asserted its right to insist upon amendments. There is a deadlock situation. There is some merit in the proposals which are contained in this Public Service Acts Amendment Bill. Those who would benefit from the provisions of this Bill certainly desire that the provisions be enacted into law. Therefore, the Opposition will give way in regard to the position which previously has commanded the support of the Senate; it will not press its amendments further.

We have tried- indeed, it must fairly be said that we have persisted- but the Government is quite determined. As I have said, in recent times its determination has not been accompanied by any words explaining its position that it should have the Bill without the Opposition’s and the Senate’s amendments. The Government shall have its Bill without the amendments. I think it is appropriate to stress what those amendments which the Opposition insisted upon were. In the first place the Opposition and- because the Senate agreed- the Senate sought to restore in the Public Service Act what the Government had removed from the Act in 1973, the obligation on all public servants to make an oath or affirmation of allegiance to this nation. One might wonder why it was that the Government removed that requirement in the circumstances in which, virtually without any publicity at all, it did so. It would be very interesting to have a better reason than was given by former Senator Murphy at the time, which, simply, was that the Government did not consider it appropriate to have these provisions in the Act. The Opposition sought to have those provisions restored; the Government does not want them restored.

What we sought to have inserted was a form of oath of allegiance which would be a requisite of appointment to the Public Service. We also sought to ensure that when members were appointed to appeal boards or appeal committees, as envisaged by the Public Service Act, they took an oath of allegiance as they always had in the past, but the requirements for which was being removed, that they would deal fairly with the people who came before them- a not unusual type of obligation. It ought not to be supposed that there was anything in the form of the oath of allegiance which the Opposition was seeking to have inserted which was unreal, lt was, I think, in modern form the oath of allegiance which is taken by members of Parliament and by judges and by others who hold positions in respect of which the Government still regards an oath or affirmation of allegiance as appropriate. The oath read, and I quote from the proposed amendment:

I, . . . do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to the Queen of Australia her heirs and successors according to law and that I will loyally as in duty bound uphold the Constitution and laws of Australia.

The Opposition is at a loss to understand why the Government will not have that type of oath or affirmation as part of the Public Service Act of this country. I say in passing that it was substantially the same, though not precisely the same, as the form of oath or affirmation of allegiance which all public servants have been required to take since 1922. Our legislation requiring observance of the law by public servants may be said to be based upon the fact that an oath or affirmation is taken because there is a certain duty or loyalty which flows from the taking of that oath or affirmation. There are 3 substantial reasons why the Opposition sought to have these provisions re-inserted. The first is that the oath or affirmation of allegiance is conducive to patriotism, loyalty and the development of a sense of nationalism and pride in country. The second is that an oath or affirmation of allegiance binds the person who takes it in duty and allegiance in his vocation as a public servant. The third reason is that no adequate reason has been offered for removing the oath or affirmation of allegiance.

The Opposition believes that if we allow the authority which binds a public servant to be eroded and if we accept that either unethical or unlawful practices may be engaged in by public servants without consequences attaching to them we weaken the efficiency and the loyalty of that Public Service. There have been instances- . thankfully, isolated instances- in recent times of public servants who obviously have not been prepared to observe the requirements of their offices. Realistically, I suppose, it is not likely that the requirement of an oath or affirmation or allegiance is going to bring about a different code of conduct from the persons, unknown as I understand it, who have been responsible for recent breaches, but in terms of the morale of the Public Service overall, the obligation to take an oath or affirmation of allegiance is of assistance and I believe that its absence would in the long term detract from the morale of the Australian Public Service.

When the Opposition accedes to the Minister’s motion that we do not press our amendments I think it should be made quite clear that when the Opposition parties return to Government the requirement of an oath or affirmation of allegiance will be restored to the Public Service Act. That restoration will mean that public servants who have joined the Public Service at a time when the oath or affirmation of allegiance was not required will be required to take that oath or make that affirmation as a condition of continuing in the Public Service. I think that should be made abundantly clear. If there are persons who have joined the Public Service and have done so in the knowledge, and possibly even with satisfaction in the knowledge, that they would not have to take an oath or affirmation of allegiance, they must accept that upon a change of government they will not be able to continue in their positions if they are not prepared to take that oath or make that affirmation. It should also be recognised by those who seek to aspire to the Public Service in the future that the Opposition Parties believe that this requirement of loyalty and patriotism should be acknowledged by those who join the Public Service. Having made that clear as an indication of intent the Opposition will no longer persist with its amendment and will not oppose what the Minister has said.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Resolution reported.

Motion (by Senator Willesee) proposed:

That the report of the Committee be adopted.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– I rise only to state again that it is a matter of regret but worthy of comment that the Government has chosen not to give any justification for removing the requirement for an oath or affirmation of allegiance from public servants.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1661

TELECOMMUNICATIONS BILL 1975

In Committee

Consideration resumed from 20 May.

Clause 15.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Georges:

– An amendment moved by Senator Durack to leave out sub-clause 2 and insert another sub-clause has already been agreed to. When the Committee reported last night the Postmaster-General was seeking a further amendment to clause 2.I now ask the Minister whether he seeks to proceed further with that amendment as it would seem to be embraced by Senator Durack ‘s amendment already agreed to.

Senator Bishop:

– No.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 16.

  1. Without limiting the generality of sub-section (2), the Commission may, for purposes connected with the construction, replacement, repair, maintenance or renewal of a telecommunications installation-

    1. enter upon, and occupy, any land; and
    2. on land so occupied, do any act specified in subsection (4).

  2. The Commission shall not, in the exercise of its powers under sub-section ( 1 )-

    1. alter the position of a pipe, being a main, sewer or drain; or
    2. alter the position of any other pipe for the supply of water or gas or a cable for the supply of electricity unless the Commission has given notice, in writing, of its intention to do so the authority having the care and management of the pipe or cable.
  3. The Commission shall, in the exercise of its powers under sub-section ( 1 ), ensure that a line erected above the surface of a road, bridge, vehicular path or water is erected in such a manner as to allow for the reasonable passage of persons and vehicles on the road, bridge or path or of vessels over the water.
  4. The Commission may demolish or destroy on, or remove from, any land occupied by it, any plant, machinery, equipment, goods, workshop, shed, building or road constucted, built, placed or erected by it on the land.
  5. 10) Subject to sub-sections (5) and (7), before the Commission exercises any of its powers under this section in relation to land, the Commission shall take all reasonable steps to notify the owner and occupier of the land of its intention to enter upon the land and of the purpose for which it intends to enter upon the land.
Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– I move:

The intention of the amendment is simply to ensure that the maintenance of telecommunications services as provided for in clause 1 8 is not delayed. This clause provides power to construct telecommunications installations. Clause 18 refers to the maintenance of such installations.

Amendment agreed to.

Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– I move:

This is simply a drafting clarification.

Amendment agreed to.

Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– I move:

This, too, is simply a drafting clarification.

Amendment agreed to.

Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– I propose to move:

In sub-clause (10), after ‘to notify’ insert, ‘in writing,’.

This makes sub-clause (10) consistent with subclause (5).

Senator DURACK:
Western Australia

– I think it would be preferable if I were to put the Opposition’s amendment first because it is wider. It concerns the same issue which the Committee has been considering and has already reached agreement on in relation to clause 15(2); that is, to widen the provisions relating to the giving of notice to the owner and occupier of land. It relates to power of the Telecommunications Commission to enter upon land. As Clause 1 5 provides, notice is to be given to the owner and occupier of the land but it does not specify what form that notice should take. I have proposed an amendment that the form of the notice should be in writing and should be served on the owner of the land. The amendment moved by the Postmaster-General (Senator Bishop) is more restrictive. It provides that notice should be in writing but it does not say anything about the notice being served on the owner and occupier of the land. My concern is that there should be consistency in clauses of this type and they should be consistent, as I pointed out last night, with the provisions of clause 98 which provide for the manner in which notices are served. If the Minister’s amendment is the only one carried there might be some doubt as to how notice in writing should be given. If my amendment is carried- indeed the Committee has already carried a similar amendment- I believe the matter is clarified.

Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– I do not think there is much difference really in the propositions. We think our proposal is wide enough but before accepting Senator Durack ‘s proposal the Government would seek to amend it. It will be noticed that the second last line of the amendment reads: ‘the land and of the purpose for which he intends’. That should refer to the Commission, not a person. The word ‘he’ should be replaced with the word ‘it’. If Senator Durack insists on moving his amendment I do not mind. If he amends that word I will accept his amendment.

Senator DURACK:
Western Australia

– I accept the Minister’s undertaking. That is simply a typing error. I ask the Committee for leave to substitute the word ‘it’ for the word ‘he’ in the second last line of my amendment.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Wood:
QUEENSLAND

– Is leave given? There being no objection, it is so ordered.

Senator DURACK:
Western Australia

-I move:

Amendment agreed to.

Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– I move:

This is an amendment simply to ensure that maintenance of telecommunications plant on public property is not delayed.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 17.

  1. 1 ) The Commission may, when, in the opinion of the Commission, any tree, undergrowth or vegetation growing on land owned or occupied by Australia or by a State or on any road obstructs, or is likely to obstruct, the operation of any telecommunications installation, after giving notice in writing to the authority having the care and management of the land or road concerned of its intention to do so, cut down or lop the tree or clear the undergrowth or vegetation.
  2. The Commission may, when, in the opinion of the Commission, any tree, undergrowth or vegetation growing on private property obstructs, or is likely to obstruct, the operation of any telecommunications installation, by notice in writing served upon the owner and occupier of that property, request him to cut down or lop the tree, or to clear and remove undergrowth or vegetation in the manner, and within the period, specified in the notice, and, upon default, the Commission may enter the property concerned and cut down or lop the tree, or clear and remove the undergrowth or vegetation, in the manner specified in the notice.
  3. No action or claim for compensation shall lie against the Commission, its officers, employees, servants or agents by reason of the reasonable exercise of the powers contained in this section.
Senator DURACK:
Western Australia

In sub-clause (1), leave out ‘, in the opinion of the Commission,’.

The provisions of this clause are very important because they affect many people. The clause gives the Commission power to enter upon land and to cut down any tree, undergrowth or vegetation growing on the land which might be interfering with the operation of any telecommunications installation. The first part of the clause deals with land occupied by government authorities and also relates to roads. The second part of the clause deals with trees or undergrowth on any private land. Although the Commission has to give certain notice it may exercise its powers according to its determination. In other words, whenever in the opinion of the Commission any tree is obstructing the maintenance of telecommunications plant it may remove same. There are actually three Opposition amendments dealing with this matter. The object of the amendment I have moved is to take the absolute determination out of the hands of the Commission. In order to achieve that it is necessary to delete the words ‘in the opinion of the Commission’ from clause 17(1) and (2). In respect of the Opposition’s proposal, I point out that it has been held over and over again by the courts- this has certainly always been the view of this Senate in relation to similar types of legislation that if the words ‘in the opinion of the Commission’ are retained in legislation there is no recourse available to a person who wishes to object to the Commission’s action.

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

– There is no right of appeal.

Senator DURACK:

-As Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson says, there is no right of appeal. The Bill leaves the decision entirely in the hands of the Commission and there is no way by which that decision can be challenged in any court at all. It may be possible to get over this difficulty by making adequate provision for appeal but this would necessitate the setting up of some special administrative appeal process. The Government has not provided for any method of appeal under this legislation. It may be that it would be available under other legislation to be proposed. In our view the most convenient way of overcoming this problem to ensure that absolute power of this kind is not held by the Commission is to remove the words ‘in the opinion of the Commission’. That means that the Commission may still go onto land, having given adequate notice, and may remove any tree or undergrowth, but it will be liable to justify that process if the owner is able to establish in any court that the particular tree or undergrowth in fact was not obstructing the telecommunication installations. Then the matter would be determined on what we call objective grounds; namely, whether in fact what the Commission did was justified in the circumstances.

That is the purpose of the Opposition amendment. It is designed to take away the absolute unchallengeable power which clause 17 gives to the Commission to go onto land and to cut down and remove trees, undergrowth and so on. I do not think I need emphasise the great importance that private land owners attach in some cases to trees on their land. That applies not only to farmers; in city areas also people have very great attachment to trees, shrubs and so on. They ought to have some right somewhere to be able to challenge the power of a Commission like this which will be coming onto their land and simply saying that in its opinion certain things are obstructing an installation and they have to be cut down. There is nothing in the Opposition amendment which will prevent the Commission acting in the case of an emergency which may arise. If a tree has fallen across a telephone line the Commission in those cases may go in and remove it. Probably there is going to be no doubt about this whatsoever, but in those cases where there is doubt, where there is some argument about the necessity of removing a tree, there should be some residual power left in the courts to determine whether that action is justified or not. That is the Opposition ‘s amendment.

Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– I think this is largely a theoretical argument. It is not a vital question. The provision in this Bill is the same as in the present Act and in a number of other public utility Acts such as, for example, those relating to the electricity supply organisations. The Post Office does not know of any case where there has been concern in the past or where there has been any contest. There has been no legal contest that I know of. I think this does not matter very much. I think it is more effective for the Commission to have this clause as it is but it is not vital and therefore I do not resist the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Senator DURACK:
Western Australia

The argument is exactly the same in relation to this amendment and I will not repeat it.

Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– I take the same view as I took before. I failed to mention that clause 17 (3) states:

No action or claim for compensation shall lie against the Commission, its officers, employees, servants or agents by reason of the reasonable exercise of the powers contained in this section.

Amendment agreed to.

Senator DURACK:
Western Australia

Leave out sub-clause (3 ).

The wording has been quoted by the PostmasterGeneral (Senator Bishop). We believe that this would be preferable in view of the fact that the Committee has removed the words ‘in the opinion of the Commission’. We do not think any doubts ought to be cast on the right that people have to sue the Commission if they challenge the opinion of the Commission. If subclause (3) remains it will be open for the Commission to challenge the right of a person to sue it. Questions will arise as to what is meant by the reasonable exercise of the Commission’s powers. That really is not the true question. In our opinion the true question is whether any particular tree or undergrowth on land is an obstruction. That would be the only question. Therefore, we believe that this sub-clause, which is more relevant to the wording of sub-clauses ( 1 ) and (2), also should be deleted.

Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– The Government is not prepared to accept this amendment. We already have modified the situation somewhat by the previous amendments to clause 17. After all, people have recourse to the law if they think the Commission is being unreasonable. The wording is the same as that which exists in the present Act, as I have pointed out, and is common to all public utilities, including the electricity supply organisations. In this case I think the Commission ought to be allowed strong power. If the person concerned considers that the Commission is unreasonable that person has recourse to the ordinary application of the law. Therefore I am not prepared to accept the amendment. We will vote against it.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be omitted (Senator Durack’s amendment) be omitted.

The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman- Senator I. A. C. Wood)

AYES: 28

NOES: 24

Majority……. 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 18.

Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– I move:

The amendment is self-evident; it provides that the notification be given in writing.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 19 to 38- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 39.

  1. A person shall not be appointed as an officer unless-

    1. a ) he is an Australian citizen;
    2. the Commission is satisfied, after he has undergone a medical examination required by the Commission, as to his health and physical fitness;
    3. he possesses such educational qualifications, or meets such other requirements (if any), as are determined by the Commission; and
    4. the Commission is satisfied that he is a fit and proper person to be an officer.

  2. Paragraph (2) (a) does not prevent the appointment, with the approval of the Minister, as an officer of a person who is not an Australian citizen.

Senator DURACK:
Western Australia

– I seek leave to move 2 amendments together.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Wood:

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

Senator DURACK:

-I move:

  1. In sub-clause (2), leave out paragraph (a).
  2. Leave out sub-clause (4).

The amendments proposed to clause 39 by the Opposition are similar to those we moved to the Postal Services Bill, that is, to delete the requirement that one qualification for a person to be appointed a permanent officer of the Commission be that he be an Australian citizen. Of course, other qualifications are required. Clause 39 provides that one qualification is that he shall be an Australian citizen. Admittedly, there is a further provision that provides that the Minister may approve the appointment of a person who is not an Australian citizen, but we do not believe that this is a matter that should be within ministerial discretion. We think that service with an employer of the size of this Commission should not be restricted simply to Australian citizens. We believe that there may well be many migrants to Australia who have not become Australian citizens but who nevertheless could be highly qualified to work for the Commission, as they may have varieties of qualifications. They should not be excluded from permanent appointment merely because they have not yet become Australian citizens. The provision also is extremely restrictive in relation to migrants from the British Isles who, although they are British subjects, have not yet sought to take out and may not really intend to take out Australian citizenship in accordance with the laws that this Government has passed recently in that regard. That is the object of the amendments. We have already debated the question in relation to the Postal Services Bill, and the amendments are exactly the same as those which the Committee adopted in the debate on that Bill.

Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– We have no objection to the amendments, as I mentioned in the discussion on the other Bill. The Parliamentary Counsel thought it would be more consistent with what has been put forward in the Parliament, it being usual for the Opposition to argue a rather conservative line on these issues. We do not object to the amendments.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 40 to 42- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 43.

  1. Where, immediately before the commencing date-

    1. an award of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission;
    2. a determination made by the Public Service Arbitrator;
    3. a determination of the Public Service Board in force under the Public Service Act 1 922- 1 974;
    4. a determination of the Overseas Telecommunications Commission (Australia) in force under the Overseas Telecommunications Commission Act 1946-1973; or
    5. an agreement to which section 3 1 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-1974 applied, applied to or in relation to the persons, whether officers or employees, who performed the duties of offices included in a class of offices in the Postmaster-General ‘s Department or in the Service of the Overseas Telecommunications Commission (Australia), the Commission shall, in making its first determination of the terms and conditions of employment of the persons, whether officers or employees, performing the duties of positions included in the corresponding class of positions in the Australian Telecommunications Commission Service, determine terms and conditions no less favourable to those last-mentioned persons than the terms and conditions that were applicable to those first-mentioned persons immediately before the commencing date by virtue of that award, determination or agreement.
Senator DURACK:
Western Australia

– I seek leave to move 2 amendments together.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Wood:

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

Senator DURACK:

-I move:

  1. In sub-clause (2), leave out the paragraph (d).
  2. In sub-clause (2), paragraph (e), leave out ‘or in the Service of the Overseas Telecommunications Commission (Australia)’.

Both amendments are consequential on the earlier decision of the Committee to exclude from this Bill any reference to the Overseas Telecommunications Commission- in other words, to prevent a merger between the OTC and the proposed Commission from taking place.

Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– As 1 indicated on the Postal Services Bill, the Government does not agree with the decision to eliminate the Overseas Telecommunications Commission from the coverage of the Bills. We strongly resist that, for the reasons I have given elsewhere. As a matter of principle, we divided in the case of the first test, and I indicated that we would oppose it on the voices but not divide the Committee, because there are numerous consequential amendments.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 44 to 50- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 51.

  1. 1 ) The promotion of an officer to a vacant position-

    1. is provisional and without increased salary pending confirmation of the promotion;
    2. shall be made known to officers in a manner prescribed by the regulations; and
    3. is subject to appeal as provided by this section.
Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– I move:

The amendment is a drafting correction.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 52 to 57- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 58.

  1. Where the officer who held an inquiry into the alleged misconduct of an officer is satisfied that the officer was guilty of the misconduct, he may counsel the officer or cause a supervisor of the officer to counsel him, or, if he is of the opinion that other action is necessary-

    1. admonish the officer;
    2. direct that a sum not exceeding $40 be deducted from the salary of the officer;
    3. if the officer occupies a position to which a range of salary is applicable and is in receipt of a salary other than the minimum salary of that range- direct that his salary be reduced to a lower salary within that range for a period not exceeding 12 months; or
    4. recommend to the Commission, in writing-
    1. that the Commission transfer the officer to another position, whether at the same or a different locality, being a position for which he is qualified and which has the same classification as the position held by the officer, and the salary, within the salary range of the position, that should be paid to the officer;
    2. that the Commission transfer the officer to another position, whether at the same or a different locality, being a position for which he is qualified and which has a lower classification than the position held by the officer, and the salary, within the salary range of the position, that should be paid to the officer; or (iii) that the Commission dismiss the officer from the Service.

  2. Where the Commission or an officer authorized for the purposes of sub-section (5) reduces the salary of an officer, the officer is entitled, at the expiration of the period specified by the Commission or by the first-mentioned officer, to be paid salary at the rate at which salary would have been payable to him if the reduction had not taken place.

Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– I move:

The amendment makes this clause consistent with the Postal Services Bill which has been carried.

Amendment agreed to.

Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– I move:

The amendment is similar to that carried in relation to the Postal Services Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 59 agreed to.

Clause 60. (4)Where-

  1. an officer has been suspended from duty under this section;
  2. the amount of salary that would otherwise have been paid to the officer in respect of the period or a part of the period of the suspension was not paid to him; and
  3. the Commission removes the suspension, the officer shall, subject to sub-section (S), be paid that amount of salary.
Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– I move:

The amendment is a drafting clarification.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 61 agreed to.

Clause 62.

  1. 1 ) An officer may appeal to a Disciplinary Appeal Board against a direction or decision made or given with respect to him by an officer or by the Commission under section 58 or against a decision made with respect to him by the Commission under sub-section 61(1).

  2. Where an officer appeals under sub-section ( 1 ) against a direction or decision on the ground that the action taken in accordance with that direction or decision is, excessively severe, evidence may be given on the hearing of the appeal-

    1. if the officer was, under section 59, suspended without salary prior to the giving of that direction or the making of that decision- of any loss of earnings arising from that suspension;
Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– I move:

The amendment refers to a prescription which has been carried in the Postal Services Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment (by Senator Bishop) agreed to:

In sub-clause (6), after ‘action’, insert ‘to be’.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 63 and 64- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 65.

  1. 1 ) Where an officer is absent from duty without permission, and has been so absent for a continuous period of not less than 4 weeks, the Commission may send to him, by prepaid registered post addressed to him at the address of the officer last known to the Commission, a notice informing him that unless, within a period of 2 weeks from and including the date on which the notice was sent-

    1. he returns to duty; or
    2. he explains his absence and seeks the permission of the Commission for any further period of absence that may be necessary having regard to that explanation, he will be deemed to have resigned upon the expiration of that last-mentioned period.
Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– I move:

The amendment is simply a drafting clarification.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 66 and 67- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 68.

  1. In the application of Division 1 of Part III of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-1974 in accordance with sub-section ( 1 ) of this section-

    1. references to industrial disputes shall be read as references to industrial questions in respect of the Service;
    2. references to the parties to an industrial dispute shall be read, in relation to the powers of the Commission under paragraph 67 ( 1 ) (b) of this Act, as references to employees to whose employment the industrial disputes or industrial matters relate, the Australian Postal Commission and organisations of which any such employees are members; and
    3. references to arbitration shall be read as including references to the hearing and determination of industrial matters in respect of the Service.

Amendment (by Senator Bishop) agreed to:

Leave out ‘Postal ‘, insert ‘Telecommunications ‘.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 69 and 70- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 71.

  1. 1 ) The Treasurer shall determine-

    1. the amount that should, in his opinion, be taken to be the value of the rights, property and assets vested in the Commission in accordance with section 33 of the Transitional Provisions Act having regard to the values of the assets of the Overseas Telecommunications Commission (Australia) by reference to which the amounts shown in the Balance Sheet of that Commission, as at the date immediately preceding the commencing date, as the values of the assets of the last-mentioned Commission were ascertained.

  2. The Treasurer shall determine-

    1. the amount that should, in his opinion, be taken to be the sum of the amounts of the liabilities that became the responsibility of the Commission in accordance with section 33 of the Transitional Provisions Act having regard to the amounts of the liabilities of the Overseas Telecommunications Commission (Australia) by reference to which the amounts shown in the Balance Sheet of that last-mentioned Commission as at the date immediately preceding the commencing date as ‘deferred liabilities’, and ‘current liabilities’ were ascertained.
Senator DURACK:
Western Australia

– The amendments which I have circulated in relation to clause 7 1 are consequential on the earlier decision to exclude the Overseas Telecommunications Commission from this Bill. I seek leave to move my 2 circulated amendments to clause 7 1 together.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Wood:

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

Senator DURACK:

-I move:

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 72 to 93- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 94.

  1. Sub-section (1) does not apply to the erection, maintenance or operation of telecommunications installations-

    1. by the Australian National Railways Commission or by the railway authority of a State, being installations required for the transmission, by lines located wholly within the boundaries of lands vested in the Australian National Railways Commission or in that authority, of communications the transmission of which is necessary for the working of the railways for which the Australian National Railways Commission or that authority is responsible;
    2. by the tramway authority of a State, being installations required for the transmission, by line, of communications the transmission of which is necessary for the working of the tramway for which that authority is responsible;
    3. by any person authorized by the Commission to do so under section 13 to the extent and on the terms and conditions subject to which that person is so authorized under that section;
    4. by any person who is the holder of a licence under the Wireless Telegraphy Act, to the extent that the person is authorized by the terms of the licence;
    5. by the Australian Broadcasting Commission in relation to Division 3 of Part III of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1 942- 1 974; ( 0 by the holder of a licence under Part IV of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1 942- 1 974 in accordance with the terms of the licence; or
    6. by any person, being installations which are capable of use only for the transmission of communications within or upon land or premises of which he is the owner or occupier and which are used solely for his own purposes.
Senator DURACK:
Western Australia

– Both the Postmaster-General (Senator Bishop) and I have circulated amendments which we propose to move to clause 94. The first amendment which I propose to move is not on the list of amendments circulated yesterday, but I believe that copies of it are available. I move:

Clause 94 is a very important clause which gives the Commission virtually a monopoly in the erection of telecommunications installations within Australia. Sub-clause (2) of clause 94 gives a number of exemptions from this general power of the Commission. The first exemption, which is the one which my amendment proposes to amend, is to the Australian National Railways Commission or any railway authority of a State in respect of their installations required for the transmission- these are the words to which we object- by lines located wholly within the boundaries of lands vested in the Australian National Railways Commission or in that authority, of communications the transmission of which is necessary for the working of the railways. We believe that that exemption is not wide enough because it is given only to the railway authorities in respect of their lines which are located wholly within the boundaries of lands vested in the particular railway authority. We believe that the restrictive words in that clause should be deleted so that the clause, as it relates to the monopoly to the Commission, would then read: . . does not apply to the erection, maintenance or operation of telecommunications installations-

  1. by the Australian National Railways Commission or by the railway authority of a State, being installations required for the transmission of communications the transmission of which is necessary for the working of the railways. . . .

If we look at the next exemption clause, which relates to the tramway authority of a State, we will see that there is no such restriction about a tramway authority’s lines of communication being within its boundaries. I suppose the reason for that is fairly obvious; namely, that tramway authorities’ lines tend to run along public roadscertainly not on land that the authorities ownwhereas virtually invariably railway authorities have their lines on reserves especially established for the railways. Therefore, by and large, the lands on which railway services run are vested in the railway authorities. I can see that the purpose of the provision in the Bill is to ensure that the power given to railway authorities does not mean that they are given some general power to put telecommunication installations wherever they like. Nevertheless, I am advised that, in the case of some State railways, some lines that are part and parcel of the railway communications system are not necessarily within the boundaries of the railway land. Therefore, those railway authorities would have to apply to the Commission for authority to carry on their communications. There is a general power in clause 13 which enables the Commission to license anyone to erect telecommunications installations. But we do not see why, if sn exemption is to be given to railway authorities for the purposes of their own communications, those authorities should be restricted in this way and should have to get special permission when they happen to have lines that are not wholly within the boundaries of the lands vested in them. The clause still would be perfectly effective and would entirely restrict railway authorities to maintain these lines wholly and solely for transmission of communications necessary for working the railway. It would not give railway authorities any power to engage in any other form of telecommunications service. We consider that this particular exemption should be worded more adequately than in the restricted way the Bill provides.

Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– I suggest that the sub-clauses be debated separately first, because in respect of sub-clauses (2) and (3) the Government has an amendment which has been circulated and which I think covers the position to which Senator Durack has referred.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Wood:

- Senator Durack has moved only the first. I was going to suggest that your amendment be taken next, and that may obviate the necessity for the other two.

Senator BISHOP:

– The Government strongly opposes Senator Durack ‘s amendment, because surely a railway system cannot have power to run communication lines outside its boundaries. If railway authorities did run such lines, they could fragment the telecommunications system. The power would not be required. It is not required normally in any railway network. The communications systems that railway authorities have apply to their necessary administration and train control, and I do not know of any State-owned public railway or any private railway in Australia that has such systems presently operating.

Senator Steele Hall:

– What about the Semaphore railway line?

Senator BISHOP:

– The communications are all part of a communications centre that ties in with the Glanville railway station. We have inquired in case we have forgotten about some instance, but we cannot find any case where such matters as train control and communications exist except within the boundaries of the railways. If we accept the amendment, any State railway, or even the national railway, would be in a position where it could, despite the monopoly that has existed under the Post and Telegraph Act, establish communications systems outside their land. This may not happen but we suggest that, in the light of the circumstances, we should not allow it. I would consider the senator’s proposition important if some minor matter were involved. It is obvious that, if the ambit of the 2 Commissions that we are setting up is to be worse than that which has existed, the Commissions will be struggling to secure effective organisations. I do not think a case has been made out for this power. I had thought that a private railway in Western Australia might be involved, but inquiries in that State revealed that no such circumstances applied. Therefore, we will vote against the amendment.

Senator DURACK:
Western Australia

– I understand the Minister’s concern about the matter and that he does not want this power to get out of hand. It is not my intention that that should happen. However I cannot understand why the Minister takes a strong stance against this amendment, whereas in the Bill, an exemption is given to a tramway authority. The relevant provision relates to installations: . . being installations required for the transmission by line of communications the transmission of which is necessary for the working of a tramway for which the authority is responsible.

There is no limitation in the case of a tramway requiring that the installation be on the same land as the tramline, cheek by jowl with it, or something of that kind. If such a provision operates all right in regard to tramways, I do not see why my amendment would not operate perfectly well in regard to railways. Perhaps the Minister can enlighten me.

Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– I would have thought that the matter was evident, because tramways are insignificant if we compare the length of tramway line with the length of railway track in Australia. Consequently, I do not think that there is any need to have, in relation to tramways or omnibus services, a tight application of the Act such as there was previously. That is the simple answer. If we were to say that the small lengths of tramway lines and the bus services should be restricted, that would be petty. That is the main reason for the Government’s opposition to the amendment, and I think the proposition is evident.

Question put:

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

The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman- Senator I. A. C. Wood)

AYES: 26

NOES: 26

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– I move:

This amendment results from representations that have been made by some State Ministers. The Government proposal covers the position to which Senator Durack has referred.

Senator DURACK:
Western Australia

– We have a mutual interest in this amendment. I am very happy to support it.

Amendment agreed to.

Senator DURACK:
Western Australia

– My foreshadowed amendments are replaced by the amendment moved by the Postmaster-General (Senator Bishop). I have a further amendment to the clause. I move:

This again is a consequential amendment and is also to give an exemption for the Overseas Telecommunication Commission in respect of any telecommunications installation which it may have in Australia which is part and parcel of its service overseas. It is a fact that OTC naturally has a number of installations which come within the definition of telecommunications installations within Australia and has some lines running from those installations to the nearest post office in order to tie up with the internal communications. If OTC is to be excluded from the operation of this Bill it would be wholly ineffective if the OTC had to obtain a licence from the Australian Telecommunications Commission in order to maintain those telecommunications installations, and the whole purpose of the Opposition’s amendments could be defeated.

It has been pointed out to me that the wording of the amendment may go too far and may give the OTC some general authority to compete internally with the ATC. Of course that is not the object of my amendment at all. My amendment is simply to preserve the existing rights that OTC has within Australia and to ensure that they are preserved notwithstanding the creation of the ATC. It seems to me that the section of the Overseas Telecommunications Act which is referred to in the amendment clearly indicates the restrictive nature of the OTC franchise, and that is to provide telecommunication services between Australia and overseas and not to maintain operations in Australia in competition with the internal services. The amendment refers to Division 3, Part II of the Overseas Telecommunications Act. I would be happy to reword the amendment in any way which may be suggested by the draftsman in order to make it clear that we are not proposing in any way to allow the OTC to compete in the provision of internal communications, but only to preserve the position which the OTC has in relation to the provision of overseas communications.

Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– I thank Senator Durack for repeating what I said to him privately. We were rather concerned that there might be a situation where exemptions would apply. He says that they would be related only to present activities. I suggest to Senator Durack that he consider adding to his amendment certain words which will make it clear that there is no intention to do other than what he stated. I have not been able to circulate copies of the words to which I refer, but I think the Committee will agree that they are necessary. I suggest that at the end of his amendment he add these words: insofar as this applies to telecommunications installations and systems owned and operated by the Overseas Telecommunications Commission for communications between Australia and overseas and otherwise not inconsistent with the Overseas Telecommunications Act.

I think that makes it perfectly clear that there is no general opening of doors to allow new activities. Therefore, I suggest that Senator Durack might accept those words. If he does not, I will move them as an amendment to his amendment.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Wood:

– If Senator Durack is agreeable, he might wish to ask for leave to add those words to his amendment.

Senator DURACK:
Western Australia

– Those words would be acceptable to me. I think they could be added to my amendment. I ask for leave to add them to my amendment.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

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

Senator DURACK:

– The amendment will now read:

In sub-clause (2), after paragraph (g), insert the following new paragraph:

by the Overseas Telecommunications Commission in relation to Division 3 of Part II of the Overseas Telecommunications Act 1 946-73 insofar as this applies to telecommunications installations and systems owned and operated by the Overseas Telecommunications Commission for communications between Australia and overseas and otherwise not inconsistent with the Overseas Telecommunications Act.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 95 to 98- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 99.

  1. Before furnishing financial statements to the Minister, the Commission shall submit them to the Auditor-General, who shall report to the Minister-

    1. whether the statements are based on proper accounts and records;
    2. whether the statements are in agreement with the accounts and records and show fairly the financial operations and the state of the affairs of the Commission;
    3. whether the receipt, expenditure and investment of moneys, and the acquisition and disposal of assets, by the Commission during the year have been in accordance with this Act; and
    4. as to such other matters arising out of the statements as the Auditor-General considers should be reported to the Minister.
Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– I move:

The amendment is a standard drafting clarification.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 100 to 103- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 104.

  1. A payment made to the judgment debtor in pursuance of this section shall, as between the Commission and the judgment debtor, be deemed to be a payment by the Commission to the judgment debtor.
Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– I move:

In sub-clause (6), leave out ‘debtor’, insert ‘creditor’.

It is a correction.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 105 and 106- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 107.

  1. In this section-

    1. a reference to entry by the Commission onto premises in connexion with the performance of its functions includes a reference to the entry onto premises-
    1. of an officer or employee in the course of performing his duties; and

    2. of a person engaged on behalf of the Commission in the delivery of telecommunications messages or for purposes connected with the delivery of telecommunications messages;

    3. b) a reference to the use of premises by the Commission in connexion with the performance of its functions includes a reference for the use of premises by a person acting on behalf of the Commission in connexion with the performance of its functions; and
    4. a reference to the owner or occupier of premises, being a part of a road, is a reference to the person entitled to be paid a toll, fee or charge for entry onto that part of the road.
Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– I move:

It is a correction.

Senator STEELE HALL:
South AustraliaLeader of the Liberal Movement

– Could I inquire as to the reason for all these apparently fairly significant corrections which have to be made at this stage? This Bill has received a good deal of attention already. Was it drawn in some extreme hurry? The Bill has not been passed by the other House. There was no opportunity for that House to correct it. I take it that it has been read since it was drafted. It has been read again, and many mistakes have been found. It is a most abnormal number of corrections. I have had experience in the past of a House having to correct small details, but we are running into a fantasy scene. The whole sense of clauses is being altered. I wish to have some response from the Postmaster-General (Senator Bishop) as to why it is necessary.

Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– I think everybody knows that the preparation of these Bills has been a massive job. For example, it has been necessary to reorganise the whole of the Post Office into 2 commissions. The legislation which has been brought down as a result has been the subject of consideration by managers, by unions and by other groups in the community. Of course corrections have to be made. If Senator Steele Hall had listened this afternoon he would have heard an honourable senator have second thoughts about a word. An honourable senator had a second choice about the word which he would use in place of another word. I emphasise the magnitude of the task. Very important Acts which had been on the statute book for many years had to be revised. The Parliamentary Counsel has been considering the Bills consistently, particularly most recently. He has suggested these minor corrections. He has suggested that we amend the Bills now rather than introduce other Bills later. This is a simple operation. I refer again to the size of these Bills. He has said: ‘I suggest that you use this word instead of that word’. We are tidying up the legislation instead of leaving it in a position in which it might be necessary to introduce other Bills at some future time or in which it might be arguable that certain clauses have different meanings from what was intended. I think it is proper to do it now. I hope the Committee will accept that view in regard to the very extensive legislative effort that has been made by everybody concerned.

Senator STEELE HALL:
South AustraliaLeader of the Liberal Movement

– I thank the Postmaster-General (Senator Bishop) for his reply. I do not accept the analogy between the drafting of a Bill of this nature and the speech of a senator. If the draftsman had simply dictated it into a machine and had it printed, I would expect that he would have a lot of corrections to make. I hope that much more care was taken with this Bill than generally is given to speeches in the Senate. I think it is a most careless procedure and is somewhat reprehensible. In’ other circumstances it would be a matter of great censure if we had to change a word such as ‘debtor’ to ‘creditor’ as we did in clause 104.I accept the Minister’s reply because he has nothing better to offer.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 108 and 109- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 1 10 (Alteration in overseas services).

Senator DURACK:
Western Australia

– The opposition to clause 110 in its entirety is consequential upon the decision to exclude the Overseas Telecommunications Commission from the Bill.

Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– For the reasons given previously, we will not divide the Committee but will oppose the amendment on the voices.

Clause negatived.

Clause 1 1 1 agreed to.

Clause 112.

  1. 1 ) the Commission may make by-laws, not inconsistent with this Act and the regulations, prescribing all matters which are required or permitted to be prescribed by the Bylaws, and making provision for, or with respect to-

    1. the receipt, transmission and delivery of inland and overseas telegrams;
Senator DURACK:
Western Australia

-I move:.

In sub-clause ( 1 ), paragraph (f), leave out ‘and overseas’.

This amendment is consequential upon the decision of the Committee to eliminate the Overseas Telecommunications Commission from the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 113.

The Governor-General may make regulations, not inconsistent with this Act, prescribing all matters which by this Act are required or permitted to be prescribed by the regulations, or which are necessary or convenient to be prescribed by the regulations for carrying out or giving effect to this Act, and making provision for, or with respect to-

  1. the application of Division 6 of Part V to and in relation to an employee who-

    1. has been in continuous employ of the Commission for a period of not less than one year, or
    2. has been engaged by the Commission to serve for a period of not less than one year, including provisions modifying and adapting the provisions of that Division in relation to such an employee;

  2. the preservation of specified existing and accruing rights by a person appointed to the office of Managing Director, Chief General Manager or full-time Chairman of a Promotions Appeal Board or by a person appointed or deemed to have been appointed as an officer under section 41 who was, immediately before he was so appointed, an officer of the Australian Public Service or a person to whom the Officers’ Rights Declaration Act 1928-1973 applied, including provisions modifying and adapting the Public Service Act 1 922- 1 974 for the purpose of enabling such a person to apply for promotion to an office in the Australian Public Service or appeal against a promotion to an office in that Service;

Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– I move:

I move the amendment to bring this clause into line with what was done in relation to the Postal Services Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Title.

A Bill for an Act relating to the Provision of Telecommunications Services within Australia, between Australia and Places outside Australia and between certain External Territories and Places outside those Territories.

Senator DURACK:
Western Australia

– I move:

This is a consequential amendment. It is a rather classic instance of how we sometimes put the cart before the horse in the Committee of the Whole because this amendment clearly indicates the purpose of a long series of amendments, namely to leave out of this Bill the provision of telecommunications between Australia and places outside Australia and between certain external territories and places outside those territories. It would seem to me that this clause should have been the first question on which we voted, but it is in fact the last. On that lighter note we might conclude this rather lengthy debate.

Amendment agreed to.

Title, as amended, agreed to.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 1673

POSTAL AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSIONS (TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS) BILL 1975

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 23 April on motion by Senator Bishop:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

In Committee

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2.

Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– I move:

This amendment is intended to ensure that the amendments to the Act shall be effected on a common date to be fixed by proclamation.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 3 and 4- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 5.

  1. The Commission is, by force of this section, entitled to the possession of all postal articles to which this section applies.
Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– I move:

This is a drafting clarification.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 6 to 8- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 9.

  1. The Australian Telecommunications Commission is, by virtue of this section, entitled to possession of all overseas messages, within the meaning of the Overseas Telecommunications Act 1946-1973, received by the Overseas Telecommunications Commission (Australia) before the commencing day and not transmitted, or delivered to the addressee, as the case requires, before that day.
  2. The Telecommunications Act 1975 applies, subject to sub-section (6), to an overseas message referred to in subsection (4) as if it had been received by the Australian Telecommunications Commission on the commencing day for transmission or delivery, as the case may be.
  3. The charge for the transmission of an overseas message referred to in sub-section (4) is the charge that was payable on the day on which it was received by the Overseas Telecommunications Commission (Australia) or by another body or person on its behalf.
Senator DURACK:
Western Australia

-I move:

This amendment and all the amendments to this Bill that I have circulated are consequential upon the decision of the Senate to exclude the Overseas Telecommunications Commission from the operations of the Australian Telecommunications Commission.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 10 to 12- by leave- taken together, and agreed upon.

Clause 13.

  1. Until the Australian Telecommunications Commission makes a determination under section 1 1 of the Telecommunications Act 1975, the rentals, fees and other charges payable under the Post and Telegraph Rates Act 1 902- 1 974, the Post and Telegraph Act 1 90 1 - 1 974 or the Overseas Telecommunications Act 1946-1973 immediately before the commencing day in respect of, or in relation to, services within the functions of that Commission apply, on and after the commencing day, as if they had been duly determined under section 11 of the Telecommunications Act 1975 on the commencing day.
Senator DURACK:
Western Australia

– I move:

This is a consequential amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 14.

  1. 1) At any time after this Act receives the Royal Assent and before the commencing day, the Australian Postal Commission-

    1. may determine charges under section 17 of the Postal Services Act 1975;
    2. may create positions in the Australian Postal Commission Service under that Act;
    3. may prepare and submit to the Minister under that Act estimates of its receipts and expenditure for the period commencing on the commencing day and ending on 30 June 1976; and
    4. d ) may make By-laws under that Act, as if those sections were in force.

  2. At any time after this Act receives the Royal Assent and before the commencing day, the Australian Telecommunications Commission-

    1. may determine charges under section 1 1 of the Telecommunications Act 1975;
    2. may create positions in the Australian Telecommunications Commission Service under that Act;
    3. may prepare and submit to the Minister under that Act estimates of its receipts and expenditure for the period commencing on the commencing day and ending on 30 June 1 976; and
    4. may make By-laws under that Act, as if those sections were in force.

  3. Determinations and By-laws referred to in sub-section ( 1) or (2) that are made before the commencing day do not come into operation until the commencing day.

Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– I seek leave to move 2 amendments.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Wood:

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

Senator BISHOP:

-I move:

This is a drafting clarification.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 15.

  1. A reference in this Pan to a person who was, immediately before the commencing day, an officer of the Overseas Telecommunications Commission (Australia) does not include a reference to a person who ceased to be such an officer on the day immediately before the commencing day by reason of his retirement, resignation or dismissal.
Senator DURACK:
Western Australia

– I move:

This amendment is consequential on the decision in relation to the Overseas Telecommunications Commission.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 16 agreed to.

Clause 1 7.

Senator DURACK:
Western Australia

– The Opposition opposes this clause. It is consequential on the decision in relation to the Overseas Telecommunications Commission.

Clause negatived.

Clause 18.

  1. 1 ) In this section, a reference to an officer of a Commission is a reference to an officer deemed to have been appointed to the Service of that Commission under this Part other than such an officer who, immediately before the commencing day, was not performing duty in the Australian Public Service or the Service of the Overseas Telecommunications Commission (Australia) by reason of having been authorized to perform duty temporarily for another authority, body or person.
Senator DURACK:
Western Australia

– I move:

This amendment again is consequential on the decision in relation to the Overseas Telecommunications Commission.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 19.

  1. 1 ) In this section, ‘probationer’ means a person who had been appointed to the Australian Public Service or to the Service of the Overseas Telecommunications Commission (Australia) on probation and whose appointment has not been confirmed before the commencing day.

  2. Where a person who is deemed to have been appointed to the Service of a Commission under this Part is a probationer-

    1. he shall be deemed to have been so appointed upon probation and, for the purpose of the application of the relevant section to him, his service in the Australian Public Service or the Service of the Overseas Telecommunications Commission (Australia), as the case may be. counts as if it were service in the Service of that first-mentioned commission; and
Senator DURACK:
Western Australia

– Mr Temporary Chairman, there are 2 amendments standing in my name. I ask for leave to move them together.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Wood:

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

Senator DURACK:

-I move:

Both of these amendments are consequential on the decision in relation to the Overseas Telecommunications Commission.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 20.

  1. Section 51 of the Telecommunications Act 1975 applies to a promotion of an officer of the Overseas Telecommunications Commission (Australia) to a vacant position in the Service of that Commission that was made before the commencing date but had not been completed before that date as if-

    1. the officer had, on the effective date, been promoted by the Australian Telecommunications Commission to fill the corresponding position in the Service of that last-mentioned Commission;
    2. the corresponding position in the Service of the Australian Telecommunications Commission had been in existence, and had been vacant, on the effective date; and
    3. any action taken in connexion with the promotion before the commencing day had effect as if it had been taken in relation to the promotion of the person to the corresponding position in the Service of the Australian Telecommunications Commission.
  2. For the purposes of this section, the promotion of an officer to fill a vacancy in an office in the PostmasterGeneral’s Department or a vacancy in a position in the Service of the Overseas Telecommunications Commission (Australia) shall be taken not to be completed if it has not been confirmed or cancelled.

  3. In this section-

    1. a reference to the corresponding position in the Service of the Australian Postal Commission or of the Australian Telecommunications Commission, in relation to an office in the Postmaster-General’s Department or to a position in the Service of the Overseas Telecommunications Commission (Australia), is a reference to a position determined by the Australian Postal Commission or the Australian Telecommunications Commission, as the case may be, being a position the duties of which are the same or substantially the same as the duties of that office or position and which has a classification equivalent to the classification of that office or position; and
    2. a reference to the effective date, in relation to the promotion of a person to fill a vacancy in an office in the Postmaster-General’s Department or a position in the Service of the Overseas Telecommunications Commission (Australia), is a reference to the date on which the person was promoted to fill the vacancy.
Senator DURACK:
Western Australia

- Mr Temporary Chairman, there are 4 amendments standing in my name. I ask for leave to move them together.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

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

Senator DURACK:

-I move:

These amendments are consequential on the earlier decision in relation to the Overseas Telecommunications Commission.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 2 1 and 22- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 23.

  1. Where, but for this sub-section, a person who is deemed by this Part to have been appointed to the Service of a Commission would, on the commencing day, be an officer to whom section 6 of the Officers’ Rights Declaration Act 1928-1973 applies-

    1. that Act ceases to apply to and in relation to him on that day;
    2. b) he continues to retain the existing and accruing rights previously retained by him by virtue of the application of that Act and, in determining those rights-
    1. his service in relation to which that Act applied shall be taken into account as if it were service in the Australian Public Service; and

    2. his service while on leave under paragraph (c) shall be taken into account as if it were service in the Service of that Commission;

    3. he shall be deemed to have been granted leave of absence without pay by that Commission commencing on the commencing day and ending on the day on which he ceases to be employed as, by or as a member of an Australian Government Authority other than that Commission; and
    4. on the termination of that leave of absence, he is entitled to be employed in the Service of that Commission at a classification and salary determined by that Commission having regard to the office in the Australian Public Service occupied by him immediately before he became an officer to whom the Officers’ Rights Declaration Act 1928-1973 applied and the period during which that Act applied to him and the period of leave of absence applicable to him under this section.
Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– I move:

  1. After sub-clause (3), insert the following sub-clause:- (3a) Sub-section (3) does not apply to a person who, immediately before the commencing day, was an officer of the Overseas Telecommunications Commission (Australia) and, immediately before he became an officer to whom the Officers’ Rights Declaration Act 1928, or that Act as subsequently amended, applied, was an officer of a Department other than the Postmaster-General’s Department. ‘.

This amendment relates to our intention to include the Overseas Telecommunications Commission in the new telecommunications organisation.

Senator DURACK:
Western Australia

– The Opposition opposes the amendment because of our decision in relation to the Overseas Telecommunications Commission.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 24.

  1. The Australian Telecommunications Commission shall engage as an employee each person who was, immediately before the commencing day, a temporary or casual employee of the Overseas Telecommunications Commission (Australia) other than a person who-

    1. ceased to be an employee of that last-mentioned Commission on the day immediately before the commencing day; or
    2. has notified that first-mentioned Commission that he does not wish to be so engaged.
Senator DURACK:
Western Australia

– I move:

This amendment is consequential on the earlier decision in relation to the Overseas Telecommunications Commission.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 25.

  1. A person to whom this section applies retains the rights, if any, in respect of-

    1. a ) recreation lea ve; and
    2. leave on the ground of illness, that had accrued to him as an officer, employee or exempt employee of the Australian Public Service or as an officer or employee of the Overseas Telecommunications Commission (Australia), as the case may be, immediately before the commencing day.

  2. For the purposes of determining the leave of absence that might be granted to a person to whom this section applies in accordance with any terms and conditions of his employment that correspond with the provisions of regulation SO of the Public Service Regulations, any service of the officer in the Australian Public Service or in the service of the Overseas Telecommunications Commission (Australia) during the period of 12 months immediately preceding the commencing day shall be deemed to be service in the Australian Postal Commission Service or the Australian Telecommunications Commission Service, as the case requires.

Senator DURACK:
Western Australia

- Mr Temporary Chairman, I have 2 amendments to clause 25. 1 ask for leave to move them together.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

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

Senator DURACK:

-I move:

Again, these amendments are consequential on the decision in relation to the Overseas Telecommunications Commission.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 26 and 27- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 28.

  1. Where an officer to whom this section applies had appealed under the Public Service Act 1 922- 1 974 against the decision of a Chief Officer in respect of an offence mentioned in section 55 of that Act, or had appealed under section 30 of the Overseas Telecommunications Act 1946-1973, but the appeal had not been disposed of before the commencing day, the appeal shall be heard and determined by a Disciplinary Appeal Board constituted under the relevant Act as if the appeal had been instituted under the relevant Act and, if the Board, on hearing the appeal, confirms the decision of the Chief Officer or of the Overseas Telecommunications Commission (Australia), as the case may be, the Board shall, in substitution for the decision of the Chief Officer or of that Commission-

    1. cause a supervisor of the officer to counsel the officer;
    2. admonish the officer; or
    3. give a direction or make a recommendation in respect of the officer of a kind referred to in the appropriate sub-section but so that a direction is not given and a recommendation is not made that would result in action being taken in respect of the officer that is more severe than the action taken or recommended by the ChiefOfficer.

  2. The Commission shall take such action as is necessary to give effect to a direction or recommendation of a Disciplinary Appeal Board given under paragraph (4) (c).

Senator BISHOP (South Australia-

Postmaster-General) (4.4 1 )- I move:

This amendment is related to the position that I have mentioned.

Amendment agreed to.

Senator DURACK:
Western Australia

- Mr Temporary Chairman, I ask for leave to move the 2 amendments standing in my name.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

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

Senator DURACK:

-I move:

The amendments are again consequential on the decision in relation to the Overseas Telecommunications Commission.

Amendments agreed to.

Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– I move:

It is a drafting clarification.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 29 agreed to.

Clause 30 (Preservation of special pension rights).

Senator DURACK:
Western Australia

– The Opposition opposes this clause. It again relates to the decision concerning the Overseas Telecommunications Commission.

Clause negatived.

Clause 31.

Senator DURACK:
Western Australia

– We oppose the clause for the same reasons. It relates to the decision concerning the Overseas Telecommunications Commission.

Clause negatived.

Clause 32.

  1. The Australian Telecommunications Commission is liable to pay to Australia, at such times as the Treasurer determines, such amounts as the Treasurer determines to be amounts, the payment of which should be regarded as liabilities of that Commission in respect of the liability of Australia to make payments under any Acts relating to superannuation in respect of persons who were, before the commencing day employed in connexion with Post Office Services or by the Overseas Telecommunications Commission (Australia).
Senator DURACK:
Western Australia

– I move:

This again is consequential on the earlier decision in relation to the Overseas Telecommunications Commission.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 33 (Assets of Overseas Telecommunications Commission Vested in the Telecommunications Commission).

Senator DURACK:
Western Australia

– The Opposition opposes this clause because it deals entirely with the Overseas Telecommunications Commission. It is consequential on the earlier decision.

Clause negatived.

Clause 34 agreed to.

Clause 35.

  1. The Minister shall submit the financial statements prepared in accordance with sub-section (1) to the AuditorGeneral, who shall report to the Minister-

    1. whether the statements are based on accounts and financial records kept in accordance with Part IVa of the Post and Telegraph Act 1 90 1 - 1 974;
    2. whether the statements are in agreement with the accounts and financial records and show fairly the financial operations and the state of the financial affairs of the Post Office Services;
    3. whether the payments of accounts into and out of the Post Office Trust Account during the year or period had been in accordance with that Part;
    4. as to the adequacy of a provision referred to in paragraph 96h (4) (a) or (b) of that Act; and
    5. as to such matters arising out of the statements as the Auditor-General considers should be reported to the Minister.
  2. The Minister shall, as soon as practicable after the commencing day, prepare reports of the operations of the Overseas Telecommunications Commission (Australia) during the year ended on 31 March 1975 and the period that commenced on 1 April 1975 and ended immediately before the commencing day, respectively, together with Balance Sheets and other financial statements in respect of that year and period in such form as the Treasurer approved under the Overseas Telecommunications Act 1 946-1973.

  3. The Minister shall submit the financial statements prepared in accordance with sub-section (3) to the AuditorGeneral who shall report to the Minister-

    1. whether the statements are based on proper accounts and records;
    2. whether the statements are in agreement with the accounts and records and show fairly the state of affairs of the Overseas Telecommunications Commission (Australia);
    3. whether the receipt, expenditure and investment of moneys, and the acquisition and disposal of assets, by that Commission during the year or period have been in accordance with the Overseas Telecommunications Act 1946-1973; and
    4. as to such other matters arising out of the statements as the Auditor-General considers should be reported to the Minister.
Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– I move:

Amendment agreed to.

Senator DURACK:
Western Australia

– I seek leave to move 2 amendments together.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Wood:

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

Senator DURACK:

-I move:

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 36 to 38- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 39.

  1. Where-

    1. a person deemed to have been appointed to the Service of a Commission under Part IV; or
    2. a person engaged as an employee of a Commission in pursuance of section 24, is liable to pay an amount to Australia, or would, but for this Act, be liable to pay an amount to the Overseas Telecommunications Commission (Australia), in respect of an overpayment of any salary or allowance paid to him before the commencing day by Australia or by that Commission, as the case may be, the person is liable to pay that amount to that Commission.
Senator DURACK:
Western Australia

– I seek leave to move 2 amendments together.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

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

Senator DURACK:

-I move:

These amendments are consequential upon the earlier decision in relation to the Australian Telecommunications Commission.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Proposed new clause 39a.

Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– I move:

This an embracing provision to preserve the current arbitration proceedings. In this proposed new clause are provisions which relate to the Overseas Telecommunications Commission. I have indicated to Senator Durack that the way to deal with references to that Commission in the proposed new clause would be for him to move amendments to the amendment I have just moved to extract those references.

Senator DURACK:
Western Australia

– As the Postmaster-General (Senator Bishop) has indicated, in the lengthy amendment he has just moved are numerous references to the Overseas Telecommunications Commission. The general purpose of new clause 39a is to preserve certain current arbitration proceedings at the date of takeover of the new Commissions. This is quite acceptable to the Opposition but we cannot accept this provision as having any relevance to the Overseas Telecommunications Commission. The Minister has been good enough to supply me with a list of the amendments which are necessary to new clause 39a in order to eliminate references to the OTC. I seek leave to move those amendments together.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Wood:

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

Senator DURACK:

-I move:

Amendments agreed to.

Proposed new clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 40 and 41- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Proposed new clause 41 A.

Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– I move:

Proposed new clause agreed to.

Schedule 1.

PART III-OVERSEAS TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACTS

Overseas Telecommunications Act 1946

Overseas Telecommunications Act 1952

Overseas Telecommunications Act 1958

Overseas Telecommunications Act 1 963

Overseas Telecommunications Act 1968

Overseas Telecommunications Act (No. 2) 1968

Overseas Telecommunications Act 1 97 1

Senator DURACK:
Western Australia

– I move:

This is a consequential amendment as Part III refers entirely to the Overseas Telecommunications Commission.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 2.

Customs Act 1901-1974

Section 35- Omit ‘through the Post Office’, insert ‘by post’.

Senator DURACK:
Western Australia

– I move:

This amendment inserts in the Schedule reference to the Telecommunications Act. Schedule 2 affects consequential amendments to a large number of Acts as a result of the abolition of the Postmaster-General’s Department from this area and the establishment of the new Commissions. The Telecommunications Act requires to be amended to make that change and this amendment is designed to facilitate that.

Senator BISHOP (South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral) General) (4.54)- The Government opposes this amendment but will not divide the Senate because I think the test has been made. This amendment concludes consideration of the 3 Bills and the question of the Overseas Telecommunications Commission will be considered by the Government. It will be a matter for the Government to decide whether it accepts the Senate’s amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 1681

INTER-STATE COMMISSION BILL 1975

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 23 April on motion by Senator Bishop:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition

– This Bill is one of the most sweeping provisions ever contemplated by this Parliament. The Opposition believes, as a matter of principle, that all major legislation should be subjected to the most searching scrutiny and consideration. It is right and proper that any Bill that affects the rights of individuals, or the rights of States, should be so scrutinised because this Parliament is not a rubber stamp for the whims of the Executive. This Senate has a duty to protect the people. It has a right to consider the implications of every measure presented to it, and for this reason the Opposition finds the unseemly haste associated with this measure- possibly the most sweeping step out of a whole list of major changes attempted by this Government- totally offensive.

We do not dispute the establishment of an Inter-State Commission as provided for in the

Constitution. There may be many good reasons why such a Commission should be re-established to provide more efficiency in our transport systems, but the powers given to the Inter-State Commission in this Bill are incredibly wide. They are so wide as to be dangerous. They should not be introduced without lengthy and detailed consideration. The most generous thing one could say about this Bill is that it is, perhaps, badly drafted. Its wording is vague and loose; its intent is uncertain.

The Government claims that the Commission will deal only with transport. If so, we would not object to the broad principle involved. But this Bill does not deal only with transport; it deals with a much wider area. It provides the Government with incredible powers which can be used through the Commission, and at the same time it denies parliamentary control of the Commission’s activities. Such measures must be regarded with a great deal of suspicion. If these wide ranging powers are an unfortunate drafting slip, then that alone is reason enough to submit the Bill to scrutiny. If they have been provided deliberately, the intentions of the Government must be suspect. In either case, the Opposition would be guilty of gross derelicition of its obligations to the Australian people, and to the States, if it allowed this Bill to slip through as the Government would like. I invite honourable senators to look at just one clause of the Billclause 17- to see the sweeping nature of this planned institution. Clause 17 reads:

The Commission has power to do any act or thing that it is authorised to do in pursuance of any law made under the provisions of the Constitution relating to trade and commerce, including but not limited to, a law with respect to the engaging in, or the use of, aircraft, vessels, vehicles or pipelines in, inter-State transport without the licence or consent of the Commission.

Just what does that clause mean? I must confess that I am unable to understand it. I wonder how many senators on the Government side understand it. It is nothing but a blank cheque for the proposed new Commission. It can be used as a back-door way of taking over wide sections of the economy, of the transport industry, of the free movement of goods and people; it can be used to provide Canberra with total control of airports and aircraft, ships and ports. Even the private motorist could be caught in its net.

This Bill, in its loose wording and its open interpretation, falls into a pattern of legislation by this Government that seems to be aimed at ending parliamentary control over the affairs of the nation. There is a growing propensity by this Government to establish special boards, commissions, and statutory corporations which are independent, or largely so, of parliamentary supervision. I admit that there may be good reasons for doing this in some selected cases. What concerns the Opposition is the rapid growth of these bodies which is now taking place. There is a grave danger that if the Parliament continues to let this trend go on, it will be abdicating its own responsibilities to the people. Governments should make political decisions. This is the only fair way. They should not set up creatures which can ostensibly make wide ranging decisions affecting people’s lives, affecting the economy, affecting the rights of the States, independent of the will of the people as expressed by the Parliament. It may be convenient for a government to so avoid its real responsibilities, but it is not democratic. The people, and through the people the Parliament, must at all times be sovereign. They must have the right to determine whether a government’s actions are desirable or not. But if governments continue to produce bodies that are neither responsible nor responsive to the people, very real dangers are created.

We submit that this Commission appears to be one of the worst examples of such an alarming trend. It is not merely an investigatory body with power to recommend change to government- it is an enforcement body, with the only proviso being the right of appeal to the High Court of Australia. This body can act as investigator, prosecutor, jury and judge. Its powers are immense. It can impose fines of $ 10,000 a day on individuals and $50,000 a day on corporations for breaches of its orders. This is an immense power to give a body which is not subject to parliamentary scrutiny. I would like to be charitable and say that the Government’s motives are of the highest nature, but I cannot.

One needs only to look at the history of this legislation to be suspicious. It is not a Bill that the Government wished to have scrutinised. It is a Bill that it wished to pass into law with a minimum debate, and as little public knowledge about it as possible. It did so because it is proposing a dangerously wide law. Its activities in the Lower House were disgraceful. They typify a government that wants to work in the dark. They typify a sneaky, dishonest government.

I accept that the proposal for reviving the Inter-State Commission was first raised in the policy speech of the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) in 1 972, but it was a vague promise. It gave no detail of how the Prime Minister intended the Commission to operate. It certainly did not indicate a Bill such as this. It has taken the Government almost 2lA years to draft the legislation. We are accustomed to this Government putting some things into the too hard basket. So many of its promises are unattainable. So many of its plans disadvantage the people. But when it does decide to act, it acts with indecent haste. As has been pointed out often, the Government jumps first and looks later. This inclination to rush in has resulted in many of the inequities this Government has foisted on the people of Australia.

In the case of this present legislation, the first real indication that the Government intended to re-establish the Inter-State Commission was through a leak to a newspaper on 3 April 1975. Four days later the Prime Minister confirmed what the Press had found out about the actions of his open Government. Two days later- only 2 days later- the Bill was introduced into the House of Representatives. Only 12 days later it was forced through that House. When I say ‘forced through’ I mean bludgeoned through by the naked use of the force of numbers. Probably the most sweeping measure ever introduced into this Parliament was hurried through the Lower House with less than 2 hours of debate at the second reading stage. In fact, there was one hour and 40 minutes of debate at that stage. The Committee stage of its 41 clauses was dispatched in 1 hour and 50 minutes. The Parliament was given 12 days to study the implications of a complexly worded and vastly powerful piece of legislation and then the Government allowed a total of only 4 hours for the House of Representatives to consider the Bill. I say that that is the rape of the Parliament.

Why is the Government in such a hurry? It took the Government 216 years to frame this piece of legislation; yet the Government expects the Parliament to pass it virtually overnight. I say that the Government shows no respect for the Parliament. This Government just wants to get its own way, regardless of how dangerous its own way may be. Quite frankly, the Opposition is sick and tired of this attitude of the Government. It is sick and tired of the Parliament being treated with contempt. I give notice today that the Opposition in the Senate in the future will insist that the Parliament is treated with due respect. We will insist that measures are not foisted on the people in suspicious haste. Whenever the Government attempts, through gagging and guillotining, to force legislation through the House of Representatives, whenever it refuses to allow reasonable debate on major measures, we will do everything in our power to prevent such abuses in the Senate. We will aim at fulfilling our proper role as a House that gives thorough consideration to legislation. If the Government insists on treating the House of Representatives with contempt we will do everything possible to ensure that in the Senate at least a reasoned study of legislation takes place. We will insist on full debate and proper consideration in Committee. We accept that some legislation might be urgent. When that occurs we will facilitate it; but we will not tolerate attempts by the Government to stifle criticism and argument. Such methods reek of the totalitarian state.

If the Government has nothing to hide in its legislation it should welcome a reasoned and proper study. One wonders what monstrous provisions are contained in this legislation that make the Government determined either to smuggle it or to force it brutally through the Parliament. It is no good for the Government to claim urgency for this measure. It waited 2Vi years before introducing it almost as an afterthought. If it is in any way honest it will agree to this course of action which will allow all interested parties, not the least being the States and the transport instrumentalities and operators, as well as the wide range of other people involved, to study its provisions in detail. This Bill will have a major impact on the States. Because it has been introduced so quickly the exact nature of that impact is still difficult to determine.

The Government has no right arbitrarily to impose such measures without at least giving those affected some right of reply. I know that in my own State of Western Australia this action by the Government has caused considerable concern. I have here a telegram from the Western Australian Premier, Sir Charles Court, in which he expresses his concern at the indecent haste with which the Government is trying to force this legislation through the Parliament. Sir Charles points out that Western Australia received the text of the Bill only a few weeks ago. That is a totally unreasonable time to give anyone to consider this legislation properly. Sir Charles has asked for this debate to be adjourned for a reasonable period to allow a proper reaction from his State and the other States. We agree with him.

Sir Charles Court said in his telegram:

We are fearful that the legislation might finish up on the Statute Book without proper consideration having been given to its content and its dangers. We-

That is the Western Australian Government- are losing no time in pressing on with our studies.

He was referring to studies of the Bill. I believe that all the State Premiers agree with Sir Charles

Court. They are all entitled to study this Bill and to comment on it rather than have it forced upon them. So are the transport operators who will be affected by it.lind so are the people.

Briefly, the Opposition’s attitude to this Bill is this: we accept the need for an Inter-State Commission as provided for by the Constitution, but we believe that the spirit of the Constitution should be upheld- which this Bill does not do. We believe that the Commission should be confined, certainly initially, to transport matters. That is its right and proper function. We do not believe that it should be used as a back door way of thwarting the Constitution. Therefore, I give notice that when the Committee stage of the Bill is called on the Opposition will seek to amend it, to delete its more offensive provisions and to ensure that it operates within the spirit of the Constitution. However, we believe that adequate time should be provided for detailed consideration of the legislation. Faults not yet seen may yet be exposed. The interested parties should be given an opportunity to make their comments on how this Bill can be improved or its failings deleted. To ensure that adequate consideration is given to the Bill before we move our amendments, we propose that the Committee stage be deferred until the first sitting day in August to allow submissions to be made both to the Government and to the Opposition.

If this Government is honest it will agree that good legislation is better than quick legislation. I need only point to the Trade Practices Bill. A former Attorney-General tried to rush that Bill through the Parliament. The Senate prevented him from doing so. As a result of the delay we provided to him, he learnt just how bad his initial Bill was and he came back into this place with more than 100 amendments to his own legislation. Senator Steele Hall said this afternoon, in regard to another Bill which was before us, that he was amazed that so many amendments were put by the Government in the Committee stage. We do not aim to obstruct; we aim to assist. On the Trade Practices Bill we gave the Government an opportunity to discover its own mistakes. In proposing to adjourn the Committee stage of this Bill we are doing the same thing. The deferment we propose is not an undue delay. It will give the Government, the interested parties, the States and the Opposition a proper opportunity to study this legislation in detail. I am sure that the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones), whose Department will be emasculated by this Bill, will welcome a delay. It is far better to alter the Bill at leisure than to rash it through with this sort of haste. Mistakes made today could be impossible to correct later. In the interests of the Parliament, the public and the Government itself, the Government should agree to the deferment of the Committee stage, as I will propose, so that the Bill can be properly considered by the Parliament and the people.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– I join in this debate with some rather worried political feelings in view of what the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Withers) has just said. He endeavoured to establish that the Opposition was prepared to accept this Bill, but then he indulged in the usual delaying tactics that we have become so used to in this chamber over the last 2Vi years. I do not think the Leader of the Opposition can convince anybody in this chamber or anybody outside who may be listening to the debate of the sincerity of his opposition to the Bill. Let us consider a few of the points raised by him. He said that the Bill was hasty and had been foisted upon the Parliament with all sorts of shortcomings so far as drafting, scope of powers, etc., were concerned. He criticised the Bill as being badly drafted and said that the wording was loose. If the honourable gentleman thinks the presentation of the Bill has been hasty, I refer him to statements that have been made. Firstly, when the Constitution was drafted 75 years ago the appropriate clause for establishing an Inter-State Commission was included. While Senator Withers may not have been around for the whole of the 75 years, he has been round long enough to know the provisions of that section of the Constitution, its implications and what it may mean when passed into law by legislation.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– The High Court did not think of that in 1 920.

Senator KEEFFE:

– I am sorry; the honourable senator has been around for the 75 years, but he should give Senator Withers some opportunity, because he has not been able to study it the way the honourable senator has.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– It has already been successfully challenged once in the High Court anyway.

Senator KEEFFE:

– I will come to that in a moment, but I want to point out a couple of other points that are of interest at the moment. Senator Withers states that there has been no warning. I point out that on 9 April 1968, when the then Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam), delivered a paper titled ‘Political and Constitutional Problems in National Transport Planning’ for the Special Lectures in

Transport series, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Melbourne. I remind the Leader of the Opposition that that is 7 years, 5 weeks and 4 days ago, yet he tries to tell this Senate it has just been thought of. Mr Whitlam said:

A properly planned transport policy should enforce realistic pricing policies and direct public investment to the areas and to the modes in which available funds can most profitably be employed. Under such a policy, ships would be used for long hauls and very large tonnages; railways for large quantities of freight over medium and long hauls; road transport for country passengers, for short hauls and for hauls requiring flexibility in times, routes and deliveries.

He further stated:

The extent to which the ownership and control of Australian transport is dispersed amongst Federal, State and local government, and private operators, emphasises the futility of expecting disparate elements spontaneously to act in accordance with an agreed policy or spontaneously to observe a rational system of investment priorities. No one is responsible for a national transport plan, nor for collecting, collating and interpreting transport data on which informed policy decisions might be based.

Senator Withers has been saying that this was a hasty decision by the party in government, yet warning was given more than 7 years ago of the necessity for such an Inter-State Commission to be re-established. The next complaint that we heard from our worthy Leader of the Opposition was that there had not been due respect for the forms of the Parliament. He said that he felt the Senate should carry out a reasoned study. The only reason why he said that, of course, was that by the brutality of numbers the Opposition has been studying some eight or ten Bills for the past Vh years, Bills which have come before this Senate time and time again and have been rejected, some of them on three or four occasions. If that is some sort of reasoned study, it is an unfair way of treating the electors of this country. The Labor Party was elected by a majority vote and, because of the voting system, the Opposition in this House has been able to pursue a wrangling opposition for 2V4 years by knocking back whatever legislation it wants to knock back.

Senator Withers:

– Ha, ha!

Senator KEEFFE:

– It is no use the Leader of the Opposition laughing about it. If he thinks it is a big joke, there are thousands of people in this country who think it is no laughing matter. They are the people who see the laws of the elected Parliament coming into this chamber to be ruthlessly slashed about or rejected altogether because of the short-sighted policies of senators opposite. If they live by the brutality of numbers, there will come a day when they will die by the same method, and it may be closer than they think. I now wish to refer to the second reading speech of the Minister in which he gave a brief history of the Inter-State Commission. Another of the septuagenarians, who interjected a few moments ago, would be able to remember this. The Minister said-.”

The Inter-State Commission was first appointed in 1913 pursuant to the Inter-State Commission Act 1912. The powers given to the Inter-State Commission included powers of investigation over a very wide range of matters going well beyond matters relating to inter-state trade or commerce and power to determine a great variety of disputes, including disputes as to preferences or disadvantages given or made by any State or by any common carrier in contravention of the Act or the provisions of the Constitution relating to trade and commerce. The Commission was given wide powers to grant relief to the parties before it and was empowered to grant injunctions.

The speech then goes on for another paragraph or so, but I want to come back to the opening remarks of the Minister, as follows:

The object of the bill is to re-establish the Inter-State Commission in accordance with the provisions of section 10 1 of the Constitution.

I remind those who are now shedding their crocodile tears of opposition- even though they say they do not oppose it, they are opposing itthat the relevant clauses of the Constitution provide:

The High Court shall have jurisdiction, with such exceptions and subject to such regulations as the Parliament prescribes, to hear and determine appeals from all judgements, decrees, orders, and sentences-

Of the Inter-State Commission, but as to questions of law only: and the judgement of the High Court in all such cases shall be final and conclusive.

He then quoted section 101. The following sections are relevant, and Senator Withers, as a lawyer, ought to know that there are sufficient safeguards to ensure that this is not misused by any Parliament. In his second reading speech the Minister went on to say:

Honourable senators will note that the Constitution refers to the trade and commerce provisions and laws made thereunder. However it is not the Government’s intention at this time for the Inter-State Commission to operate under these provisions other than in the field of transport.

Yet we have these panic methods introduced into the Senate by the Opposition, claiming that the Inter-State Commission will be used for just about every reprehensible practice that comes into the field of legislative organisation. That is not true. It is put on probably at the request of people like Sir Charles Court, who cannot even run his own State. However, I notice that Senator Withers tonight was adopting the advice of Sir Charles Court, but the Leader of the National Country Party of Australia in this Senate is not here because he is still away in Western Australia fighting Sir Charles Court. So, the harmony that was referred to by the Leader of the Liberal Party or the Opposition in the Senate is not shared by his colleagues in the National Country Party of Australia. The Minister continued:

I need hardly emphasise that transport is a wide and important activity. In 1972-73 it has been estimated that Government and private capital expenditure directly attributed to transport was of the order of $2,700m while current expenditure was approximately $2,200m. Recent figures will be considerably in excess of these amounts. The investment decisions which are made at the present time undoubtedly influence the overall character of personal, private and commercial transport for many decades ahead.

He then continued:

It is generally recognised that transport is a service function concerned with the efficient movement of people, freight and raw materials.

He stated also that very few of these can be moved by any single mode of transport. Opposition statements are very difficult to understand, particularly in view of the fact that in recent years a number of prominent members of the Liberal Party actually advocated before a select committee of the Senate the setting up of an Inter-State Commission for the carriage of a particular product. I wish to cite the names of the people who were involved- and there are some rather illustrious conservative characters amongst them. The committee was the Senate Select Committee on Off-shore Petroleum Resources, and the following are the people who favoured the setting up of an Inter-State Commission: Senator Young, of South Australia, who is a member of the shadow ministry on the other side; Senator G. C. Hannan, who was expelled or left the Liberal Party a year or two ago; Senator Laucke, of South Australia, who still sits in this place; Senator J. J. Webster, who is temporarily absent; Senator Cotton, another leading member of the shadow ministry on the Opposition; Senator Greenwood, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate; and Senator Wright, an ex-Minister who still sits on the other side of the Senate. Meeting as a joint committee, all of those people unanimously agreed:

That if a need for a network of interstate pipelines is established, the re-establishment of an Inter-State Commission to regulate the interstate transportation of oil and gas may be desirable.

Another unanimous recommendation of the Committee appears at page 33 of the report. It should be remembered that all of those illustrious people who were in government at that time were part of this decision, but now the temporary Leader of the Opposition says that the Opposition no longer believes in it. The Committee recommended as follows:

That, if a need for a network of interstate pipelines is established the Government consider the re-establishment of the Inter-State Commission empowered to regular the interstate transportation of oil and gas.

That particular Committee terminated its operations before my Party became the Government of this nation. If it was all right then for members of the Liberal Party and the Country Party to give an open approval for the establishment of the Inter-State Commission, what is all the hogwash about now? It is nothing but in general keeping with their general attitudes towards holding up the progress of this Government. The Postmaster-General (Senator Bishop) and the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) in the other place have made out a very good case for the establishment of an Inter-State Commission dealing in the field of transportation. I refer to a statement made by the Minister of Transport, Mr Jones, on 9 April 1975, which is exactly 7 years from the day on which Mr Whitlam gave a forecast of what a Labor government might do. The Minister indicated that in view of the size and importance of the transport sector and the lack of co-ordination in the past between different authorities and different modes of transport, a co-ordinated national policy was necessary. He outlined the key elements of the Government’s transport policy as follows: ‘

The policy is based on the belief that efficient transport can only be achieved where each mode is used for the tasks for which it is most suited. We believe that the beneficiaries and the users of transport should pay for the cost of that transport. Naturally there will be occasions when transport should be used to achieve other social or economic aims but if this is to be done the cost of achieving those aims through transport should be clearly known for those social and economic aims are direct beneficiaries of the transport system.

Those were the words used by the Minister in his second reading speech when introducing the Bill in the other place. (Quorum formed). I notice that the new Whip of the Opposition feels lonely when he does not have his mates around him, so he has called for a quorum to attract members of the Liberal Party into the chamber. If ever there was a need for the establishment of an InterState Commission it is properly borne out in my own State of Queensland where the Premier and his Government have refused over a considerable period of years to allow the Australian National Line to operate in that area. The excuse, of course, is that allegedly it will displace men working in the Queensland railways system. Railways officials and others are equally adamant that that would not happen. But people living in isolated areas of Queensland have to pay additional freight rates on the very necessities of life because of the pig-headedness of the Government in one State in not allowing some sort of rationalisation of the transport system.

If one were to say the same thing about interstate road transport, of course the boot would be on the other foot, because so many members of the Country Party and of the Liberal Party have shares in interstate transport companies which provide an income supplementary to their parliamentary income. They are most anxious to see the road transport companies thrive. If they could buy shares in railways, as they do in some shipping lines, they would set up a decent railway system. Let us face the facts: Transport in the State of Queensland is in chaos. We have 7 controlling bodies for four different types of transport- road, rail, sea and air. But here we have an obstinate Opposition endeavouring to hold up the progress of this country by refusing to give approval to the Government to establish the Inter-State Commission. I think I have given the lie to the statements made by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate when he alleged that we are being too hasty in the introduction of a piece of legislation when in fact its introduction was forecast by the Prime Minister more than 7 years ago in the days when he was Leader of the Opposition.

It is claimed that the Bill is badly drafted. I doubt that that is a fact. In the legal mind of the Leader of the Opposition probably there are a couple of ‘t’s that have not been crossed or a couple of ‘i’s that have not been dotted. But if those sorts of deficiencies are pointed out I do not think the Government would have any objection to amending them. The Leader of the Opposition claimed that the wording of the Bill was loose and that the legislation gave incredible powers to the Government. I have endeavoured to show that, from my interpretation of the Constitution as it stands and as it stood in 1913 when the Commission was first established, there are a whole number of safeguards. I can see happening on this occasion what probably happened then. At this particular juncture the Opposition has the numbers to do what resulted from what is known as the wheat case in 1915- New South Wales v. the Commonwealth. The Inter-State Commission staggered on in those days to exercise some investigatory functions for a limited period after the wheat case, but by 1920 the appointments of commissioners had terminated by reason of resignation or lapse of time. The Act remained on the statute book until 1950 when it was repealed by the Statute Law Revision Act 1950. The predecessors of the Opposition were then in government and they were the people who repealed the very legislation that had been instituted in 1913.

The Opposition still lives so far in the depths of the darkness of the past that it does not want to see that sort of legislation introduced again, or if it is going to be introduced it will be introduced over its political dead body. I might suggest that that is precisely what might happen. The Australian people are sick and tired of the opposition that comes from the ill-informed parliamentary Opposition in this House and which has continued to come from it ever since 2 December 1972. Even though Opposition senators might skite about their ability to go to an election again, there is far from any certainty that they would be returned in sufficient numbers to control either one or both of the Houses. I appeal to the Senate to carry the legislation which has been drafted and presented to this chamber by the Minister.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Victoria

– I rise to join in the debate and to support the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Withers) and to state briefly that we support the formation of the Inter-State Commission but that we are concerned with regard to some of the sweeping provisions which are included in the legislation before the chamber. If the second reading speech of the Postmaster-General (Senator Bishop) had any close connection or relationship with the Bill itself we may not be in the position in which we find ourselves. The fact that Senator Keeffe, who preceded me in the debate, has referred to the original Inter-State Commission in glowing terms indicates also that there is a lack of close relationship between the second reading speech and the Bill.

The present Bill, with the stated objective by the Minister to re-establish the Inter-State Commission in accordance with the provisions of section 101 of the Constitution, is something with which we concur, But the fact is that the Bill has no relationship to the original Commission, which was established and later abolished, nor has it any relationship to the terms of the Minister’s second reading speech.

In section 101 of the Constitution there is undoubtedly the provision that there shall be an Inter-State Commission with such powers of administration and adjudication as the Parliament deems necessary for the execution and maintenance within the Commonwealth of the provisions of the Constitution relating to trade and commerce. Section 102 of the Constitution provides that the Parliament may make laws forbidding undue or unreasonable preference on discrimination by state railway systems. In section 103 of the Constitution there is provision for the appointment, tenure, and remuneration of the Commissioners, specifying especially a fixed 7-year term of office. That was the way in which the Commission was established, and it will be recalled that, when there was a Royal Commission on the Constitution in 1927, much was written about the activities of the Inter-State Commission. Indeed, one part of the report recalls Mr Deakin ‘s phrase when he termed the Inter-State Commission ‘the eyes and ears of Parliament.’ It was also commented that there was no body in Australia which could study tendencies, which could warn Parliament of the effect of our tariff policy, of the trend of our primary industries, of the effect of an industrial and political policy on transport, on the quality of our civil service, and on other matters.

To recall that in 1927 those statements could be made is to overlook the vast advance that there has been in advisory bodies and investigatory bodies which now relate to the Australian Parliament. Senators may refer to such bodies as the Industries Assistance Commission and the Prices Justification Tribunal, as well as refer to the Trade Practices Act. A whole range” of areas would have been related to the work of the previous Inter-State Commission which is no longer relevant. I think the important thing to recall as a very great difference between the function of the previous Inter-State Commission and the one to be formed under this Bill is that the original Commission was a body that was at the disposal of the Government as an investigatory body, not one which was to impose the sort of jurisdiction outside the Parliament that is the concept of the present Bill.

The Inter-State Commission Bill of 1975 establishes a commission of 5 members, and the Commission is given wide powers by the Bill. It also may be given further wide powers by the regulations made under the Act. It is important to remember that the Minister has said that it was not the Government’s intention at this time for the Inter-State Commission to operate other than in the field of transport. However, it must be stated that the Bill extends beyond transport to trade and commerce generally. So far as the Government’s intentions, even in the field of transport, are concerned, there is no great clarity about how far it would extend and what it is intended that the Commission may perform. The Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) has remarked, apparently, in regard to these very wide powers, that ‘a clearly developed and defined role’ for the Commission will evolve over time and in the light of experience. It seems to me realistic that at the time of considering the formation of the Commission, we ought to be considering these wide powers, to have an interpretation from the Government to see how it sees the powers that it has expressed in the Bill, and not wait for the Commission to evolve over time and in the light of experience the functions that it will accept.

We believe that there are so many areas that are unclear that the Leader of the Opposition has asked that the Committee stage of the Bill be deferred until the August sittings of the Senate. We have so many questions that we would like to have answered. Some of these could be, stated briefly, to outline our feelings in regard to the breadth and depth of the Bill and its provisions. For instance, the fact that it relates to transport, that it will have wide powers, powers that it can impose on any other government body lead us to ask how it will affect the Air Navigation Act 1920-1974 and regulations under that Act. The purpose of that Act is to implement the Chicago Convention on International Air Navigation and the safety rules adopted in that proposal. The second Act in respect of which we ask how the Commission will affect it is the Airlines Agreements Act 1952-1973. This is another Act under which our airline transport and policy operate. We wonder just where this relates to the InterState Commission as proposed. The third aviation Act is the Airlines Equipment Act 1958-1974. We wonder what are the provisions of the Inter-State Commission and how they will work alongside these existing Acts, which undoubtedly relate to transport systems throughout Australia.

If I may refer briefly to the Bill to point to some of my problems, I would like to turn to clause 5 which provides that the Bill will have effect notwithstanding anything in any Act passed before its commencement but that it does not affect the operation of such existing legislation as is capable of operating concurrently with the Act. That needs some definition and clarification if we are to accept that clause and the other legislation that has been passed through the Australian Parliament. Another clause to which I wish to refer is clause 13, which provides for regulations for the Commission to exercise certain statutory powers. Clause 13 could authorise the transfer to the Commission of all the functions, for instance, of the Minister and of the Director-General of Civil Aviation, if the functions were to be exercised under the clause. I think these provisions are wide enough and important enough for us to have some interpretation from government, and it would have to be accepted that in the debate in the House of Representatives when the Bill was introduced none of these matters had the clarification that we would like before the Bill is dealt with in its entirety. Clause 14 vests the Commission with extraordinarily wide powers to hold investigations, and under sub-clause (3) of that clause it may exercise these powers on its own initiative or at the request of any other person. The Minister may direct the Commission to investigate a matter. These things do not run parallel to the second reading speech and the intent expressed by the Government.

To express our concern we refer to clause 16, which is the one where there is power for the Commission to make orders. We consider this matter to be important. It is an unmistakeable intention, we believe, to give the Commission powers to make orders that have the force of law and, therefore, which could override both Federal and State laws and any contracts which would relate to such legislation. The Prime Minister stated that this body would be a sort of continuing royal commission. Surely the Government would accept that a royal commission is a body that makes recommendations to government. It is an investigatory body. It is not one that has the powers in this Bill which could be imposed by the proposed Inter-State Commission. I consider that these matters are consistent with our approach where we say we ought to have time to find expression from the Government about its intention, what powers the Commission will use, and how it may best be developed as an Inter-State Commission which could be used for the purposes which we all accept as being valid ones- to improve the transport systems throughout Australia. We acknowledge that in some States in particular there are difficulties which could well be dealt with by the Inter-State Commission. We need look no further than Tasmania and its transport problems, which have a serious effect on that State and its relationships with the other States, to see the role that could be played by an investigatory body such as the Inter-State Commission. In regard to the national concern that we have for trade amongst the States the Commission could play a very important role.

I think these matters are of such importance that the proposal made by the Leader of the Opposition should be upheld in the Senate. We should express points of view in speeches made at the second reading stage of the Bill and then defer the Committee stage of the Bill until some time in the Budget sittings of the Senate. This would allow an expression of views from those people in the community who wish to express their interpretation of the legislation, from the people who have to work within the legislation and from the State governments which find great threats to the constitutional powers which they wish to exercise in matters relating to transport within their own States. We should take note of the sorts of decisions that they wish to take with regard to matters of intrastate transport and the sorts of things that they find important in the running of the activities of a State transport system. To suggest that all of these matters can be summarily dismissed to an Inter-State Commission with the sweeping powers that this Commission would have, I think warrants the deeper consideration of the Senate, and I commend the proposal made by the Leader of the Opposition to all honourable senators.

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– 1 find myself in something of a dilemma when I hear the constant reiteration by members of the Opposition of the suggestion that there has been insufficient time to consider this Bill. The matter of an Inter-State Commission has been the subject of long debate in this country ever since the original Commission became redundant as a result of the challenge that flowed from what is known as the wheat case in which the judical powers of the then Inter-State Commission were challenged in the High Court. As a result of that challenge the Commission literally went out of existence as the terms of the commissioners expired through time. Since then there have been many debates and calls for the re-establishment of the InterState Commission.

I was interested to hear Senator Keeffe, during the course of his contribution to this debate, read out the names of prominent members of the Opposition who apparently subscribed to the findings of a parliamentary committee which are in support of the Inter-State Commission. I know that Senator Wright is one who has stated his position publicly on many occasions, including in debates in this chamber, in support of the establishment of the Commission. Usually arguments have been on the basis of the need for an overall body which can regulate and get a greater degree of rationalisation into the transport picture in Australia. I must reject the arguments and propositions that were put forward by Senator Withers in his opening remarks, especially where he said that the Government has rushed in with this legislation and that the legislation is almost an afterthought. Those statements are quite contradictory. At the same time he was castigating the Government for spending 2 16 years before bringing in this legislation. The Labor Party, even when in Opposition, made it quite clear over many years that the Inter-State Commission would, in fact, be reformed in the event of a Labor Government being elected. We have not rushed into the establishment of the Inter-State Commission. We have perhaps been a little slow because of priorities in other areas. It is quite wrong to suggest that this action was taken by the Government without a proper indication, not only to the Opposition but also to the Australian people of what it intended to do.

There is a need for an overall co-ordinating body in transport in Australia. The Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) in his second reading speech made it quite clear that the Government intends to exercise these powers of the Commission only in the transport area. It is natural that questions should arise as to what this will mean to the States. Does it mean that some great monster or monolithic body- as was suggested in the debate in the House of Representatives- will be created and will push the States around and take away from them rights which normally would be accorded to them? It would be misleading, I believe, to suggest that the formation of the Inter-State Commission would not to some degree take from the States some powers, but it would be in the national interest to do so. It seems to be a recognised fact in the transport industry at least that a national program of development is desirable. I was interested to have my attention drawn to the fact that only in May of last year the Australian Chamber of Commerce apparently saw fit to pass a resolution calling for the formation or the reconstitution of the Inter-State Commission. Presumably other bodies have taken a similar attitude. I have seen reference to this made in other debates. So, we are not alone in our approach to this question. It is not as though we are acting unilaterally without concern or thought for what other vitally involved sections of the community think.

If there were evidence that the Government was suddenly producing this legislation with the intention of simply taking over complete control of the whole transport system and without any prior warning, I believe that the Opposition would have a right to seek the deferral of the legislation for further investigation; but the whole record of the Government, of course, is not in that direction. The subject, as I mentioned earlier, has been well debated for a long time and no one could reasonably say that this legislation has been sprung on the Parliament. It must be recognised that the States are entitled to be properly considered in regard to this legislation. It is true to say that in the establishment of a body of this kind there could be an abuse of power. It would be wrong for legislation of that type to be put through the Parliament if such was eventually to be the case. Part III of the legislation, which deals with the regulation of, and powers of the Commission in relation to, trade and commerce, gives powers to the Commission and describes those powers. Clause 9(1) reads:

A State, or an authority of a State, shall not, as to any railway, in respect of or so as to affect trade or commerce among the States, give any preference or make any discrimination that the Commission has adjudged undue and unreasonable, or unjust to any State.

In fact the legislation is drawn up to protect the States and not to take things away from them. Clause 12, again in Part III, reads:

Nothing in this Act renders unlawful any rate for the carriage of goods upon a railway, the property of a State, if the rate is deemed by the Commission to be necessary for the development of the territory of the State. . . .

Again that clause in fact would be protecting the States in making judgments in respect of the development of areas under their own jurisdiction.

Senator Wright:

– Those provisions are only repeating what was said in the Constitution.

Senator WRIEDT:

-That may be so, but the fact is that they are there. I think the honourable senator would accept the fact that they are there. Sub-clause (7) of clause 14- a very important clause- states:

The Commission shall comply with any direction given to the Commission by the Minister in accordance with this section.

It is very important to realise that the Commission will not be a body which will simply please itself and do exactly what it likes, despite the fact that it is given fairly wide powers of investigation on its own initiative, and powers of investigation which may be initiated by the Minister or another person.

The most important aspect, I believe, in the operation of the Commission’s activities would be the recognition of the mixed nature of Australia’s transport system. We have government railway systems, a government shipping line and a government airline. We have very large private transport operators in the airlines, in road transport and in shipping. It would be essential that the Commission recognises the need to integrate those systems very carefully, without haste, because it is very easy to get a lot of theories about how much the services can be rationalised. They are complex services. I hope that when the Commission commences its operations it will look very carefully at our transport system before it makes any judgments as to the recommendations which it might make to the Government in this whole rationalising process.

I hope that nobody in the Parliament would oppose the principle of getting more common sense in transport systems. The people living in the remote areas of Australia- in western New South Wales, western Queensland, Western Australia and Tasmania- suffer disabilities from transport inefficiencies. If we can produce an Inter-State Commission which can assist the development of a more rational approach to these various transport systems, it is our duty to do so. I do not wish to debate the motivations of the 2-airlines policy, but even in the airlines case the fact remains that as a result of policies which have been pursued by this Government and which were pursued by our predecessors this country has a reasonably efficient air transport system. That is an example of what can be done. Certainly to some degree it came about by default in that case; nevertheless, it has been done. It has been demonstrated that this greater degree of efficiency can be brought about.

That is the object of the legislation. That is the object of re-forming the Inter-State Commission. I would be disappointed- the Government would be disappointed too- if consideration of this Bill is deferred until 1 August. It will not be a tragedy if it is. I will not worry very much if it is. I hope that eventually the Opposition, after it has thought more about this legislation, will see fit to ensure its passage through this Parliament because it is something which this country needs and which will be of benefit to the great majority of Australians. I support the legislation.

Sitting suspended from 5.59 to 8 p.m.

Senator MAUNSELL:
Queensland

- Mr Acting Deputy President, this is another measure designed to facilitate the implementation of the basic policy of the Australian Labor Party, which is the socialisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange.

Senator Georges:

– Do we have to listen to this rubbish?

Senator MAUNSELL:

-Senator Georges will listen to it. Whenever a contentious issue comes before the Parliament Government supporters hastily assure us that nothing is further from their minds than the nationalisation of industries or the Government unduly interfering in people’s affairs, particularly the affairs of our State governments. I can recall the introduction of the first Bill which was designed to expand the operations of the Australian Industry Development Corporation. The aim of the legislation was to take over the large companies in Australia under the guise that this would save the nation from these great foreign companies and of course protect Australian equity. That Bill was backed up by the National Investment Fund Bill. If honourable senators can recall the provisions of the National Investment Fund Bill when it came before the Parliament they will know that the Bill contained the power to confiscate up to 30 per cent, if necessary, of the funds of the insurance industry.

Senator Georges:

– You use the word ‘confiscate’

Senator MAUNSELL:

– Confiscate is the word that I used on the previous occasion, and I use it now. Senator Georges would prefer to use the terms ‘compulsorily acquire’. But that is a fact. Then recently there was introduced the Bill to set up the Australian Government Insurance Corporation. Senator Wheeldon has informed us at various times that this will be only a small company, that it will have only $lm, or less, to start off, and that it will provide only a little competition here and there. He has stated that we have to look after the area of natural disasters. Everyone knows that the moment the Australian Government Insurance Corporation is set up it will become one of the biggest organisations in Australia in promoting the Government’s policy of the socialisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange. I remind honourable senators opposite that that is the No. 1 plank in their platform and policy.

Senator McAuliffe:

– What about the Queensland State Government Insurance Office?

Senator MAUNSELL:

-The State governments do not have a policy for the nationalisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange.

Senator McAuliffe:

– A Labor government introduced it.

Senator MAUNSELL:

-That is not the policy of Liberal-National Country Party State governments, anyway. It might be the policy of Labor State governments. The field of insurance is a very important area of finance. If the Government sets up the Australian Government Insurance Corporation it will be only a matter of time before the Government takes over the insurance industry in Australia. Of course, that will enable the Government to plunder the funds that are invested in the insurance industry.

Senator Georges:

– You are completely out of order, you know. Why do you not debate that when the Bill comes before the Senate?

Senator MAUNSELL:

– I do not know whether Senator Georges is on the list of speakers in this debate, but if he is not we will give him time to speak. We also know that from time to time assaults have been made on the operations of State governments and on local government. This has all happened since 1972. 1 know that doctors and other professional people- even lawyers- appreciate that attacks have been made on them. We know what will happen to doctors when Medibank is introduced. Those who are engaged in the private enterprise system-

Senator Sheil:

– What about the patients?

Senator MAUNSELL:

– At the moment I am talking about the doctors. We know what will happen to the patients. We know what will happen to the people under Medibank, under national insurance or under any other proposal of this Government. The primary producers in particular know what it is like under this Government. They are the real patients. They require a little bit of treatment which it will be difficult to administer when we get back into government within 1 8 months. Let there be no doubt that we on this side of the chamber stand for the preservation of the free enterprise system. Let there be no doubt that honourable senators opposite stand for the destruction of the free enterprise system. I think that we have to be honest about this. Honourable senators opposite believe in a socialist philosophy; we do not. We believe in the free enterprise philosophy. It is of no use Government supporters every now and again saying: ‘We have no intention of nationalising industries in this country’. Dr Cairns, when he was Minister for Overseas Trade, was saying: ‘Of course, we want to preserve the free enterprise system in this country, but we do have this philosophy of socialism and it is going to take time to implement it’. If one really examines every measure that comes before this chamber, and certainly if one takes all the measures together, one sees the pattern of bringing about a socialist state. That is why I scrutinise any measure that comes before this chamber, and there are many other people who hold the same view. If we look at the legislation before us we find that it gives enormous powers to this Government. For that reason alone I am prepared to support the proposition advanced by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Withers) that we should put off consideration of this matter until next August because we all want to have a good look at it.

Senator McAuliffe:

– You are always putting it off.

Senator MAUNSELL:

– We need to do so. We need to look at all the legislation that the Government brings before this chamber. I can recall the former Leader of the Government in the Senate introducing a measure into this chamber. He objected strongly when we put off consideration of the measure for a time. But 3 months later he introduced 120 amendments of his own. That showed that the legislation had been hastily drafted. If we look at the legislation before us we see that the Government, by bypassing section 92 of the Constitution, could gain control not only of industry but also of trade within the States and, for that matter, of a great deal of the business world, particularly transport. That would go halfway towards implementing the No. 1 plank of the Government’s platform and policy, which is the socialisation of the means of distribution, production and exchange.

Senator McLaren:

– Quote the lot of it. You only ever quote half of it. You misrepresent us every time.

Senator MAUNSELL:

– The next time Senator McLaren speaks he can tell us what is the Government’s policy. He can tell the Australian people what is the Government’s platform. It is the socialisation “of the means of production, distribution and exchange. We would like to hear Senator McLaren state that policy, and the public would like to hear it, too, because every time the Government introduces legislation into this chamber it sweeps that policy under the carpet.

Senator McLaren:

– No, we do not.

Senator MAUNSELL:

-The Government says: ‘No, we are not going to nationalise insurance in this country. We are just setting up a little bit of a company which is going to compete . . .’-

Senator Gietzelt:
Senator MAUNSELL:

-A little bit of competition, yes. That is why I am concerned about this Bill. I agree that possibly there is a need to set up the Inter-State Commission.

Senator McLaren:

– Why do you not support it then?

Senator MAUNSELL:

– I said that possibly there is a need to set up the Inter-State Commission, as an advisory body, in an atmosphere of complete co-operation between the States and the Federal Government. Has this Government ever consulted the States to see whether they think this Interstate Commission is worth while, or asked the State governments to submit suggestions? Of course it has not. This legislation has been rushed through the House of Representatives in ari effort to promote the Government’s policy of nationalisation of industry and its other socialist policies. The Government is hoping that this Bill will be rushed through here and that the public at large, particularly those who are affected, will not know what it is all about. There are a lot of people engaged in interstate transport and trade who could be affected by it.

I believe that the States have a right to study the legislation and to come back to us and say: There are certain aspects of this legislation to which we are totally opposed and there are certain aspects which we think are okay. However, we think that other matters ought to be introduced’. They have a right in respect of the setting up of any commission such as this to put their point of view, as do those people in the community who are vitally concerned. As I said before, people who are concerned with interstate transport and trade are affected. For that reason I cannot see any argument which could be put forward by this Government to show why this Bill should not be held up for some time. Senator Wriedt who preceded me in this debate said that he did not mind if it was held up. He hoped it would go through now, but he would not mind if it was held up until August. He hoped that eventually it would become law. We might agree with that, but it would depend on the final form of the Bill. I would hope that it would not be a Bill that gives so much centralised power and control to the Government but one which is acceptable to the States and generally to the people of Australia, particularly those engaged in the free enterprise system.

Another reason why I believe all dangerous legislation being introduced by this Government should be held over is that the people of Australia should have an opportunity to see for themselves exactly what this Government is up to and what they can expect in the future. Too much legislation has been rushed through here of which the public has not been aware until it has been too late. For those reasons I support the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition.

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

– The Senate is properly debating legislation which was properly placed before the House of Representatives and properly passed by that House, in accordance with the normal procedures of the Parliament for bringing legislation before the 2 Houses of Parliament, for the purpose of implementing the policy upon which this Government was elected in 1972 and reelected in 1974. The Government is seeking to bring forward a comprehensive policy which involves the rationalisation of industry, of distribution and of transportation with a view to improving the society in which we live. It is clear that Opposition senators have not done their homework because not one of them has exceeded more than half the time for which he is able to speak on Wednesdays. Normally in broadcasting time one finds it almost impossible to shut them up. On this occasion honourable senators opposite have traversed every subject except the Bill itself. Not understanding the nature of the Bill they have resorted to their usual charade of nonsense and a tirade of abuse of the Government in its endeavours to implement the policies on which it was elected in 1972.

I want to refer honourable senators, if they are capable of comprehending- sometimes I doubt very much whether they are- to what was contained in the policy speech of Mr Whitlam in 1972. He said:

A Federal Labor Government will promptly restore the machinery the Constitution intended and vest it with the Commonwealth ‘s full constitutional powers to plan and provide modern means of communications between the States.

The Inter-State Commission was intended to end the centralisation fostered by all the State governments through their railway systems. It should now provide not only for the co-ordination of our six mainland railway systems and our major ports in the period before the Commonwealth, like other federal governments, inevitably takes responsibility for railways and ports; it is also the ideal instrument for coordinating our major roads and airlines and pipelines.

That policy speech was a comprehensive one which sought to change the emphasis of government in this country and to fill up the gaps which had resulted from years of neglect by the Opposition parties which now have nothing but their brutal numbers in this place with which to try to sabotage and defer the policies on which this Government was elected and which it is trying to implement. Yet we are accused by the absentee Leader of the Opposition (Senator Withers)- he comes in and makes one speech a day and then we do not see him for the rest of the day- in fancy words, hysterical ranting and exaggerated language. He suggests that the Government is acting improperly in placing legislation before the Houses of the Parliament. Heavens above, it was Senator Withers who used the brutality of numbers in April last year- just a year ago- in order to defeat the Government’s Supply Bills. He talks about the brutality of numbers in the other place, yet we have seen so much evidence of it in this place. Fortunately, due to the common sense of some of the independent senators, the Opposition has not been able to achieve its objectives.

I find it unbelievable that the honourable senator who has just resumed his seat would take the view that this Bill is an attempt to centralise transportation in Australia. The Inter-State Commission is designed to achieve precisely the opposite of centralisation in Canberra. If he has any doubts about it, why was such a Commission provided for in the Constitution? Those who know anything about the formulators of the Constitution will appreciate that the State governments which enjoyed the sovereign powers then surrendered only those powers to the Commonwealth which were necessary for the effective functioning of the Commonwealth. They placed in the Constitution provision for the Inter-State Commission. Clearly honourable senators do not understand what the Inter-State Commission is about. I want to take honourable senators through some of the debates that took place in the national Parliament in 1912 when the Parliament of that day established an InterState Commission. I do so in order to see where the Liberals of 1975- the lost legion, the people who cannot find their way in this era- stand in their attitude with their predecessors of the 1910-1912 period. It is interesting to note the attitude of the Parliament of that day. I refer now to the person who presented the Inter-State Commission Bill, Mr Hughes, who, I concede, was a member of the Australian Labor Party before he ratted and joined the conservatives. He said that it was necessary to clothe the Commission with sufficient power to deal with railway rates, discrimination, rebates and all other forms of unfair treatment, as has been done in the United States of America where they have established a United States Commerce Commission.

It is interesting to note- this is probably beyond Senator Maunsell ‘s powers of comprehensionthe attitude the Liberals took during that period. Mr Hughes went on to say- I concede that he was a member of the Labor Party at that stage:

In clothing the Commission with these extensive powers, we have not gone beyond that which is proper or which honourable members opposite, when in office, considered to be so.

The interesting point is made that members of the Opposition Parties, when they were in government, actually recommended the establishment of the Inter-State Commission, but now they remain strangely silent. In fact they start to resort to hysterical statements about the Government endeavouring to centralise everything in Canberra and trying to push legislation through. I think Senator Withers used the words ‘slip through the Parliament’. How can anything slip through the Parliament, with the numbers that exist in the House of Representatives and the numbers that exist in this place? Mr Hughes had this to say:

It is to exercise all the powers that a Royal Commission exercises, and we have included in the Bill such powers as are necessary to make the investigation effective . . . The penalties are severe; they ought to be made so. It is futile to clothe a body like this Inter-State Commission with wide powers of inquiry if they are to be baffled, and their inquiries rendered nugatory, by the refusal of witnesses to answer questions.

Of course, that is precisely what is provided for in the Bill. The Commission will have wide powers of inquiry. It will have wide powers to investigate and wide powers to make recommendations in respect of a modern transport system. Mr Hughes went on to say:

  1. . it will have wide powers both of administration and adjudication in relation to Inter-State carriers, railways, shipping, and other matters.

I should like to draw to the attention of the Senate some statements made by Mr Deakin who, in case honourable senators opposite do not know, was the Leader of the Opposition Liberal Party against the Fisher Labor Government. He said:

I have never ceased from that day to this to urge, and urge again, that in the Inter-State Commission we have a source of power, or, perhaps, to be more correct, a searchlight, by whose help we can exercise Commonwealth powers with far greater certainty of success than by any other mode open to us … In the Inter-State Commission, however, we tj have a natural, necessary, and one can almost say, an essential adjunct of one Commonwealth Legislature.

One could go on and quote from a number of other important speeches supporting the Government in 1 9 1 2. Mr Deakin went on to say, dealing with another aspect of the Bill, namely, trade and commerce:

How often have we been perplexed to know whether a request for an increased duty was legitimate- whether the difficulties were due to the retention of out-of-date machinery, to inability to manage the business, to carelessness in handling the product, or wastefulness- or whether it related to a real national asset . . .

Mr Groom, another leading member of the Liberal Party in those days, said:

In establishing an Inter-State Commission, we are completing the structure of the Federal Constitution as contemplated by its framers. The theory of our Constitution is, of course, to divide the functions of the Government into three distinct parts- the Legislature to make the laws, the Judiciary to interpret the laws, and the Executive to administer the law.

It was realised that in addition there should be created a constitutional body, partly administrative and partly judicial. Yet we hear from Opposition senators who clearly do not understand the Bill, who clearly want to get on to the antisocialist bandwagon, who clearly want to parade the catch-cries and the bogeys, who clearly do not want to accept their legislative responsibility to understand what this Bill seeks to do; who want rather to try to parade before the Australian people the view that this Bill has some ulterior motivation.

The structure of the Bill is necessary for the proper operation of the Federal Constitution. It is provided for in the Constitution. Why are sections 101, 102, 103 and 104 in the Constitution if it is not essential to have this piece of legislation? It is necessary for a number of reasons. The first is to create an awareness of the problems of transportation in this country. Can any reasonable person in this place say that he is satisfied with transportation in this country? I am sure that Mr Wal Fife in New South Wales at the present moment is not satisfied with transportation in that State, in which he has accepted the major responsibility for providing an efficient transport system. If we have an effective transportation system, why has there been the great growth in the private sector of transportation? Why did the previous Government exercise its powers and carry out a number of inquiries into transportation? Why have the recommendations in those reports never been implemented?

This Bill seeks to create an abundance of knowledge; it seeks to create an awareness, for the Government and for the people of Australia, of what is needed in improving our modern transport system. The Bill seeks also to coordinate the requirements of a modern society. It is interesting to see from the debates of 1 9 1 2 that Liberals and Labor supporters then were talking about the complex society and the need for a modern transport system. Is not that precisely the motivation of this Government, recognising the more complex society upon which our country now exists and recognising that transportation has a new dimension in respect of the comfort and needs of the Australian people? In fact, any government that did not take steps to introduce this piece of legislation would be failing in its duty. Parliamentarians on both sides of this Senate will be better able to assess their responsibilities and to make decisions in respect of transportation when this Bill becomes law.

Of course the power in this Bill is wide; but it is a power to assimilate, a power to accumulate, a power to investigate the problems involved in transport in this country. The Inter-State Commission has not the power to legislate. It has the power to make decisions as they relate to the discriminations and differences that exist within our State transport systems. I recall some of the speeches, particularly by some of the new senators, about the need for decentralisation, Heavens above, no one will suggest that in the field of transport we have not got a centralised transportation system within our 6 States, and it does not come to the hub of the city in each of the main States and that decentralisation is not harmed because of the way in which the transport system has grown up in Australia. Those who see the need for a massive decentralisation program surely must support the intentions behind this Bill and the reasons why it is framed in these terms. It is an attempt to introduce into the field of transportation the rationalisation on which the previous Government had recommendations before it on many occasions not only in respect of transport but in respect of industry generally. Honourable senators opposite, when in government, ran away from their responsibilities in respect of the motor car industry, the textile industry and many of the other manufacturing industries because they were not prepared to face up to the need for rationalisation. Members of the Opposition were not prepared to face up to the need to rationalise. Are they going to adopt the same negative attitude in respect of transportation? Of course they are. They have no positive thinking. They are part of the past and cannot adjust to their responsibilties in the world of the latter part of the 20th century.

Reference is made by those who seek to raise bogies to the problems of the words ‘trade’ and commerce’ used in the Bill. These have no particular relevance to the basic aims of the Commission. The basic aims, as indicated clearly by the Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones), in the other place, as well as the Minister here, the Postmaster-General (Senator Bishop) are to improve our whole transport system. Surely it is not suggested that in terms of public investment in transport, when in a period from 1957 to 1967 public authorities have invested $5,000m in the Australian transport system, this is not the time for us to assess whether that sort of money has been spent wisely, whether it has been spent parochially and whether it has been spent properly? This is the taxpayers’ money. Honourable senators opposite often speak here and in other places about protecting the rights of the taxpayers. When we on the Government side talk about forming an Australian Government Insurance Corporation honourable senators opposite talk about public funding and about the taxpayers’ money. Surely they are concerned to see whether that $5,000m which has been spent in that period, and which is to be greatly augmented by this Government, has been and is being spent sensibly and not left to the parochialism that all of them know in their hearts rests within the way the States operate their transport systems.

It is abundantly clear that transport in the modern world plays a much greater role than it did when the first Inter-State Commission was established in 1912. If members of Parliament in those days had a vision of the need to establish such a commission how more important is it for us to be far-sighted and approach this subject in today’s world when a significant proportion of the total resources of our country are used in the provision of transport facilities, when transportation is estimated to cost something like 25 per cent of the gross national product and when it is said that the average person is spending something like one-seventh of his weekly wages on transportation. Surely it would be irresponsible of governments if they did not accept their obligations in these areas as provided for in the Constitution.

We all know, of course, that our transportation systems are inefficient. Do not tell me that there is any honourable senator here who believes that the Australian transport systems are efficient. Is not transport related to costs or are honourable senators so one-sided and blinded by their class prejudices that they see only wages in the cost of production? Do they not recognise that freight is a significant part of the cost of goods? Surely we have a responsibility to evaluate what that means. We all know that an inefficient and costly transport system, a badly planned transport system, is included in the cost of production which is passed on to consumers. One thing that the Australian people must know about this Government is that it is determined to protect the interests of the consumers.

Transportation in this country today is in a piecemeal and a run-down condition. Because the Australian Government recognises its responsibility to bring about a radical change in transportation it has offered the State Governments massive sums of money so that it can take over their transport systems and services. This Government seeks simultaneously to establish an Inter-State Commission whose role will be to co-ordinate transport policy better to serve the needs of the people. The present transportation situation requires a policy which is attuned to the vast technological changes which have taken place in our country, in our transport requirements and in our communication systems. The Commonwealth has a dominant role to play in this field. It does not seek to centralise everything in Canberra; in point of fact its role is much more attuned to the needs of active decentralisation. Surely the sort of changes which have come about in our country in the postwar years have to be recognised by honourable senators opposite. They seem to lack the ability to comprehend why the Government brings in legislation from time to time, to realise that it is a part of a whole program and that it is relevant to other pieces of legislation.

Transport systems should be judged by their inherent advantages for the people who use them, whether they be the passengers, the manufacturers, the distributors, whether they be people using ships or aircraft. This Bill will give the Australian Government the opportunity, for example, to look at the absurdity of the current 2-airline policy, not so much at the services that the 2 companies provide for the Australian people but at the existing timetables and the way in which those companies compete for passenger traffic. This Bill will give the Commission an opportunity to determine whether it is in the best interests of the consumers, the travellers, or the taxpayers that Ansett Airlines of Australia and Trans-Australia Airlines should operate parallel timetables. The Commission will have an opportunity to call witnesses, to hear evidence and then make a determination. Yet some honourable senators think that there is something ulterior in the simple aims embodied in this Bill.

Senator Durack:

– The Government has legislation to do that, so why do you not act?

Senator GIETZELT:

– I suggest that Senator Durack does not know what is involved in this Bill and that he is more concerned about trying to arouse public interest in opposition to this Government than in assisting it in carrying out its administrative and legislative functions. When so much of our total resources are employed in the area of transportation it is proper for the Australian Government to bring before the Parliament this Inter-State Commission Bill and to seek the support of the Senate for it. I appreciate that honourable senators opposite will say that the Bill had a short passage in the House of Representatives. I appreciate that it will be argued that honourable senators have not had sufficient time to consider the implications of the Bill. I appreciate that they will say that the States need to examine the Bill. However, this Government was elected on a program and it has not introduced any major pieces of legislation in its 2Vi years of office that was not a part of its comprehensive program. Having regard to the experience of the Senate, having regard to the experience of honourable senators opposite who were party to a recommendation for the establishment of an Inter-State Commission, having regard to the philosophy of their forebears of 50 or 60 years ago, this Government is entitled to expect that they will let common sense prevail, put their prejudices aside and support the passage of this Bill, which is in the interests of all Australians, whether they use the various forms of transport personally or for the movement of goods.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

-We are discussing tonight in the Senate, where we claim for ourselves the privilege of taking time for thought on legislation, a Bill produced by the Government to establish the Inter-State Commission. I support the proposal to establish an Inter-State Commission. It is provided in the Constitution that there shall be an Inter-State Commission. The only question for this Parliament should be what are the powers of the InterState Commission. Before I go into that I remind the Senate that the proposal in the Constitution that there should be an Inter-State Commission was adopted from the experience of Great Britain co-ordinating the many private enterprise railways that had been established in the last century in that country, and it is interesting that that organisation had an early experience somewhat comparable with that of our own InterState Commission in Australia. In 1 844 it was established and, as Quick and Garran will indicate, it died of too much work and too little pay. In 1846 another commission was set up, and it died of too much pay and too little work. But then it developed in the latter years of the last century as an administrative pseudo-judicial organisation, and it was the predecessor of the British Board of Trade.

More particularly, perhaps, did the founding fathers look to the American institution, the Federal Inter-State Commission, which has operated with expanding authority in the Federation which was our parent so far as constitutional structure is concerned, namely, the United States of America from then to now. So, in our Constitution section 102 provided that there shall be an Inter-State Commission with such powers of adjudication and administration as the Parliament deems necessary for the execution and maintenance of the constitutional provisions and laws of trade and commerce. Reference was made to section 5 1 of the Constitution, which invested in the National Parliament a power to legislate for trade and commerce with other countries and among the States. Section 98 provided that that power as to trade and commerce should extend to navigation and shipping and to railways the property of any State. Then, of course, overriding all of those was section 92, which provided that trade and commerce between the States should be absolutely free.

In that situation, where it was necessary to weld together 6 separately existing colonies, with their own governments, and a new national government with these powers, surely it was not only sensible from the point of view of history but also on any theory of government to require the establishment of a pseudo-judicial executive body to form an Inter-State Commission with powers of adjudication and administration such as Parliament thought necessary to maintain and execute the federal laws, including the Constitution, relating to trade and commerce. What Senator Gietzelt said, quoting from Hansard of 1912, 1 agree with. The Inter-State Commission was set up from 1912 to 1920, during a very perilous period. It made inquiries into all sorts of tariff requirements, into all sorts of conditions for setting up textile industries, and into price fixing. But in the hurley burley following the First World War it was discontinued, after its attempt to execute its adjudication function as a court was nullified by the High Court. Then, immediately the Parliament set about setting up alternative agencies, and the first one it chose was the Tariff Board, which was set up in 1922. That, of course, soon attracted great confidence, and that subtracted from the Inter-State Commission much of the business with which it would have been concerned.

Then we had a royal commission into the Constitution in 1929. Then, when Tasmania was bedevilled by navigational difficulties, inequalities, and pressures from unions and others way back in 1920, it is not surprising to find that quite a considerable body of opinion on the royal commission of 1929, ably assisted by the late Chief Justice Nicholas, Chief Justice in Equity in New South Wales, when he was equity counsel at the Bar of Sydney, propounded a view in favour of the Inter-State Commission and mentioned amongst ot her things the effect of the Navigation Act on various States as an appropriate subject of inquiry, very pertinent to the interests which I am sent here to represent, namely, Tasmania in particular and her navigational difficulties.

A few years after that report, the States Grants Commission was established by the only Tasmanian Prime Minister who came into office in the national Parliament- Mr Joseph Lyons. That again subtracted what was thought to be appropriate jurisdiction for the Inter-State Commission. Of course, it was dealt a body blow when the uniform taxation overtook it but, instead of employing the Inter-State Commission after the uniform taxation got into difficulties, to equalise the financial help that was necessary for the States from 1947 until the present time, we boggled along from either formula discarded or ad hoc decisions dealing with the distribution of Federal finance among the States.

Then the Liberal Government set up the Constitution Review Committee to review the Constitution between 1956 and 1959. The only members of that Committee still remaining in the Parliament are the Prime Minister and myself. The others were members who constituted the Committee on a completely equal Party base, and we had no hesitation in recommending the reconstitution of the Inter-State Commission for 2 purposes in particular. One was to ascertain by investigation and report upon practices in trade which were detrimental to trade- what we call restrictive trade practices. The recommendation of our Committee was that there should be a tribunal to adjudicate. Whether consciously or not, we adopted the system that Great Britain had adopted in 1956, and Sir Garfield Barwick later modelled his trade practices legislation largely upon a separate administrative investigation followed by an adjudication by another tribunal. That system has been superseded by the Murphy Act of last year.

I think that in copying the old 1892 United States legislation this Government will live to regret the antediluvian mistake it has made. As I can recall it, the Constitutional Review Committee, representing the 3 major Parties in the Parliament at the time, unanimously recommended the reconstitution of this Inter-State Commission, first for the purpose that I have mentioned. But, secondly at that time we followed a terrific era of constitutional contention in the High Court when, for a long time, the view prevailed that transport legislation in some way escaped the prohibition of section 92 and that it was not required to provide free transport among the States. Eventually that view was overruled and it was established that transport was part of trade in relation to section 92 and required freedom.

Ever since then we have had a series of miscellaneous, inconsistent decisions from the High Court, striving to apply in a judicial way the principle of section 92 to interstate road transport in particular. It has led to a differentiation between road transport and other forms of transportparticularly shipping and rail- that is simple indescribable. In Tasmania interstate carriers come in without paying any Tasmanian transport tax, whereas those carriers within the State operating intra-State are subject to a special State tax. Then one has been devilled in trying to apply the further exegesis- I think that would be the word of the doctorate of Judge Dixon- that, notwithstanding the requirement of freedom, transport is subject to an obligation consistent with section 92 to pay its way. So you have courts solemnly adjudicating upon whether the rate of tax imposed on road hauliers is more than is sufficient to recoup the State authorities for building the roads and providing the bridges and the other facilities. In my view, all of that just makes nonsense of a proper administration of road transport laws. The advent of an Inter-State Commission to apply a practical outlook with a knowledge of economics and a practical approach to road building and proper road surfacing in this country would eliminate all the most unreal judicial disquisition upon that subject. Taking the constitutional principles as a guide, one would find that only one of those cases in a thousand would ever need to go before the courts if one adopted an administrative approach.

We were reminded this afternoon- glad I was to be reminded- of the names of the Liberal Party members on the Senate Select Committee on Off-shore Petroleum Resources which recommended that the co-ordination of pipelines to Australia was an appropriate function to be coordinated by the Inter-State Commission. How disgraceful it would be in Australia if we were not able to get the co-ordination which, as between independent countries in Europe, is obtainable for thousands of miles. Yet here we have Victoria blocking access to oil and gas from Bass Strait to the northern capital. These are the sorts of things which makes such co-ordination necessary, and the Off-shore Petroleum Resources Committee recognised it. I was not a member of the Committee when that recommendation was made, but it is so acceptable to me that I adopt it with the utmost spirit.

That brings me to the Bill which is being presented to us- a Bill which clothes the Commission directed to be established by the Constitution with powers that should be confined to adjudication and administration for the maintenance and execution of the trade and commerce laws. The Commission proposed to be appointed is an exalted one. It will have a chairman with a precedence and status equal to that of a High Court judge, and there will be 4 members of the

Commission. The salary range provided for them is an indication of the pre-eminence that is intended for that body. If we get all scrubbers they cannot be removed for 7 years, but 7 years will bring us to a purposeful generation of politicians. If they are all scrubbers their 7 years will go into the abyss and there will be a chance to appoint a Commission that is worthy of its purpose.

There is a most unfortunate duplicity with regard to the presentation of this Bill, either through ignorance or through very simply cunningan ingenious idea that the old senators would just take the second reading speech as it was typed and incorporate it in Hansard. The Postmaster-General (Senator Bishop) says- the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Wriedt) had the simplicity to repeat his words here this afternoon- that the Government was going to use the Commission only in the field of transport. I do not think there would be anybody on this side of the House who would think that transport, in all its aspects, should not have the proper attention of the Inter-State Commission with proper powers. When I say ‘in all its aspects’ I refer to road transport and obviously I refer to rail transport because it was a specific attachment to the Inter-State Commission by the express terms of sections 99, 100 and 10 1 of the Constitution. Since the idea was developed in the Constitution in 1900 the whole aviation industry has grown up. Of course, our shipping industry grew and has now been destroyed because of a moribund situation in which it is paralysed. The parent of its predators, the shipping unions, operate to paralyse it so that it ceases to be of real service around the Australian coast.

So, in relation to land, I have illustrated how this body can supersede the highly inappropriate body of the High Court in solving many of the little cases that come up as to contravention or otherwise of section 92. But it is in relation to the sea that this Inter-State Commission can be of real service if it is going to be allowed to operate. I find no evidence in the Bill to suggest that the Government has turned its attention to this aspect of the Commission’s imperative national duties, namely, to ensure that we have a proper shipping service between the island state of the Federation, Tasmania, and the other States.

So, when we are dealing with the Bill in Committee, it will be my purpose to propound an amendment making it an express duty of the Commission to execute and maintain all Commonwealth laws for the carrying on of stevedoring and shipping for the carriage of cargo and passengers interstate, and particularly between

Tasmania and the other States. It will be part of my amendment that the Commission shall ensure that all such services be carried on regularly according to schedules and timetables which shall be predetermined by the Commission so as to ensure regular, efficient and economic shipping and stevedoring operations. Thirdly, it will be part of my amendment that the Commission may at any time declare that the regular carrying on of the service is urgent; that during a period of 60 days after such declaration it shall be unlawful for any person, company or union to take part in any strike or lockout interrupting such service; and that any party in breach of the foregoing paragraph shall be liable to a penalty of $500 for any person and $10,000 for any company or union for every day for which such breach continues and shall also be liable to pay compensation for any damage caused by such strike or lockout.

If that provision is accorded by the Government that is siring this Commission we will then be getting a jurisdiction in the Inter-State Commission that will really promote and improve interstate trade. You, Mr President, particularly, and I would be concerned with the trade between Tasmania and the mainland, which has been bedevilled by the fact that there is a divided jurisdiction, whereby the Arbitration Court, paralysed, is unable to force unions to carry on proper services, and the poor little Tasmanian Government has to go down on its knees to the unions and beseech from them a special dispensation in this strike of Tasmanian services.

Of course, the unions persist in that nonsense. They always say: ‘We are on strike. Tasmania? Where is that?’ Therefore, give the Inter-State Commission jurisdiction. Saddle it with the duty to make the shipping services economic, effective and regular. Then, instead of shipping services around the coast being held up by unforgivable interruptions, we will nave an improvement due to the adoption by the Parliament of a Bill with proper powers establishing the Inter-State Commission. Senator Gietzelt led us back to 1912, and if he were in the chamber now he might be interested to go back a further 3 years with me and consider the Bill introduced in the Senate in 1909 by Sir R. W. Best. Whether he was Liberal or Labor does not trouble me in the slightest. He introduced a Bill relating to the Inter-State Commission, and Part 5, dealing with industrial matter, preventing unfair competition whereby the establishment or maintenance of fair industrial conditions in another State was hindered. It was to be clothed by that Bill with power to regulate the terms and conditions of employment in each

State concerned and it was to make allowance for differences in the economic conditions in different parts of the Commonwealth and to have regard to the interests of producers, workers, consumers and the public generally. That was in an age whose conditions have been a little transformed in the intervening years; but those people who would shun the idea of this body ever doing an effective job in the industrial field will see that the proper government of interstate trade, the execution and maintenance of our Federal laws for trade and commerce- air, sea, road and rail- will be maintained. If that is carried out by the Whitlam Inter-State Commission inflation will immediately go down, trade will have an opportunity and we will find an immediate reaction from Tasmania, which will say: ‘Our difficulties have at last got a practical solution from a body which does not depend upon State Government or Federal Government directions. It is not divided in its jurisdiction by governmental matters. ‘ It will be a body set up by the Constitution, and if it is clothed with the powers to enable it to maintain and execute the industrial laws affecting trade and commerce, what a boon it will be to this country.

I welcome the provision giving the Commission the power to arbitrate if both parties agree to accept arbitration. For my part, the Inter-State Commission, having been conceived as the body to be the eyes and ears of the Government obviously should have proper powers of investigation. Then we come to the situation where, after a long proclamation of policy, the Labor Government has taken Vh years to produce this Bill; and perhaps that betokens that there has been a bit of to-ing and fro-ing and struggle with unions that has been completely in vain for the purpose of doing anything other than direct the Inter-State Commission to disestablish the capital side of trade and commerce.

So the BDI comes to us in this context where we have this- what shall I say?- from the little Minister for Repatriation and Compensation (Senator Wheeldon), who parades there each day, pattering off some new fact that has been provided for him on insurance, to establish a new field for government activity in insurance. We have before us proposals, unexpressed, by this Government to take over all the State railways, and we know that the airways situation has been a vexed one and that the establishment of a 2- airlines system was achieved quite in the teeth of Labor Opposition. I need mention only those 3 proposals that are to be hotly debated in this chamber in a contest of policy between the Government and the Liberal Party, and in that context we find the speech by the Minister for Transport completely belied. The Bill does not confine itself to transport. Clause 17 provides:

The Commission has power to do any act or thing that it is authorised to do in pursuance of any law made under the provisions of the Constitution relating to trade and commerce.

That is in relation to the general field. Then it goes on to provide, with an impertinence and lack of grasp of the understanding that the Liberal Opposition can give to any system of licensing: . . including, but not limited to, a law with respect to the engaging in, or the use of aircraft, vessels, vehicles or pipe-lines in, inter-State transport without the licence or consent of the Commission.

The very basis of the ruling by Chief Justice Dixon, under section 92 of the Constitution that the States were refusing, through that road law, to allow transport to be absolutely free, was the fact that the States endeavoured, by a licensing system, to say, ‘Smith, you can run there: Jones, you shall have no licence. ‘ That is the antithesis of freedom and free enterprise that could never be accepted in those bald terms.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Marriott)- Order! The honourable senator’s time has expired.

Senator EVERETT:
Tasmania

– I cannot believe that the clarification of the issues between the Opposition and the Government on this measure will be assisted by a continuation of a lapse into the interstices of legalism in relation to this Bill or by a continuation of the union baiting to which we have been subjected in the last half an hour.

The Inter-State Commission Bill 1975- we are debating this some 75 years after it was acknowledged that the Commission ought to be an integral part of the governmental structure of this nation- is of paramount importance, I suggest, to the economic development of this nation. It is essential to even-handed treatment for all Australians in the fields of trade and commerce. It establishes a necessary authority to prevent undue and unreasonable preferences and discriminations in interstate or overseas transport. It is a charter for fair dealing. It is a warning to the unscrupulous. It is a means of strengthening the economic fibre of this nation in terms of trade and commerce, both being fields in which transport plays an essential role. In particular, as far as Tasmania is concerned, it offers a long cherished hope that the inequalities and difficulties in the transport field from which that economically brittle State suffers will be alleviated and that Tasmania will enjoy transport services which, in the words of clause 1 1 of this Bill, will be reasonable and just.

I was extremely interested to hear Senator Wright foreshadow amendments concerning Tasmania which he will move in the Committee stage. That suggests that at least he has not been frustrated and prevented from introducing amendments by the alleged speed with which this legislation is being presented to the Senate. On that I simply remind the Senate that it is some weeks since the Bill was first available in the House of Representatives. The curious thing about the amendments foreshadowed by Senator Wright is that they throw up the difference between the Government and the Opposition as to what the powers of the Inter-State Commission should be. I have not seen a written copy of the amendments, but I listened as closely as I could to them as they were read out briefly.

It seems to me that anyone who asserts that they are a constitutional exercise of power pursuant to section 10 1 of the Constitution or pursuant to any other head of power is simply using the vehicle of this Inter-State Commission to pursue a campaign against unions for party political propaganda purposes. I will be interested to see the written record of these amendments. It seemed to me, as they were read, that they went far beyond any question of execution and maintenance of the provisions of the Constitution relating to trade and commerce and of any laws made thereunder. If this Bill is to be made a medium of attacks on unions and unionists and if the only purpose of Opposition amendmentswe have had only one foreshadowed tonight- is to take advantage of this Bill to attack unions and to attack unions in particular in relation to Tasmania, I suggest that the Opposition is unworthily using an extremely important piece of legislation to pursue party political advantage.

The history of the framing of the sections of the Constitution under which this legislation is presented shows that the main concern of those who were engaged in the discussions was the degree of independence of the Commission. It is an interesting reflection that more than 75 years ago the thinking amongst the leading political figures should have been not whether there should be an Inter-State Commission but what its powers should be and the extent of the independence that it should enjoy from the government and any arm of government. It is not unuseful in this exercise to consider some of the speeches that were made in the convention debates that preceded the Constitution. In particular I should like to quote to the Senate tonight from the speech of a South Australian delegate,

Mr Kingston, whose amendment,, subject to a later widening of the provisions that he suggested, ultimately was adopted and became the precursor of section 101 of the Constitution. He urged that there should be a provision in the Constitution reading as follows:

There shall be an Inter-State Commission -

He said: . . the better course would be, if we alter this clause, not to put in the Bill a direction to the Parliament that it shall legislate to constitute the . . . Commission, but rather, in so many plain words, say that there shall be a . . . Commission and then without any further interference of Parliament that body can be created.

He said further:

If we intend to have an Inter-State Commission let us say so in the plainest possible way . . . then it will simply necessitate an executive act to appoint the . . . Commission. Of course some legislation will be necessary to regulate (its) powers.

That, I suggest, was an extremely naive statement, but an understandable statement in the political context of the time it was made. Of course it now appears from the tenor of this debate that the main issue between the Opposition and the Government is not the establishment of the Commission- that seems to be accepted as necessary- but the extent of its powers. It is natural that there should be disagreement between the parties as to the extent of the powers. On the propriety of the establishment of the Commission itself, let me quote from page 895 of Commentaries on the Constitution’ by Quick and Garran, where the authors say:

Until the Parliament provides for the number of members and their salary, the Commission cannot exist at all, and until the Parliament determines what powers of adjudication and administration are necessary to it, it can have no powers at all. The Parliament cannot, of course, be compelled- except by its constituents- to constitute a Commission or to give it any powers when constituted. The imperative words of this section, however, receive some support from that fact that S. 102 will be inoperative until such a Commission is constituted and given certain powers of adjudicating as to preferences and discriminations.

I emphasise that quotation insofar as the use of the word ‘imperative’ is concerned. Senator Wright has referred to the American and British precedents- if I may use that expression- for an Inter-State Commission in this context. I suggest that those precedents do not throw any light on what ought to be the powers of this Commission in 1 975 and for the rest of this century and beyond. We ought to realise that in Australia we suffer from the grave disability that the central government, the Federal government- call it what you like- has completely inadequate economic powers, so much so that in December of 1973 it went to the people to obtain a constitutional change to give it power with respect to incomes and prices. The result, as we know, was that it failed. This is not a strong government, so far as law and constitution is concerned in the economic field. I have emphasised the point that there was an imperative direction in the Constitution to establish an interstate commission. One textbook writer’s lament perhaps is worth quoting. He said:

The layman could hardly be blamed if he drew the conclusion that an Inter-State Commission should have been established at the beginning of the Commonwealth and should be operating now.

Of course, as we all know, it is a matter of history that the constitution of the Commission originally was ill-fated and that it met its real test in the wheat case of 1915. As a result of the judgment of the High Court in that case in that year, it became in effect a dead letter from then on. The judgment of the High Court- it will be noted that the judgment rested on the distinction made between the tenure of office of judges of the High Court and of members of the Commissionsounded the death-knell of the Commission. It was left as a body with only investigatory powers and incidental quasi-judicial powers. From then on- we are dealing with a period of nearly 60 years- there was no concerted governmental action to re-establish the Inter-State Commission on any basis, until the Whitlam Government took office in 1972. It is all very well for Senator Wright to say that some of its functions became unnecessary as a result of the establishment of the Tariff Board in the early 1920s and the Grants Commission in the first part of the 1930s. I suggest that the functions of those 2 bodies were far removed from what the founders of the Constitution had in mind and were far removed from what we in Australia need now, and that is a body to remove preferences and discriminations in the field of trade and commerce in general, and in transport particularly.

It is also a matter of history that subsequent efforts to reconstitute the Commission failed, despite the recommendations of the royal commission of the late 1920s and the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Constitutional Review of the late 1950s. The Opposition which now berates the Government for the quantum of power which is conferred by this Bill was in office for 14 years after the 1957 Joint Parliamentary Committee issued a report in which it recommended the re-establishment of the InterState Commission. On no basis of power did the Opposition, when in government during that period of thirteen to fourteen years, move in any way to re-establish the body which it now says ought to be an integral part of the national economy of Australia, provided the powers are right.

Senator Steele Hall:

– You have not justified the full extent of the powers provided in the Bill. You have just said blandly that they are required.

Senator EVERETT:

– I will deal with that later on in some detail, if I may. I would assert to the Senate that it is perfectly clear that the InterState Commission was intended by the founders to be essential- I emphasise the word ‘essential’ to the constitutional machinery and to the federal structure of the Commonwealth. One can draw that inference very simply from the structure of the Constitution- chapter 1 dealing with the Parliament, chapter 2 dealing with the Executive, chapter 3 dealing with the judiciary and a separate chapter 4 dealing with trade and commerce and containing the very provisions which are the basis of this legislation, namely in sections 101 and following sections.

Now I move to what Senator Hall has just said. In the House of Representatives some frightening expressions were used. It was said that it would be an horrendous body, that it would be a monstrous fourth arm of government. Now Senator Wright has foreshadowed amendments which would make it the greatest source of trouble between government and industry that Australia has ever known. But we will deal with those amendments when we come to them in Committee. I would say to Senator Hall and to other senators that the Opposition has had this legislation for several weeks. It appears to be acknowledged that there ought to be an InterState Commission, although that recognition may be belated so far as the Opposition is concerned. Surely, then, it is simply a question of the nature and the extent of the powers.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– Right.

Senator EVERETT:

-Thank you, Sir Magnus. Surely it is acknowledged that there will be differences between 2 political parties with respect to what is considered proper as the nature and extent of the powers.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– Right.

Senator EVERETT:

-Very well. Why cannot the Opposition in what is a simple Bill -

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– Oh!

Senator EVERETT:

– It is simple so far as expression and drafting are concerned.

Senator Durack:

– Simple, like section 92.

Senator EVERETT:

– I say nothing about the words of section 92 and whether they are simple or otherwise. All I say is that if the Opposition were genuine in its desire to re-establish an InterState Commission, would it not, when it saw this legislation some weeks ago, have said: ‘We will go through it with a fine tooth comb, and we will seek to eliminate such parts of it as we consider go beyond a proper horizon for this Commission’? How long would it have taken the Opposition to do so- a week, a fortnight, 3 weeks, a month? Give it a month. The Opposition would have been ready to deal with the Bill tonight. But what I strongly suspect, and what the public strongly suspects, is that the Opposition has not got its marching orders from the interests it represents.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– Oh, no.

Senator EVERETT:

-That is not so? The honourable senator surprises me. I strongly suspect that the Opposition is waiting until it can collate and correlate all the objections it gets to the powers of this Commission from the interests which it represents- the vested interests involved in trade and commerce, the vested interests involved in transport. When the Opposition has received all those and has marshalled them, it will seek to move amendments during the Committee stage of this debate. That is the way this Opposition works. Of course the allegedly inadequate time did not prevent Senator Wright from being able to draft and to notify the Senate tonight of the contents of a number of amendments aimed at the unionists- not aimed to benefit Tasmania but aimed at the unionists. His derogatory remarks about attempts in the past to persuade unions to exempt Tasmania from strikes did not impress me. I have been involved in such negotiations, with some degree of success on one occasion. The Tasmanian Government, I have no doubt, will continue to make responsible requests and proper requests to unions. I trust that it will receive a responsible answer in future, as it has on most occasions in the past.

Senator Steele Hall:

– There have been some notable exceptions.

Senator EVERETT:

– There have been some exceptions. I would not concede the word ‘notable’. In the most recent case there was an exemption. In previous cases related to this much vaunted 2-airlines system there were a number of exceptions. An island State accepts what it can get. It does not complain. It certainly does not complain by way of a display of anti-unionism on the floor of the Senate, as Senator Wright did tonight and as it seems he will continue to do in future.

I do not lapse into legalism, but the point I wish to make is that the purpose of the InterState Commission, as it was envisaged by the framers of the Constitution was that it was designed to deal with problems which arose from discrimination so far as valid laws were concerned. As Senator Gietzelt said earlier tonight, there is no question of the Commission being able to legislate. All it can do is act in relation to preferences and discrimination under valid laws. I think it is pertinent in that context that I should quote to the Senate what was said by a former Chief Justice, Mr Justice Latham, in the Riverina transport case. He said:

The practical difficulty in securing the freedom of interstate trade does not arise mainly from the risk of invalid legislation. Such legislation when detected is of no effect. . . Curial action could only create a blank. … A court may believe that certain railway rates are essentially discriminatory against another State, but the court cannot construct a new schedule and make it operative. The InterState Commission, acting under appropriate Federal Statute, is expressly designed to deal with just such problems by executing and maintaining’ Federal Statutes.

I believe that His Honour’s example of discriminatory railway rates in that extract that I have read is apt in this debate. Section 102 of the Constitution, which is concerned with railways, does not actually forbid discriminatory rates as being contrary to the Constitution. It is not dealing with invalid State legislation; it is dealing with the discriminatory administration of statutes which Parliament may, pursuant to that provision in the Constitution, forbid. That is what this is all about. Surely it is just a question of what the Commission’s powers ought to be. As the Commission has been, in practice and in effect, a dead body for some 60 years- since 1950 it has been completely legally dead- as the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Review which met from 1957 to 1959 reported that there should be an Inter-State Commission, and after all the references, including the report of the Senate Select Committee on Off-shore Petroleum resources which some years ago contained a similar recommendation, surely the Opposition is able to crystallise its thinking by tonight or tomorrow as to what the powers of the Commission should be. Why does the Opposition have to wait until next August to do this? From whom is it waiting to hear? The strong suspicion is that it is waiting to hear from electoral masters; and they are not the ordinary electors of Australia, they are the interests which in may cases instruct the Opposition what it ought to do.

Since it is simply a question of what the powers of the Commission ought to be, and since it is a question that the Government sees the powers that are contained in this Bill as proper, I should imagine there would be circumstances in which the Government would be prepared to accept amendments moved by the Opposition so long as they did not make the Commission a completely toothless tiger. The powers can be built up. Senator Withers who led for the Opposition in this debate expressed his perplexity as to what the powers given in clause 17 involved. He said that he did not understand it. I suggest that all that clause 17 does is to complete by enumeration through different clauses the powers of the Commission. The clause in itself does not confer any new powers. It states:

The Commission has power to do any act or thing that it is authorised to do in pursuance of any law made under the provisions of the Constitution relating to trade and commerce . . .

Under that clause the Commission cannot do anything which it is not authorised by an Act of this Parliament to do. The clause does not give the Commission any more power. So far as I am concerned, if the Parliament crosses out clause 17 there is no harm done to the structure of the Commission or to its powers.

Senator Missen:

– It was not taken out in the House of Representatives, was it?

Senator EVERETT:

– I will accept what the honourable senator says. My memory is not good enough to remember that precisely. The clause gives no further power than the Commission already has. I am sorry, but I just do not know why Senator Withers should say that he does not understand the clause. The crux of this matter is that by establishing the Commission there will be created a body initially to co-ordinate and operate generally in the area of transport, but ultimately a body to execute and maintain all trade and commerce provisions under the Constitution. It will be a specialist organisation which will administer and supervise the area of trade and commerce considered as a whole. It will act in special matters such as transport, but I am not so naive as to think that if the Commission is established, in 10 years’ time it will not be operating much more widely than in transport. The Government has said that the Commission’s initial function is to concentrate on transport. When there are given powers that go far beyond transport, of course, we ought to assume that in the course of time the Commission will be operating in a wider field than transport. I concede that the Bill opens the way- but certainly subject to regulations which may be disallowed by this Parliament- for the execution of the functions of other bodies.

Senator Steele Hall:

– Very importantly.

Senator EVERETT:

– Yes. But we should realise that there is a need in Australia for a national outlook to be adopted and for us to forget this shibboleth of people in various States being subject to different rights and obligations; of people in Queensland not being able to read Playboy’ without being prosecuted, when people in South Australia can read it. Let us forget the fact that civil servants in England a long time ago drew artificial State boundaries in this country. Let us act like Australians, because that is what we are.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– They have separate bank notes in Scotland. They do not use the Bank of England notes in Scotland.

Senator EVERETT:

– I would hope that the rift between Australia and Queensland would not become equiparated with the traditional and historical rift between Scotland and England.

Senator Steele Hall:

– Ours is becoming historical.

Senator EVERETT:

– I believe Queensland does not have any Stone of Scone. My time is almost over and I will conclude on this note: I regret that I have not had time to go through the detailed provisions of this Bill, but the Committee stage will afford an opportunity to do that. The simple fact is that the Government says that it wants an Inter-State Commission. The Opposition says that it wants an Inter-State Commission. Surely it is simply a question of what the Commission’s powers ought to be. If amendments are made at the Committee stage, at the insistence of the Opposition, for heaven’s sake do not let us make this Commission a toothless tiger, as I have said, which will fall into disarray as the Commission of more than 50 years ago fell into disarray. Our founders and the Parliament of 191 1-12 considered that there should be an Inter-State Commission. That concept became the victim of political whim in the first decade of Federation; it was the victim of political timidity between 1912 and 1920; and it has been the victim of political inertia for the past half century. This Parliament is now able to embrace the opportunity for which the way was opened by the Constitution. We should not shrink from that opportunity. We should not be pettifogging in our arguments as to the extent of power which ought to be conferred on the Commission. We should be bold; we should be definite; we should be national in our outlook. We should pass this Bill.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

-Mr President, this Bill has been described by Senator Everett as a simple Bill. Of course, if one looks literally at the Bill one sees that it is not a very long Bill. If one looks at the Australian Constitution one finds that it is not long either. Presumably on the tests which Senator Everett would apply, it is also simple. That simple enactment has been subjected to 75 years of hard interpretation, and we know that it is extremely difficult. This applies even to the particular areas of the Constitution that were put in by simple laymen who said that they were not going to have lawyers’ terms in it. This Bill, likewise, is a complex one because it involves the very grave question of the extent of the powers which are obscured in its present phraseology. We in the Opposition do not apologise for one moment for saying that it is a Bill which requires very adequate consideration. We have had no Inter-State Commission for 55 years and now we have a proposal before us to restore it. If we do that we must ensure that it does not suffer the fate suffered by the other body 55 years ago. Also we must ensure that it has an adequate purpose suitable not for those years but for the requirements of today.

Senator Steele Hall:

– They are not comparable, really, are they?

Senator MISSEN:

– They are not comparable, as Senator Hall points out, because we have legislation such as the Trade Practices Act which is so different from legislation of that period. This reminds me that we have heard very curious arguments from speakers on the Government side today. Perhaps we should apologise for that to some extent because they too are lacking a long consideration and deliberation on this Bill and therefore are forced to bring forward curious arguments.

This afternoon I heard the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Wriedt, put 3 arguments which ought to be answered. Some of my colleagues have been a bit unkind in not answering them to this stage. Senator Wriedt wanted to bring before the Senate the record of Opposition senators who at times have expressed support for the Inter-State Commission and he sought to rely for support on the Joint Committee on Constitutional Review in 1959 which recommended the re-establishment of an InterState Commission. However, what he ignored and what he must be reminded of now is that the reason for the establishment of a Commission then was completely different from the reason put forward today. Paragraph 140 of that report says:

Section 10 1 of the Constitution states that there shall be an Inter-State Commission. It also provides that the Parliament may confer upon the Commission powers of adjudication and administration for the execution and maintenance of the provisions of the Constitution relating to trade and commerce and laws made thereunder. The Committee believes that the Commission would be an appropriate authority to inquire and report to the Parliament whether a restrictive trade practice is contrary to the public interest. There has not been an Inter-State Commission for many years, but section 101 provides that there should be such a body. In the Committee’s opinion, the Inter-State Commission should be reestablished.

The only reason given for its re-establishment is that it is to serve a purpose which we are now to put into operation through this Bill. It is another body to deal with. Therefore one cannot just take the fact that certain people express a belief in it and a desire for it. The most important question, and this is the only point on which I could agree with Senator Everett, involves the powers and the functions of the Commission. Like Senator Wright, I accept that there is probably good cause for re-establishing this body, but the important questions in my mind are what its powers shall be and to what extent it will operate. Both these areas need to be limited.

Senator Wriedt this afternoon made another point when he said that this Bill is coming before us not without warning; it is a subject which has been debated very often. That is so. Over the years people have raised the matter, but now we have before us for the first time a Bill which has to be determined in relation to its terms and powers. That is the heart of it- not the general subject of debate which has operated in a desultory fashion for many years. The third point he made this afternoon, which also was curious, was that he relied upon clauses 9 and 12 of the Bill. He suggested that in those clauses were designed protections for the States. That in itself is an oddity because in both those provisions, and they must be in part or whole desirable provisions, there are restrictions on the States. It is the exceptions in those clauses which are designed to render certain matters not unlawful. Therefore nobody can say that this is a Bill designed for the protection of the States. It is a Bill designed to put into effect a constitutional provision and this puts it in a special category. It is not designed just for the protection of the States.

This evening we heard further arguments from Senator Everett who thinks this Bill is such a simple one. The very interesting argument which he brought before the Senate concerned the grave disability of the Federal Government through it having inadequate economic power. What can conceivably be the importance of that reference in relation to this Bill? I thought the Government was trying to get a power and was intending to use that power only in regard to transport. Are we to understand from his reference that this is to be a means of achieving further economic power desired by the Government? Is this a new way of avoiding the defeat of referenda where people express their opinion? Is this another way to increase the Government’s powers? Under the Bill as it stands that might well be an interpretation. Perhaps the Bill, if properly limited, might not have that effect.

Then Senator Everett expressed the view, and I suppose we should expect this, that we are opposing the continuance of this debate past the second reading stage and are seeking an adjournment of it because we are waiting on the views of our electoral masters. Of course, this is the common catch cry. If by that he means that we are wanting to wait until the people in this community who have an interest in this Bill and who will be affected by it express their views, and if we are waiting for the States who are after all part of the Constitution and part of this country to express their views, then he is right. Certainly I for one want to give the opportunity to those who are affected by this Bill to express their views and to put their views in writing, rather than just put this legislation through and let the consequences come as they may. There is to my mind no doubt that the members of the Joint Committee on Constitutional Review have a right to be heard in this matter, and they have not been heard so far.

Let us look at the history of this Bill to this stage. After 55 years we have a Bill brought into this Parliament, and this is the first opportunity we have had to see the terms of it and the powers given under it to this proposed institution. After 12 days from its introduction debate takes place in the House of Representatives. The second reading debate is gagged after a few speakers in the House of Representatives and the Bill is declared an urgent Bill. There is then allowed less than half an hour for the Committee stages of the Bill. Imagine, in respect of a Bill of this nature,- the insult to the people of this country that is to be found in the idea that a new institution of this sort should be in its detail determined by that House of Parliament in half an hour. Consequently there has been no adequate debate in the House of Representatives. It is the duty of this Senate to see that both in this chamber and throughout the community there is adequate debate on the Bill.

Senator Everett:

– We can have that adequate debate tonight and tomorrow.

Senator MISSEN:

-It would satisfy Senator Everett to do this before the public is aware of the contents of this Bill and before we have considered the details of it. What is the urgency for this Bill to be passed this month or next month when we have waited 55 years for it? There is no such ground of urgency. We are asked to rely upon Mr Jones telling us that this Bill is designed just in respect of transport or for some other reason, but we have seen his actions in regard to the road legislation which was introduced last year. We had to hold up Bills and force him to limit his demands on that area. We know that he is the same man who will be using the provisions of this Bill if it goes through in its present form.

Senator Steele Hall:

– Do you not think that is reasonable, though, in order to further Labor’s platform?

Senator MISSEN:

– That is quite obvious. He has tried this before and was beaten back in certain areas. I have no doubt that this is a further lunge forward to implement the Labor Party platform. I concede that there are some grounds for the adoption of a Bill to implement the constitutional provisions. It is not just a matter in this case of taking powers from the States by introducing a Commission of this nature. It depends upon the powers that are taken. It is something which the founding fathers of the Constitution contemplated as a desirable institution. They said in clear terms:

There shall be an Inter-State Commission, with such powers of adjudication and administration as the Parliament deems necessary for the execution and maintenance, within the Commonwealth, of the provisions of this Constitution relating to trade and commerce, and of all laws made thereunder.

So, it is an institution which was contemplated at the time of the foundation of the Australian Parliament when the powers were allocated between the Commonwealth and the States. In the report of the debate which took place on this Bill in the House of Representatives one finds references by Opposition speakers to the possible powers and how they might be used. Mr Nixon, leading for the Opposition, as reported at page 1 867 of Hansard, said:

The Opposition believes that the need exists for a body which will have power to regulate transport in Australia within the limitations provided for in the Constitution.

So, in relation to transport there is a consideration which he expressed and which I express, namely, that there ought to be a body to do this. He went on to say:

The Opposition would support a Bill to create an interstate commission which was intended to be a regulatory body in the field of transport.

Therefore in that area, as Senator Wright has mentioned tonight in a very cogent way in relation to Tasmania, there is some substance certainly in the proposal that a body should exist in relation to areas of transport. Likewise, in the debate on this Bill in the House of Representatives, as reported at page 1876, Mr Ellicott had this to say:

Should there be a commission? It may well be that there are good and sufficient reasons for having a commission of some description. I have already conceded that. A commission which has wide investigatory powers to look into questions of malpractice and at ways of making interstate trade more efficient was the original and real intention of the Constitution.

He felt that was the only justification. But obviously there are different views and there may be a gradation of views which we will need to consider at length before we come to a final decision as to what shall be the powers of the Commission. I say that the State governments certainly have an interest and a right to be heard in relation to the powers that would be ascribed to this body. I believe that we have to take into account the effects which a body such as this may have on existing State rights and State responsibilities. We also have to consider the extent of the powers and how they would affect bodies such as Trade Practices Commission, the Prices Justification Tribunal and other bodies which the Commonwealth Government has seen fit to set up, and to determine to what extent they should be overridden in any fields of power. These are matters that are basic, and the work on these matters has not been done. j

I have listened to the proposals which Senator Wright has made tonight and I have heard of them before. Undoubtedly there is a very unsatisfactory situation from which Tasmania has suffered over many years, and it may well be that one of the specific things that this Commission should do is to rectify the problems which Tasmania has in interstate trade and commerce, in shipping and in the other areas which Senator Wright has mentioned.

Senator Everett:

– You go as far as trade and commerce, do you, in relation to Tasmania?

Senator MISSEN:

– Trade and commerce is the area which is covered by the powers under the Constitution, and this may well be. I do not form a final judgment on this because I want to see much more. I do not suggest for one moment that I have read enough and that I am satisfied that I know sufficient of the history and sufficient of the complex position in transport today to say yet how far the powers should go; but it does seem to me at the present time that in relation to Tasmania some specific powers may well be very desirable. We have heard many comments and I suppose that all honourable senators have received a number of letters in regard to this Bill from organisations and individuals. I would like to refer to a document prepared by the

Associated Chambers of Manufactures of Australia and to views- fairly moderate views- it has expressed on this Bill. After proceeding to look at the Bill and the powers, it makes specific reference to the powers of investigation which it appears to feel are strong and, I think, adequate. It concludes its summary by saying these things:

In view of this, there are at least two areas of major concern. The first of these is the way in which the Commission’s power can be boosted merely by the use of delegated or subordinate legislation which is not, and cannot effectively, be subjected to the accepted approach of Parliamentary scrutiny.

Secondly, the Bill creates an incredibly powerful administrative tool that is not subject to judicial review except in the most meagre fashion. While the Commission will have to live within the Constitution it can, and probably will, exert such a fundamental influence, in view of its extremely wide powers, on the trade and commerce of this country as to be capable of surpassing the influence of the States and other Federal institutions or bodies. and:

If it is decided that an Inter-State Commission be established, it should be given only the power to investigate and make recommendations on matters pertaining to Australian trade and commerce but requiring, however, that any action to implement those recommendations must be effectuated in, and by, the Australian Parliament.

There is a concern amongst many people that we may give to this Commission powers which will enable it in effect to legislate, and this may be part of the powers that we should not give. Under the Constitution it is the duty of this Parliament to deem what is necessary for the execution and maintenance of these powers and we cannot pass up the consideration or let it be hurried past our eyes.

It has been said that a power of arbitration which is given in the Bill and which is subject to the consent of the parties may be a highly desirable power. I think it would be. I think it might reduce a good deal of the disputes which occur if we allow a body which is well experienced and qualified to move into this field. I do not say for one moment that at this stage I feel that we are in a position to delineate those powers. Senator Everett, myself and others have had a good deal of opportunity in the year we have been in this place to see investigation by committees of this Parliament of powers contained in clauses which are hardly appreciated in the course of discussion in the Parliament.

Senator Everett:

– You are not going to suggest that this Bill be referred to that committee you have in mind, are you?

Senator MISSEN:

– No. I hasten to assure Senator Everett that the committee he has in mind, which is burdened with something else at the present time, is not the one to which I have in mind sending this Bill; but I do say -

Senator Wright:

– The committee procedures generally are most useful.

Senator MISSEN:

-Yes, as Senator Wright points out, the committee procedures are most useful. It is most useful in a general way, apart from this fact, that there be a longer consideration because of the things that come out in discussions. The interpretations that are put on these provisions are often greatly different from first appearances. Although this is a body which, according to Deakin was to be the eyes and ears of the Constitution and while I see for it some valuable work which should be done, I want to ensure that proper time is given, that proper public consideration is given to it and that people have the opportunity to put before this Parliament all the considerations, whether they be wise or unwise, so that we can look at them and adjudicate on them in the final event. If we do this, if we take into account the changes that have occurred in the period for which this body has been out of existence and the bodies that exist in this Commonwealth today and if we produce a Bill with limited powers but powers that will be useful, then we will have done our job as administrators and as legislators. But if we pass this Bill in its present form and at the present time we will be passing the problems over to future generations.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP

– I enter this debate because I think it is possibly one of the most important debates we have had this session and one has a desire to be associated with the side that is trying to carry out as expeditiously as possible what our founding fathers intended that a Federal government should do. There has not been one statement that the Opposition is opposed to this legislation. There is some doubt in the minds of honourable senators. They say that there are many things to be answered and that the provisions of the Bill are too farreaching. The Opposition’s argument as epitomised in the speech of Senator Withers, is that the Opposition is not competent to deal with this. matter in the time the Government has allowed. The Opposition has not said that it needs an extension of time for the purpose of considering the Bill. What has been expressed by the Opposition indicates incompetency on its part to deal with this matter in the time available. This immediately was denied and reputiated by Senator Guilfoyle, the next speaker from the Opposition side. While from a sense of loyalty she did endorse the remarks of her leader she went on to ask questions about clauses 5, 13, 14 and a number of others. That showed that at least one honourable senator has made some study of the Bill and knows the things that she wants to ask questions about in order to get clarification. She has had time to study the Bill.

The honourable senator who just resumed his seat, Senator Missen, quoted at some length from statements made by members of the Opposition in the other House. He endorsed what was said by the Opposition spokesmen there which suggested that they knew the faults and had done their homework; yet Opposition senators in this place have been unable to do theirs. The proposition in this Bill is not something new. The Opposition has had from 1901 to consider this matter. If that time has not been sufficient all of them will be dead and buried before they have time to give consideration to the clauses of the Bill.

The founding fathers, when drawing up the Constitution, did not just recommend that Parliament should set up an Inter-State Commission; they directed that it be done. There were not to be special rights in interstate trade whereby some State could prejudice another and some States could be disadvantaged. The founding fathers set out certain conditions in the Constitution. Everyone has been quoting from section 101 of the Constitution but if we look at section 98 we find that it states:

The power of the Parliament to make laws with respect to trade and commerce extends to navigation and shipping, and to railways the property of any State.

That provides a wide power to take over the lot. There have been many High Court decisions on the question of what is trade and commerce. It has been found that areas necessary for the storage of goods on wharves and for the transport of goods and so on could be taken over by the Commonwealth. The founding fathers instructed the Commonwealth to do it to protect the interests of the States. There is an obligation upon this Government to do it. Turning now to section 10 1 of the Constitution, it states:

There shall be an Inter-State Commission, with such powers of adjudication and administration as the Parliament deems necessary for the execution and maintenance, within the Commonwealth, of the provisions of this Constitution relating to trade and commerce, and of all laws made thereunder.

That means all laws relating to the question of trade and commerce. Where in this Bill is there any extension of the direction given in the Constitution? Where does this Bill go too far? This Bill is restrictive in that it deals only with transport. It does not go beyond the stage that the Constitution says that the Commonwealth could go and implies that it should go. We are carrying out the desire of the founding fathers of the Constitution. It was for this purpose that action was taken a long time ago to set up the first Inter-State Commission. Senator Withers, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, said that he is much concerned with clause 17 of the Bill which states:

The Commission has power to do any act or thing that it is authorised to do in pursuance of any law made under the provisions of the Constitution relating to trade and commerce . . .

There is the power to authorise, yet there is concern about anything that is authorised. The Commission is authorised to do anything in accordance with the Constitution. They are the powers of the Commission and the Constitution gives wide powers. That authorisation is in accordance with the Constitution. There is no way in which the Commonwealth can step outside the Constitution. The powers embraced in this Bill are the powers in the Constitution as set out in the particular section of the Constitution which says that this proposition is to be implemented. The Constitution tells us to establish the Commission that we seek to establish tonight for one purpose only and that purpose relates to transport for trade and commerce.

It has been said that there has not been time to consider the Bill. There has been a period of 75 years in which to consider this proposition. More recently, after a decision at the Labor Party Conference in Launceston in 1971, this became part of Labor’s policy. It has been known that if Labor came to power this would be one of the things that it would put into operation.

Senator Missen:

– We have been waiting for 2V4 years.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– This proposition was contained in the policy speech in 1972, but before we could get around to putting it into operation the Opposition sent us to the people again. It was in the policy of 1 974 also. Senator Missen says that there has been undue delay in introducing legislation for the Inter-State Commission and therefore the proposition is worthy of condemnation. Despite that period of 2 16 years the Opposition says that it has not had time to consider what we were pledged to put into operation and that therefore we should take longer. These old men of the Senate, these incompetent men of the Senate, are unable to do what their brothers did in another House. They want a longer time to consider this proposition in order to put up an effective argument or to line up thinking against particular clauses. Opposition members in the other place did their job but members of the Opposition here have not done theirs. They want further time in which to admit and to publicise their incompetence to deal with important legislation coming before this House. They want to delay this Bill to another session of Parliament so that they can consider the matter at the weekends and during their vacation and come up with effective argument.

Obviously there is a reason for all this delay and frustration which the Opposition is causing. Honourable senators will remember that this happened in the period from 1972 to 1974. We remember the frustration, delay and refusal to pass legislation under a series of leaders of the Opposition parties. Then the day came when the latest appointment to that leadership, the most recent one, made the declaration that the Opposition in the Senate must stop this frustration in order to let the legislation go through so that the Government will be answerable to the people. Despite that declaration by the new Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser) only last week we heard the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate say that there shall be more criticism and scrutiny of business in the Senate than there has been recently. We are seeing a return to the old policy in respect of a proposition that the Opposition cannot oppose. There is to be this constant delay so that the Government cannot get legislation through the Parliament. For 2lA days we had the Supply Bills hung up after notification had been given by the first speaker for the Opposition in that debate that those Bills go through but not until the Opposition was ready to put them through. Now, when the Government is desirous of doing something in the way of setting up a Commission to regulate the chaotic situation in interstate transport at the present time, the Opposition is saying that it is not oppositing the Bill, but it is delaying it as much as it can. This is the new policy of the present Opposition and we will see a lot of it.

Senator Wright:

– After all your tolerance to Mr Perkins you are getting very impatient with us.

Senator Marriott:

– You used to be a lover of free speech and the right of senators to speak whenever they wanted to.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I am reminded of the virtues I had at one time. Let me say that I have not lost them all. I will sit here until 5 o’clock in the morning. I would sit here on Fridays and Saturdays from the end of the session to listen to honourable senators opposite, although it may be boring and tiresome, just to get the legislation through. This is not a question of freedom of speech; it is a question of getting members of the Opposition to speak and not avoid speaking by adjourning legislation. Honourable senators opposite seek to defer this matter so that they will not have to answer to the electors.

Senator Wright:

– That is why the Government gagged the Committee stage in another place after half an hour.

Senator CAVANAGH:

-The gagging of the Committee in the other place, despite whatever gagging there was, and I do not know -

Senator Wright:

– And of course they were not brutal numbers you used.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– They were competent to put up a case. The inability of senators opposite compared with their counterparts in the other place is not my fault. They display it by seeking 2 months to prepare what they want to say, whereas their colleagues in the other place did such an effective job on it in the short time that honourable senators opposite question. Although I said it was mentioned in the policy speech, and although there was some opposition in the other place, the Bill was introduced in the other place on 9 April, and, although honourable senators opposite have had since then to consider it, they have done nothing. They have simply sat on the Bill, and now they want an extended time to deal with it, saying that they cannot consider 2 proposals together and that they have not looked at the whole question. Obviously, as this debate has shown, the only senators opposite who have looked at the matter are Senator Withers, who has referred to section 17, and Senator Guilfoyle, who apparently has thoroughly considered the proposal. Because of loyalty to her Leader, she is stopped from getting answers that she had sought from the Minister who would have answered questions in Committee. Honourable senators opposite are sending her back to her electorate without her having received the answers she wanted so that she could explain the legislation to her constituents. That has happened because they intend to gag the debate by having it adjourned before the Minister has the opportunity to answer the questions which Senator Guilfoyle asked today and which she wants answered. 1, Senator Marriott and other honourable senators sat on the Senate Select Committee on the Container Method of Handling Cargoes, which was under the chairmanship of Senator Sir Magnus Cormack. The task of that Committee was to see whether we had the facilities for the introduction of the cartage of containerised cargo in Australia. Voluminous evidence was presented to the Committee about the impossibility of operating an interstate carriage system because of the various laws that operate in the States. Some justification was given for this. I believe that in Victoria there are some 500 substandard bridges, in respect of which there are load weight limits. Recently, with the washout of the east-west railway across the Nullabor, the truckies who were carrying loads that were in conformity with South Australian law were being stopped at the Western Australian border and prosecuted because of the axle weight of their loads. Immediately they crossed the border they infringed the load limits that applied in Western Australia. Complaints about the prosecutions were so great that the Western Australian Commissioner of Police issued orders to his officers that the truckies were to be allowed to defy the laws on that occasion to get to Perth much needed cargo which could not be got there by rail because of the washaways.

Axle weight limits and the permissible length of vehicles differ from State to State. While truck operators could cart more economically if longer vehicles were permitted, the danger that these vehicles would cause to vehicles overtaking them was such that some States could not entertain increasing the length of vehicles, although the power of the engines and the strength of the axles were sufficient to enable this to be done. In the north, where there are few overtaking vehicles, long lines of cattle trains, which cannot be permitted in the other States, operate. Are these not all matters that could be considered by an interstate commission to see what is the solution? Of course clause 14, about which Senator Guilfoyle was much concerned, relates only to the Commission’s investigatory powers. It contains no provision for penalties.

The container committee that I have mentioned heard evidence from an American expert who said that, for cargo carrying, road transport was the most economical form from zero to 130 miles. He said that for cartage from 130 miles to 500 miles rail transport was the most economical, and for distances of more than 500 miles sea transport was cheaper. Containers Ltd adopted this schedule. All cargo bound for overseas from South Australia now, despite the fact that that firm had built containers, is railed to Melbourne and then shipped in containers to Europe, England and other ports, because rail is a cheaper form of transport up to the 500-mile limit. Nobody has given this aspect consideration. It has been left in the hands of a private company to say how it will move its cargo. No one has given consideration to the damage it has done to the shipping port of Port Adelaide, which at one time was a flourishing, wealthy port. There is now unemployment and redundancy on the waterfront, because it pays private enterprise to take cargo from Port Adelaide to Victoria in containers and there load those containers on to overseas ships.

These are aspects that need consideration. More is involved than the question of road and rail. It is a question of benefits to the whole Australian community and of what is in its best interests. The Constitution made provision for the establishment of the commission, and it should have been established many years ago. Now that the Government has done what we are accused of delaying for so long, the Opposition is not prepared to assist its implementation, yet it criticises us for delay in seeking to do so. There is no justification for delay. If there is any provision that should be altered, rejected or condemned, let us get the Bill into Committee, discuss it, and act in accordance with the majority decision of the Senate to amend or reject any clauses of the legislation. I ask senators opposite not to defeat the Bill by delaying it when they have not got the courage to vote it out on the second reading. They cannot say they have not had time to study it; they have had years to study it. They know what it is, and many speakers on the Opposition side can tell us why they do not want to put it into operation now.

The question of leaving it to the people to decide was raised. The people are not involved in a decision of this kind. Those who have an interest in it have some right to express their opinion on particular legislation. Senator Bessell referred to the number of letters he had received and suggested that he supposed we had also received similar letters. This shows that those with an interest have been at us. Senators opposite suggest that the only ones who do not know enough about this legislation to discuss it and consider it are Opposition members in the Senate- not their colleagues in the other House, not those with an interest in shipping or those with an interest in transport, and not honourable senators on this side. Honourable senator opposite have not been prepared to do their homework on this matter.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– If the lessons of Australian history have one merit that we ought to bear in mind at the present time, it is that unless we declare what the functions of the Inter-State Commission are to be, the Inter-State Commission will not function. An Inter-State Commission was established by legislation in 1912. Within 3 years the High

Court of Australia had declared its most significant and purposeful function to be unconstitutional. Although for another 6 years or so it produced reports on a host of subjects, those reports were not heeded. It simply disappeared, for want of recognition and something worthwhile to do, in 1920 or 192 1. There was a royal commission in Western Australia in 1925, a royal commission in South Australia at about the same time, and a Constitutional Review Committee in 1928, all of which recommended the reconstitution of the Inter-State Commission. My recollection is that they all differed significantly in the type of functions which they would allocate to this Inter-State Commission.

In 1937 a Bill was introduced into this Parliament- into this Senate- and that Bill was not proceeded with. Of course, at that time functions comparable to those which subsequently have been exercised by the Grants Commission were to be ascribed to this Inter-State Commission which was envisaged by Sir George Pearce. Then in 1 958-59 we had the report of the Constitutional Review Committee, which was a joint committee of this Parliament. It recommended the establishment of an Inter-State Commission. I do not think I do an injustice to that report or to the members of that Committee when I say that the restrictive trade practices area was a function in relation to which they believed the Inter-State Commission could fulfil a role and which it could implement.

What have we seen since? Senator Cavanagh referred to the Senate Select Committee on Container Cargoes. That Committee considered the possibility of the establishment of an Inter-State Commission. But let it not be said that the Container Cargoes Committee did recommend the establishment of an Inter-State Commission. What it significantly and helpfully pointed to was the fact that it was possible that in the area of its investigations consideration could be given to the reconstitution of some form of Inter-State Commission as originally required by section 101 of the Constitution. It pointed to the growing developments in transport systems throughout Australia, container transport acting as the catalyst among conflicting schools of thought on the integration of the existing systems. There appeared to the Committee a possibility that developments in this area in the foreseeable future would justify an examination of the desirability of creating an administrative commission to act as an arbiter in the interests of competing bodies. It saw a problem and it considered that it was worthwhile to have a look at some body like the Inter-State Commission, which would have an arbitrating role and which possibly could perform desirable functions.

One might refer also to the Senate Select Committee on Water Pollution. This possibly was a curious area for a Senate Select Committee on Water Pollution to concern itself with, but it also pointed out that the nature of the Inter-State Commission provided for in the Constitution might be the type of independent body which could perform many of the functions in regard to the eradication of water pollution with which that Committee was concerned. I well remember that the Senate Select Committee on Off-shore Petroleum Resources was likewise concerned with the restoration of the Inter-State Commission. Indeed, it devoted one whole chapter of its report to the reconstitution of the Inter-State Commission. I do not want to take this any further than the fact that it was an area for investigation, but the Committee considered that if a need for a network of interstate pipelines was established the Government should consider the re-establishment of the Inter-State Commission empowered to regulate the interstate transportation of oil and gas, and the Committee so recommended. But it also said:

However, the Committee does not consider the Inter-State Commission to be the panacea for all the ills which may beset the off-shore petroleum industry. The Committee believes that the need for some rationalisation of the fuel and power resources in Australia is of more immediate importance than is the regulation of interstate trade in oil and gas.

I have referred to those matters because I think one of the significant results of an examination of the history of the Inter-State Commission and the various examinations of its future prospects is that it discloses that what is fundamental is to give to it a role which is consistent with the Constitution and which will be operative in the public interest. That role is not clearly defined. I place myself with those who would wish to see an Inter-State Commission re-established because I believe there are some areas in which an Inter-State Commission could perform a useful task. I certainly believe that if an Inter-State Commission had been in existence at the time when petroleum and natural gas were discovered in Australia it could have performed- it would have performed, because it would have been empowered to do so- the function of establishing a means by which a network of pipelines throughout Australia could have ensured at reasonable rates, or at least assessed rates, the distribution of crude oil and gas right around Australia. Whether that function could be performed now, I think, is a different question; it is not so readily answered.

I believe that if the Inter-State Commission had been established before road transport became the main means of vehicular carriage of goods around Australia, it could likewise have performed functions which, in the absence of an Inter-State Commission, could have been performed by other bodies. But it is tremendously important to know what its functions are. I think the Opposition, far from adopting a sort of delaying, destructive approach, which has been alleged of it by the Government, is adopting a sensible approach in agreeing with the principle of the Inter-State Commission and in allowing some period- two or three months- to enable the interested bodies in this country to assess their attitudes and to come forward with constructive ideas. I believe that throughout Australia there is a wealth of goodwill towards the reestablishment of an Inter-State Commission, but there is a very real concern as to what functions it could perform.

I do not believe the Government has been fair and square with this Parliament or with the country. It is seeking to establish an Inter-State Commission, saying that it will perform one thing and in fact giving it powers which will enable it to do a host of other things. I have looked at the various statements which have been made by the Labor Party in the declaration of its ideological objectives as to what should be the role and functions of an Inter-State Commission. One finds that the platform of the Australian Labor Party- the Bible upon which it can justify everything that it does- says that there is to be the establishment of an Inter-State Commission to co-ordinate all types of interstate transport in Australia, including rail and air, water and pipelines, and to regulate conditions of carriage. That is fair enough as an ultimate objective, but there is a world of difference between stating that objective and empowering a commission with the precise functions which will enable it to do those things and to declare whether or not it is to achieve those functions in defiance of what State parliaments might have decided and notwithstanding what the High Court may declare. All that Mr Whitlam sought to tell the Australian people in his policy speech on behalf of the Labor Party in December 1 972 was this:

We will revive the Inter-State Commission ordained in the Constitution.

He said so much and nothing more. In the Governor-General’s Speech in those halcyon days immediately after Labor came to office, flushed with the promise of all that it was going to do, all that we were told was that the Government proposed to restore the Inter-State Commission to plan and provide modern means of communication between the States. Then it indicated that there would be wide-ranging and flexible policies based on co-operative foward planning, full employment, containment of price inflation and industrial co-operation. Oh how the great dream has faded. The policy speech in April 1974 simply said:

The Constitution states there shall be an Inter-State Commission. One of the first acts of the Menzies Government in 19S0 was to repeal the Act establishing the Commission passed by the Fisher Labor Government in 1 9 1 2.

The Government will re-establish the Commission this year. It was ignored that the Act was repealed in 1950 by a Statute Law Revision Committee. What is now being re-established is not the 1912 legislation but something completely different. We were told by the Minister when he introduced this legislation that it was the Government’s intention at this time for the Inter-State Commission to operate under the constitutional provisions by which it was empowered to be constituted, only in the field of transport. When one examines the Bill that statement, I think, ought to be indelibly marked for its deceit, its duplicity, or its plain falsity. I refer specifically to one clause of the Bill to disclose the monster that is being created by this Government without one word of explanation to the people of Australia as to why this power is needed. I refer to clause 1 3, which provides:

  1. 1 ) The regulations may authorize the Commission, either generally or otherwise as provided by the regulations, to exercise all or any of the powers (other than judicial powers) of any authority or tribunal under any law of Australia made under the provisions of the Constitution relating to trade and commerce.

  2. Where regulations so authorizing the Commission to exercise any powers of an authority or tribunal are in force-

    1. the Commission may exercise the powers to the extent provided for by the regulations;
    2. the authority or tribunal is not entitled to exercise the powers to the extent to which the Commission is authorized to exercise the powers; and
    3. for the purpose of enabling the Commission to exercise the powers in accordance with the regulations, or for purposes connected with or arising out of the exercise of those powers by the Commission, the law under which the powers were previously exercisable by the authority or tribunal has effect subject to such modifications (if any) as are prescribed.

Let us consider the import of that clause. It means that the Governor-General may make regulations- and regulations, of course, may be made while the Parliament is in recess, and such regulations operate from the day on which they are made. Those regulations may authorise the Commission to exercise all or any of the powers of any authority or tribunal under any law of

Australia made under the provisions of the Constitution relating to trade and commerce. What are the authorities or tribunals made under laws which the trade and commerce power justifies? I suppose, if you wanted to be pedantic, you would say these are only those which the Parliament expressly says are made under the trade and commerce power. But if you were so pedantic you would be met in due course with what the High Court says. It has said that the Commonwealth can justify, as a law made within its powers, any law which can be sustained under any head of the Constitution. The Trade Practices Commission is a body purportedly established under the corporation’s power, but it is also said by the Act itself to be established under the trade and commerce power. The Conciliation and Arbitration Commission is established under the section of the Constitution that gives the Commonwealth the power to deal with the settlement of interstate disputes; but if in a particular area that authority does something that can be justified under the trade and commerce power the High Court would regard it as a body established under that power.

The Prices Justification Tribunal is a body established under that power, as are the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission, the Industries Assistance Commission, the Australian National Airlines Commission, and the other bodies recently established in regard to railways. We might also look at other bodies with incidental functions established by this Government- and goodness knows there are almost hundreds of them. Scarcely a significant commission in this land cannot be overridden by regulations made by the Governor-General under this piece of legislation. If such regulations are made the effect is that the Inter-State Commission will be able to exercise all the powers of those bodies which are conferred upon it by the regulations. It will be able to exercise the powers conferred on the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to the extent that it has trade and commerce powers. It will be able to exercise the powers conferred on the Prices Justification Tribunal, the Trade Practices Commission, the Australian National Airlines Commission or any of those other bodies. That is what this measure will involve. To the extent that the Commission is given those powers by regulation the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, the Trade Practices Commission, the Prices Justification Tribunal and all those other bodies are denied the opportunity or the right to exercise those powers.

An immense power is being given to this Commission, and I wonder whether those background supporters of the Australian Labor Party are aware of that, and whether they would welcome the blithe and bland support being given by their parliamentary representatives to a body which could override the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission or the Prices Justification Tribunal. I wonder how Labor parliamentarians would explain to their supporters what might happen if that dreaded event, the Opposition getting into power, did happen. I think it is absolutely ridiculous for this Parliament to accept that this power should exist in the hands of an Inter-State Commission without vastly more consideration than has been able to be given to it and with absolutely no public examination, as I see it, of the impact of those powers. Furthermore, if one looks at the last limb of this provision, one sees that the powers which were previously exercised by the tribunal or authority can be modified by regulation.

In short, it does not matter what the Parliament has said should be the powers of the Industries Assistance Commission, under this legislation regulations can transfer the powers of that Commission to the Inter-State Commission and, furthermore, can modify, in effect, the powers of the Act. Of course legislation of that character ought to be scrutinised. I have mentioned that, because one question ought to be asked large and loud: Why has not the Government told the Parliament and the people in the second reading speech or in some Minister’s utterance why that power has been included? Why the silence? Was the reason why the debate in the Lower House was gagged, after 2 hours on the second reading and after less than 2 hours debate in the Committee stages, that too many inadvertent questions might be asked? Is the reason why the challenge is made by the Government in this chamber that the Opposition merely wants to delay good measures, that the Government is frightened that some of these questions might be asked? We know that the Government will allow months or years to elapse before it brings some Bills on for debate, but other Bills which have some vitals nestling within them are brought on at double quick speed, and this Bill is one of them.

It may be said to the Opposition: ‘If you object to this particular clause, why don’t you wait until the Committee stages and then remove the clause?’ I suppose that could be done, but perchance, if the Bill were to go into the Committee stages, I would hope that that clause would be removed.

Senator Durack:

– There are many others.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I agree, but let me develop the theme, because if clause 13 were deleted what would be left? Then we would have a commission that would have certain investigatory, adjudicatory and arbitrary powers.

Looking at some of the clauses, one wonders what their impact would be. For example, if one examines clause 10 one finds that the Parliament is arrogating to itself a power to declare unlawful, in respect of or so as to affect overseas transport or interstate transport or in relation to overseas transport or interstate transport, any preference or advantage, discrimination or disadvantage which the Commissioner adjudges to be undue and unreasonable. That is an immense power. It could override, for example, legislation of the State Parliaments. I question how valid that clause would be, because the Inter-State Commission is empowered with processes of adjudication and enforcement with respect to the trade and commerce laws within the Commonwealth. Honourable senators should look at what the High Court has said and in particular at what Sir John Latham said in the Riverina Transport Pty Ltd case, which many will remember as one of the classic judgments in regard to section 92 of the Constitution. He spoke at length about the Inter-State Commission. He said:

The Inter-State Commission is not a legislative body.

Yet this Parliament assumes by this legislation that it can declare certain things to be unlawful. He continued:

It cannot make laws. It adjudicates concerning laws and administers those laws. It executes and maintains those laws.

I read on:

The functions of the Commission are limited by the words within the Commonwealth’. Thus, the Commission cannot deal with foreign trade outside the Commonwealth.

Yet the whole tenor of this legislation is that the Inter-State Commission can deal with overseas transport, a question which I believe ought to be examined with much more clarity and scrutiny than hitherto has been able to be given it. One ought to examine also the extent to which it is proper that the Parliament should have the power to override the provisions of a State Parliament. The legislation ought to be looked at also in connection with the operation of section 92 of the Constitution.

My understanding of the founding of the Commonwealth was that the founders believed that the Inter-State Commission would be a constructive body in developing a national Australiaa body in which there would be no customs barriers and which would help Australia develop as one nation. The Inter-State Commission was regarded as having a significant role to play in that field. It may have had a significant role if it had been able to sustain itself in its formative years. It was not able to do so. In the intervening period many of the functions which could have been performed by the Inter-State Commission have been assumed by other bodies. They have been assumed by the Grants Commission, the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, the Trade Practices Commission and, I would have thought, the meeting of Ministers of the States and the Commonwealth which have developed with an increasing frequency in the last 20 or 30 years.

One must ask: What is the role of the InterState Commission today? The really significant unifying factor in the development of a national Australia was not the Inter-State Commission; it was section 92 of the Constitution. Because of the requirement that trade, commerce and intercourse among the several States should be absolutely free, the High Court, in the exercise of the power which was conferred upon it, declared to be unlawful those legislative and administrative acts which it regarded as contrary to that guarantee of freedom. We now have reached a stage, of course, where if there is an area of activity which is within that broad concept of interstate trade, commerce or intercourse and there are legislative or administrative acts which impose a burden upon that interstate trade, commerce or intercourse, that is an infringement of the freedom. I know that in regard to the difficult area of the usage which interstate road operators make of the roads of the Commonwealth the High Court has imposed an exception, namely, that if there is a charge made which relates to the maintenance of the road, and that is a reasonable charge related to the upkeep of the roads, it is not an infringement of the freedom. What if the InterState Commission was to declare some charges to be unreasonable or to be a discrimination? Is the High Court thereby bound to accept the Inter-State Commission’s decision as binding upon the High Court; or could we have the curious situation arising that what the Inter-State Commission says is unfair is declared by the High Court to be fair and not an infringement of the freedom? These are questions which I think are not easily answered. They are problems which go to the very heart of the role which the Inter-State Commission can fulfil.

I conclude by saying that, as has been indicated by Senator Withers, the Opposition will support the second reading of this Bill, but we will not, until August, go into the Committee stage of the Bill if the Senate accedes to what the Opposition will be putting forward. We do that because there are many problems which have not been answered. This Bill was some 2Vi years in gestation and it is sought to be aborted within some 6 weeks of its being introduced into the Parliament. The reason for that is something about which the Government has not been prepared to come clean and to inform the public. We believe that it is only proper that those people who would be affected by this Bill, in particular the States whose transport responsibilities would be greatly affected by this Bill, should have the opportunity to consider it and to take advice as to what its implications would be. The Opposition also wants the time to give further consideration to it. What I have raised have been some, and some only, of my personal views about the problems which this Bill would create. I would welcome the added time to consider the Bill. I trust that the Senate will agree generally to the second reading of the Bill, but will delay further consideration until August.

Senator STEELE HALL:
South AustraliaLeader of the Liberal Movement

– I believe that the Opposition is not simply being cautious in this matter but is being prudent in making sure that this Bill is fully examined and that the Government’s intent is fully examined. I think Senator Greenwood was wise to ask: What is the role of the Inter-State Commission? As a layman and not a lawyer, I must say that I am confused in trying to put together the second reading speech and the Bill. The second reading speech deals, I think almost exclusively, with transport. It lists the reasons why the Government has introduced the Bill. It says that the history of transport in Australia is studded with examples of lack of co-ordination. It goes on to mention, firstly, rail gauges; secondly, differing approaches to road networks in the various regions; thirdly, vehicle dimensions and axle loads; and, fourthly that there is no single entity to which reference can be made for positive assistance in the investigation of complaints. I suppose that is a fairly reasonable statement. But the Government, in bringing in a Bill to establish a commission where none exists now, very recklessly clothes the Commission with the powers which have been described quite fully by members of the Opposition.

I think that if the Government were serious in asking for the co-operation of the Opposition in this matter it would have brought in powers which were limited to the purposes outlined in the second reading speech and if it were necessary to extend the powers later the Government would ask Parliament for that extension. That would seem to me to be a proper and responsible attitude to be taken by a government which is establishing something that does not exist. Senator Everett has argued for the fullest of powers and used a comparison with the defeat of the referendums in relation to prices and incomes. Therefore, as a very effective spokesman for the Government in the Senate, he has established his belief that the powers need to be as wide as they are stated. Whist I am the first to admit that he is a very persuasive speaker, he did not say, under quite respectful questioning by interjection, why the powers were needed. I invite him to examine his speech tomorrow and to see how inadequate his attempted answer was to the question why the Bill needs to be drawn in this form. The Government has outlined a limited role, but put into this chamber a Bill with extraordinary powers. It just does not make sense, as a practical move, for a government to ask the House in which it does not have a majority to accede to such legislation. It is just totally impractical, at least in a political sense.

One must be convinced by arguments such as those which Senator Wright put to the Senate tonight and by those advanced by Senator Greenwood who has just completed his speech. One must be convinced that the Government has a case which needs to be answered. The Government has simply not answered it in the debate. Therefore I would have no alternative but to vote with the Opposition to defer the Bill. Whether the Opposition wants to defer it or to defeat it is a matter of political niceties, no doubt. In expressing support for the concept of an Inter-State Commission limited to a specific role, I guess it is reasonable to defer the Bill, although it is inviting the Government to run around the country and distort the argument, with the very powerful resources it now has in the media. That is another issue. It could have an effect in the intervening period before the Bill is discussed again.

I was interested in the criticism of Senator Wright’s statement about union matters and his desire to move amendments which would bring within the orbit of the investigations and the powers of the Commission actions of the unions in relation to transport matters in Australia. He emphasised the position in Tasmania, which he quite rightly ought to do as one of its representatives here. There are very real reasons for his doing so, and it is not anti-union to mention those matters. Apparently we are to be subjected week after week and day after day to vilification of anyone who runs a business or who uses capital in this community, but never are we to list the defects of the union system because we are then union baiters. The whole argument of control in this issue has been directed to those who will manage events, who will direct and use capital. The very mention of the most uncontrolled of all the power groups in Australia, the unions, and their great stranglehold on the transport links in Australia brings a rejection- we should not mention this; they should not be brought into it.

What member does not know of the very great effects that unlawful or improper acts of unions have on transport? Australia has lost a valuable wheat market, to Chile, because of actions which I thought ought to come under a relevant clause in relation to overseas trade. The Government almost whispers its dismay at the fact that we have lost a $40m or $70m sale. I do not remember the exact figure, but it is a substantial multi-million dollar figure. As a result, the wheat is in Australia, unsold. Is that to be examined or not? What about the alleged payments which are made by motor vehicle distributors in Australia to the wharf labourers? The distributors cannot get their imported cars off the ships unless they pay, so it is said. If they do not pay, the cars are dumped. Any person who knows the imported motor vehicle trade will tell you that that happens in almost every major port in Australia.

What about the loading of lucerne pellets in South Australia. I have personal knowledge of this matter. Payments were made privately by the owners to get the lucerne pellets loaded. They would not have been loaded otherwise. The newsprint industry in Tasmania is another example. I understand that there are current investigations in that area. That is just a smattering of many hundreds of items which have a direct effect not only on the actual supply of goods through our transport links but also on the user and the sender at each end of those links. Anyone who studies transport around the world, even superficially, knows the tremendous effects that these matters would have. I think Senator Wright should be complimented for being evenhanded in his approach to this Bill and for suggesting that it should be suitably amended to ensure that all aspects are investigated and that it is not left merely as a vehicle for attack by the Labor Party on capital.

I cannot say much more because I do not know a lot more about it. The Government has not told us about it. I would have thought it was the Government’s duty to justify this Bill. It has simply said, through its senior spokesmen, that it requires all the major powers which are outlined in this Bill, for a very limited usage. Quite frankly, I do not believe it. Ministers know, or they will know if they are in office long enough, they will know that their various duties will lead them to ask their advisers: ‘What power do I have under my legislation? How far can I go under that legislation?’ I remind the Senate of what happened under a previous Labor government, prior to 1949, and to the search through the legislative capacity of the Government of the day as to how far it could go. I submit that if the Inter-State Commission Bill were passed in its present form, at some stage in the future some Labor government would be saying, through its Ministers: ‘How far can we go under this legislation?’ We would see the extremes of the power applied for whatever purpose the administration of the day saw fit. It cannot be said that this Bill is justified by the arguments which have been presented to the Senate so far. Certainly the issues have been outlined far more clearly by the Opposition, and they simply have not been denied by the Government. Because I think it is a pretty difficult matter when the Government will not stand up to its legislation, I will heartily and enthusiastically support the Opposition’s amendment.

Senator DURACK:
Western Australia

– At this stage of the debate I do not know that a very great deal more can be said about the problem which this Bill poses to the Senate. I think that in many ways Senator Hall has succinctly presented the problem with which we are faced by this Bill. I cannot remember any Bill being presented to the Senate since I have been a member which causes me so much difficulty. It is not because this Bill is enormously complicated. We have been confronted with much more complicated legislation, much more technical legislation and far lengthier legislation than this Bill. It is not because this Bill presents a very grave difference of political views between ourselves and the Government, which we so frequently see. As has been made clear on behalf of the Opposition, the Opposition does not oppose in principle the setting up of an Inter-State Commission. That is provided in the Constitution.

The difficulty that I find with this Bill-I think it is the same as the difficulty Senator Hall has expressed- is that it is impossible to extract from it any clear, rational consistency of purpose and object. It is the greatest mish-mash of confusion, garbled thought and expression that I think could be found in any form of legislation. It is a complete mish-mash of legislative action, executive action and judicial action. One can find all these basic concepts of government mixed up in relatively few clauses in a portion of this Bill. One thread running through the Bill is that the proposed Commission will be a prestigious judicial body. That is to be found in references to the status of the President of the Commission. There is even the effrontery to give him the same status as a High Court Judge. I think the salary proposed to be paid to him is equivalent to that paid to a High Court judge. Other aspects of the Bill seem to indicate that it has an Executive purpose only.

Debate interrupted.

page 1717

ADJOURNMENT

Vietnamese Refugees

The PRESIDENT:

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

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

- Mr Kevin Davis, whom the Melbourne Age’ of 29 April last described as a research officer for a privately funded human rights group named the Human Life Research Foundation and who, during the week, has received some publicity as the secretary of an organisation which calls itself the Committee of Concern for Refugees from Indo-China, has issued a number of statements which were highly critical of the Australian Government. They allege that the Government has transported fewer refugees from South Vietnam than it was obliged to have done. So far as I am aware, and after considerable inquiry, neither Mr Davis nor, for that matter, his colleagues in the Committee of Concern for Refugees from Indo-China, the Reverend Nile or Mr Hines of the New South Wales Branch of the Returned Services League, showed no such humanitarian concern for refugees from the civil war in Bangladesh in 1 97 1 or from the civil war in Nigeria at about the same time. I believe that the reason for those omissions will become plain in a moment.

I believe it should be known by the Senate and by the public that Mr Kevin Davis is the same Kevin Davis who was President of the New South Wales Branch of the Australian Democratic Labor Party, Press Secretary to 2 former parliamentary leaders of the DLP and is, I understand, still an executive member of the New South Wales Branch of the DLP. Mr Davis, for rather obvious reasons, has been very reticent about disclosing his current and previous political positions, but the public is entitled to know that his assessments and assertions are not those of a simple humanitarian. It is ironic that a very active member of the DLP, an organisation which demanded conscription of Australian youth, which was the most hysterical advocate of fire and slaughter in Indo-China, which sponsored television advertisements which purported to show that Chairman Mao was responsible for the atrocities of Belsen, and which blythely ignored the tiger cages of Con Son’ and the atrocities perpetrated by the former rulers of Saigon, should have the effrontery to pose as a person genuinely concerned about protecting life and.individual liberty.

Senator Poyser:

– Is he not also one of those persons that wants to get atomic weapons?

Senator WALSH:

– He is one of those persons that wants to make atomic bombs in Australia, as Senator Poyser reminds me. Mr Davis’s allegations should be clearly recognised for what they are- highly partisan political utterances designed to denigrate the Australian Government without regard to the facts and the true situation.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 11.4 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 21 May 1975, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1975/19750521_senate_29_s64/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant