Senate
28 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 1897

PETITIONS

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present 5 petitions, identical in wording and from 44, 190, 25, 32 and 36 citizens of Australia respectively, in the following terms:

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.

Increase bureaucratic control over the Nation’s financial resources.

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.

Petitions received and first petition read.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present 4 petitions identical in wording, from 32, 7, 473 and 1 1 citizens of Australia respectively, in the following terms:

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:

. Causing widespread unemployment,

Stifling freedom of choice and virile competition, and

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.

Petitions received, and first petition read.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

Senator CHANEY:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition from 1523 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:

Add to the Taxpayers burden.

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

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.

Petition received and read.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

Senator BAUME:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 196 citizens of Australia:

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

1 ) 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 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) have 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.

That the insurance industry is already faced with

the effects of inflation,

b ) increased taxation on life assurance offices,

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 House will reject the Bill.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Senator BAUME:

– I should like the petition read but as it exceeds 250 words in length I ask that leave be given for the petition to be read by the Clerk.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Petition received and read.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

Senator LAUCKE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition from 38 citizens of Australia:

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

1 ) 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 1 974.

That no 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) have 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.

That the insurance industry is already faced with

the effects of inflation,

increased taxation on life assurance offices,

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 House will reject the Bill.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Taxation: Education Expenses

Senator JESSOP:

– I present the following petition from 86 citizens of Australia:

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

That because of the excessively high inflation rate, the Government decision to decrease the taxable allowance for education expenses from $400 to $ 1 50 per student will create unreasonable financial pressures upon many families and will cause great difficulty for such families to provide their children with an adequate education.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government restore the taxable allowance to $400.

Petition received and read.

The Clerk:

– The following petitions have been lodged for presentation:

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

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.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of the undersigned 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 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) have 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.

  6. That the insurance industry is already faced 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 Senator Townley, Senator Guilfoyle, Senator Button, Senator Withers and Senator Brown.

Petitions received.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

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 Senator Drake-Brockman.

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

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 Drake-Brockman.

Petition received.

page 1899

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 1899

QUESTION

DEFENCE SERVICE HOMES LOANS

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I address my question to the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation or the Minister representing the Minister for Housing and Construction, whichever is appropriate. Is the Minister aware that a small number of totally and permanently incapacitated repatriation pensioners are ineligible for defence service home loans because they did not serve in a theatre of war? Will the Minister examine this situation with a view to having what appears to be an anomaly corrected?

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

– The defence service homes scheme is administered by the Minister for Housing and Construction, who is limited by an Act of previous governments. One of the conditions of defence service home loan eligibility is that the applicant has served in a theatre of war, although I think there has been some extension of eligibility since this Government has come to power. I think more leniency is shown by the present Government. However, I will take up this matter with the Minister and, if the details of any particular case could be given to him, he could examine them and see whether something could be done.

page 1899

QUESTION

REGIONAL EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT SCHEME

Senator DRURY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is addressed to the Postmaster-General, representing the Minister for Labor and Immigration, and refers to the operation of the Australian Government’s Regional Employment Development scheme. Can the Minister provide any figures indicating the number of unemployed persons who have been re-employed under the scheme?

Senator BISHOP:
Postmaster-General · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I think I have given figures in the past on behalf of the Minister for Labor and Immigration and yesterday I answered questions about areas which had recently been granted approval under the scheme which has been very beneficial in reducing unemployment on a regional basis. At the end of April the number of unemployed persons employed in the area schemes was 18 877, plus 1500 general administrative people. It is anticipated that about 55 000 people will be employed finally when all the schemes now approved get under way.

page 1900

QUESTION

WHITE RUSSIAN REFUGEES

Senator GREENWOOD:
VICTORIA

– I address my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Labor and Immigration, although if the Minister for Foreign Affairs has greater knowledge possibly he would answer the question. Does the Minister accept that the 20 000 refugee White Russians who came to Australia from Harbin, China, about 20 years ago have in all respects been exemplary residents and citizens of this country? Is the Minister aware of the fear being instilled in a great number of these people by the receipt of letters, apparently from the Soviet Russian Consulate-General, requesting them to attend at that Consulate-General’s office and offering them Soviet passports? Does he accept that such fear would normally arise not only from the apprehension as to why the Soviet authorities would be asking them to take Soviet passports but also from the fact that knowledge of their whereabouts and personalities is known to the Soviet Consulate-General? As that information could only come from a spy network or from the Department of Labor and Immigration, which has the information given to it when they came into this country, co-operating with the Soviet authorities, will the Minister declare whether or not there has been this co-operation by the Department of Labor and Immigration? Will he accept that this fear is genuinely felt by people who are receiving these letters?

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

-I have been asked to give a range of opinions about whether or not the White Russians who came here about 20 years ago have been good citizens. As far as I know they have been good citizens. The honourable senator has asked for an opinion of whether they are in fear because they have allegedly received letters offering them passports. However, I do not know whether they are in fear.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I wish to ask a supplementary question. In the light of the Minister’s reply, will he deign to investigate the matter?

Senator WILLESEE:

– What matter? That they are frightened, that they are good citizens, or what?

I do not know what the question is. If Senator Greenwood will see me and give me a definite and direct question I shall assist him all I can.

page 1900

QUESTION

CONCORD GENERAL HOSPITAL: FIRE OFFICERS

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation. Mindful of the Minister’s known sympathy for the aspirations of the proletariat, I ask: Can he advise what can be done to accelerate a decision on the outstanding wages claims of one fire officer and 4 fire assistants employed at the Concord Repatriation Hospital?

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

-Speaking as a petit bourgeois with strong proletarian sympathies, I have investigated this matter, which was drawn to my attention by Senator Mulvihill. Only two of the Repatriation General Hospitals employ a fire service. They are the Concord hospital in Sydney and the Heidelberg hospital in Melbourne. These people are paid at the rate for orderlies, plus a margin for the additional duties that they fulfil as fire officers. A claim has been made by the Hospital Employees Federation in New South Wales, which is the union that covers these fire officers and other employees of my Department in the Concord hospital, to the effect that they should be paid at the same rate as the members of the New South Wales Fire Brigade. Representatives of the Hospital Employees Federation discussed the matter with some members of my staff last month. On the 20th of this month there was a meeting between the representatives of the Hospital Employees Federation, officers of the Department of Repatriation and Compensation and officers of the Public Service Board, the latter being responsible for the determinations. As honourable senators would know, my Department is not the responsible body.

Apparently there is disagreement between the Public Service Board and the Hospital Employees Federation over this matter. The Public Service Board argues that the duties of the fire officers employed in hospitals are not strictly comparable with those of the members of a fire brigade, in that they are not required to engage in such matters as proceeding from one place to another when fire breaks out or, as Senator Mulvihill has just indicated in a non-verbal manner, sliding down poles and doing things of that kind; and in fact that it is generally the case that it is only on average about 7 minutes before a fire brigade arrives to deal with any fire that breaks out. For that reason the Public Service Board- I am merely repeating what the Public Service Board apparently says; I have no responsibility in this matter- is reluctant to grant the claims of the Hospital Employees Federation. However, the Hospital Employees Federation has said that there will be a stoppage of the fire staff at the

Concord hospital next week if the claims are not met. If this is the case, naturally the Public Service Arbitrator will be called in. I do not know that there is anything that I can add to that, because this will then be a matter between the Board and the Hospital Employees Federation for determination by the Public Service Arbitrator. As soon as I have some information arising from that meeting I shall let Senator Mulvihill know.

page 1901

QUESTION

CHINA: FOREIGN POLICY

Senator CHANEY:

– I ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether he has seen reports that China has publicly affirmed support for armed communist movements working to overthrow the non-communist governments in Indonesia, Burma, Malaysia and Singapore. Has he seen reports that the Indonesian Foreign Minister has publicly objected to China’s action? Does the Government accept the accuracy of the report? If it does, what is the Government’s attitude to this action by China, which is interference in the domestic affairs of other countries? What action has the Government taken, or does it propose to take, with respect to China’s action?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

– I have seen the reports. That is all I have seen. The action I propose to take is to check on the reports.

page 1901

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN DAIRY PRODUCE BOARD

Senator PRIMMER:
VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Agriculture. What stage has been reached in the Minister’s plan to reorganise the Australian Dairy Produce Board? Has the Minister discussed the proposed measures with the industry? If so, what has been the reaction?

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · TASMANIA · ALP

-The Government is reconstituting the Australian Dairy Produce Board. Legislation in that respect will come before the Parliament very shortly. In fact, it should be introduced into the House of Representatives today. That is in line with the Government’s policy of reorganising all statutory authorities where there is considered to be a need to do so. There has been very close liaison with all aspects of the industry. 1 hope that I will be in a position to announce the appointments to the new corporation, as it will be called, within about a month after the legislation goes through the Parliament.

page 1901

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT INSURANCE CORPORATION

Senator STEELE HALL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation. What is the real significance, other than to avoid confusion with the names of other insurance offices in Australia, of the change by the Government of the name of the Australian Government Insurance Office to the Australian Government Insurance Corporation?

Senator WHEELDON:
ALP

-I am not quite sure what Senator Hall is implying when he uses the words ‘the real significance’. The name was changed as a result of a request from the Premier of New South Wales, who wrote to the Prime Minister saying that he believed that there would be confusion in his own State. I readily concurred, as did the Prime Minister and the Government, not only that there would be confusion in New South Wales but also that there could well be confusion in other States. If in New South Wales, for example, there was the Government Insurance Office of New South Wales and the Australian Government Insurance Office, one could well imagine that that could create some confusion. So the Government agreed to change the name from ‘Australian Government Insurance Office’ to ‘Australian Government Insurance Corporation’ in order to eliminate that confusion. I am not sure that I know what Senator Hall is driving at; but, if he thinks that there is some sinister motive involved in that, I suggest that he ought to take up the matter with Mr Lewis. It was at his request that we did it.

page 1901

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN CULTURAL CENTRE IN JAKARTA

Senator DEVITT:
TASMANIA

-I ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether he saw the Press reports last weekend which alleged that there had been exceptional delays in the establishment of an Australian cultural centre in Jakarta. Can the Minister inform the Senate of the present position with regard to the establishment of that centre in Jakarta?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

– A house was purchased in 1973 in an area suitable for the purpose of a cultural centre. At the time of the purchase the layout of the house was known to be unsuited to the purpose and plans were put in hand for extensive remodelling to be carried out while retaining the external facade. The local architects have experienced considerable difficulty in the design and translation of the user requirements into a feasible plan. They also have had some difficulties with mechanical and electrical aspects of the reconstruction. Final working drawings for the project were received in Canberra on 9 May. Appropriate provision has been made in the 1975-76 works proposals. A construction period of about 12 months is expected, following approval.

page 1902

QUESTION

ANIMAL BREEDING AND HUSBANDRY

Senator SCOTT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I address a question to the Minister for Agriculture. During an adjournment debate in the House of Representatives last Wednesday night the honourable member for Eden-Monaro, Mr Whan, in expressing concern at Mrs Rolfe ‘s withdrawal from an Industries Assistance Commission inquiry, drew attention to the question she posed, which was:

Would it not be more sensible to look for species which are uniquely suitable to the Australian environment?

I ask: Can we assume that the inference is that animal breeding and husbandry in Australia are second class and unsuitable to our environment and that the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and other research institutes are unaware of the constant need to fit species to the Australian circumstance? Is it not a fact that our environment and climate are major contributors to the excellent standards of Australian meat, grain and fibre production? Most importantly, does the Minister agree with Mr Whan’s assertion that farmer organisations are not yet equipped to put objective argument?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-Dealing with the last point, I should say that it has been stated many times by many people, including myself on many occasions, that the more the farmer organisations combine in making their submissions to the Government the more chance they have of having the proposals in them accepted. That is something to which the farmer organisations themselves have not taken exception. I believe that the general comments which Mrs Rolfe made were based on her very long experience in agricultural matters and agricultural economics. It may well be that Mrs Rolfe has been brave enough to raise a matter which has perhaps been neglected over the years in this country. It is not a reflection on the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation or on any of the other research organisations in Australia. She was referring specifically to the approach by farmers themselves rather than to any institution. I would not canvass whether she was right or wrong, but certainly she was at liberty to make her point. As I understand it, Mr Whan was doing no more than referring to what she had said.

page 1902

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL HOUSING

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. What avenues are open to Aborigines to enable them to find the style of housing they desire? Will the newly established Aboriginal Loans Commission assist Aboriginal families to obtain suitable housing?

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

-Aboriginals have 5 avenues for obtaining homes. They can apply normally for a housing commission home in one of the States. There is funding to each State Government to enable Aboriginals to obtain houses through the housing commissions. In both cases the tenant must meet the requirements of the State housing commission. Aboriginal housing associations have been formed. The Aboriginal communities form their own associations which are registered. My Department funds such associations for the purchase or erection of housing. There are 143 such housing associations throughout Australia at present. Aboriginal Hostels Ltd, which is funded by my Department, provides accommodation for a number of Aboriginals, and this number is increasing. There is the normal method of purchase through any real estate agent or builder. Such purchases will be assisted by the newly formed Aboriginal Loans Commission. The legislation to set up this body was passed by the Parliament last session. I saw in the Press that the first loan was made last week for the purchase of a house in Canberra.

The housing associations are developing, in particular areas, different types of housing. A housing panel from the Royal Australian Institute of Architects is trying to design some housing which meets Aboriginal requirements for outback areas where the European-type homes are not entirely acceptable. There is developing in relation to Aboriginal housing at present in the north a new design of housing in that the open fire place is still maintained but the fire place is out of doors. There are 3 beautiful homes at the Bagot Reserve in Darwin. They were the only three which were not damaged by the cyclone. They were built by an Aboriginal housing association. Each has a courtyard and outdoor fireplace. I would commend to anyone who is in Darwin an inspection of them to see what we have achieved. We have a policy to overcome housing shortages for Aboriginals by 1 982. The money spent and the progress made would suggest that we are well on the way to achieving our target.

page 1902

QUESTION

FOOD PRICES

Senator SHEIL:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. With food prices continuing to rise, thus increasing the pressures on the economy, can the Minister confirm that the Government has reversed its stand against cuts in public sector spending? If significant reductions are to be made, will the Government announce its intentions before the presentation of the Budget, to help allay fears that the economy is running out of control?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-I have indicated previously in the Senate that I will not make statements which might prejudge any Government decisions about the forthcoming Budget. This is a matter of Government policy which will be determined in due course. It will be proper then for the Treasurer to make a statement about any decisions that the Government makes concerning spending.

As regards questions of price, demand and so on, the current position obviously is one of strengthening demand throughout the whole of the retail sector. In fact we find that demand during the last 3 months increased 4 times over the demand during the previous 3 months. That is a measure of the effects that the Government’s decision of late last year are now having on the economy. What we do in respect of the Budget is entirely a matter for Government policy at the appropriate time.

page 1903

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL PASTORAL AND AGRICULTURAL PROPERTIES

Senator MELZER:
VICTORIA

-Can the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs advise the Senate how many properties, both pastoral and agricultural, have been purchased by the Australian Government since December 1972 for the benefit of Aboriginal communities? Will he also advise of any details that are available regarding the possibility of the Gurindji of Wattie Creek receiving a title to 12 500 square miles of land during the course of this year?

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

– A publication that we have just issued dealing with 2 years of Labor’s operations in the Department of Aboriginal Affairs lists the properties that we have purchased for Aboriginals. They include Pippingarra, Woodbrook and Peedamulla in Western Australia and Irish Wells in South Australia. There has been some delay in purchasing properties in the Northern Territory because under the Woodward Commission we intend to establish an Aboriginal land commission in the Northern Territory to look into the question of claims. It is hoped that legislation setting up that commission will be before the Parliament this session. We have made no direct purchases of land for Aboriginals in the Northern Territory, although there are some areas that we are holding in trust for Aboriginal communities.

Certain arrangements have been made with Vesteys. When Vesteys’ lease expires on 30 June next all the western side of the Victoria River Downs property will become the subject of a separate pastoral lease which will be handed over to the Wattie Creek Gurindji tribe. The land will be handed over to the Gurindji people and become their property just as soon as Vesteys can put up a dividing fence, sink new wells and bores and carry out a muster of the stock which is now on that area of land at Wave Hill. It is about 7 years since the Gurindjis walked off the Wave Hill station and set up their own settlement at Wattie Creek. I think it is a great occasion that we are now able to meet the land needs of the Gurindji people. The Prime Minister has been asked to attend the ceremony in July for the purpose of handing over the lease to the Gurindji people at Wattie Creek.

page 1903

QUESTION

MARGARINE QUOTAS

Senator MAUNSELL:
QUEENSLAND

-My question is directed to the Minister for Agriculture. Has the Government made a decision to abolish margarine quotas? If so, will the Government reconsider the decision in view of the fact that the Federal Government may be acting against what are the several interests of the States as represented at the Australian Agricultural Council?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-The Australian Government made a decision to abolish margarine quotas in the areas under its jurisdiction- of course, they are the Territories- last year. It also decided that quotas would be phased out completely by July 1976. This provided for a 2-year period. This matter was raised at the Australian Agricultural Council at that time- it having been debated for many years. Some States agreed with that decision. I understand that most, if not all, of the States accept the fact that margarine quotas will be out next year and that the market will be entirely free to products of oil seed origin. I do not expect that there will be very much impact at all on margarine’s competitive products- mostly butter- because the trend in the consumption of butter has been falling consistently over the years and there has been an increasing demand for margarine products. I believe that the effect on the dairy industry will be quite marginal.

page 1903

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT INSURANCE CORPORATION

Senator BESSELL:
TASMANIA

– My question, which is directed to the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation, relates to the Government’s proposal to establish the Australian Government

Insurance Corporation and to the fact that one of the reasons given for its establishment is to cover such contingencies as national disasters, etc. I ask: Why has no action been taken on the report of March 1974 by the industry on this matter, other than to use it as one of the reasons for the introduction of the Australian Government Insurance Corporation?

Senator WHEELDON:
ALP

-The report to which Senator Bessell refers was a series of proposals put forward by various private general insurance companies. The crux of their proposition was that the Australian Government should foot the bill for national interest and/or natural disaster insurance but that the general insurance companies should act as agents for the Government and pick up a fee for providing a government service. That, I think, is in short what they were saying. It did not strike me and it did not strike the Government as being a terribly attractive proposition that we should merely hand out commissions to general insurance companies to administer a service which the Australian Government was providing. If we were going to do that we might just as well do it with every other government department and allow the general insurance companies to handle the whole social security system, age pensions and everything else. If we are going to engage in matters such as national interest insurance then we believe that we ought to be handling them. There is no justification for paying various profit making bodies to administer them.

However, I have made it quite clear in the meetings that I have had with the representatives of the general insurance offices that it is not proposed under the Bill which is at present before the Parliament to exclude general insurance companies from engaging in national interest insurance. We intend to see that national interest insurance is provided; we believe that great many people who ought to be covered are not covered at the present time. The general insurance companies have had something like 100 years, or more than 100 years, operation in Australia in which to come up with some ideas, and the best they have been able to do is to suggest that they should collect a commission from us when we provide this type of insurance. If they can come up with some suggestions as to how they can work in co-operation with the Australian Government Insurance Corporation and share the risks as well as the profits, then we are certainly prepared to discuss those matters with them. I do not believe there is anything in the present Bill which precludes them from taking part in those activities. If there is anything in the

Bill which does appear to preclude them from taking part in those activities I would be perfectly happy to accept any amendments which the Opposition or anybody else puts forward to make it clear that they can participate with the Australian Government Insurance Corporation in these activities, provided that this does not inhibit the passage of the Bill.

page 1904

QUESTION

CANNES FILM FESTIVAL

Senator POYSER:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for the Media. Is it true that the first official Australian delegation to the Cannes Film Festival has now completed its assignment? Is the Minister in receipt of any information about the delegation’s performance at the international event? Has the Minister received any reports or recommendations concerning future Australian representation at the Festival?

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

– I have received a report from an officer of my Department who has been in attendance at the Festival. As the honourable senator will be aware, Australian representation at the Cannes Film Festival was arranged following discussions between my Department, the Department of Overseas Trade and the Australian Film Development Corporation. The report that I have received assures me that even at this early stage arrangements are being finalised for what are called territorial sales- sales of the Australian product. There are indications that a number of sizable deals may be signed for major English speaking markets shortly. The latest Australian films are being shown on a virtually continuous basis at a leading cinema in Cannes. The latest report says that the Australian film which has made the biggest impact, with crowds in fact being turned away at times, is the adventure spectacular ‘Man from Hong Kong’. That, of course, was made under a co-production arrangement that was entered into by an Australian company. There has been considerable interest from overseas buyers. Several leading identities in this area have commented on the great commercial possibilities of this feature film. It is also predicted that the film will be among the top money making productions this year.

Cinema specialists say that films such as this one and the highly acclaimed ‘Sunday Too Far Away’, which reached the last three in the prestigious ‘Directors ‘ Fortnight ‘, are proof that Australian films are now the equal of those produced by most other medium-sized film producing countries. It is firmly believed that participation and sustained efforts are essential links in selling films on the international market. In regard to the television market, it should be remembered that very few contracts are signed on the spot. The results should penetrate in the next 3 to 9 months, which is not unusual for this type of event. I am told that even BBC Enterprises did not write any actual contracts, although it claims to have made many deals. This delay can be judged by the fact that while the Australians were in Cannes they received an offer from Poland for an Australian film shown in Milan 2 years ago. The Australian television stand in Cannes attracted a great deal of interest and appeared to be one of the busiest in the building that was being used. An information sheet circulated on the opening day of the television market stressed the importance of Australian Government backing in this regard. Generally, it is felt that the objectives in sending an Australian delegation to the television part of the Festival this year were more than realised and it is felt that the next few months will see the fruits of this participation.

page 1905

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT LOAN

Senator COTTON:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Is it not a fact that the last Australian Government loan has failed and that the Government is now lending money to itself through its trust funds?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-Whether the loan has failed is a matter for argument. I am sure Senator Cotton would realise that at this time of the year one would expect raisings to be lower than normal and also that the private sector naturally wishes to maintain the maximum liquidity, for reasons which I am sure he would appreciate. I would not comment on the second part of the honourable senator’s question. I think it is a matter that I should refer to the Treasurer.

page 1905

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL HOUSING

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– I direct my question to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. As he is aware, the Queensland Department of Aboriginal and Island Affairs apparently is committed to the misuse of Australian Government moneys in the purchase of homes for Aborigines. It is using inflation as an excuse to sell homes at rates of profit exceeding 100 per cent and at the same time is requesting deposits and repayments beyond the means of prospective purchasers. Can the Minister inform the Senate whether Queensland Aboriginals and Islanders can borrow funds through the Aboriginal Loans Commission for the purchase of homes? At the same time, can he also advise the Senate of the amount of deposit required and the terms of repayment?

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

-Each year the Australian Government gives the Queensland Government money for funded houses. Such funded houses frequently are sold. If one of those funded houses is sold or if a European family lives in one of those houses, another house has to be provided. The price of the house, I should think, would be based on the replacement value. As I said in answer to an earlier question, Aboriginals can purchase houses through Aboriginal housing associations throughout Australia. There are 30 such housing associations operating in Queensland. In this regard that State possibly is more progressive than any other State in Australia. I think that is due to the fact that last year the Australian Government allocated more money to Queensland through housing associations and reduced the government grant. In Mount Isa I think thirty houses were allocated for purchase by Aborigines.

It is necessary for an Aboriginal to have a 5 per cent equity in order to purchase a home through the Aboriginal Loans Commission. The Loans Commission will lend an Aboriginal family 95 per cent of the value of the home. If the family income is 110 per cent of the average weekly earnings or less a loan at 2 per cent interest is granted. If the family income is between 1 10 per cent and 125 per cent of the average weekly earnings, adjusted quarterly, the loan is granted at 5 per cent interest. If the family income is in excess of 125 per cent the loan is granted at normal bank interest. The Loan Commission is functioning now and we have knowledge of one housing loan that has been granted. The numbers of applications for purchases of homes through the Commission have been tremendous.

page 1905

QUESTION

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LEGISLATION

Senator MISSEN:
VICTORIA

– I refer the Minister representing the Attorney-General to the Government’s proposal to introduce a Freedom of Information Bill along the lines of the United States Freedom of Information Act. Early in 1973 the former Attorney-General imported American experts to assist in drafting the Bill and in September 1974 he issued a report of an interdepartmental committee proposing the emasculation of the rights proposed under the Bill. Since then nothing has been heard publicly of the proposal. Can the Minister tell the Senate what has happened to this Bill. Has there been a further retreat from open government?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I can assure the honourable senator that I raised exactly that question in the inner councils of our

Party within the last couple of days. I have every hope that that project will be revived and that he will soon see the Bill.

page 1906

QUESTION

ADVERTISEMENTS ON FAMILY PLANNING

Senator COLEMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-Has the Minister for the Media seen a report which I understand appeared in the ‘Daily News’ in Perth yesterday, and possibly in other newspapers throughout Australia, regarding advertisements on family planning soon to appear on radio and television in Canberra? Has the Australian Broadcasting Control Board listened to and viewed the proposed advertisements and do they conform to the Board’s standards? Is there any plan at this stage to extend the campaign outside the Australian Capital Territory?

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

-These advertisements were developed by my Department for the Australian Capital Territory Branch of the Family Planning Association as a result of the Association being funded in this regard by the Australian Department of Health. I am told that the media generally have been in favour of the advertisements. As far as I know, however, there are no plans at this stage for extending the campaign outside the Australian Capital Territory. The point that has been missed by most critics is that the advertisements are not for the purpose of selling contraceptives as such but rather to encourage people to contact the clinic where they can receive advice on a whole range of problems. The Australian Broadcasting Control Board has been in touch with me about the matter and has advised me that advertising copy for the Family Planning Association of Canberra has been examined by it. The examination was carried out by the Board in accordance with arrangements which apply to personal products advertising. The honourable senator will recall that the Board’s decision to relax previous provisions on this advertising was taken only after a thorough examination involving talks with broadcast media organisations and after taking into account current standards of advertising in the printing media, both here and overseas.

I must emphasise that the Board has stipulated that the easing of the restrictions is for a trial period ending on 1 June next year. In other words, the trial period will run for 12 months. Advice is given that advertisers and stations should consult the Board in the early stages of the preparation of advertisements for these products. The Board states that no such advertisement should be presented at a time when the audience is likely to contain a large proportion of children or younger people. In view of the fact that such advertising is within the laws of the Australian Capital Territory, approval has been given by the Board for the use of these advertisements on Canberra commercial stations.

page 1906

QUESTION

DEFENCE SERVICE HOMES ACT

Senator BAUME:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Housing and Construction. Does the Defence Service Homes Act require that the applicant for a loan under this Act must be in occupation of the home in question at the time of settlement? Do some churches require their ministers to reside on church property? If so, does this mean that ministers of religion who are veterans are thus excluded during the period of their ministry from acquiring homes under the Act? In the light of assurances given earlier today to Senator Drake- . Brockman, will the Minister undertake to include this anomaly with that raised by Senator DrakeBrockman for the Minister’s attention?

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

– I do not altogether know whether it is an anomaly. Under the Defence Service Homes Act a loan is made available for a home used as a residence. Of course a minister of religion may have another home and if, for example, the Act were extended to ministers of religion it could raise the question of whether the provision might be extended to include others whose occupations make homes available. Should such persons be given defence service homes for some purpose other than their own occupancy? I believe that the Defence Service Homes Act is continuously under review for the purpose of determining what improvements can be made to it. However, I will take up the question with the Minister.

page 1906

QUESTION

PRIMARY INDUSTRY NEWSLETTER

Senator WALSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Has the Minister for Agriculture seen the latest issue of Ronald Anderson’s prestigious ‘Primary Industry Newsletter’ and in particular the comments on Mrs Hilda Rolfe ‘s withdrawal from the Industries Assistance Commission hearing on superphosphate? Do the circumstances of this case justify the ‘Primary Industry Newsletter’ charge that as a result of the National Country Party Leader’s hysterical over-reaction and cheap political grandstanding in response to Mrs Rolfe ‘s ‘reasonable, objective and innocent remarks’ the IAC superphosphate reference has lost a razor-sharp and farmer-sympathetic commissioner’?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– I have not seen that particular issue of the publication referred to but I would agree that most of the comments contained in it are certainly worthy of reading. As for Mrs Rolfe ‘s observations, I did make some comments on them earlier. I think it is unfortunate that her services have been lost to this particular inquiry. It is unfortunate that the pressures that were put on her after she made the statement concerning Australian natural pastures and so on obviously were a factor in her deciding not to continue as a commissioner on that inquiry. As has been said, it does reflect a typical hysteria on the part of the Country Party in anything that might be different from what it has known over the years.

page 1907

QUESTION

FLYING DOCTOR SERVICE

Senator SIM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. Is the Minister aware of the serious financial effect the increased aviation charges will have on the Flying Doctor Service? In view of the splendid service provided by the Flying Doctor Service in outback Australia will the Government consider exempting the Flying Doctor Service from the increased charges?

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

– I can only undertake to refer to the Minister for Transport the request made by Senator Sim and as soon as I can I will let the honourable senator know the Minister’s attitude.

page 1907

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT INSURANCE CORPORATION

Senator McLAREN:

– Can the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation state whether the Australian Government Insurance Corporation will undertake workmen’s compensation insurance in South Australia? If so, will the AGIC pay due regard to the safety record of policy holders when determining premiums to be paid? Further, will the AGIC grant lower premiums to firms with good safety records as against those firms with poor records?

Senator WHEELDON:
ALP

– I understand that this matter arises from some criticisms of private insurance companies in South Australia on the grounds that they do not pay regard to the safety records of various employers in the provision of workers’ compensation insurance. However, I think I have to say several things on this question. The first is that difficulties are involved in providing for the taking into account of safety records in the fixing of premiums. For example, if somebody is engaged in a hazardous occupation, such as mining and quarrying or building and construction, as compared with a relatively unhazardous occupation, such as the retail trade or employing clerical workers, the more hazardous occupation may in fact be more socially necessary than the unhazardous occupation, but of its nature it is more dangerous. If one takes into account a safety record it may well mean- in fact it does mean- that one will be charging higher premiums to the people who are engaged in these more hazardous trades and enterprises.

With regard to whether the Australian Government Insurance Corporation would engage in workers’ compensation in South Australia or anywhere else, my own hope is that there will be at least some form of national compensation scheme, which would mean that no insurance offices at all would be engaging in this activity. If, however, there is no national compensation scheme and if, for example, the Australian Government Insurance Corporation is established without the establishment of a national compensation scheme, the provision of workers ‘ compensation insurance will be a matter for the Board of the Australian Government Insurance Corporation to determine. Unless we reach a stage where workers’ compensation insurance is regarded as being a matter of national interest insurance- I do not think that is very likely- the provision of workers’ compensation insurance would fall within the commercial activities of the AGIC. The Bill provides that the commercial activities of the AGIC would be conducted along ordinary business lines with independence given to the Board to determine in which way it will carry out this business. So, although one may have hopes as to what the Corporation may or may not do, I think it has to be said that it will be an independent corporation.

My own view on the question of safety and industrial conditions whereby accident prevention may be encouraged is more along the lines of the report of Mr Justice Woodhouse and Mr Justice Meares which recommended the establishment of a national safety office and provision of adequate penalties by way of prosecution for those people who breach safety rules, rather than by the imposition of differential rates of premiums on the various insured persons. I repeat that a man may not be a bad employer or a careless employer but it may just be that he is engaged in a trade in which accidents are more likely than in some other trade, and if his work is socially necessary I am not entirely sure that it is just to be charging him a higher rate of premium. This is the type of thing that is taken into account in the -

Senator Guilfoyle:

– Were you implying that any class of insurance could be declared a national interest insurance?

Senator WHEELDON:

-At the moment I am not. I was saying that I thought there was a certain injustice in saying that people who are engaged in hazardous industries should be paying higher premium rates than those who are not engaged in hazardous industry if the work in which they are engaged is socially necessary and if the hazard arises not from their carelessness but from the nature of their work, such as building and construction. I did not say that workmen’s compensation ought to be classified as national interest insurance. I said that I thought it ought to be subject to a national compensation scheme. I said that in the absence of a national compensation scheme I suppose it is conceivable that somebody could determine that workers’ compensation, if it were completely unprofitable, should be proclaimed as a national interest activity of insurance, but I would imagine that this would be highly unlikely and very remote. I cannot envisage this happening. It would seem to me that if there is no national compensation scheme workmen’s compensation would continue to be as it is- a commercial insurance activity. I hope that answers Senator McLaren’s question and the question asked by Senator Guilfoyle.

page 1908

QUESTION

BEEF INDUSTRY

Senator DURACK:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Agriculture. I refer to the Government’s decision to provide $20m for low interest loans to the beef industry in the form of matching State Government loans to the industry. I also refer to the decision to match the original $800,000 provided by the Western Australian Government. I ask: In view of the fact that the Western Australian Government has now increased its assistance to the industry to $1.5m and the fact that the South Australian1 Government is providing the same amount, which amount is being matched by the Australian Government, will the Minister review his decision to limit the matching amount for Western Australia to only $800,000 instead of the $1.5m? If he is not willing to review that decision, will he explain why not?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-I thought I had spelt out on several occasions the details of what had brought this about, but I shall do so again as briefly as possible. There was a meeting of the Australian Agricultural Council at which the then Western Australian Minister, Mr Mc Pharlin, was present. There was consensus around that table that the States and the Commonwealth jointly would institute a scheme, at my suggestion, to combine our financial resources to assist the beef industry. There was no dissent to that agreement. Perhaps a week or 10 days later, three States broke the agreement by going it alone and announcing their own plans. When the agreement finally was reached at a subsequent meeting, the Australian Government’s decision was that we would match the announced programs of those States which had announced them, even though they were in breach of what we had agreed on. I suppose that I would have been at liberty to recommend and justified in recommending to my Government that if they wanted to go it alone they could go it alone and we would go it alone; but I do not think it would have been in the interests of the beef industry to do so. We subsequently reached agreement, but it was on the basis of the amounts the State Government had announced they were prepared to put up. The Western Australian Government had decided that $800,000 was all that was necessary, and we matched it accordingly. I really think the reason why $800,000 was the figure announced by the Western Australian Government was simply that it was not willing to put up any more.

page 1908

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH SCIENCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Education. The Commonwealth Science Advisory Committee, which was set up in 1964, will cease to function in June 1975 and I understand that all further requirements in respect of science will become part of the Schools Commission building program. In view of the specialised advice required in standards for science facilities, will the Minister consider the appointment of at least one member of the Commonwealth Science Advisory Committee to the Building Standards Committee of the Schools Commission?

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

– I will have to obtain from my colleague the Minister for Education details of the matter raised by Senator Guilfoyle. She will be aware that my colleague the Minister for Science recently announced the establishment of a science organisation commonly referred to as ASTECthe Australian Science and Technology Council. Whether the question asked by the honourable senator is related in any way to the establishment of that Council is something that I will have to ascertain.

page 1908

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Senator YOUNG:

– I direct my question to the Minister for the Media. Is it true that it is planned to transfer responsibility for Government advertising from the Department of the Media to the Prime Minister’s Department? If so, will this expedite answers to my questions on the cost of Government advertising? Will this mean that the Prime Minister will be taking over the Government propaganda machine? Will such a takeover be likely to reduce the propaganda output from the Government?

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

– I did hear a report last week that the Prime Minister was considering an adjustment in administrative arrangements and that amongst these considerations was the removal of the Australian Government Advertising Service from my Department to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. To give the report an air of authenticity from my point of view, I even heard it over the Australian Broadcasting Commission. However, nothing has been said to me about the matter. I know that some time ago there was speculation or a suggestion in the newspapers that the proposed Australian Purchasing Commission would be taking over the responsibilities of publishing and advertising from my Department, and a lot of people obviously were wanting to have a shot at me or at my departmental officers in that regard. The simple fact is that the Purchasing Commission Bill has been passed by the House of Representatives and will shortly be introduced here. That legislation provides, amongst other things, for publishing and advertising to remain specifically a function of the Department of the Media.

As I mentioned earlier, administrative ministerial arrangements are matters for the Prime Minister, but since that report did appear the Prime Minister has had a number of discussions with me and he certainly has not mentioned anything to me about that matter. Yesterday I had a very long and detailed discussion with him about matters relating to my Department and nothing of the nature suggested by the honourable senator was mentioned in those discussions. As to taking over any propaganda machine, I yet have to see any propaganda machine that has been established by my Department. My Department is an informational department and I assert that it provides excellent information to the Australian people.

page 1909

QUESTION

VIETNAM

Senator CARRICK:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-I ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs: Does the Government regard the military victory of the People’s Revolutionary Government in South Vietnam as relieving the North of any responsibility in future towards the general principles of the 1 973 Paris Agreements? If not, has the Government communicated its views to North Vietnam or to the People’s Revolutionary Government? What elements does the Government consider are necessary to ensure a just peace in South Vietnam? Does the Government consider it possible for fair and free elections to be held in the South?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

– The only communication that I remember we received with regard to the Paris Accords was received before the fall of Saigon. The only communication we have received since then has been to discuss the reopening of the Embassy in Saigon. The honourable senator asked for my opinion on several other matters on which I am afraid I cannot answer.

Senator CARRICK:

– I wish to ask a supplementary question. I did not ask for an opinion. I asked: Does the Government now feel that there is no need for it to assert the principles of the Paris peace agreements now that a military victory has been achieved? I ask that the Minister direct himself to that aspect of the question.

Senator WILLESEE:

-I ask the honourable senator to put the question on notice.

page 1909

AUSTRALIAN DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS

Senator WILLESEE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Foreign Affairs · ALP

– For the information of honourable senators I present the annual report of the Department of Foreign Affairs for the period 1 January to 3 1 December 1 974.

page 1909

COCOS (KEELING) ISLANDS

Senator WILLESEE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Foreign Affairs · ALP

– For the information of honourable senators I present the report on the Territory of Cocos (Keeling) Islands for the period 1 July 1 973 to 3 1 December 1 974.

page 1909

CYCLONE TRACY RELIEF TRUST FUND

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP

– For the information of honourable senators I present a report on the Darwin Cyclone Tracy Relief Trust Fund for the months March and April 1 975.

page 1909

EDUCATION AND TRAINING OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATORS IN AUSTRALIA

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP

– For the information of honourable senators I present an urban paper prepared by Professor Henry

Maddick entitled Education and Training of Local Government Administrators in Australia.

page 1910

NATIONAL INVESTMENT FUND BILL 1974

Motion (by Senator Wriedt) put:

That the second reading of the National Investment Fund Bill 1974 be restored to the notice paper and made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.

The Senate divided (The President- Senator the Hon. Justin O ‘Byrne)

Ayes………. 27

Noes………. 31

Majority……. 4

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 1910

PURCHASING COMMISSION BILL 1975

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay.

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

Second Reading

Senator WILLESEE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Foreign Affairs · ALP

– I move:

The main purpose of this Bill is to authorise the establishment of the Purchasing Commission. The principal functions of the Commission will be to advise the Special Minister of State on the policies, procedures and practices which should be followed in regard to procurement and disposals, and to operate a central procurement and disposals organisation to meet the needs of a wide range of departments and authorities. The setting up of such a body was recommended in the report of the Committee of Inquiry into Government Procurement Policy which was tabled in Parliament last month. I take this opportunity to express the Government’s thanks to Sir Walter Scott and to the members of his Committee for their very valuable report. The provisions of this Bill closely follow the recommendations of that Committee. The Committee’s analysis of deficiencies in the present procurement arrangements is contained in chapter 8 of its report, while its specific recommendations are set out and explained in subsequent chapters. The shortcomings listed by the Committee included the inflexible and fragmented nature of the present arrangements, the absence of regular reviews of principles and procedures, the need for research and training and the absence of proper consultation with industry. Accordingly the Committee has made a series of recommendations designed to upgrade the purchasing and procurement function and to set up a central body to achieve the necessary coordination.

One of the first tasks of the new Commission will be to undertake a detailed and comprehensive review of the Government’s procurement activities based upon the 39 recommendations of the Committee of Inquiry. At the same time, the Commission will be taking over, progressively, purchasing activities at present distributed across a wide range. I might mention that the actual purchasing operations will be carried out by a highly decentralised and flexible organisation with offices in all Australian States and at several overseas locations. The Commission will be responsible for all stages of the procurement process in some areas such as in the supply of common-use’ items required by a wide range of departments and authorities. These items are now mainly purchased by the Australian Government Stores and Tender Board, the staff of which, together with the purchasing and associated staff of the Department of Manufacturing Industry, who currently undertake defence purchasing, will form the nucleus of the Purchasing Commission. Further, it is expected that some departments and authorities will have need of a full procurement service from the Commission ranging from the specification of goods required through to inspection and acceptance. In other areas- and I refer particularly to departments and authorities requiring specialised equipment in such fields as defence, telecommunications, transport and health- the departments or authorities will continue to be in a position to define their requirements and specifications and to undertake, by arrangement with the Commission, such activities as the inspection and storage of their goods.

Throughout this Bill care has been taken to safeguard the rights and responsibilities of user departments and authorities. For example, clause 12 provides that the Commission may not make an acquisition for a department or authority without a written request from the body concerned to do so. Furthermore, the Commission will be required to consult with, and have regard to, the views of the user at all stages in the procurement. It will be clear from these provisions that the Government expects the new Commission to provide an efficient and responsive service to its clients as well as to give effect to such important objectives as economy in purchasing and the development of purchasing methods which will result in obtaining the best value for the taxpayers’ money. If a dispute arises between the Commission and a user department or authority over the correct award of a tender on grounds of technical suitability of the goods, the user’s views are to prevail, although the Commission will have the right, as indicated in clause 13, to formally state its views and publish them in its annual report. I draw the attention of honourable senators also to clause 14 which makes special provision for the procurement of major and technically complex equipment. Under this clause arrangements may be made for the appointment of special project teams, on which both the Commission and the user authority will be represented, to handle such projects. The Scott Committee considered that arrangements along these lines would be helpful in achieving the closest collaboration and harmony as between the Commission and the user authority.

As recommended by the Scott Committee, the Government has decided that the specialised procurement activities currently being carried out largely for other departments and authorities by the Department of Housing and Construction in relation to works and associated services, by the Department of Services and Property for land and buildings, and by the Department of the Media for printing, publishing and advertising services, should continue to be carried out by those Departments. At some later stage, after the Commission has been in operation for some time, the position can be reviewed. Provision has also been made in clause 1 1 to exempt the procurement of goods for subsequent resale of the same goods in the course of a trading activity. This will safeguard the position of bodies such as the Australian Wool Corporation and the proposed Australian Overseas Trading Corporation. Clause 10 of the Bill provides the mechanism for the Commission’s progressive assumption of its operational responsibilities. The Commission will obviously not be in a position, at the outset, to take over some of the purchasing and disposals activities envisaged for the longer term and clause 10 empowers the Minister to make any necessary exceptions. The clause also gives the Commission some flexibility in permitting departments or authorities to carry out activities which would otherwise have to be handled by the Commission.

The Commission’s powers are set out in clause 6. Apart from the general power to undertake the functions specified in clause 5, the Commission is given power to enter into agreements in its own name and to undertake procurement on its own behalf. It is proposed that the Commission should also have power to collect relevant statistical and other information, to undertake or arrange research into aspects of procurement and, in consultation with the Public Service Board and educational institutions, to promote the training of government officers in procurement matters. Clause 7 provides that the Commission is to keep itself informed of the procurement activities of departments and authorities and is to draw attention to any cases where the Government’s policies and procedures are not being carried out.

Under clause 8, the Commission will be required to keep the business community generally informed of its procedures and methods. The Commission will consult with business groups on the need for changes in Government procurement administration and will, as far as possible, provide information on forward planning of procurement. The Advisory Committee on Procurement provided for in clause 36 will be an important forum for discussion between the Commission and industry representatives. The main purpose of this Committee is to give advice to the

Government on procurement matters and operations as seen from outside the Commission. The Bill provides that members of Parliament may be appointed to this Committee. The Special Minister of State proposes to invite 2 members of Parliament- one from the Government and one from the Opposition- to serve on this Committee. I would like to draw the particular attention of honourable senators to clause 17 which empowers the Minister to give directions to the Commission. This provision will ensure that the Commission operates at all times in full accordance with the Government’s policies.

Parts III and IV of the Bill contain the usual machinery provisions concerning the constitution and meetings of the Commission and the Commission’s staff. It will be noted that, in addition to the Chairman, there are to be at least 2 other fulltime Commissioners and that further Commissioners may be appointed on either a fulltime or a part-time basis. The Chairman is to have the powers of a Permanent Head and the Commission’s staff will be subject to the Public Service Act. Part VI of the Bill provides for appeals to be made to the Ombudsman. The Scott Committee had recommended that a special tribunal be established for this purpose but this recommendation was made before the Government had decided to appoint an Ombudsman for such purposes.

I have already referred to the Commission’s annual report which is provided for in clause 43. This report, along with any other reports requested of the Commission, will be tabled in the Parliament. The annual report not only will provide information concerning the Commission’s operations but also will review any other developments of public interest in this field over the year concerned. I am circulating an explanatory memorandum on behalf of the Special Minister of State which provides more detailed information on the clauses in the Bill. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Cotton) adjourned.

Motion ( by Senator Willesee) proposed:

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

Senator COTTON:
New South Wales

– I wish to move an amendment to the adjournment motion just moved by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Willesee). I move:

I have handed a copy of that amendment to the Clerk at the table. The Scott report, referred to by the Minister in his second reading speech, has been available for only a few weeks. It was tabled in the House of Representatives with a fairly brief statement. The report was then able to be obtained and read. Anybody who has had the benefit of reading the report and its recommendations will realise that we are confronted with a most massive proposal which now comes forward, with what I might call indecent haste, in a piece of legislation. One gets the impression from all of this that somebody has thought this to be a good idea, constructed the legislation, set up some terms of reference, asked for a report, got the report, and rammed the legislation straight in. I am not in the least impressed with this kind of procedure. I want to say that I did not come to the Senate to be a rubber-stamp. When I look at the general proposals in this Bill- I will not take a great deal of time- I first of all note the comments in the second reading speech:

The principal functions of the Commission will be to advise the Minister on the policies, procedures and practices which should be followed in regard to procurement and disposals, and to operate a central procurement and disposals organisation to meet the needs of a wide range of departments and authorities.

It will advise on the policies, procedures and practices. It is quite clear; it is quite definitive. Therefore, we know exactly the shape of what is to come.

I do not have the report with me but it is available from the Papers Office. Honourable senators will find, if they read it, that the area of contemplated total Government purchasing is of extraordinary size. It puts into the market place one authority to conduct practically all Government purchasing. The area of proposed control of such expenditure is so gigantic that it ought to give any responsible house of review the feeling that it needed time to think and to take extreme care. This is one of the most massive financial and social changes contemplated by this Government. I have a general proposition to put to my colleagues in this place. The Senate, in this particular case- as indeed in other cases that will emerge- has a huge responsibility to the Australian people and to itself in its scrutiny of measures of this massive consequence. 1 have a number of authorities I can quote but I will draw to my side only that eminent authority, Mr J. R. Odgers, who states on page 3 of his notable work on the Senate:

To act as a House of review with the responsibility of expressing second opinions in relation to legislative and other proposals initiated in the House of Representatives.

He states further:

In every walk of life- be it medicine, science or day-to-day family problems- the second opinion is sought and valued.

So it is in government, where an Upper House acts as a brake on hasty legislation, imposes a period of reflection and provides an opportunity for anyone- the farmer, the banker, the industrialist, the representative of labour- to voice his opinion, support or protest regarding proposed legislation, after which the Upper House may make or suggest amendments to proposed laws. The development of the Senate’s committee system has established a formal channel of communication between the Senate and interested organisations and individuals.

Particularly in a case like this, I must say that I find myself in total agreement with the view expressed by Mr Odgers of what ought to be the attitudes and patterns of behaviour of a house of review, which this Senate is. There are other authorities which one could draw to one’s side, such as Edmund Barton who points out to us that this is a chamber with perhaps the greatest potential power in the democratic system in the world. Such power, of course, should be used with the greatest restraint and the greatest care. It should be used after reflection and should not be used lightly. I do not think any honourable senator would suggest that we have not followed those criteria in the past.

I have a very strong view that the Senate, in particular, needs time to make quite sure that this particular legislation is both good and proper, that the community really needs and wants it, that it will be what it says it will be, that the people who will be affected by it, both the workers in industry, the people who are involved in industry and the whole community will get a genuine benefit out of this. It could well become a massive danger. It is spelt out in the second reading speech and in other areas that various efficiencies will come as a result of this legislation. These are not demonstrated quantitatively in money terms in the Scott report.

The general proposition is this: Because the Government would become one huge buyer it would therefore lead to a lowering of costs. That was not my experience working in a government position as a much younger man in the early days of the war. What tends to happen, if one is not extremely careful, is that when one huge single buyer is created in the market place it results in the development of one huge single seller. The net economies rarely, if ever, occur or are discovered. Then there is the proposition that this is a measure- this is not contained in the second reading speech but it has been said and it is available to be found when we have time to look at this legislation more carefully- by which the Government will seek to achieve its social objectives. Therefore, firm A that does not have a social objective in accordance with the Government’s policy will not get contracts and firm B, which does, will get Government contracts. That is something which will have to be examined carefully. It could apply to trade unions. Trade union A might be a union that takes a view that is not consistent with the Government’s policy; therefore, its workers are in industries which should not get Government contracts. Where will this sort of situation lead us? In the second reading speech it is indicated that some departments are excluded from the power of this Commission and some are included. Some of the main areas -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! I ask the honourable senator to confine his remarks to the subject matter of the amendment rather than to the body of the Bill.

Senator COTTON:

-Thank you, Mr President. In fact, it is a great relief to me because I did not want to speak for a great length of time. I want to be able to speak at greater length on this matter later. I think I have said almost enough except perhaps to draw the attention of my colleagues to the paragraph in the Minister’s second reading speech which relates to the matter about which I am talking. It states that clause 1 7 empowers the Minister to give directions to the Commission. This will ensure that the Commission operates, at all times, in full accordance with the Government’s policies.

I suggest to you, Mr President, and to my colleagues that here is an occasion when the Senate needs time to make sure that the whole community understands what is involved in this legislation and that all those affected have a chance to put forward their views. There is a time to pause, there is a time for reflection and there is a time to take care. We have reached that time when dealing with a measure of such great consequence.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Foreign Affairs · ALP

– In speaking to the amendment I will not deal with the Bill, as Senator Cotton did. He quoted from a work of which we are all aware, dealing mainly with the question why we should have a second chamber. That is an argument that will go on as long as people are in Parliament. Senator Cotton pointed out that this is a house of review. Of course, what the learned work from which he quoted or any other work does not say is that the Senate should be a House of obstruction. Let us cut all the verbiage away. The Liberal Party and its collaborators, the National Country Party of Australia- the Country Party as it was once known- have made up their minds to do some more obstruction. What sort of rot is this? The Opposition can have an adjournment of this legislation. Honourable senators opposite are aware that an adjournment does not necessarily mean to the next day of sitting. It means that an arrangement can be made whereby Opposition senators can examine the legislation during the weekend and it can be brought back into this place a week from today. That would be fair enough.

The arguments put forward by Senator Cotton can be put forward on any Bill or anything else that comes before this Senate- it could be the Budget, a short Bill or anything else. Of course this Bill affects the lives of the people. Of course it will have serious effects. The same arguments that were put up by Senator Cotton can be used in respect of any other Bill that comes before this Senate.

The Opposition has made up its mind to obstruct this legislation, in the same way as it obstructed legislation last week. I do not think there is any point in debating the matter further. The Opposition has made up its mind to obstruct this legislation. The Government will vote for the original motion I moved. The Opposition can have a week in which to consider this legislation and we will then consider it next week. The Opposition can make arrangements with Senator Douglas McClelland, the Manager of Government Business in the Senate, as it always does. It will have a reasonable time to deal with this legislation. The comments of Senator Cotton can apply to any Bill. The Opposition is not attempting to review this legislation; it is obstructing it.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be left out be left out.

The Senate divided. (The President- Senator The Hon. Justin O’Byrne)

AYES: 31

NOES: 27

Majority…….. 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion (Senator Cotton’s) agreed to:

That the words proposed to be inserted be inserted.

Question put:

That the motion (Senator Willesee’s), as amended, be agreed to.

The Senate divided. (The President- Senator the Hon. Justin O ‘Byrne)

AYES: 31

NOES: 27

Majority……. 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 1915

CHILDREN’S COMMISSION BILL 1975

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 20 May on motion by Senator Willesee:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

-This is a Bill to establish a Children’s Commission and to provide certain machinery in relation to the provision of services for children as defined in the Bill. The Opposition does not support the way in which the Government has gone about creating this Commission and we do not believe it is the best way in which services for children can be provided in Australia. However, we recognise that we are not in a position to totally restructure the Bill or to tell the Government what it should do but rather to support the basic objectives which underlie the Bill and which I believe are jointly shared by the Government and the Opposition. Accordingly the Opposition’s attitude is one in which we say that given the chance we would not be doing it this way but, because we support the underlying objectives of the Bill, we will be supporting it but moving a few relatively minor amendments, accepting that we have to deal with the structure as proposed, even though it is a structure which we do not believe will best serve the interests of children in Australia.

However the opportunity for us to do something more constructive about it will not come for perhaps another 2 years, at which stage we will be able to put forward when in government our own direct propositions in relation to this important area of legislation. The fact that there are two competing reports in this area expresses, I believe the uncertainty and the dilemmas that have beset this field in the past. On the one hand there are groups in the community that rightly believe that the kindergarten years, broadly between the ages of three and five where the emphasis is on education, should be expanded. There are others whose competing point of view is that the accent should be on child care centres to supplement the needs of the mother, to establish her right to work, as well as alleviating the problems of children whose parents need to work.

This undercurrent of competing philosophies has bedevilled the whole field of child care and needs to be resolved. However it is not resolved by this Bill. I believe the fact that the Government has shown so much indecision in the past in relation to its child care program and the financial needs of such a program is part of a failure to appreciate that there are these competing modes of pre-school care which both need to be included in the overall considerations and which appear now to be at least to an extent taken into account in the Bill. But it remains a matter of some concern to us to have them further explained as to the philosophy that will be applied when the Commission is established and under way, because one of the points that becomes very clear in relation to this is that more is left unsaid than is said in the Bill. That may be desirable but I think many in Australia have expressed their concern about this Bill because it leaves so many things unsaid. We believe that there is a further complication in the fact that the Government does not adequately recognise in the legislation that there has been development through State authorities of pre-existing child care programs, and my colleague Senator Guilfoyle will be referring in detail to the situation in Victoria which it is believed has not been adequately taken into account and which is indicative of the developments in other States of Australia.

If there was ever one area that should not be used as a political football and where ‘cooperation’ should be the key word between all sectors it is in the area of pre-school care. It requires a social sensitivity that cannot be cured merely by saying that we will give X amount of money and the problem will go away. To believe that one could overcome the competing forces by establishing a commission and by saying, ‘here is a children’s commission that will cure all your ills’, is a somewhat facile remedy. The impression has been given that this is the Govenment’s approach. It is my belief and expectation that the Commission will prove that it is capable of adopting a broad view of the problem and that it will prove it can make itself flexible in its approach and that the sort of concern and fears that have been expressed by many people- that directions and control will be the role of the Commission rather than encouragement and assistance- will not be well founded.

But the Opposition believes that it would be far better to establish a children’s bureau whose functions would be to faciliate achieving the objectives of pre-school care and education. It would appear to us to be preferable that such a children’s bureau, sensitive to a number of social issues related to the care of children and allowing social sensitivity to be much sooner and better realised, would be better than a somewhat bureaucratic structure subject to the failings that any bureaucratic structure tends to have. We believe that there are examples of the fads that have existed in child care and the institutionalisation of child care. For example somebody has a bright idea and says that to cure the problem we need family day care, but to see that as the cure is inappropriate to the pre-existing structure. Without a lot of social upheaval in this area it is impossible as a short term overall objective, for the inescapable fact is that it is the private sector through people’s own capital investment in buildings and equipment which is bearing so much of the brunt and enabling fewer children in the community to be so-called latch key children than otherwise would occur if that sector were squeezed out of business. We believe it is an important sector, which must be recognised in the administration under the proposed legislation of the Children ‘s Commission.

Traditionally pre-school education exists for the age group 3 to 5 years, although there is an overlap in the last 6-month period with the primary school system. In their traditional context, child care centres have catered for working mothers. The main impetus for their establishment has been that there has been a requirement for women in the workforce. This has been modified in the last 10 years or so by the increasing exercise by women of their right to work. Within child care centres there has been a shift away from the purely custodial care of children, as it is becoming increasingly obvious that in the earlier years the child is learning at the fastest rate during his whole educational span.

Therefore there have been these two organisational streams in the pre-school education and care sectors, and as a long term objective these streams will converge as the need to provide full time education programs becomes more relevant. This relevance is due to the fact that there is an increasing demand for full time education and care. In the lower socio-economic areas the demand for this is increasing and there is an increasing awareness in the community that children need more than just care- that they need a certain amount of educational content in the day’s activity. Even though these streams may take a long time to converge, we believe it is a worthwhile objective that the 2 streams merge and not be set in relief as would have happened had perhaps the reports that have been provided in relation to this area been in either case accepted in toto.

In the implementation of a coherent child care policy we believe it is important that extensive research into the needs of this area be undertaken and continued. The ‘Women in the Workforce’ series released in the late 1960s by the Women’s Bureau of the Department of Labor, which was a Bureau established by Mr Snedden when he was the Minister, was a step in the right direction but this has not been followed through subsequently. I would expect that the children’s bureau, which we propose as an alternative approach, would take this up as a major activity and draw information from all sectors covered under the departmental framework of what we see as community development. It should be a clear objective that pre-school education should be complementary to the family unit. It therefore becomes essential that parents be involved to the maximum extent possible. This may take the form of encouraging parents to form cooperatives to run child care centres within communities, either alone or in association with relevant municipalities. We see a clear role for local government. We see a clear role for State government. We do not see it as a matter solely for the Federal Government both to fund and to dictate.

It should be feasible for parents who wish to establish their own pre-school or child care centre to have certain field information concerning management and administration made available to them. It also should be feasible for parents not only to control the administration of these centres but also to be involved in an advisory capacity, as already occurs in so many areas connected with the care and education of children. Whilst the Bill makes some provision in this respect, we fear that perhaps it does not go far enough. I shall be making further comments about that shortly. It is important for parents of groups which may be termed disadvantaged to be involved in the progress of their children. This may be done by establishing workshops with parents periodically discussing problems with people skilled in various aspects of child education and welfare. We are glad to see that in the services to children provision is made to enable that to happen. I hope that that will be one of the important tasks undertaken by the Children’s Commission in carrying out its functions under the Bill. It is the sort of thing that could be done through a children’s bureau, where pooling resources in the area would help to facilitate achievement of the objectives.

By involving parents, recognition must be given to an increasing number of play groups. These are being set up in the community informally by parents. The need to enable parents to obtain access to the latest pre-school education and care thinking is another important role to be undertaken by the Children’s Commission or the children’s bureau. It is important, when talking about the play group and the parent involvement question, to remember one of the problems which have their effect upon children in our community. This problem arises out of large urban societies creating loneliness and, for mothers in particular but for families as a whole, creating problems which can be overcome by greater communication and association with people around them. We believe that the development of the play group and the involvement of parents in the pre-school care and education are things which will have their effect not only directly upon the child but also indirectly upon the child by making the mother a happier person and a person better able to participate in the child’s development from a favourable point of view. There is nothing worse, of course, than being a child with a mother who is upset and lonely as a result of so many of the pressures of the type of society which we seem to be developing. Any steps which the Children’s Commission takes towards involving parents will have that dual benefit.

In the institutional framework there is no reason why centres cannot be run by government and by the private sector through associations or even through industry. In discussing industry one must, I believe, have regard to the fact that there are dangers as well as benefits in linking child care and education directly with a particular industry. Benefits are to be obtained by siting child care facilities close to large places of employment; but to have them totally tied is to run the risk, we believe, of tying the mother and reducing her right of choice of employment because she may experience the fear that if she exercises the right to change her employment she will have to change the child’s place of care and education and the child will have to get used to new people, and that may be to the child’s disadvantage. We therefore raise a caveat in relation to the development of industrial child care centres, believing that it may be better to concentrate upon locating them in industrial areas near large employing industries but with them not necessarily being totally run by those particular industries.

I have already mentioned family day care. This has certain obvious attractions. There is a low capital investment component, but against this there is a need to have a developed system of supervision, as family day care implies, in the decentralisation of care into small units. Whilst it has been highly successful in many instances, there are also other instances in which the standard of supervision and the standard of care being provided leave a great deal to be desired. Again we say that whilst we believe that all of these avenues are avenues to be explored and developed there is, in relation to family day care, a need, in consultation with State governments, with local governments and with any of the groups involved, to ensure that adequate standards are maintained and that there is a sufficient degree of assistance and supervision to those who are providing the family day care facilities. One cannot get away from the major problem of child care, and that is the expense. Maintenance of a child in a centre costs in excess of $ 1 ,000 a year. The capital cost for each child for the establishment of the traditional child care centre is something approaching $3,000. These figures probably are a little out of date, as costs in our community are increasing so rapidly. I do not pause to engage in the inflation debate; I simply indicate that the costs in relation to child care are high indeed. If one is talking about something like 1.3 million children being in the age group with which we are concerned and if one is talking about the sorts of costs involved in relation to each of them, one can see that the amount involved is very great.

Consistent with all of the policies of the Opposition is that all children should have an equal right to adequate pre-school education, especially if one realises that it is in this area that educational advantage first becomes manifest and the whole problem of social deprivation and subsequent delinquency has its origin. Therefore we have to balance the need to maintain standards which have been traditionally a State responsibility with the cost of a service which it will become increasingly a Federal responsibility to fund. Again this raises the problem of the balance intended under this legislation between the States- which have done a great deal, some more than others, in developing both standards and support for the provision of child care- and the Commonwealth bureaucracy which will be created and which on the face of it will have the power to bypass those State organisations. We believe that pre-school education should be treated as a co-operative effort between the Federal Government, State governments and local government, together with all voluntary organisations and all commercially run associations involved in the provision of pre-school care and education. If it is not, we are faced with various sectors competing in an inefficient manner for what are, after all, scarce resources. We believe that this aspect has not been catered for adequately in the Bill, and we will be moving certain amendments in relation to the improvement of that co-operation. We are concerned also to ensure that adequate attention is given to encouraging parents to look after their own children so far as possible, and to ensure that economic necessity does not deprive parents of the exercise of choice in this respect. Whilst we are not in any way denying the right of women to choose to work, nor are we failing to recognise the need for many women to work, we wish to remind the Government of the importance to a child of having its mother able to look after it rather than having some substitute care provided. Accordingly, believing that the family unit is of fundamental importance to our society and that steps should be taken to encourage mothers to be able freely to exercise a choice and to stay home to look after their children, we believe that steps must be taken by this Government to facilitate that choice and that so far as the child care program of the Children’s Commission is concerned adequate emphasis must be given to that aspect which, if one reads the Bill, one gets the feeling is not intended to be part of the function of the Commission.

A second point we make is that, as existing private child care centres provide over 70 per cent of the present care, they should receive adequate recognition and encouragement. We do not suggest that they should be developed to the exclusion of other forms of child care, but it would be unreal for anyone to suggest that they are not significant in Australia now or to suggest that they have not got a major contribution to make in the provision of advice and the lessons from experience. Again, I will be raising a little later the question of the constitution both of the Commission and of the boards. We believe there is an urgent need to ensure that parents, the private care centres, as well as all the various other interested organisations and groupings, should be availed of by the Commission in the advice that is given to it.

There is at present a considerable fear among a number of Australian kindergartens that they will either be ignored or inadequately encouraged in carrying out their responsibilities to children. Again I believe it would be of advantage if the Minister could indicate when concluding the debate just what is proposed in relation to kindergartens- whether it is true, for instance, that the person who is likely to be administering the Children’s Commission role in the city of Sydney has indicated that that person will be imposing very substantial requirements on kindergartens that will change the whole way in which they will be operating. Is it proposed, for instance, that where such requirements are made as a condition of the receipt of any money the extra expenses to be involved will also be provided for through funds provided by the Commission. We wish to stress the importance of continuing research, as I mentioned earlier, into the best method of providing child care, the expansion of family day care programs, subject to suitable supervision and regulation.

We believe that it is a matter of fundamental concern that this should not be the development of a large bureaucracy controlling and directing the provision of services to children. We believe that it should oversee the effectiveness of existing bodies and encourage the filling of gaps rather than taking over. It has been reported to me that there is throughout the community a feeling that there has not really been adequate time to consider this proposed legislation. I believe that that is partly because of the inadequacy of the distribution of the legislation to interested groups throughout Australia rather than the actual time, because the Bill was introduced quite some time ago. On the Opposition’s behalf I distributed over 100 copies of the Bill to interested organisations but find that, bearing in mind the way in which so many of these voluntary organisations are structured, it takes time for them to be able to put through their structures the consideration of something such as the Bill.

I believe that the Government has fallen down on its job of ensuring that those who have been actively involved in this important area have an adequate chance to consider the provisions of the Bill before it is dealt with by the Parliament. I note that the Brotherhood of St Laurence made comments which support the view I have expressed. The Brotherhood has vast experience and I believe that its views should be given due weight. A Press statement issued by the Brotherhood states:

The creation of another commission outside existing departments will further fragment social policy-making and the administration of child care and family welfare programs. It will also create a precedent for establishing other commissions with executive functions to provide services for other aid groups or people with specific categories of handicap. The trend should be to integrate and not fragment family and child care programs. Policies and programs, which vitally affect families and children, are already spread over several departments including Social Security, Health, Tourism and Recreation, Labor, Aboriginal Affairs and Education.

The Prime Minister’s Department has also been involved at one stage of this matter and now the

Special Minister of State is involved. The Press statement continues:

The Government should be aware of the difficulties created by a semi-autonomous commission with policymaking functions which has to rely on public service departments to implement its policies. This division of responsibility leads to delays, confusion, cumbersome procedures and can encourage misunderstandings and conflicts between the policy-making commission and the executive departments.

The Brotherhood statement continues to make a number of comments which I believe are of value. One of them is as follows:

The State Governments to continue with their existing commitments, to receive funds for distribution to local government, to provide training and educational facilities, specialist complexes and social planning.

Basically the Brotherhood supports the Opposition’s approach to this matter and the way in which the Opposition seeks to go about it. The children’s bureau concept differs from the Children’s Commission concept in the way in which the Brotherhood suggests. It would have the coordinating responsibility and it would be responsible for obtaining both input from the community and from other departments and coordinating approaches rather than being the separate bureaucratic structure for administration down the line.

I wish to make several other points at this stage. I wonder what the Government is doing in relation to the important aspect of giving taxation relief as regards cost to parents of preschool children or in child care centres. Promises were made but they have not so far been fulfilled. In approaching this question I do not think I can give adequate consideration to it without receiving some comment about whether the Government proposes to honour its promises in relation to the tax deductibility of at least a percentage of the cost to parents of payments to child care or pre-school facilities. Other points which I make, which require some clarification, and which may be dealt with at greater length in the Committee stage but which I will use the time now to raise so that some thought may be given by the Minister include: Why are there no guidelines for the appointment of Commission members? This is a matter of concern not only to people such as the Youth Council of Tasmania which raised it with me, but also to the Council for Civil Liberties, which has raised this aspect. I think it raises the general question of guidelines in relation to the appointment of commissions as part of a general legislative approach, a civil liberties question and a mode of legislating. It also has a specific interest in this case because there are many groups who believe that it is of the utmost importance that there be a ‘representative’ on the Children’s Commission. The view was strongly put to me by a number of teachers’ bodies throughout Australia that teachers should be represented actually on the Commission as well as on State advisory bodies.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Davidson)- Order! The honourable senator’s time has expired.

Senator RAE:

– Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. If I may, I shall conclude during the Committee stage of the debate the matters which I have raised.

Senator COLEMAN:
Western Australia

– In supporting this Bill I must express a little concern at Senator Rae’s statements that there appears to be a lack of co-operation. I find in both the Bill and the second reading speech of the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Willesee) a great deal of intention of cooperation. I refer Senator Rae to Part II, clause 5 (4) of the Bill. He will find that it says:

In the performance of its functions, the Commissioner shall, to the greatest extent practicable, consult and cooperate with Departments of State and with authorities established by or under laws of Australia, being Departments or authorities responsible for aspects of the planning of, the provision of, the training of persons to provide, and the provision of financial assistance for, services for children.

Senator Rae:

– That does not include State departments.

Senator COLEMAN:

– It says ‘. . . co-operate with Departments of State’.

Senator Guilfoyle:

– Yes, of the Federal Government.

Senator COLEMAN:

– I think that in the existing situation there are departments of the Federal Government in the States and that State departments are normally concerned in similar areas and are generally taken into consideration. I cannot see any justification for Senator Rae’s comments that the community organisations are not being involved enough. The Minister has indicated that he wants the community to participate. I query whether we should be setting down the qualifications of people who should be appointed to these boards or commissions. Who is to say that an ordinary parent is any less capable of operating a day care or after school care centre or assisting in the running of an after school care centre than a person who may have plenty of academic qualifications but no practical experience in the handling of the children?

Senator Rae also mentioned that existing private child care centres provide an adequate and significant contribution. Certainly they do. But 1 remind him that the amounts required to be paid to these organisations are generally outside the capacity of most families. I think that the provision in this Bill of after school care particularly is of great moment in our society. I have not had the problems that Senator Rae has had in getting comments from the various community organisations in Western Australia on their attitude to the Bill. Not one of them has made any adverse comments. They are all in favour of it. They want to see the provisions of the Bill funded as quickly as possible and they want this Bill to be passed as quickly as possible. I commend the interim committee for the work that it has done, but I should like to draw attention to the fact that this Bill also provides, as we can see from the second reading speech, for the utilisation of existing facilities. I have made mention of this on any number of occasions. It has always been of great concern to me that we find school grounds, school facilities, pre-school centres and kindergarten centres bereft of people from 3.30 p.m. on each day. We never see community activities there at weekends and we certainly do not see any activities there during school holidays. This Bill provides for the utilisation of those and other facilities.

The Press statement issued by the Minister on 1 1 April shows that there is already a great diversification of funding. It includes grants for such projects as mobile toy libraries, the construction of kindergarten centres and pre-school centres, repairs to houses used by play groups, outofschool centre staffing, provision for children’s camps and provision of equipment and staff for socially and emotionally disturbed adolescentsa wide range of provisions to assist in the full development of all children in Australia. Australia itself must benefit, as any other country would benefit, through culturally and socially adjusted children. I query Senator Rae’s statement that a child should have its mother at home. I refer him to a number of psychologists and psychiatrists who believe that we tend to create a mother image in our children, that we leave them with a single image and that this is not always to the benefit of the child. It may be to the benefit of the mother, but it may not necessarily be to the benefit of the child.

I think if we can establish, by this Bill, facilities where children can be looked after capably and can develop emotionally and culturally from an early age, we will all benefit. We will benefit in the situation in which there are 2 parents who find it necessary to work for economic or any other reasons, even if it is only fulfilling their own ambitions, or where there is only one parent. We find that already there are great stresses and tensions in these homes because of the demands on the parent’s time in their business activities. We find that a great deal of this tension and stress is taken out on their children when the parents eventually arrive home from work. A lot of this will be allayed by the provisions of this Bill. We have already encountered problems in Western Australia. I do not need to remind Western Australian senators of the situation that existed there some years ago when a group of high school children became concerned for the latchkey children from the junior schools and endeavoured to set up play group areas in the school grounds after school hours. They were denied the right to do so. Eventually after a great deal of publicity they were able to avail themselves of existing facilities.

There are a great number of latchkey children in our society, and it is the responsibility of the community as much as the responsibility of the parents that we have those latchkey children. Children as young as 5 or 6 year of age are coming home to empty homes after school hours in the afternoon. This must be of great concern not only to the parents but also to people who are not parents or to those people whose children have grown up. We have to look to social workers for guidance; we have to look to our community groups for guidance. We have play centres, preschool centres and kindergarten centres and all the people working in them create a wealth of knowledge and capacity to advise. I do not see any provisions in this Bill which would exclude them. Senator Rae said that he did not see that there was sufficient availability for the location of centres. The Bill provides that they will be set up in areas primarily to be determined by the community.

Senator Rae:

– I did not say what you are quoting me as saying.

Senator COLEMAN:

– The honourable senator said that we should be looking at the location of centres and we should not be looking to industry to set up these centres inside industry but in close proximity to industry. I point out that in most industrial areas there are existing facilities which could be utilised. This utilisation is provided for in the Bill and is stated in the second reading speech. Perhaps I am wrong in suggesting that the honourable senator implied that perhaps we should.be asking industry to look at these areas.

Senator Rae:

– I expressed reservations about doing that. It is suggested by some that that is one way of doing it, and I was expressing some reservations.

Senator COLEMAN:

– As long as it is not suggested in the Bill or by the Minister, I would be quite happy. I certainly would not like to see industry or any industrial organisation setting up a child care centre, a pre-school centre or an after school centre that was not fully contained in the provisions of the Children’s Commission Bill. I am most pleased with the Press statement by the Minister on the grants that have been made available already and the diversification of those grants. The sum of $43m will go a long way towards providing some of the facilities for children that are essential in our society. It will not go all the way towards doing so this year. It is not anticipated that it will do so. I express my appreciation to the Interim Committee of the Children’s Commission. I am quite sure that other honourable senators also will do so. I commend the Bill.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Victoria

– I wish to continue with some of the comments that were made by Senator Rae in leading for the Opposition on this Bill and to refer to some matters that time precluded him from mentioning. Senator Rae referred briefly to the fact that the State governments- in particular the Government of Victoria- have many reservations about the way in which this Bill has been designed and the objectionable features that they see in it from their point of view. That is not to say that there is criticism of some of the opportunities that may be opened up by the formation of the Children’s Commission but to point to the difficulties of administering the Bill as it is in order to reach the people concerned in their local communities.

Clause 5(1) (ii) of the Bill seeks to enable the Commission to deal directly with the governments of the States and Territories, local government bodies, charitable organisations and other organisations and persons for the establishment, development and maintenance of the means of providing services for children or for research and planning in relation to those services. Although under clause 5 (4) of the Bill the Commission is required to consult and co-operate with departments of state and with certain authorities, compliance with that provision would be made very difficult indeed by clause 3 1 of the Bill, which provides for the establishment in each State or Territory of the Commonwealth a Children ‘s Commission Advisory Board constituted by and under the control of the responsible Federal Minister. In other words the responsible Federal Minister would be setting up his own administration and supervisory body quite outside the States of the Commonwealth of Australia.

The Government of Victoria wishes to record the fact that that Une of action is completely contrary to the arrangement that the Premier of Victoria made with the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) in regard to the distribution of interim children’s grants. I place on record the fact that this Bill is completely different from the arrangements that were operating and that were understood would function in the future. It will be recalled that a committee comprised of the health, education, social welfare, youth, sport and recreation and local government departments in Victoria as well as representatives of the voluntary sector was set up so that an overall State program could be placed before the Commonwealth Government for the support of the Commonwealth Government. A co-ordinated program was to be developed between the 2 governments, as is envisaged by section 96 of the Constitution, which gives power to the Commonwealth to make grants to the States on such terms and conditions as the Federal Parliament thinks fit. One should not have to refer to the sheer duplication and waste by the Commonwealth in covering areas of administration already constitutionally the prerogative of the States and the difficulties involved in working under arrangements such as have been outlined in the Bill with which we are dealing at the moment. I make the strongest possible objection on behalf of the Government of Victoria to the way in which certain provisions of the Bill have been drawn. The Bill should be more concisely drawn in relation to the way in which it will operate in order to ensure that the Commission operates only within the Commonwealth’s constitutional powers. The style of this Bill places some doubt in the minds of the State Government about its constitutionality.

My colleague, Senator Rae, referred to the establishment of a Children’s Bureau as part of the Opposition’s policy. It is well known that the State governments accept that concept and support its introduction at a federal level. I believe that the Prime Minister also understands that the States accept that concept as being the way in which this sort of service should operate in the range of government responsibilities that we have in this country. In fact, to settle for anything less in child care than the very best care that can be given would be to do something that is completely contrary to our view and, I suspect, contrary also to the view of the Government. But if we do not have co-ordination between the State and local government bodies and the federal bodies it is unlikely that we will have the ideal type of child care in this country in the future.

There have been delays in the implementation of any program with regard to child care facilities. In fact it is far too many years ago that we first started talking about child care opportunities and facilities. Since the change of” government in 1972 this particular part of government responsibility has been handled by several Ministers- the Minister for Education (Mr Beazley), the Minister for Social Security (Mr Hayden) and now the Special Minister of State (Mr Lionel Bowen). That shows the complexity of the care about which we are talking. I believe that we should be designing a commission that will be able to use the facilities that already have been developed throughout the States and should ensure that the work done is done in cooperation and co-ordination. For instance, an entirely State administered standing committee on pre-school child development has been established in Victoria to examine the philosophy of pre-school child development and to implement the report of a consultative council on pre-school child development. That is an important committee. Pre-school care and education is regarded as being essential to the work of the Children’s Commission. One would have thought that the work that has been done on that aspect in one State would not need to be duplicated because it would be in that State that it would function for the children of that State.

Victoria has also established a consultative council on maternal and child health under the chairmanship of Professor Clarke. It has been asked to make recommendations as to the provision of services to the pre-school child as well as in the area of school medical services. The proposal of the Special Minister of State, as is contained in the Commonwealth Government’s legislation, completely cuts across the agreement reached between the Victorian Government and the Commonwealth and would render invalid and unnecessary the joint State-Commonwealth informal advisory committee and enable the Commonwealth Government to embark upon destructive policies in total contravention of the consultative council’s report on pre-school child development in Victoria. It is important to stress those matters. They have already been the subject of some public comment, but I wish to have them placed on the record of the Senate as the view of and concern held by the Government of Victoria concerning the Bill before the Senate.

I turn now to the Bill itself to make some further comments in addition to those made by Senator Rae. I refer, first, to the term ‘services for children’. It will be noted that the definition in this respect is very wide. It will be noted also that the services listed start off as being services including those things listed. It is therefore understood that almost any service could be defined within the Commission’s operations as being a service applicable to children. For that reason we wonder what the definition of the special needs of children would embrace. The definition of a child in special need as set out in section 12 of the Child Care Act will not be used as it does not adequately cover a child in special need. In spite of the fairly liberal definition of services for children’ in this Bill, we would like to see more clearly defined what the Government would intend to be the requirement concerning children in special need and how it sees that functioning as a service provided by the Commonwealth Government. We believe that it has not been made clear that this service will include all children. In fact considerable emphasis has been placed on the children who will have services provided for them while they are out of their homes, whereas there seems to have been no accent placed on services being provided for children who may require them in their own homes. This is not to suggest that we envisage a program being conducted by the Commonwealth Government that will involve an intrusion into the homes of every Australian child in order to impose services but rather, as Senator Rae has stressed, that we feel that a great deal of the development of the child necessarily involves a close relationship with the parents of that child within that child’s home. Very often there is a need for supportive services to be available in those circumstances. We would commend the fact that sometimes services in the home are a means of enabling that child to remain in the home. The supportive services for a disadvantaged child or a child with disabilities could be embraced in the services to the child in the home as well as outside the home, for the reasons which I have stated.

I think it is fair to compare the functions of and the services to people through the Children’s Commission with the functions of and the services to people through some other commissions. I do not think it is an unfair comparison to relate the Children’s Commission to the Schools Commission or to the Social Welfare Commission. I take the functions of the Schools Commission as a first comparison. In the Act setting up the Schools Commission there is some emphasis on standards. I believe that the way in which the Schools Commission has seen its work has resulted in its placing emphasis on standards. It was set up to inquire into and to advise the Minister regarding the establishment of acceptable standards for buildings, equipment, teaching and other staff. It has other obligations which are defined in the legislation setting up the Schools Commission. Similarly the Social Welfare Commission has, under section 14 (f), to consider the report to the Minister on measures designed to provide skilled staff for the successful implementation of social welfare programs.

In the Schools Commission there is emphasis on providing the highest standards, making education available to all children at such standard without fee. In the Social Welfare Commission the necessity to provide for skilled staff is recognised. If high standards and skilled staff are recognised in those 2 commissions, I believe it is even more important that the Children’s Commission should recognise that high standards and skilled staff are essential if we are to provide the standard of service that we believe is required by children in their very early and formative years. I would like to see a positive statement of such an aim made by the Chairman or by the Children’s Commission so that we would see that there is not just emphasis on quantity of child care facilities or after school clubs but rather on the quality of the services provided for the needs of children. I acknowledge that under clause 5 (3) (d) there is a reference to services being of an adequate standard, but I can find no reference to the need for skilled staff at all levels. The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Willesee), in his second reading speech, said:

The Government’s firm intention is to provide an imaginative and comprehensive range or services so that all children in Australia will have access to services that are designed to promote their well being . . .

I would like to see a greater definition of the quality of service that we would want for Australian children. The Minister said also: it will be yet another example, and a major one at that, of the recognition by this Government of the rights of women in Australian society.

He did not mention the rights of children. To take a somewhat gratuitous approach to the rights of women in Australian society during International Women’s Year is perhaps not something that is welcomed by the thoughtful women of the Australian community. It is a matter of recognising the rights of children and of every person in society. To relate any provision of child care simply to the women in Australian society overlooks the fact that both parents have equal responsibilities in the care of their children and that the children have the fundamental and essential rights which are part of the Declaration of Human Rights. I think that part of the Declaration of Human Rights which relates to children is very beautifully expressed.

The Opposition is not attempting to redraft the Bill so that it would provide the sort of commission that we believe would do the work that we feel is essential. Senator Rae has outlined our concept. I have another area of responsibilityeducation. In that regard I would like to say that I would have expected more definition of the program that the Federal Government may have had in mind to implement the promise of the Prime Minister of one year’s pre-school education for every Australian child. I recognise that there is a provision in this Bill which deals with pre-school education. I find very little definition of the proposal or of the training scheme for the teachers who would be required, or for any of the other fundamentals which need to be undertaken by the Government in co-operation with State governments for us to achieve what is a definite promise from the Government which as yet seems no nearer fulfilment than it was when the promise was made.

Senator Rae mentioned the need in his mind for some guidelines for the Commission and the need for some representation of skills in the membership of the Commission. I think we have seen quite recently by the Government with regard to commissions this attitude: It does not see that people who serve on commissions would necessarily represent bodies. In other words, the people are not there as delegates. I accept that proposition, but I would like to think that in the formation of the Children’s Commission some opportunity would be taken to see that it is representative of the skills which are required for people to make decisions in this important area. I am surprised that the Special Minister of State did not include something of this nature in the Bill. I refer to the debate in the House of Representatives on the Child Care Bill 1 972. The Minister for Education spoke to that Bill. When in Opposition, he took the opportunity to move this amendment to the Bill:

The Minister shall appoint persons with qualifications in pre-school education, pediatricians, psychologists, educationalists and child psychiatrists.

That amendment was supported by the Special Minister of State who is in charge of the present Bill. I would have thought that in setting up the Children’s Commission, which is to have the permanency that the Government conceives, they may have adopted the same attitude that they did when they were in Opposition and recognised the need for specification of skills and professionalism for the people who would be appointed to do this important work. The Bill as it stands means that the Commission may be formed from people chosen by the Minister, without any definition of the skills which were referred to by Senator Rae and which were accepted by the present Government, when it was serving in Opposition, as being important. It is a matter of dealing with the range of people who know the problems, who know the needs of children and who are prepared to use that professionalism in the selection of care and facilities that are funded by the Federal Government to the State and voluntary organisations.

I think it is important also to realise that the State and Territory Children’s Commission Advisory Boards, which are referred to in clause 31, should be the subject of some comment. It is important that we recognise that channels of communication are vitally necessary. When I spoke of the attitude of the Victorian Government I said that it had set up its own advisory boards. We must ask why they cannot be the means of communication with the Children’s Commission. Why set up other boards, which would incur the additional expense and duplication of administration that clause 3 1 envisages in the setting up of State and Territory Advisory Boards? The clause states that the Minister may establish a Children’s Commission Advisory Board in each State and Territory. The purpose would be to assist the Commission in performing its functions. Surely it has already been said often enough that the States have their programs of coordinated activities. The matter of communication between existing State advisory bodies instead of new State bodies under the control of the Federal Minister would seem to us to be not only practicable but also desirable.

At the Committee stage, when we deal with some amendments to which Senator Rae has referred, we will have an opportunity to discuss some of the matters in the Bill which perhaps are unclear or on which we might wish to make some comments. I simply say, at this stage of our dealing with this proposal to establish the Children’s Commission, that we have a sense of responsibility towards the children of this country. We express the hope that, whatever services are provided by government, it will be understood that in respect of this relationship with children we are making very important decisions to provide services which will be of increasing importance to the future of this country in the development of healthy minds in children and in the emotional development which will allow children to take advantage of what we hope will be improved educational opportunities at all levels in the future. With these comments, I support the statements that have been made by Senator Rae on behalf of the Opposition. We look forward to hearing some explanations from the Government when we reach the Committee stage of the Bill.

Senator SHEIL:
Queensland

-Mr Acting Deputy President, this Children’s Commission Bill sounds good, reasonable and plausible. The Opposition is not opposing it, but we have some areas of concern. The ominous note to me, regarding this new government intrusion into our lives, was sounded early in the second reading speech of the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Willesee) when he said:

The Government’s firm intention is to provide an imaginative and comprehensive range of services so that all children-

I emphasise the word ‘all ‘- in Australia will have access to services that are designed to promote their well-being, to enhance the quality of life and to promote equality of opportunity for them and their parents.

The Government claims that the establishment of a Children’s Commission is a further recognition by the Government of the rights of women in Australian society. The reason the Government gives for the necessity to introduce this Bill is that changing social patterns have put considerable pressures on families with infant and school-age children. The Government claims that there is a human need and that is must take a flexible human approach to that need. It also claims that many existing facilities are seriously under-used and that the answer lies in people who know how to look after children. I agree with the Government in regard to the last point. I ask: What is the cause of the changing social patterns that have put such pressures on our families and children? The paramount cause is the debasement of our money by government spending and economic mismanagement, causing inflation and unemployment. In addition, there is the Government’s permissive attitude to cultural standards that have taken us centuries to build. But it is inflation that is destroying our families by causing government induced poverty.

Fuel is added to the fire by escalating taxation and benighted death duties. If the Government would look after its own housekeeping, stop intruding into areas that are not a proper role for government, fix inflation and ease taxation, our families would be able to look after themselves and areas of disadvantage would be reduced to such small pockets that existing and voluntary agencies could well take care of them. The Government implies that it can hire people who know how to look after children better than their own parents do. What a crazy notion! If one flies in the face of nature one goes against nature’s grand plan. I have been a doctor long enough to know that if one tries to defeat nature one loses. Over the years government has manipulated its taxation policies in such a way that they have advantaged corporations and companies to the disadvantage of our families. This is an upsidedown policy. A family is just like a little company, with the mother as the managing director. She is responsible for making multiple executive and management decisions. The making of a home is an agreeable and happy pursuit and can give great comfort and satisfaction.

The major factor that undermines the selfconfidence of our mothers is insecurity, and the greatest cause of insecurity is lack of money. Of all the worries that beset people, lack of money is the worst, and the greatest robber of our money today is government, by its deficit budgeting, its inflation and its taxation. In its first year of operation the Children’s Commission, which is to be established by this Bill, will rob our mothers of a further $74m. If this sum escalates at the same rate as the pocket money of the Treasurer (Dr J. F. Cairns) escalated recently- it escalated from $llm to $240m in this financial year- we can expect our families to be suffering from even greater disruption and insecurity. Of course, family disruption is one of the effects of socialism, and obviously it is the purpose of this Government to disrupt families. After robbing families of $74m which the Government says is to be expended on all children in Australia, the Government then allocates priorities to those children whose parents are engaged in employment, to those children who are not being cared for in their own homes, to those children who need assistance and to those children who are sick and physically disabled. This Government is taking $74m away from families that have been made paupers by the Government and directing it towards financing the disruption of families, introducing the bureaucratisation of children and creating a diminishing ability in parents to make their own decisions. All of this is promised to us by 1980.

The Federal Government intends to move into the fields of full day care, family day care, preschool education, emergency care, occasional care, before and after school and vacation care, play groups and any other child care activities in accordance with demand. There is to be a transfer of support away from the home to the community. During the last 2 years Australia has been a country of zero population growth. Why has this suddenly come about? Does the Government not think that it is a dangerous situation? If it continues for very long, the Government will not need the Children’s Commission at all. Did the Government not realise that in its business bashing the biggest business it was bashing was our families? After forcing mothers out to work for money and encouraging single parents, the Government is compounding its errors by financing the symptoms of the disease that it has created. To me, that has sinister implications. I am not saying that the women’s place is in the home, but I am saying that she should not be forced out of her home by government mismanagement. The Government is removing the woman’s freedom of choice as to whether she stays in the home or not.

As was stated by the Government in another place, the Children’s Commission will take its place beside the School’s Commission, the Technical and Further Education Commission, the Australian Universities Commission and the Commission of Advanced Education. In the other place the word ‘education’ was used in its widest sense, meaning the total development of the personality of a child. The Hansard of the other place indicates that it was stated that ‘education’ means not just education but the total development of the personality of a child. Of course, this is a socialist dream. It is the total control of our lives and the indoctrination of our minds. There are dangers in this Bill. We intend to move some amendments which I hope will recognise the importance of maintaining our families in their homes.

Sitting suspended from 12.59 to 2.15 p.m.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Foreign Affairs · ALP

– in reply- I will be very brief in reply, as Senator Rae who led for the Opposition said, as I understand it, that the Opposition will support the Bill but will suggest some minor amendments which we can deal with in the Committee stage. One of the points that Senator Rae makes is that the private sector- that is, the commercial child care centres- should be recognised. The Bill does not make any provision to exclude them, but obviously our emphasis is on community based nonprofit making programs. Incidentally, the Opposition, when in government, passed the Child Care Act which restricts assistance to non-profit organisations. So some of the provisions contained in this Bill were implemented by the people who are now in Opposition. A further point raised was whether pre-school child care would be included in these proposals. We hope that that will come about. We do not find any quarrel with Senator Rae on that point.

In answer to another point raised by Senator Rae, we think that parents should be involved in the program and we would like that to come about. Senator Rae also asked whether play groups should be supported to help mothers who feel a sense of isolation. Play groups are mentioned in the second reading speech. Again it is the Government’s wish that that sort of thing will come about. There are some difficulties in relation to the question whether child care centres should be attached to industries because it may tend to anchor a mother to a particular industry. In this age in which we have so many working mothers, they should have the opportunity to work where they like. Although prima facie it sounds a good proposition to have these child care centres attached to industries, it would, I think, if one thinks about it, incline to anchor a mother to a particular industry rather than allowing her to move further out.

Senator Rae:

– That was the reservation which I expressed. So we are in agreement on that.

Senator WILLESEE:

-I have just been handed a note which points out that the honourable senator recognises that point. I know that he was canvassing it and I think it is good that he did. Senator Rae also raised the question whether the setting up of the Commission will result in the development of a large bureaucracy. Nobody wants that sort of thing to develop. I know that there is always a danger with anything that is set up that it can get out of hand. What we are aiming for is a co-ordinated and integrated approach to the health, education and welfare of young people. We do not think that the Commission will necessitate a very large staff.

The point was made that pre-school kindergartens are worried about their existence and their figure, given that conditions are being imposed upon them to extend services or to integrate with other children’s services. I have a note here which say that Mr Bowen, who is the Minister in charge of this legislation, has told State Ministers personally and has confirmed in writing that with effect from 1 January 1976 recurrent grants for pre-schools throughout Australia will be provided on a basis of 75 per cent of the salaries of teachers and aides. That subsidy will be paid in respect of each pre-school which extends and/or integrates its services in a manner compatible with the philosophy of the Children’s Commission and the needs of the particular community. One way in which that might be done would be through extended use of preschool buildings beyond the times for which they are now being used. It might be possible, for example, to allow play groups to use pre-school facilities during vacant times in order to provide some full day care, after school activities and school holiday programs. Pre-schools could also be used as a base from which to operate a family day care program which eligible children could attend on a sessional basis and where care givers could come together for discussions, seminars and the like. It might be possible also for a toy library to operate from the pre-school for other children’s services. There are, of course, many options. We intend to be flexible in our interpretation of eligibility for subsidy. We would welcome suggestions from individual centres in relation to other extended services, particularly of an innovative nature, which would meet the needs of a local community.

Senator Rae:

– Might I just seek clarification very briefly on that point? One of their concerns is that this will add costs- maintenance costs and overall costs- to the existing situation. Will that also be catered for in the subsidy? That is the point about which I think they are primarily concerned.

Senator WILLESEE:

-Does the honourable senator not think that that is covered by the subsidy based on 75 per cent of the salaries of teachers and aides? That subsidy, which has already been approved, is added at the moment. I see the point that Senator Rae is making, and we can take it up for him.

Senator Sheil was rather a little bit more outside the bowling than was Senator Rae. He said that inflation, government spending and death duties were responsible for mothers having to go out to work. I thought that that was a little bit outside the sort of thing about which we are talking. When he said that it is a socialist plot to disrupt families in Australia I think he was really drawing the long bow. I remind you, Mr President, that the Child Care Act was passed by the McMahon Government because it recognised that an increasing number of mothers were going out to work. This Bill also recognises that fact. It is a fact of life. I suppose, according to Senator Sheil, what was done by that great socialist, the honourable Phillip Lynch, who introduced the Child Care Bill, ought not to be done by us. I think the appropriate comment is that Senator Sheil was really having himself on. I appreciate that the bulk of the Bill will be agreed to, although there are two rather small amendments and one very vital amendment to be dealt with in Committee.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Clause 1 (Short Title).

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Victoria

-As regards the establishment of the Children’s Commission, I think it is appropriate at this stage that I seek clarification on certain constitutional issues which have been raised in connection with this Bill. I ask specifically whether the Commonwealth Parliament has the power to establish such a commission with the functions and powers set out in this Bill. It would be helpful if legislation of this nature were perhaps to begin with the words ‘pursuant to the powers conferred by section’- then would appear the relevant section ‘of the Constitution’. Under what head of power is this Commission, in its present form, being established? What information can be given to us by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Willesee) in regard to the functions of the Commission ?

Senator WILLESEE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Foreign Affairs · ALP

– My advice is that it is being established under the same powers as applied to the Child Care Act which was passed by the Liberal-Country Party Government in 1972. There is no reference in that Bill, a copy of which I have before me, to heads of power. If that was a constitutional Bill, then ours certainly is. No such question was ever raised in the days when that Bill was being discussed. We have followed completely the Opposition’s very good leadership on this matter.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Victoria

– I still would like some specific guidance as to the head of power under which this Commission, in its present form, will operate. The comments made in respect of the Child Care Act may be appropriate if the Government wishes to find them consistent. I simply ask under which head of constitutional power does the Government decide that this Commission, in its present form, will take effect?

Senator Everett:

-Would not the Child Endowment Act cover it? We are endowing children. Seriously.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

-Seriously, if we were to talk about benefits to children that head of power may be appropriate but we are talking about the functions of the Commission and the way it will work under the present Bill. I am seeking clarification from the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Willesee) as to the Government’s advice on this matter.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Foreign Affairs · ALP

– As I understand the situation, the right to make welfare payments, which never has been under challenge by the Opposition or anybody else in Australia, would seem to be the one we are moving under in this respect. If the Opposition is thinking of challenging this Bill in the High Court it can do so but to be consistent it should have done so in respect of its own Act in 1 972.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 (Interpretation).

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

– There are several matters I would like to raise in relation to clause 3.I will raise them one after the other in order to enable the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Willesee) to answer them. The first matter relates to the definitions. Clause 3 is the definitions clause and it includes a definition of services for children’. In relation to this there already has been an amendment made in the House of Representatives. It was made at the behest of the Opposition and accepted by the Government. I do not pause to refer to that improvement which we think has been made to the Bill but there is an omission and it seems that it may be intended to include it. I raise the matter not so that we can move an amendment but so that we can draw attention to a possible omission. In the definition ofservices for children’ there does not appear to be any provision for emergency overnight care for children. This matter is regarded by many experienced organisations in the field as important, something which arises all too frequently. There is a need for emergency overnight care. It would be helpful to everybody, I am sure, if it could be clarified and stated whether it is intended to include this in some of the definitions set out.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Foreign Affairs · ALP

– As I am advised, we believe that it is covered under paragraph (c) and (g) of clause 3(1). Paragraph (c) states: the care of children other than pre-school aged children at a time or times of the day when they are not being provided with an educational service and are not being cared for in their own homes;

Paragraph (g) states: other services, not being educational services or other services prescribed for the purposes of this paragraph, provided to children, or to the parents of children, that will be conducive to meeting the needs of children having special needs or to promoting the physical, social or mental development of children; . . .

My advisers say that this matter has not been overlooked although it may not be as specific as Senator Rae thinks it ought to be in the Bill at the moment. I am sure that paragraphs (c) and (g) cover the situation.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

-The next point to which I refer also relates to clause 3. There does not appear to be any specific encouragement for parents who elect to care for their own children on a full-time basis rather than taking the alternative of working and making use of child care facilities provided and encouraged pursuant to this Bill. This matter was specifically and very firmly raised by the Australian Council of State School Organisations, amongst others, and it was said that this was an important objective to be adverted to in this piece of proposed legislation. I raise the matter for some comment by the Minister.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Foreign Affairs · ALP

-The definition provides for a wide range of services for children throughout the community. Some services are directed specifically towards children whose parent or parents are working. Would anyone be prepared to say that these children do not have a need for care? Senator Rae did not say that; I am not accusing him of it. In 1972 the then Minister for Labour and National Service, the Honourable Phillip Lynch, introduced a Child Care Bill which was the McMahon Government’s sole contribution to legislation in this field. It is worth examining the Child Care Act to see what assistance was given to the children of parents who were not employed. The answer, of course, is none. The Child Care Act was designed to cater for the children of working parents. By introducing this Bill the Government recognises that all children should have access to a comprehensive range of children’s services to meet their needs, and the scope of the definition of ‘services for children’ is deliberately quite wide. For example, paragraph (b) refers to ‘the education of pre-school aged children’, paragraph (f) refers to ‘assistance to, and counselling of, parents in relation to the raising of children’, and paragraph (g) refers to ‘other services’, and obviously applies to all children. Sub-clause (4) refers to circumstances where parents are prevented, by reasons of illness or of an emergency, as well as by reason of being engaged in employment, from caring adequately for a child in its own home.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Victoria

– Referring to the same point, I draw comparisons between paragraphs (d) and (e). Physically or mentally disabled or handicapped children are able to attract these services when they are not cared for in their own homes but fit children who are being cared for in their own homes are excluded. I draw the Government’s attention to this aspect and to the concern of people who do care for their sick children for periods of time and who could benefit from supportive services that may be available, even the short term supportive services. I feel sure that the usual definition would be applied to physically or mentally disabled or handicapped children as we know it in other Acts and they are included if they are not in their own homes. A sick child who may be consistently sick and whose parents may need some supportive services is excluded under paragraph (e). I think the Government should give attention to this and consider whether the sick child being cared for in its own home should attract some supportive service from this Commission.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Foreign Affairs · ALP

– I am informed that there is support for such children under other Acts, for instance the Health Act, whereby nurses go into the homes.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

– I raise the matter of the mode of payment of subsidies and seek some enlightenment and assurance that the modes adopted will not limit in any way the right of choice of the parent in relation to the type or location of centre to which the child will be sent or which the child will attend. In summary, will the mode of any subsidy or other rules of the Commission limit the exercise of the right of choice by the parent as to the centre or type of centre which the child will attend?

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia · ALP

– I am informed that the situation at the moment is that the subsidy is being paid to the centre. There already is a pilot plan under which the payment is being made to the parent so that we have the situation that Senator Rae wants. It is being tried out in a place called Tasmania.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

– As a social laboratory Tasmania has proved successful in the past in many ways. We may take it that there is no conclusion and that the matter is subject to experiment at this stage with a view to assuring, if possible, the right of election on the part of parents. Does that summarise the situation?

Senator Willesee:

– The answer is yes.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Clause 5.

  1. 1 ) The functions of the Commission are-

    1. with the approval of the Minister, to make grants out of the moneys of the Commission, on such conditions, if any, as the Commission determines, of financial assistance of the kind referred to in sub-paragraph (a) (ii).

  2. In the performance of its functions, the Commission shall, to the greatest extent practicable, consult and cooperate with Departments of State and with authorities established by or under laws of Australia, being Departments or authorities responsible for aspects of the planning of, the provision of, the training of persons to provide, and the provision of financial assistance for, services for children.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

-I refer to the matters which I mentioned in the second reading debate earlier today and to the fact that we do not agree with the way in which the Commission is being created and structured. We believe that this approach has a number of faults, which I outlined, and that it would be much better to approach it from the point of view of creating a children’s bureau. I refer now to the proposed mode of funding, which is one of the matters with which we find some disagreement. This clause relates to the functions of the Commission. Paragraph (d) provides:

With the approval of the Minister, to make grants out of the moneys of the Commission, on such conditions, if any, as the Commission determines, of financial assistance of the kind referred to in sub-paragraph (a) (ii).

The effect of that is that the Government is proposing that funds in respect of the services for children will be paid by the Commonwealth pursuant to section 8 1 of the Constitution direct to receiving bodies, be they local government bodies, private organisations or whatever they may be. We believe that in a federation there is an obligation on the part of the Commonwealth Government to follow the course of devolution provided for in the Constitution and to use section 96 grants in this circumstance so that the situation, which has already been adverted to in considerable detail by my colleague Senator Guilfoyle in her speech on the second reading, of the organisation which has been structured in the States and which is already set up for ensuring that the money flows down to the appropriate organisations can be followed. We propose therefore to move for the deletion of this paragraph, which in no way affects the moneys that would be available but affects the method of payment of those moneys. We do not in any way suggest that the moneys that have been appropriated should not be made available for the purposes of providing services for children; it is simply a question of the mode to be adopted. We are suggesting that the appropriate mode, consistent with the federal principle, is that section 96 of the Constitution be used for this purpose rather than section 8 1 .

This meets with the wishes of a number of State governments of Australia with which we have discussed the matter and it is believed that this will be a better means of ensuring the most adequate utilisation of the total funds available in Australia. It will also lessen the likelihood of creating an all powerful bureaucracy from the centre and we believe it will make the ultimate result more in the interests of the children of Australia. I move:

Senator WILLESEE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Foreign Affairs · ALP

– The Child Care Act 1972, which as I said before was introduced by the Liberal and Country Party Government, provided for direct payments to non-profit organisations for child care centres. The present Government wishes to follow that example in relation to this Bill. Unlike the Child Care Act, this Bill provides for advisory boards to enable consultation with State governments, local government and the voluntary agencies involved in providing children’s services. I think the crucial point is that substantial sums are already being paid through the State government departments, but this does not preclude payments to others. Under the Child Care Act payments were being made directly to the child care centres and the States were not able to apply for moneys.

By retaining paragraph (d) we have a situation whereby the State can seek funds, but not exclusively so. The State can ask for money for child care centres, or the individual child care centres can ask for money. Incidentally, that provision was not in the Child Care Act, which was much more restrictive than this Bill. We are saying that the States can do this and in some cases moneys are already being paid out in this respect. If the Opposition succeeds with this amendment I think it is taking a flexibility out of the Bill. I do not think the Opposition really intends to do that. I think the Opposition is building up a fear that should not exist. I repeat that we will pay direct to these bodies and we can pay and, I am informed, are paying moneys through the States as well. So the States can make application for these moneys and so can the individual bodies. What the Opposition will be doing is taking away that provision. It did not have that flexibility in the Child Care Act. In our few years of wisdom I think we have been able to improve on the situation. I do not think it would be wise of Senator Rae to persist with this amendment.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

-I notice that the Minister has been referring to what happened in regard to the previous legislation introduced by the former Liberal and Country Party Government. I am proud to be able to say that we did some pioneering in this field, but I am also proud to be able to say that we are capable of learning the lessons to be learnt as one experiences the way in which things operate. Any differences between the way in which we piloted the scheme and the comments we now make are the result of experience and further consideration. We will be persisting with the amendment. I would like to raise another matter which is not the subject of an amendment but which I raise for comment by the Minister. Why is it that there is no emphasis at all in clause 5 or elsewhere in the Bill on any concept of the development and protection of children’s rights as such? This concept, which I think is now well known, is being debated and argued in many areas, yet this Bill does not appear to advert to it at all.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Victoria

-Also with regard to the function of the Commission I want to recollect some of the statements of the Ministers which relate to this Bill. I refer firstly to a statement made on 19 September 1974. The Government stated:

It is the Government’s firm intention that by 1980 all children in Australia will have access to services designed to take care of their educational, emotional, physical, social and recreational needs. The emphasis of the program will be in areas of need. Planning and administration will proceed at the community level. One of the real strengths of the Government’s program is that it will break down the false dichotomy between child care and pre-schooling.

The next statement that I wish to quote was made on 1 1 April 1975 as follows:

The Australian Government is committed to providing care for as many children as possible, especially where it is most needed and in the way that people want it. We want the community to be involved in the care of its children. That means wc wish to help citizens to identify their real needs and to play a part in initiating and managing services for children.

In contradiction to the above statements I have quoted, the statement then enunciates what the Government wants and what it does not want. The Minister then pre-empts the recommendations of the proposed Children’s Commission by stating what the Government’s policy will be in 1976; for example, that the Government will pay 75 per cent of the salaries. He stresses that ‘the assistance for salaries would only be paid where services had been extended or integrated with other services’. He then enunciates the way in which this should be done. I think the above statements need clarification. Do they mean that the Minister has already decided and even directed how services will be planned, even though earlier he emphasised the need for the community to make known its views? The Minister also says that all appropriate State Ministers and officials have been advised of these arrangements. Does that mean that unless all existing kindergartens- there are 900 kindergarens in Victoria, for instance- extend their services or integrate with other services no financial assistance will be available? If this is the approach, perhaps we will have to pose this further question: Should not all primary schools have their funds cut off if they do not extend or integrate their services in the light of the program of the Children’s Commission? We would all support the proposition that maximum use should be made of facilities; I think that has been mentioned throughout the debate today. Existing buildings could be used as facilities instead of erecting a whole range of new buildings throughout Australia. I should like some clarification of the way in which the Government thinks this Commission will function and of the integration which it will require before funds will be made available for some of the projects that may be implemented.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Foreign Affairs · ALP

– The whole aim is to integrate as much as we can and to extend as far as we can. Some children are not getting the facilities they ought to be getting. We want to fill that gap. It is as simple as that.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

-I wish to make 2 points. I noticed that my colleague Senator Guilfoyle referred to sub-clause (3). Of course, an amendment has been circulated which relates to sub-clause (4). If the Minister is agreeable, may we deal with sub-clauses (1), (2) and (3) at this stage and deal separately with subclause (4)?

Senator Willesee:

– Yes.

Senator RAE:

– I draw attention to sub-clause ( 1 ), which reads:

The functions of the Commission are-

to ascertain the needs of the Australian community for services for children and to make recommendations to the Minister in respect of those needs, including recommendations in relation to- (iri) the education and training of persons involved, or to be involved, in the provision of services for children;

In relation to that training, I should like to ask the Minister whether he can elaborate at all on the attitude of the Government and its officers as to the role which in-service training will play under that provision. To what extent will inservice training be regarded as an important and integral part of the training, or will there be a concentration on the formalised external training at colleges, universities or other institutions?

Senator WILLESEE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Foreign Affairs · ALP

– We see inservice training as a very important part of the whole set-up.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Davidson:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Whilst we are dealing perhaps more specifically with the first part of the clause, we have before us at the moment the amendment which Senator Rae has moved to clause 5, subclause ( 1 ), paragraph (d).

Question put:

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

The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman- Senator G. S. Davidson)

AYES: 29

NOES: 27

Majority……. 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

-Clause 5, sub-clause (4), to which I now wish to direct the Committee’s attention, reads:

  1. In the performance of its functions, the Commission shall, to the greatest extent practicable, consult and cooperate with Departments of State and with authorities established by or under laws of Australia, being Departments or authorities responsible for aspects of the planning of, the provision of, the training of persons to provide, and the provision of financial assistance for, services for children.

There are 2 amendments I wish to move in relation to the sub-clause. The first amendment is to delete the words ‘to the greatest extent practicable’. As has been indicated by speakers on the Government side it is desired that there should be consultation. If both sides agree that there should be consultation, then there is no need to include the limiting escape clause, using the words ‘to the greatest extent practicable’. The clause would then read, if our amendment was carried, ‘In the performance of its functions, the Commission shall consult and co-operate with Departments of States, etc’ We believe that it appeared from what Senator Coleman and the Minister had said that this was the Government’s intention. If it is the Government’s intention that that form of consultation and co-operation should take place, there is no need to include the words ‘to the greatest extent practicable’. At some time a future Children’s Commission might find it impracticable to have any consultation and co-operation when obviously the judgment as to what is the greatest extent practicable would be the judgment of the Commission itself. As we believe that the Commission should be obliged to consult and co-operate, we desire to omit the words ‘to the greatest extent practicable’. I move:

There is another amendment in that same clause with which I will deal separately.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia · ALP

– There is an interesting difference in approach. Senator Rae is right in that we agree that there ought to be consultation and co-operation with departments. He thinks that omitting the words ‘to the greatest extent practicable’ strengthens the clause. We believe that it strengthens the clause to leave the words in, because it becomes more mandatory on the officers to co-operate and consult with departments. What we are saying is that they should not only consult and co-operate, which is a subjective sort of opinion of somebody, but we are making it more mandatory by saying: ‘You shall not only consult and co-operate but you shall do so to the greatest extent possible’- not just a mere cosmetic thing, talking to the States once every year or two, but to the greatest extent possible. We are trying to aim at the same thing. We do not think that it is a restrictive clause, as Senator Rae has pointed out, but it places a greater responsibility on the people involved in this matter to carry out the dictates of the Act.

Senator STEELE HALL:
South AustraliaLeader of the Liberal Movement

– I believe the Opposition amendment has merit in that it simply takes away what I am sure they are saying could be used as an excuse and it does not in any way affect the operation of the Bill, as the last amendment will drastically affect it. I think this is matter of improving the co-operation already worked into the Bill and required of the Commission. For that reason, I think it ought to be supported.

Senator EVERETT:
Tasmania

– I express myself as puzzled by the Opposition’s attitude in this matter. It seems to me that the effect of the amendment is to reduce the requirement, so far as the content of that requirement is concerned, to consult and co-operate. If the words are omitted, the clause would read: ‘the Commission shall consult and co-operate,’ etc. That consultation and co-operation could be halfhearted or desultory, or it could take place twice a year. That is the sort of thing that could happen under the Opposition’s amendment. The Government on the other hand says that it is prepared to accept an obligation on the Commission that that consultation and co-operation shall be to the greatest extent practicable. To delete those words would be to limit the requirement for consultation and co-operation, not to expand it. I see no difference between the parties in what is desirable in this matter but I suggest to the Opposition that its amendment will be counterproductive and is not designed to achieve its purpose. If we omitted the words ‘to the greatest extent practicable’ we would be saying: ‘Well, when the Commission feels like it and to the extent that it feels desirable it shall consult and co-operate’. To leave the words in would mean that it is a continuous requirement to the greatest extent that is practicable. I suggest that the words are common in statutes and should remain.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

– I am grateful for the comments that have been made in relation to this matter, because they assist towards an understanding of the way in which this Bill when it becomes an Act will operate. In the light of what has been said by the Minister and Senator Everett, I am inclined at present not to pursue this to a division on the assurance that has been given by both of them that the Government’s intention and instruction to the Commissionand obviously the Commission will have regard to the debate which has taken place in this chamberwill be that the meaning to be given is an increase in the obligations on the Commission for consultation and co-operation, not a decrease. I believe the clause is ambiguous and I believe that the debate has clarified the view of this chamber in relation to the meaning of the potential ambiguous terminology. The ambiguity comes from the fact that it is a subjective qualification so far as the Commission is concerned, namely, its view of what is the greatest extent practicable. As Senator Hall has said, it could be used to limit very much the degree to which there would be consultation and cooperation. In view of the greatest clear statement of intention and the fact that the Commission shall have regard to the debate that has taken place and to the explanation that has been given, I will continue to move the motion but I will not call for a division.

Amendment negatived.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

– There is a further amendment which I believe will undoubtedly strengthen the legislation. Here again it is possible that there is some misunderstanding, because Senator Coleman made certain comments during her speech on the second reading debate. Let me read again the provisions of sub-clause (4) of clause 5. It states:

In the performance of its functions, the Commission shall, to the greatest extent practicable, consult and co-operate with Departments of State and with authorities established by or under laws of Australia . . .

I pause there and say that we propose to insert after ‘Australia’ the words ‘or of any State or Territory’. As the sub-clause stands, it is our view that it means that that consultation and cooperation is with the Departments or authorities established under what is known in the Constitution as Commonwealth law, the laws of Australia being the laws made by that entity which so frequently appears in legislation in the past Vh years, which used to be called the Commonwealth of Australia but which is now called Australia. If there is no intention that it should be taken that way there is no reason at all why the Minister in charge of the Bill should not agree to our amendment to put the matter beyond doubt. In other words, if the idea is that the consultation and co-operation shall be with departments and authorities established under the laws of the Commonwealth, the States of Australia and the Territories of Australia no doubt the Minister would support our amendment. I gained the impression from what Senator Coleman said that she would support our proposed amendment and that that was her understanding of what was intended. I move:

The sub-clause would then read:

In the performance of its functions, the Commission shall, to the greatest extent practicable, consult and co-operate with Departments of State and with authorities established by or under laws of Australia or of any State or Territory being Departments or authorities responsible for aspects of the planning of, the provision of, the training of persons to provide, and the provision of financial assistance for, services for children.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Foreign Affairs · ALP

– We never thought it necessary to include the words ‘or of any State or Territory’ because of clause 31 of the Bill which sets up State and Territory Children’s Commission Advisory Boards. As I understand the matter, the draftsman felt that that clause adequately covers the points about which Senator Rae now has some doubt. I notice that when this matter was raised in the other place with the Special Minister of State (Mr Lionel Bowen), whom I am representing here today, he pointed out that advisory boards, presently called consultative committees, already exist and they will continue. These advisory boards consist of representatives of State government, local government, community groups and at present the Interim Committee for the Children’s Commission. The reason that the words are not included in this clause is that it was felt the matter was covered by clause 3 1 .

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

– It seems to me that to refer to another clause is not a satisfactory way to deal with this matter. My recollection is that the ‘laws of Australia’ are referred to in a number of other Bills and that phrase might well be interpreted as meaning just the laws passed by the Federal Parliament of Australia. If the clause contained the words ‘laws in Australia’ I suppose it would be clear and would cover other bodies which make laws. I should have thought that the natural interpretation of the words ‘laws of Australia’ tends to exclude the States and the Territories when obviously this amendment makes the matter clear beyond doubt.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

– I wish to comment only on what the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Willesee) said concerning clause 3 1 which provides for State Advisory Boards and certain relationships with State departments and organisations under State law. But in our view that does not adequately cover the requirement that consultation and co-operation so far as the Children’s Commission is concerned should be community based. We would seek to have that matter clarified by the insertion of the words contained in the amendment to ensure that the Bill covers organisations and departments under Commonwealth law and under the law of a State or Territory.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Foreign Affairs · ALP

– I repeat that I do not think it is necessary, but I certainly would not take the matter to division because we are trying to aim at the one thing. I think clause 3 1 does cover the matter. I cannot quite follow Senator Missen when he puts a stricture on referring to another part of the Bill. After all, that is what we are dealing with. However, that is not important. We would vote against the inclusion of the words but I certainly would not seek to divide on it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 6 and 7- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 8 (Nature of Commission)

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

– In relation to sub-clause 8 ( 1) (c) I ask what is intended by the provision for the Commission to ‘acquire, hold and dispose of real and personal property’? Is it intended that this Commission shall actually acquire homes or centres for use for the purposes of this legislation or is this sub-clause simply intended to allow it to have offices or any other administrative centre for itself? It is just a matter of clarification being sought.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Foreign Affairs · ALP

– As I understand it, this is a standard clause similar to clauses in legislation which set up such bodies as the Schools Commission and the Hospitals Commission. It is not meant that the Children’s Commission shall go into the real estate business.

Senator Rae:

– Is it meant that the Commission shall go into the business of running its own child care centres or other institutions or is the phrase simply used in the same way that it is used in many other Acts so that the Commission can have its own premises for administrative purposes?

Senator WILLESEE:

-The latter is correct.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 9 (Membership of Commission).

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

– In relation to this clause a number of teachers organisations throughout Australia have expressed the view that there should be express provision to ensure teacher representation on the Commission. We do not propose a particular amendment but I take the opportunity to ask what is the Government’s intention in regard to the representation of interested groups and professions which are involved? Is it intended at this stage that a full Commission of nine shall be appointed or is it thought that the number may be as low as four? If it is to be as low as four, I indicate to the Goverment that many organisations in Australia would express very grave concern that such a small number is not adequate for the task. I have received representations from other groups, such as kindergarten groups and mothers groups, all indicating that they believe that they should be represented on the Commission and that there should be express provision for representation. We are moving no amendment. I am seeking an explanation of the Government’s intentions in this regard.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Foreign Affairs · ALP

-Firstly, if we accommodated all the groups that wanted to be accommodated we would need a football team, Australian rules not rugby, to do so. Members of the Commission will not be representatives of any group but shall be appointed because of their expertise. It may be that teachers and nurses for instance would be in that category. There may be all sorts of people. I am told that at present seven out of eleven people appointed happen to be teachers. We do not wish to create a situation in which people are chosen to try to cover the whole spectrum of skills that would be interested in child care but to pick them for the particular expertise they have irrespective of what their professions might be.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 10 and 1 1- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 12 (Chairman and Deputy Chairman of Commission.)

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

– I ask the Minister whether further consideration will be given to making an amendment to add a new sub-clause 12 (5) to read:

The Chairman or Deputy Chairman may resign from the position of chairman or deputy chairman but may remain in office as a member or part-time member of the Commission until the expiration of the period for which he was appointed.

The object of such an amendment would be to enable somebody who had had experience as a chairman or deputy chairman, but who no longer was able to fulfil that task, to give to the Commission the benefit of his experience and expertise and to remain on the Commission for the remainder of his term. Other advantages might be available in the administration of the Commission if such a sub-clause were provided. This matter was raised in the debate in the House of Representatives. As I understand it the Minister indicated at that time that the Government was not prepared to accede to such a request. I raise it by way of a request because the Opposition does not regard it as being of such vital importance that it would pursue it by way of an amendment, but the Opposition does see it as being something to which attention should be given. Perhaps there has been a change of heart on the part of the Government between the time when the matter was raised in the House of Representatives and now.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Foreign Affairs · ALP

– I do not recall the matter being raised in the House of Representatives. It might have been. Anyway that is not important. I appreciate Senator Rae’s point that if one has an experienced person in a senior position on the Commission and that person is unable to carry on in that senior position in a full time capacity he may be able to devote a lesser amount of time to the Commission. I think that there would be a way in which to overcome that. Let us say that such a person resigned from the position of chairman. He could be appointed in another capacity. There could be a break between the two positions. He could resign at 6 o’clock one night and be appointed a part time member at 9 o’clock the next morning. So for that reason I do not think that it is necessary to include such a provision. I accept immediately that somebody who is interested in doing so and who has had experience in a senior position would be a very handy person to have around. I think that the situation could be covered in that way if such a person still wanted to give service in a lesser capacity and that person was a desirable person to have around.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 13 to 19- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 20 (Rights of public servant appointed as full time member).

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

- Mr Temporary Chairman, may we take clauses 20 and 22 together because the point I wish to make relates to both clauses? Clause 20 provides that the rights of a public servant appointed as a full time member are to be preserved. It states:

If a person appointed as a full time member was, immediately before his appointment, an officer of the Australian Public Service or a person to whom the Officers* Rights Declaration Act 1928-1973 applied-

he retains his existing and accruing rights . . .

Clause 22 provides:

The Governor-General may enter into an arrangement with the Governor of a State for the services of officers or employees of the Public Service of the State or of an authority of the State to be made available to the Commission.

The point I raise and which has been raised with me by the governments and Public Services of some of the States is: Why should the provisions of clause 20 not apply in relation to any members of a State Public Service who go into the service of the Commission pursuant to an arrangement between the Australian Government and a State government?

Senator WILLESEE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Foreign Affairs · ALP

– I have been informed that if we were getting somebody from a State we would be taking him for a particular period and would be entering into an arrangement with the State. His rights would be preserved under the law of that State. As I understand it, he would be in the same situation as a member of the Australian Public Service except that we have to cover the members of the Australian Public Service because they are our responsibility. The States would be covering their men whom we borrow.

Clause 20 agreed to.

Clauses 21 to 30- by leave- taken together and agreed to.

Clause 31 (State and Territory Children’s Commission Advisory Boards).

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

-Clause 31 provides for the establishment of State and Territory Children ‘s Commission Advisory Boards. I again take advantage of the opportunity to ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Willesee) to let us know the current thinking of the Government- its policy- in relation to the constitution of these boards and the role of these boards. I know that some reference has been made to these matters in the speeches that have been made in relation to the debate on the motion for the second reading of the Bill, but I would seek some further elaboration in relation to the areas from which the members of the boards will be drawn and the right of a State government to appoint at least one of the members of such a board. I believe that that is a matter that was specifically dealt with in the debate in the House of Representatives. I would like further information in relation to that and would extend the matter further to ask from what other areas it is intended to draw the people who will make up the membership of these advisory boards.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Victoria

-I support the comments of Senator Rae with regard to the proposed State and Territory Children’s Commission Advisory Boards. In fact, I would go further and seek some expression of opinion from the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Willesee) with regard to the comments I made earlier today concerning the existing State advisory boards in related services. Undoubtedly there are in existence throughout Australia advisory boards to State governments. I would like an expression of intention to be made with regard to the desirability of consultation with them and of the use of the information that is collected by them and the advice that they are able to give to State Ministers. It seems to me that we could be reaching a stage in this Bill at which we are talking about child care taking priority over pre-school education. There needs to be some relationship between the preschool planning in the various States and the provision of what might be additional child care facilities for those children who have working parents away from the home during several hours of each day. Is it being suggested that preschool education is to take a lesser priority? That conclusion could be drawn from the statement of the Special Minister of State (Mr Lionel Bowen) on 1 9 September in which he said:

The criticism is that pre-schooling has primarily benefited children whose mothers can afford to stay at home.

I think we ought to be questioning whether there is co-ordination between the kindergartens or pre-school centres in the various States and what might be attempted under the Children’s Commission with the child care facilities that are to be developed. I would like to think that we are not placing in contrast the pre-school opportunities with the child care facilities. I think that the State advisory bodies are the best organisations to advise the new Children’s Commission on what plans are already in existence and how they may facilitate the overall concept of improved services. For those reasons I would like a response from the Minister on the subject of consultation with already existing State advisory boards. I also emphasise the point that was made by Senator Rae with regard to the need for some appointment by the State governments of people to the advisory boards that are to be set up under clause 31.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Foreign Affairs · ALP

- Senator Rae raised a point as to the areas from which the members of the advisory boards will be drawn. The intention is- he asked for the Government’s thinking on this matter- that they will be drawn from a very wide range. They could be drawn from such bodies as kindergarten organisations, the Council of Social Services and so on. There is no limitation on that. I turn to the subject of how they would be selected. The Commonwealth obviously would select its own. The State governments would select their own. The local government appointments would be made after the fullest consultation. In other words I would say that in practice it would be just a matter of their recommending- they would sign an act or whatever they do- an appointment to the body and that person would be appointed. I do not see any great problems in that respect.

Senator Guilfoyle raised the point, I took it to be, of just how this thing might develop in a practical situation and not what is the intention of the legislation and as to whether there would be some rub between pre-school education and the provision of child care facilities. What we want to do in the whole of this matter is have a look at the overall situation of what is demanded by the child itself. Senator Guilfoyle finished her remarks by using those words herself. I think that what Senator Guilfoyle is getting at is that no matter what we might write down in this place, the organisation itself might not develop in the way in which its development is planned. The only answer I can give to that is that we should get our directions as clear as possible and then supervise how they are carried out. Senator Guilfoyle also mentioned the subject of cooperation. I thought that we had reached very sweet agreement on that in relation to clause 5 (4) when Senator Rae accepted my assurance that the retention of the words ‘the greatest extent practicable’ would make it more mandatory on the Commission to consult with the State bodies.

Clause agreed to.

Remainder of Bill- by leave- taken as a whole, and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 1936

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Curriculum Development Centre Bill 1975

Technical and Further Education Commission Bill 1975

page 1936

TRADE UNION TRAINING AUTHORITY BILL 1975

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 14 May on motion by Senator Bishop:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator SCOTT:
New South Wales

– On behalf of the Opposition I indicate support for the Trade Union Training Authority Bill. Any Bill that refers to the educational circumstances of this country, which is a free enterprise democracy, must be of major importance. It is a good thing that in this circumstance we are basically able to support the Bill. It is not remarkable, I believe, that we should be supporting this Bill for we have supported for a long time the principle of trade union training. As evidence of that statement I think it pertinent to indicate the policy of the Opposition in this matter. I quote at some length from the policy of the Opposition:

We support the concept of trade union training. We support the concept of a National Council for Trade Union Training.

We would seek to have established in appropriate educational institutions programs specifically designed to meet the needs of trade unionists. To assist in that purpose, we support the concept of a National Council of Trade Union Education whose task it would be to develop special relationships with the appropriate educational institutions to see that the content of courses specifically met the needs of trade unions. Training would be required in a wide variety of subjects at different levels to assist unionists in the execution of their official union duties. Subjects would include, among other things:

The provisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, its principles and purposes

The functions and duties of shop stewards

The question of union rules

How to run an office

The relationship of branch and federal offices

How to serve a log of claims

How to seek variation of an award

The provisions of workers compensation.

We strongly believe that appropriate courses should be conducted as far as practicable in existing educational and training institutions. Trade union education and training should not be shut off from other forms of education. Where subject matters overlap, courses should be conducted jointly for unionists and industrial officers.

So it is abundantly clear that the Opposition, in this important area of trade union training, certainly is dedicated to the principle of establishing that capacity in our community. I believe it is important that in the course of this speech I mention some of our priorities which differ in some way from the conceptions of this Bill. Perhaps the difference, for the sake of the aims of the Bill, is not sufficient for us to do other than support it. We would have hoped that a trade union training authority could have been incorporated basically within the existing educational arrangements in our community, naturally with special reference to the curricula requirements of the trade unions. We say that because it seems a shame, in establishing a necessary form of education in our community, that we should be tending to establish an institution such as the envisaged authority which in some real measure appears to have the capacity of shutting itself off from the rest of the educational fields in Australia. Immediately anything in any area of a nation ‘s economy shuts itself off from those other parts that contribute to that economy there tends to arise a measure of suspicion. If there is a measure of suspicion there is just that little less chance of an operation being as effective as it should be and must be in the requirements of the Australian community and the Australian economy.

Because the Government has introduced this legislation I am sure that the Government and the trade unions are interested. If they are interested in the total integration of a great, free Australian society it is clear that advantages are to be gained from having a government educational institution that relates to trade unionism involved as part of the institutions which have a wider educational horizon. I think of various universities, colleges of advanced education, technical colleges and the like. It seems to me somewhat of a shame that this sort of educational project, important as it is, cannot become part of the wider educational field in the Australian circumstance because I believe immense value is to be gained, as a nation and as a people, from providing facilities which enable students in whatever faculty they may be interested and in whatever area of the economy they may be involved to mix and to gain from mixing, from discussion and from the thoughts of students who may be applying themselves to any of a dozen or a score of other faculties or other lines of occupation. The fact that that sort of inter-mix of students is not possible in a circumstance in which a trade union training authority isolates itself from the other educational areas of this country, I believe, is unfortunate. It seems to me that, if it were conceivable that this Authority would be part of the greater educational horizon, there would be more possibility- indeed probability- that a proper measure of relevance of trade union training to all the other entities and departments in the Australian society would be obtained.

In the training of trade unionists for their specific jobs, I believe that we should aim to establish a greater capacity for mobility, because the establishment of mobility between trade and trade and between section and section of industry and commerce can only contribute to the breaking down of the closed doors and clique circumstances of an industrial and commercial society. Such circumstances can in no way help the development of that society. We must ensure that education in any field- certainly in the trade union field- will produce, or will aim to produce, a flexible and reasonable society, because it is only in this circumstance that a free democracy can survive. If there were any chance that this sort of isolation in trade union training could bring about a circumstance in which only the hierarchy of the trade unions would receive the instruction that was available, it would damage rather than aid the progress of the Australian community. Perhaps it would be more relevant to the attitudes of the Treasurer, Dr Cairns, who so often has said that we have gone as far as we can go within this system. He concerns himself not with a proper measure of evolution but with the abandonment of the system and the introduction of another system. With due respect to the Government, I do not believe that it is the Government’s object to introduce another system in this circumstance. I merely mention that as a warning. If we were to introduce a set of circumstances which would enable the isolation of trade union training, we would run the real risk of establishing a situation in which the training concerned itself not truly with education but more significantly with indoctrination. Of course, that would create the greatest problems imaginable for the Australian society; it would see us tend to move into areas of confrontation from which there could be few, if any, escapes.

I mention this just as an area of concern which I am sure the Government will observe from time to time. I am equally sure that the Australian people will observe with great interest and keenness the effectiveness and the working of this Trade Union Training Authority. There is enormous mutual advantage to be gained from trade unionists, like any other section of the community, being able in their normal educational process to mix with people who are on their way to becoming doctors, lawyers, scientists, teachers and so on in the society. Although we support the establishment of this Authority, it is for that reason, basically, that we are concerned that it has not been found possible to develop this training within the existing educational frameworkwith due reference naturally, to the particular needs of the trade unionists involved.

We also have some concern about the students who might be selected to undergo this course. It is to be hoped that the trade unions themselves will not hold too tight a control or too tight a rein over the type of trade union student who will undergo training provided by this educational authority. It seems to me that it is important that such an authority should be as open as possible to members of the community who have a legitimate and proper interest in and knowledge of trade union affairs and industrial relations. I hope that this Trade Union Training Authority will direct its main attention towards the establishment of circumstances which will create a better, more effective and more efficient atmosphere in the area of industrial relations, in which there are constant problems. It is immensely important that in this area of industrial relations we should be mindful, as far as training and education are concerned, of the importance of education, not merely in gaining a grasp of rules, producing a log of claims or interpreting Acts. I believe that if we are genuinely interested in the development of this Australian economy, this Australian society, we should be devoting our attention in some measure, through this Authority, to the question of efficiency or to the question of economics itself. Indeed, if employers, whether they be individuals or groups, are to produce the greatest possible care for the total population, we should relate the training to the importance of productivity and to the reasonable necessity to provide for a profit motive within the law.

The Trade Union Training Authority Bill which we are considering incorporates at least 2 measures which are of particular interest to the Opposition. They were incorporated in the other place. I wish to reflect our appreciation of the incorporation of those measures, because they are relevant at least in some degree to the matters I have been discussing. I refer, firstly, to the decision that the Leader of the Government and the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives shall each nominate a member of Parliament to the Australian Council for Union Training. Besides this Council there are to be 6 State Councils for Union Training. As I have said, the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Government in the other place are each to nominate a member of Parliament to this Council; the Minister for Education in the Federal Parliament also is to nominate one member to the Council. I certainly believe that this is a step in the right direction, because it involves the people with this educational authority in some real measure and it is essential that the people be involved. We appreciate the fact that this sort of contact or liaison will be made possible by the addition of members of this Parliament to the Australian Council for Union Training. It is a matter of considerable importance and of much more wide-ranging implication than at first may be apparent.

We agree that the prime requirement of trade union training is to produce better instructed, more efficient and more competent union officials. This should be to the mutual advantage of industrial relations and of the parties who negotiate and discuss industrial matters from time to time. We must not lose sight of the great necessity to improve industrial relations. It is in that concept that the addition of members of this Parliament to the Council can best be seen to act in something of a liaison character between the Council and the community which supports this college as it supports most educational facilities in Australia, in order that the community may feel a direct link with the establishment and control of education in virtually all fields. After all, the community’s purse is the purse that pays. It is proper that there should be a real relevance to and a real rapport with that community. Through the members of the Parliament that is in some real measure possible.

A section has been included in the Bill which makes it necessary for the Trade Union Training Authority to report to the Parliament annually not just on financial matters but on its total operations. I believe and hope that that will be a significant provision in breaking down the possible areas of suspicion to which I referred earlierareas which, if they were to be generated, would contribute to the failure of an institution which is desperately needed in the Australian scene if we are to have successful negotiations in industrial matters.

Once more let me refer to the necessity for the Authority, when established, to concern itself- it will be more difficult for it to concern itself because it is to be divorced from so many other educational fields in the community- with a relatively wide area of education and certainly to ignore the attitudes of indoctrination. Whatever the circumstances, whether it is a capitalist community or whether it is a socialist or communist State, ultimately that pan that is divisible to all the people is referable to the efficiency of the employer, whether the employer be the State itself as one entity or whether the employer be many thousands of entities. In the circumstances of Australia, at least there is a very large measure of freedom of choice and at least there is the propulsion of the profit motive within the law. If government fulfilled its obligation to prevent exploitation, then perhaps that would be the closest we have yet reached to achieving some sort of satisfaction for human nature. The report of the Council to the Parliament is then of extreme value. We on the Opposition benches appreciate the attitude of the Government in incorporating that provision in the Bill.

I was somewhat alarmed when I read the statement of an official of the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union training authority. This particular official- I quote what he said merely to provide some accent to the views I have been expressing- said:

Union training can help widen and deepen the challenge to capitalism.

I am sure- I certainly hope- that the Government would not share that sort of view. If that were the objective of a union training authority, it could do nothing but harm industrial relations in this country. I emphasise again that I hope that the purpose of establishing this sort of authority is to generate better industrial relations. It is a sad reflection, I believe, that a responsible union official should take that view.

Senator Georges:

– But you are taking too narrow a view of his view.

Senator SCOTT:

– I am not taking a narrow view because I believe that the word ‘capitalism’ it is only a word and it is referable to any community in the world- refers to the controller or the owner of the capital asset. So the question ultimately resolves itself into whether one entity, the State, controls and owns the capital or whether any number of entities control and own that capital. That is why I make reference to that particular comment. I do not believe that that is the typical view of Australian unionists. Indeed, it would be a travesty if we were trying to improve industrial relations and that were the attitude we had to a trade union training authority.

As I said, it is necessary that a report be available to the people on the operations- the curricula, if you like- of this sort of authority. It is necessary because the public finances the authority. Surely it is the public’s right to know the sorts of areas and the sorts of directions in which the total community is being taken by any of the institutions in our society. If we are to survive as a democracy, I believe that the public has to be kept fully aware of the options that it has and of the attitudes and priorities of the various organisations, educational and otherwise, that exist in our society.

Senator Georges:

– Does that include private schools?

Senator SCOTT:

– I would imagine that the objectives of private schools were perfectly clear for the community to see. They represent, I believe, little more than another stream in the educational field. They represent, I presume, an alternative, and that, after all, is what freedom of choice is all about.

I hope I have indicated clearly to the Senate that at the same time as we express our support for this legislation we signify our concern lest the authority should become in any real way a separatist or isolationist entity, for that could act only against better industrial relations in this country. I believe it important that this sort of authority should have within its power a real measure of diversity in training and instruction, lt is perhaps a shame that it is not open to a greater number of people, a greater area of people, who desire to understand more fully the intricacies of union organisation, of union development, of union aims. It is perhaps a shame that not all those people in the community who have a genuine and legitimate involvement and understanding and concern for industrial relations should be able to gain entry into this sort of instructional institution.

Let me turn again to the need to destroy any area of motive for suspicion in relation to industrial training. I hope that this college will provide the background in the long term for a greater degree of involvement between unions and management in our community, because it is only as it provides that sort of involvement and a real measure of understanding that we are going to succeed in establishing in this country circumstances which will tend to create greater and greater productivity, which will tend to create a more affluent and a freer society. I believe that is what it is all about. If we fail in that regard then our legislation and our system seem to fail. It is terribly important that the contribution of this training authority should be such that it will tend in the long term to increase not only the productivity of the community but also the understanding of every segment of the community of the way in which our economy and our society operate to the community’s best advantage. It can only operate to the greatest advantage of all the people if it does succeed in achieving a major measure of productivity.

As I draw my remarks to a conclusion I say once again that in supporting the concept of this Trade Union Training Authority and in supporting this Bill we are concerned that the yardstick of the Authority- the yardstick of education in this field, as in any field- should be its relevance to the community as a whole. It should contribute to the total development of the Australian scene and it should contribute to better industrial relations. The need for this sort of thing is exemplified in the Nth degree in the history of the last two or three years. We have seen the failure of industrial relations and we have seen the failure of a government in its relations with the unions. I am not sure what area of failure was most responsible but as a result of this failure in industrial relations we have seen in the last couple of years the highest rate of industrial unrest. We have seen inflation and other things that grow from it, such as the unemployment and the lack of productivity we are suffering. I suspect that these things have been caused in no small measure by a lack of capacity in industrial relations. If this Training Authority meets the yardstick of improving industrial relations in this country, if it can improve the capacity to educate not only the union officials but also the foremen- the middle management group if you like- in the union movement, it will contribute immensely to solving that industrial relations problem. We support the Bill but, as I have indicated, we have a number of problems about it; problems that arise from the possibility of it being an isolated and not an integrated entity in the Australian educational scene. I believe that we have in this sort of area -

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Davidson)- Order! The honourable senator’s time has expired.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-The Senate is debating the Trade Union Training Authority Bill 1975. 1 hope that in my contribution to the debate I am somewhat less gloomy than my predecessor, Senator Scott. If he expressed himself as being hopeful about the future of the Trade Union Training Authority I would hate to hear him speaking dismally about anything in this Senate. The Bill seeks to establish an Authority, the functions of which are set out in clause 5. They are, broadly speaking, to undertake and carry out the planning and development of trade union education and training in Australia per medium of training centres and other institutions and bodies. I draw attention to the expression ‘by other institutions and bodies’. The framework of the clause seems to suggest to me that it is not envisaged that these activities will be carried on in a sort of intellectual and educational ghetto such as Senator Scott fears. The functions of the Authority are set out in clause 5 and they relate to trade union training. I refer the Senate to the definition of ‘trade union training’ as it appears in clause 3. The definition is as follows: trade union training’ means-

  1. a) educational, technical or practical training-

    1. capable of advancing and developing an understanding of the functions and objectives of trade unions in Australian society; or
    2. capable of advancing and developing knowledge and skills in fields connected with the powers and functions of trade unions or the powers, functions and duties of officers or officials of trade unions; and

  2. educational, technical and practical training for members of trade unions in any other fields approved by the Australian Council;

The scope of trade union training as described in clause 3 in my view falls into 2 parts. There is, firstly, the question of technical trade union training- that is to say, making trade union officials better functionaries, if I can use that horrible word. Secondly, in sub-paragraph (b) of that definition there is a much wider concept expressed in terms of general technical and practical training for members of trade unions in any other field.

I think it is important at the outset to emphasise the dichotomy of or difference between the two aspects of training which the Authority will be authorised to carry out in accordance with the Bill. The purpose of the legislation, as I said, is to establish a national authority to carry out these functions and to provide continuing education facilities for trade union officials and their members. It might well be envisaged that there will be a college established where the main purposes of the legislation will be carried out; that there will be a college well staffed by competent and highly trained experts in the field and that it will provide courses of a great variety, including residential courses for officials and members and their families, short weekend seminars and things of that kind. Trade union officials are, in many respects, a much maligned group in our society, they are much maligned because the obligations cast upon them in Australia are really quite horrifying.

Senator Steele Hall:
Senator BUTTON:

-Senator Steele Hall laughs but he might refer to some of those obligations in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act some time and ask himself whether he would like them cast upon him. They are very considerable. It is true to say that a good trade union official in

Australia must have first of all a knowledge of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. He must have a knowledge of the rules of his union. He must possess, if possible, something of the arts of advocacy. He should know something about economics. He should know something about the art of negotiating and he should, if possible, have qualities of leadership which are not required by vast numbers of people in our community exercising responsibilities for which they receive the same sort of remuneration. In addition, he has the added burden of knowing that if he does not perform in these areas and does not reach up to the requirements which go to make up a sort of six million dollar man’, he has to face at periodic intervals an election which might result in his losing his job. That is not an unfamiliar situation to members of Parliament but perhaps the circumstances which face a trade union official are slightly more onerous than the circumstances in which my colleague Senator Georges finds himself, reclining, as he is, on the bench on my left.

The sort of problems I refer to which have to be faced by trade union officials are encountered in any country. They are encountered particularly in countries like the United Kingdom. But I suggest that they are compounded in Australia, absolutely compounded, by the Federal structure of Government which we have. We have 13 different bodies responsible for industrial regulation in this country. We have the somewhat legalistic nature of the conciliation and arbitration system which flows from that Federal structure. Furthermore, we have 300 trade union organisations throughout Australia.

Senator Steele Hall:

– Far too many.

Senator BUTTON:

– I could not agree more with Senator Steele Hall- far too many.

Senator Georges:

– Why do you not get up and advocate amalgamation?

Senator Steele Hall:

– I have tried to get your legislation passed.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Davidson)- Order! Senator Button is addressing the Chair.

Senator BUTTON:

-As Senator Hall interjected a moment ago, there are far too many trade union organisations in Australia, and this is a problem that adds to the complexity of the life and work of a trade union official. I talked about the obligations which Australian society particularly, as distinct from other societies, casts upon trade union officials and I think it is very important to look at the Conciliation and Arbitration Act itself and at its objects because they give some indication of the obligations which that Act casts on the union official and on society. If one looks at the objects of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission it seems to me to be quite clear that we have an obligation as a Parliament to provide the sort of facilities that this Bill provides. Objects (e) and (f) of section 2 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act are as follows:

To encourage the organisation of representative bodies of employers and employees and their registration under this Act.

To encourage the democratic control of organisations so registered and the full participation by members of such an organisation in the affairs of the organisation.

When I turn to some of the specific provisions of this Bill I would ask honourable senators who are concerned about this subject to bear in mind those two objects of the Act because in my view they cast obligations not only on the people involved in industrial relations in this country but also on this Parliament to support this sort of legislation to the hilt. I said that one of the complications facing trade union officials is the legalistic nature of the conciliation and arbitration system. Some day I hope we will have a debate in this Senate about industrial relations, as distinct from selected readings from the works of officials of the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union which so endear themselves to the hearts of Opposition senators. I hope we will have a debate in this Senate about the philosophical basis of industrial relations in Australia.

Senator Wright:

– Just give us a bit of a sample of it now.

Senator BUTTON:

-One observation I would like to make right at the start is that the Arbitration Commission in Australia builds into the system of industrial relations an adversary system which in many people’s minds is superimposed on pre-existing and, in my view, somewhat primitive notions of class struggle. We have sort of institutionalised in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act and the system as it has worked an adversary system between employer and employee, and when Senator Scott expresses the view that this college could really be for a sort of buddy-buddy weekend between management and unionists I think he is missing the point.

Senator Wright:

– He did not express that view at all.

Senator BUTTON:

-I point out to Senator Wright that the very legislation of this Parliament which stems from his beloved Constitution builds in that adversary factor. I share Senator Scott’s wish that we should escape from it as much as possible. But it is just too glib to say that in pursuing objects of this kind one can turn this into a sort of industrial relations society or a sort of debating club where management and unions get together. I believe it misses the point of the legislation completely. I said there were 2 views of the function of this education authority. The first view which Senator Scott seemed to espouse was that union officials can be made better in a sort of functional way; they can learn to keep their offices tidier, they can run their offices more efficiently, keep better balance sheets and records, and be more efficient managers. That is all very desirable, I think we would all agree, and that of course would be embraced within the scope of the legislation.

But there is of course a much broader view of what the legislation and the authority should effect and it arises, as I pointed out earlier, from paragraph (b) of the definition of trade union training, which refers to much wider aspects of education. I express this as a broader view because we live at present in a country that is espousing with tremendous enthusiasm on all sides notions of technical and further education, the concept of free tertiary education and management training schemes, and the provision in numerous universities and colleges of advanced education of management training courses. Our society espouses all those things with alacrity because it is felt that somehow they will produce efficiency and growth. I believe that we on both sides of this House also espouse to a large extent the principles of the national employment and training scheme. If I may express a personal view I think it is perhaps time that we came to reconsider our educational priorities. I am not making any pre-Budget comment; I am just saying that in philosophical terms it is perhaps time we began to reconsider educational priorities and the vast sums of money that are poured into institutions of the kind to which I have referred.

Senator Greenwood:

– That is what Senator Guilfoyle said a little while ago.

Senator BUTTON:

-I know Senator Guilfoyle said that; I heard her say it, and I do not retreat with horror from the suggestion that Senator Guilfoyle made. Of course it will be the Government’s prerogative to determine whether Senator Guilfoyle ‘s view in the way it was expressed will be carried out. However, as I say, we live in a society that accepts somewhat unquestionably all these things and we live in a society where there are great projections of increased leisure. Notions of continuing education are constantly being discussed and there is a rapidly changing technology. All these things have an effect on the trade union movement and on the capacity and understanding of trade union officials but, more importantly, if trade unionists and officials are to keep pace with these changes there is a need for the authority to embrace, as is envisaged by clause (b) of the definition, a wide range of disciplines in the curricula which will be provided. I refer to matters such as economics, sociology, psychology and communications, all of which 1 believe are in the projected syllabuses of the college. I have confidence that these things will happen because I have read the report of the Interim Committee. I have confidence that these things will happen because I know some of the personnel involved, particularly Mr Mathews, the Interim Director of the Authority, and I know that from a vast experience of trade union education and training he accepts the importance of the cross fertilisation of ideas between all sections of the community, and so on.

I must deal just briefly with the sort of concept which Senator Scott raised- that there was perhaps some sneaking desire on the part of the Government to establish some sort of isolated intellectual ghetto for trade union officials to which they would be spirited away, indoctrinated by malevolent men and returned to society to bring the capitalist system crashing to the ground.

Senator Greenwood:

– Is there not a risk of that if it is located at Wodonga?

Senator BUTTON:

-I would have thought that there is no greater risk of that if it is located at Wodonga than there is a risk of people who are located regularly in Canberra being out of touch with the rest of society. The point I was making before I was interrupted was that the suggestion that this Authority and the personnel who are behind it would have anything like that in mind is patronising and, in my respectful view, marginally insulting to the spirit of this legislation. In fact I believe that the exact opposite is likely to happen.

Senator Scott said that trade unionists should mix with doctors, lawyers and others in the course of these educational training programs. Let him tell me what doctor or lawyer ever mixes with trade unionists in the course of his training; or what other trained person in an Australian university ever mixes with the vast segment of Australian society in the course of his training. Very few indeed do so. Why trade unionists should be singled out for this particular experience I do not know. In Australia there is very little in the way of other facilities for trade union training. True, there are industrial relations courses in various institutes of advanced education. True, there are part time industrial relations courses in various universities. Those courses are not geared to the sort of objects which this Authority will have. I refer to the provision of short courses, for example, in-training courses and residential courses. By the very nature of the students who will be attending an authority such as this, they will not be geared to the sorts of courses which universities or other institutions could provide. Most of those courses are devoted to producing what are sometimes called ‘industrial relations experts’; this is to say, most of the people who attend those courses want to come out of them with a diploma in industrial relations, as if industrial relations were some definable art as distinct from a most complex and difficult area of negotiation. On the other hand, there are numerous opportunities for the sorts of things which Senator Scott talked about- meetings between management and unions on a discussion level in the industrial relations societies and in a variety of seminars and so on which are organised by various bodies.

I want to say one or two words about overseas experience. In the United Kingdom, Canada and the United States trade union training has been proceeding in a much bigger way for a very long time. There the money is provided mostly by the union organisations themselves, and that is the difference. But the union organisations there do not have the obligations which the Conciliation and Arbitration Act casts upon us in Australia. In Sweden there is a highly sophisticated system of trade union training which I believe is reflected in results. I wish to quote briefly from a study of the Swedish trade union education system contained in an article in the ‘Journal of Industrial Relations’. The article states:

A great deal of the undoubted Swedish success in seeking progress through discussion must be ascribed to a healthy respect for education . . . but in fact the emphasis on education is broadly based. The articulateness of trade unionists for example is impressive but no accident. The informed discussion and evolution of policy stem from the large investment in education on both sides at all levels of labour market activity. This is perhaps the fundamental key to Swedish success in moulding a collective bargaining system that is heavily collectivised yet flexible and responsive to new ideas from all levels and sources. Here surely lies the value of Swedish experience.

I quote that comment simply because it may be a definition of the hopes that we can legitimately hold out for the future of the Trade Union Training Authority in Australia. I accept the amendments; the Government accepts them. We believe that they are sensible and that it is proper for this Parliament to be represented on the Council of the Trade Union Training Authority.

Indeed, the amendments are the first evidence I have had that there is not a monopoly of political wisdom on this side of the chamber. We accept those amendments and believe that the legislation will be better as a result of their having been made. I commend the Bill to the Senate and I commend to honourable senators opposite the possibility of a constructive and positive approach to what I believe is an exciting and important endeavour which may lead us in the future to look back on the passage of this piece of legislation as a milestone in proceeding towards the sort of situation which has been arrived at in a country such as Sweden in the conduct of industrial relations.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

-The Government has presented to the Senate the Trade Union Training Authority Bill 1975. This provides an opportunity for the Senate to discuss the proposal to establish that Authority. According to the Bill, the functions of the Authority are:

  1. to undertake and carry out the planning and development of programs of trade union training in Australia;
  2. to provide trade union training at the College and at the Trade Union Training Centres;
  3. to co-ordinate trade union training in Australia by the College and the Trade Union Training Centres and by other institutions and bodies;
  4. to promote the provision and undertaking of trade union training;
  5. to keep the trade union training that is being provided in Australia under constant review and to reassess and re-evaluate that training in the light of experience; and
  6. to do anything incidental or conducive to the performance of any of the preceding functions.

It can be seen that the object of the Bill is to provide an authority to train a section of the manpower of the country for those purposes. It provides an opportunity for the Opposition to express itself positively in approval of the true principles and purposes of trade unionism. I would think that the provision of laws in our society providing for the existence and operation of trade unions is generally accepted. In my opinion it is unthinkable not to provide for trade unions.

All, I think, would subscribe to the policy set out in the Norris-La Guardia Act of America of 1932, although that policy was badly served by that Act. The preamble of that Act said that, under the prevailing economic conditions developed with the aid of Government authority for owners of property to organise in the corporate and other forms of ownership or association, the individual unorganised worker was commonly helpless to exercise actual liberty of contract to promote his freedom of labour and thereby obtain acceptable terms and conditions of employment. It was therefore deemed proper that, although the worker should be free to decline to associate with other workmen, he should have full freedom of association, selforganisation and his own choice of representative to negotiate terms and conditions of employment.

Senator Georges:

– How about getting back to the Bill.

Senator WRIGHT:

-I think that this Bill demands a thoughtful approach on the principles of trade unionism.

Senator Georges:

– It does not at all. That is quite irrelevant.

Senator WRIGHT:

-I will not be tempted to follow the channels and muddy lurks of Senator Georges into class warfare on this matter. I was about-

Senator Georges:

- Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I would perhaps have been a little more tolerant if it were not for that last remark -

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Davidson)- Order! What is your point of order?

Senator Georges:

– My point of order is that Senator Wright is straying completely away from the Bill. What he is stating is completely irrelevant to the Bill before us and he ought to be kept within the confines of the Bill which provides for trade union training and does not provide for a debate on the philosophy of trade unionism -

Senator Steele Hall:

– Of course it does.

Senator Georges:

– … on which Senator Wright and perhaps Senator Hall may wish to comment.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTOrder! I do not see any substance in the point of order. Senator Wright is introducing his contribution to the debate, and I call upon him to continue his remarks.

Senator WRIGHT:

-The principles of trade unionism are to enable the employees of the country to organise and gain power from unity for the purposes for which they subsist in our society. If one looks to Elizabeth Longford’s ‘Life of Wellington’, she recalls that in 1830 an investigating committee of employers informed the Government that 13 000 workers in fancy goods were earning 2½d a week. If one looks into the history of the Irish famine one will see references made to Irish labourers being presented with the prospect of 6d a day.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Are you going to give us a burst on the Thirty Years ‘ War too?

Senator WRIGHT:

– What a miserable sort of Minister we have interjecting. It is a reflection on the enhanced conditions of today as compared with 150 years ago, and it is very desirable that we credit to the trade union movement and its development a considerable portion of the improvement that has taken place. Reference has been made to our system of arbitration and to the place of unionism in it. It was Mr Justice Higgins who in his province for law and order said: ‘The system of arbitration adopted by the Act is based on unionism. Indeed without unionism it is hard to conceive how the Act could have worked.’ Coming up to date, perhaps too rapidly for the Minister, the work published under the caption ‘Collective Bargaining in Industrial Market Economies’ by the International Labor Organisation, Geneva, in 1974, at page 177, says that it was remarked that unions play a vital part in the arbitration system which would be impossible to operate if it had to deal with individual workers. If for no other reason this fact ensured the growth and security of trade unions from the very beginnings of arbitration in Australia. That sentence on the authority of the ILO ‘s very intensive and fundamental study shows how fallacies can develop in trade union fields that are mischievous and self-defeating. There the very system of which Senator Button has reminded us places quite important duties on the organisations and their officials under the Arbitration Act, and this fact ensured the growth and security of trade unions from the very beginnings of arbitration in Australia. Other historians have regretted that one of the things that was not earlier accorded to trade unions was the power and authority of incorporation.

Senator Georges:

– I rise on another point of order.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Davidson)- What is the point of order? May I have an indication of the point of order you are taking?

Senator Georges:

– Having listened for a further 5 minutes to Senator Wright surely, Sir, you could rule that what he has to say is not relevant to the Bill before us. He has taken 10 minutes to go from 1830 to 1901 and has not as yet become relevant. I suggest that he ought to be brought back to the Bill promptly.

Senator Steele Hall:

- Mr Acting Deputy President.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Are you speaking to the point of order?

Senator Steele Hall:

– Yes. There are members in this chamber who want to hear the valuable contribution Senator Wright is making to the historical development of the trade union movement. Surely this must be relevant to the objectives of trade unions in Australian society, which is a phrase taken from the Bill itself. I submit that there is no point in the point or order.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT- I take the view and I hold by it that there is no substance in the point of order. The Bill before us is the Trade Union Training Authority Bill. As I listened to Senator Wright’s speech he was developing an introduction dealing with historical and other matters concerning the trade union movement that seem to be related to the Bill and he is developing in his own way. I call Senator Wright.

Senator WRIGHT:

– It amazes me that we have minds in the Senate who pretend to be incapable of associating my remarks with the Bill. The fundamental basis of the Bill is to set up an authority for training in trade union principles and purposes and in trade union methods and operation of their organisations. There are some who think that you understand these things from yesterday’s newspaper or from the current news sheet printed by the job foreman, but there are others who think that if the training were intensified in trade unions principles and purposes we would have a much more productive effort from trade unions in association with their employers so as to minimise inflation and to create a society of greater egalitarianism and a society of much better mutual production, one for the other, in goods and services, education and amenities of life. These are the principles, the objectives for which, I hope, we are establishing this trade union training authority.

Having stated one or two things with regard to the matter I was about to say that it has been my constant regret that the mechanism of incorporation was not fully accorded trade unions as it was the combines of capital. Now we have, due to the disparity, evident from the history of the last century, between trade unions and commercial corporations a great vendetta that is the beginning of the misunderstanding which takes place in industrial relations. I should have thought that this authority should produce a curriculum, a group of students and staff who would not limit their minds to the mercenary midget considerations that seem to be synonymous in Senator Georges’ mind with trade union principles, but would go forward from a study of the terrific struggles of trade unionists in past times which are terribly enlightening with regard to the proper purposes of trade unionism today.

Senator Georges might try to understand the importance of what the Prime Minister said in Adelaide last January, that the cause of unemployment in this country was frankly the excessive wage demands. He said that inflation today was indubitably primarily and almost solely due to wage claims and increases. We know that wage claims are right in the forefront of considerations that preoccupy trade unionists’ minds. The methods by which those wage claims should be achieved is of fundamental importance in trade union training, and the reconciliation between strikes demanded by the trade unions and the processes of arbitration is one of the very fundamental issues confronting society today. We find that referred to in current English literature. I have before me the House of Commons Hansard of 3 December 1974. The Bill that was being dealt with there proposed to include newspaper editors within the controls of the trade unions. A very long sustained debate has been pursued in England with regard to the inclusion of newspaper editors within the authority of trade unions. Mr Jonathan Aitken, a Conservative member from Thanet East, said:

We are talking about the control of editors. They are in real danger. That is why they have united in an unprecedented manner to protest against the Bill, against having to accept a whole range of union instructions, having suddenly to be subordinate to union penalties, running the risk of being expelled without compensation …. There is a whole range of other interference- interference with editorial appointments, and even the blacking of certain material. No editor worth his salt can accept those limitations on his freedom.

The reconciliation of the function of editors, who claim, and of course have, great influence upon the public opinion that is moulded by the free opinion of editorial columns, will be, I should think, a very interesting facet of this proposed Trade Union Training Authority. I take up another English authority who wrote an article under the heading ‘Parliament’s declining power’.

Senator Button:

- Mr Acting Deputy President, I now raise a point of order. I am always fascinated by Senator Wright but really -

Senator Marriott:

– We cannot say that about you.

Senator Button:

– I should think -

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTWhat is your point of order?

Senator Button:

– Perhaps we could deal with Senator Marriott afterwards. My point of order is that this is not a debate on the Estimates, for example. It is not a debate in which any subject matter is relevant. The subject of the debate is a

Bill to establish a trade union training authority and, with respect, it is an abuse of the Standing Orders for Senator Wright to carry on with a great collection of incidents about the functionings of trade unions in England of which he disapproves and to say that this should be the subject of discussion in the syllabus of this proposed Authority. Mr Acting Deputy President, with respect I agreed with the ruling that you made about Senator Georges’ point of order but I really think that the issue has now become merely a vehicle for expressing disagreement about trade union activities in the United Kingdom, which is far beyond the scope of the Bill.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT- The Bill before the Senate relates to a trade union training authority and each person contributing to the debate takes responsibility for the material which he puts in his own speech. I have no doubt that Senator Wright is very well aware of the relevance of the material that he is bringing forward in terms of substance for the debate. I ask him to bear in mind the nature of the debate and to relate his remarks to the debate.

Senator WRIGHT:

– It is quite inconceivable to me how anybody could suggest that these matters are not of fundamental relevance to training by a trade union authority. If the proposed Trade Union Training Authority were to take a different view I would deny it one threepence and oppose it with all my spirit. I believe that this proposed Trade Union Training Authority will be much better equipped in these considerations, will develop them from its own experience and therefore, I hope, will train a body of thought in this country that will lead the next generation of trade unionists on a much different basis than the outlook of Senator Button and Senator Georges. We will then have a community in which the trade union movement will be making a most significant contribution to the country’s welfare. I was about to say that Mr Timothy Raison, the Conservative member for Aylesbury, pointed out how the development in the trade union field was a matter of very great significance to parliamentary authority in the United Kingdom. After saying that the previous challenge had come from the executive, in an article he said:

The most obvious shift in the focus of power has been towards the trade unions.

Anybody who does not bear that in mind has not the slightest realisation of the significance of the tremendous development that is taking place in the political direction of trade union power. I do not go on to contemplate that in Australia it will be revelant for us in our time or the next generation to contemplate that trade unions will give way to communism, that is to say, a usurpation of parliamentary power by violence and arbitrary communism; but when we are establishing trade union training all these fields of thought associated with the proposed Authority’s function must be taken into account.

Having referred to England may I make a brief reference to an authority from the United States of America, Dr Schmidt, who in his recent book entitled ‘Union Power’ referred to the enormous power of trade unions. By illustrating the General Motors Corporation strike he said:

The world’s most powerful companies are no match for the unions the law forces them to deal with. . . . The consumer is victimised; inflation persists; and Congress docs nothing to correct the egregious mistakes of earlier Congresses.

Presumably they have their Senator Buttons and Senator Georges there. He goes on to say:

Usually business enterprises will not readily risk a strike. Inability to operate may quickly exhaust their working capital and credit. It may cause the permanent loss of markets and destroy the value of large sums the employers have invested in advertising and marketing.

Even the leaders of the Party which holds government so precariously and stupidly at present in Australia have learned one lesson. That was illustrated last week in the Government’s submissions to the Prices Justification Tribunal in support of a proper allowance for a proper margin of profit. Why? To enable private enterprise to continue to give worker opportunities for trade unionists- trained or untrained. But we are now establishing an authority which will give an opportunity to the trade unionist to improve his understanding of the processes of society- economics, as Senator Button said in his speech- the interplay of forces that promote real productivity and urgent consideration of whether the strike weapon is most damaging and destructive to the community, which consists, so far as the work force in Australia is concerned, of about 55 per cent of trade unionists. Taking into account their dependents, the greater proportion of the population are the victims of every destructive effort in the processes of production.

Therefore our society should establish a trade union training authority to enable those who are studying the processes of industrial education and training to see whether this prosecution of the class war has any merit. It may be that there are some in the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union at present who use the powers that are conferred upon trade unions by our beneficent laws to get the power of the work force that they represent behind them in order to prosecute the class war even to the extent of overthrowing the present system. Senator Georges asked whether capitalism is to be without challenge. For my part capitalism should be under constant challenge in the ordinary, peaceful parliamentary processes by parliamentarians who engage in the reality of understanding what society is all about. In recent weeks the Minister for Labor and Immigration (Mr Clyde Cameron) has said that the operation by the Government of the capitalist system was abysmal. Dr Cairns said: ‘It is the system that is at fault. What can we do?’, as he has surveyed the economic distress and destruction all around him. The Minister for Labor and Immigration has said of the chaos over which he presides and at which he looks with dismay and complete impotence: ‘Marx was right after all.’ Those 2 people are actually members of the Government at the present time.

Is it not timely that those who teach and learn at the Training Authority should become aware of the advantages of one system as against the other? For my part I hope that the system of capitalism will be constantly under review because unless it can live by its inherent merit it must be reformed or changed. But the challenge that will expose its real merits is if we get purposeful employees pursuing the objectives of trade unionism- that is, by united strength getting better, improved conditions- and not if we have trade unionists whose aim it is to destroy the very system by which they and their families are supported.

I agree with Senator Button that this country has had the unique benefit of having had established throughout this century a system of compulsory arbitration to which other countries are now gradually coming. One sees in America, in Germany and other European countries a constant increase in the employment of the arbitration process to settle disputes. We have to get a proper understanding of that system absorbed by and expanded throughout the trade union world. We would then, I hope, achieve an improvement to the degree that Senator Georges has not perceived. Anyone who has read the Donovan report on trade unionism in England will know that that country is bedevilled by a multiplicity of unions. Although Australia does not have as many unions it has more per capita. Australia has 300-odd unions. The subject of the rights and wrongs of amalgamation frequently arises. I think that one has only to state that those matters are matters that demand real study if trade unionism is to take a much more acceptable place in our society.

The Council, as constituted originally, was to consist of appointments drawn entirely from the trade union world. The Liberal and Country Parties put forward the suggestion in the House of Representatives that included in the membership of the Council there should be 2 representatives of the Parliament- one representing the Government and the other representing the Opposition- and a special appointee from all the educational institutions and personnel under the contact of the Minister for Education. These members would go to the Council and take part actively in the work of the Council in providing the scope of the syllabus and the curricula for training. I am very glad that the Government accepted that suggestion. When we consider the amendments that have been circulated by Senator Bishop I hope we will see that they give complete expression to the true purpose of that suggestion.

Another suggestion that the Liberal and Country Parties put forward- I am glad that it has been accepted- is that the Authority should keep the Parliament completely informed as to its progress and annual achievement, including the content of the syllabus, the study programs and other areas of interest. I shall want to be satisfied in the Committee stage of the debate that the legislation does provide an opportunity not merely for members of trade unions to attend the courses of the trade union training colleges and centres but also for other people who may be interested in pursuing a special study in this field to do so. Having explained the position- in vain, I regret to say, to some of the impenetrable minds in the Senate- I accept this Bill with great appreciation.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I think that the aims of this Bill were virtually summed up in the second paragraph of the second reading speech of the PostmasterGeneral (Senator Bishop) when he said:

At the shop floor level, the shop steward traditionally fulfils a formidable number of duties. He is a vital link in the chain of communication that ought to operate between shop floor and management.

If I were to rephrase that I think that I would say that a shop steward is a vital to the trade union movement and its efficiency as a noncommissioned officer is to an army. They both play a vital role in the chain of command. I view this Bill with tremendous enthusiasm because, as one of those who laboured under extreme difficulties in the early and middle 1950s, I know the extent of the knowledge that it was necessary for a trade union official to have then to combat the arguments of his employers. It is not in the realms of talking about a class struggle that I say that as the years have gone on and the employers have modernised their methods of collating material and using various tactics it has ben essential for the trade unions to do the same. It might well be argued that the trade union treasure chest is limited because the traditional role of the rank and file members of trade unions is to endeavour to live in a world of cheap unionism. As a matter of fact in a sideswipe I would say that some of the legal expenses involved in the arbitration system have been over-costly and have at times kept some trade unions permanently poor.

Having said that, what has been the position up till now? We have had those who have tried to improve themselves. We have had the Workers Educational Association in a limited sort of way. I know from what has been told to me by the New South Wales Branch of the Australian Labor Party that it has operated on a shoestring budget. We had the Henry Lawson Labor College. Later on we had the emergence of the Churchill Scholarships, the Duke of Edinburgh awards and grants of that nature. But the many shop stewards in the trade union movement who did make the grade for inclusion among the limited number of delegates to go overseas have found, quite apart from the intrusion into their private time and their home lives and the personal expense of subscribing to costly trade and political journals, all of which helped, that they have had to make a reputation. I suppose that one could liken them to the zealots in the trade union movement. This is similar to the footballers who are heroes of a weekend but who also have to train 3 nights a week at least while their friends are out at various social engagements. I know that Senator Brown, Senator Poyser and others will agree with me when I say that it makes inroads into one’s family life when one has to attend small sub-branch meetings and so on to get the feel of what the membership is thinking. If there is one tribute that I would particularly pay to Clyde Cameron it is for his endeavours to lift up the status of shop stewards in the trade union movement.

I have seen crocodile tears shed about the need for moderate trade unionism. I have always regarded myself, without any inhibitions, as being in the middle of the trade union field in regard to evaluation of the viewpoints that have come from the left and right of me. I know that even this system is not going to compensate the shop steward in a foundry in Sydney or an engineering shop in Footscray or wherever he may be for the erosion of his private time and for what he has to give up privately or for having to suffer many verbal brickbats and sometimes physical attacks. A person who takes this course will not necessarily become an Australian Council of Trade Unions chieftain. It is true that the course will probably make him much more efficient than he would otherwise have been, but at the same time there will be dangers.

I know that Senator Wright and probably other honourable senators have delved to a degree into trade union history. Speaking from my experience, I believe that as a corollary to all that is envisaged in the Bill it is the practical experience that delegates can get in the shop committee movements that counts. I know that when I say that, Senator Wright will probably conjure up -this is no reflection on my colleague from Western Australia, Senator Mcintosh- the whole idea of the awful, legendary stories about the shop steward movement on the Clydeside. That was an unusual time. Sometimes, particularly in Australia, when the head office of a union is a long way from the scene of operations, the shop committee system is a very effective training ground. No matter what products come from this college- or to some unions which utilise the Mount Maldon administrative college- I think we will find that practical experience must be gained. While I am on that question, I do not want to see as the product of this college the person with the glib phrases and slick comebacks. He will be successful only if he has the confidence of his members. It could well be that to get that confidence people will lead agitations, will be knocked down two or three times and will come back again. I say that in a pretty broad sense. My colleague Senator Brown from Victoria would appreciate that fact even more than I do.

People I know who follow politics do so because they have the confidence of their members. It is their prime responsibility to have that confidence. I suppose, taken in that context, it will always be so. Jim Healey, a Communist, put his trade union above party and held the Waterside Workers Federation confidence for a lifetime. Similarly Melbourne WWF President, Jim Cummings, was a WWF member first and a member of the Democratic Labor Party second. One of the lessons that one should learn early, I suppose, is the need to attend mass meetings. There is this idea that Jack is as good as his master. A meeting can be given all the facts in the world, but if those attending the meeting have a certain fear about a new industrial innovation it could take three or four meetings to overcome that fear. I have used as a precedent many times the famous lengthy dispute in Sydney over the manning of one-man buses. It was many months after the dispute began that Mr Justice Robinson, backed up by authorities, proved on the ground of safety that the original objection by the union was vindicated. Yet some Opposition members took the attitude that it was like what happened to the Luddites 100 years ago. They said that we were opposing technical changes. We have never opposed technical changes. I imagine that the curriculum for the proposed college will deal with such problems in a reasonable way.

I say also to the Minister: I hope that the delegates or the shop stewards who are the products of this college will acquire a wholesome respect for safety provisions. An effective delegate sometimes does not make friends with his members when he clamps down on them because of their unsafe practices. That takes us to the question of productivity. If employers go haywire on productivity their accident rate always rises. I am referring now to heavy industry. I want to deal with another aspect of the curriculum. It is important. We have talked about the complexities of trade unionism. It has been very complex, and it will continue to be complex with our cosmopolitan population. I wish Senator Cavanagh were here because I have an open confession to make to him to illustrate this story. I am taking the Senate back to the early 1950s and to the railway workshops at Chullora. At that time there was a dispute in Europe over Trieste. A Yugoslav dogman, and Italian boilermaker’s helper and an Australian crane driver were working together. There was hostility between the 2 ground occupations. As a result a mistaken signal was given to the crane driver and the Italian boilermaker was hit on the head by the hook of the crane. I hasten to add that Senator James McClelland was the lawyer for the union. The matter did not get to the workers compensation court. The point I make is that the curriculum will ensure that trade union delegates get a general knowledge of European history. They will know something of the feeling in the minds of men about events overseas.

Honourable senators opposite might say that was an isolated incident. I could refer them to an incident involving the Federated Rubber and Allied Workers Union of Australia in New South Wales, lt has an exceptionally efficient secretary also. He is a member of the New South Wales Legislative Council, Barney French. That union has at least 1 1 nationalities among its members. There is a distinct feeling of friction at the moment between certain Latin American groups and other similar groups. There is a secondary fear about job security between some European groups and some Latin American groups. They are matters in which it is so important that the delegates have a broad knowledge of industrial psychology. At the time of the incident in which I was involved in relation to the crane driver, frankly I knew very little about Trieste. I would say that in these situations the modern trade union delegate can do a tremendous amount. In that context I know that the New South Wales Vehicle Builders Employees Federation has some Turkish and some Greek members. There has been minor friction. Due to the leadership of the shop stewards things have been kept calm. It has not been the practice of the Labor Party to get involved excessively in some of these international affairs matters. It was largely the Democratic Labor Party, on the one hand, and the Communist Party, on the other, which were involved. It will be essential that trade union delegates have a fair knowledge of certain European history so that they can maintain an objective attitude in such matters.

I want to go a little further than I have gone and refer to the class struggle and to the idea of being meek and mild. The fact is that anybody who comes into the trade union field, from the shop steward onwards, must realise that he can never please everybody. At times he may be required to mortgage his health. My mind goes back some months to a time when the leader of the British miners union, Joe Gormley, left a sick bed to go to a vital meeting of that union in its negotiations with the Wilson Government on a new wage agreement. He was souped up on antibiotics, as I am now. He had a raging temperature when he attended that meeting. He did a very effective job. He had to face the criticism of some of his members. That is an occupational hazard. Then the scabby ‘London Daily Telegraph’ accused him of being a traitor to Britain when he raised other matters later. That is the sort of criticism with which members of the trade union must live. I say respectfully that the delegates who will come out of this college must be case-hardened to resist some of this ridiculous criticism that they will get.

With all deference to the Utopian age which Senator Scott was striving to attain, the plain fact is that there is competition between the employer and the employee. The employer is after maximum production. He sends people to schools. He has production officers or production advisers. They are out to achieve their targets. It is true that the State can move in to some degree. Mr Acting Deputy President, you and I were members of the Senate Select Committee on Water Pollution. We know that the Committee detected early that some reasonable employers wanted to do something about the environment, but their competitors were not compelled to observe a certain code and could undercut on costs. The benevolent employer found himself in a cleft stick. The point is that not all the complexities in our labour market are made by the trade union movement. There are plenty of maverick employers. The answer may be to have one massive employer organisation and one massive employee organisation. There have been some misguided causes championed by the Opposition in its efforts to protect some small unions. I cannot see any justification for the multiplicity of small unions in the postal services. Even when we had a virtual concensus on the new break-up of the communications industry, some senators voiced opinions that certain people were just malcontents. I might be talking purely as an individual on this matter, but I have argued for discipline in the trade union movement, provided the employer met his obligations. But there have been occasions on which malcontents in the trade unions have been egged on by alleged civil rights groups and people who did not know what they were talking about.

I commend the present Government for picking up the tab in respect of some people ‘s right to challenge trade union rules, but eventually we will reach the stage where we will have to call a halt because there is such a thing as community discipline. At various times members of this Parliament have to accept a decision that goes against them, and that has to be done elsewhere. I can assure Senator Wright that, even if the trade union leaders be people such as Bob Hawke, John Ducker, Jack Egerton and Dick Scott of the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union, they cannot call the tune unconditionally on their members; they have to win respect. When an excellent result was achieved by one of the best negotiators in the trade union movement today- I refer to Charlie Fitzgibbon, the Federal Secretary of the Waterside Workers Federationwe heard epithets from the Opposition to the effect that it was an under-the-cover agreement, a sweetheart agreement or something like that. That result was achieved because Charlie Fitzgibbon is a super negotiator.

I know that it is the role of the Opposition to oppose certain things, but I say that unquestionably the legislation that we have before us this afternoon is a milestone. I know that many humble shop stewards do not aspire to be anything more than sub-branch officials, but I would like to believe that the legislation that we are considering will result in the wives and families of shop stewards seeing their husbands reaching a little higher status in the society they live in. One of the disservices that have been done to the trade union movement was the presentation of those absurd caricatures about the rag trade, depicting a shop steward getting his people out on a pretence. Nobody in a major industrywhether it be the power industry, the engineering industry or any other industry- will last very long as a shop steward if he is not honest in his dealings. It is a hard school and people are quickly rooted out. On the other hand, anyone who thinks that people out of a coaching class will live just on slick slogans has another think coming.

I notice that some amendments concerning the various governing bodies of this organisation have been circulated. I honestly believe that this legislation will make it much easier for the trade union fledglings of today than it was for many of us in the 1950s. I repeat that it is a matter of the survival of the fittest. It may be like some species of animals where out of a litter of seven only two survive and they are fairly tough. In this great society in which we live, with everybody trying to keep up with the Joneses, perhaps some of the trade union values have taken a battering because people thought that you were a fool if you were honest. I shall indicate how employers at times have milked the trade union movement of some of its best brains. I think Senator Bishop would remember that in the 1953-56 era Jack Kenehan, an official of the Electrical Trades Union, was awarded a Duke of Edinburgh scholarship and was poached by Imperial Chemical Industries of Australia and New Zealand Ltd. I make this point to Senator Wright: Let us not fool ourselves. When one of these young shop stewards returns to the job after his training he will find that it is very nice to bargain with the boss, but he is a realist, too. If the boss knows that the shop steward has on the production line 300 or 400 people who are prepared to back him if the boss gets a little oppressive or is not cooperative or does not engage in meaningful dialogue- I think that is the phrase today- we will get somewhere. It is on that note that I commend this legislation to the Senate.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Victoria

– I welcome the opportunity that we have in the Senate today to debate the formation of the Trade Union Training Authority and to develop some ideas amongst us regarding trade union relationships. Trade unionism in Australia covers a very wide field of human activity and personal relationships. There are vast responsibilities on the trade unions in Australia. I welcome the fact that the Government acknowledges in the formation of the Training Authority that, whilst massive sums have been spent on education in all of the fields that we have been able to devise as being necessary, very limited attention has been paid to trade union training. The formation of the Authority leads us to expect that greater educational opportunities will be available to people who require specialised training for their activities in trade unionism. I note that clause 3 of the Bill contains this definition of ‘trade union training’: trade union training’ means-

  1. educational, technical or practical training-

    1. capable of advancing and developing knowledge and skills in fields connected with the powers and functions of trade unions or the powers, functions and duties of officers or officials of trade unions;

I wonder whether, within this concept, it is envisaged that this will be trade union training for trade union enterprises. I wonder whether, within that definition, we will see people being trained in the skills that are required for conducting trade union enterprises. We have seen an interest in this area of activity. We have seen the development of trading as a trade union enterprise. We have heard it suggested that tourism and travel ought to be a trade union activity. At one time it was suggested that insurance ought to be another enterprise of trade unionism. I simply use this opportunity to reflect on the definition of ‘trade union training’ and on the question of how widely the reference to ‘the powers, functions and duties of officers or officials of trade unions’ in clause 3 of this Bill will be interpreted. 1 welcome the way in which the Bill has been designed. It recognises the need for different levels of function- the level of the State Councils for Union Training and the level of the Australian Council for Union Training. If we reflect on all the authorities, commissions and councils that have been established during the past 2 years or so, we find that we have been consistent in suggesting that at the State level there is need for activity to be recognised, and that at the Federal level often there is need for recognition of State representation. It has taken the formation of the Trade Union Training Authority to put into practice the co-operative relationships that we have stressed should exist between State activities and the Federal co-ordinating activities. I welcome the fact that in relation to this Training Authority there is a recognition that there are different requirements in different

States, and that co-ordination may be attempted at the Federal level by appointing people to represent the States. I think that this is the way in which any authority would function best.

It also has taken the Trade Union Training Authority Bill to bring back into legislation the words ‘Commonwealth of Australia’. Clause 14 refers to members of the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia. I note that as being another venture into things about which we have been speaking. It seems to me that when we deal with the Trade Union Training Authority we can open up our minds and deal with things in the way the Opposition has stressed as being the desirable way. In clause 1 9, which deals with the formation of the State Councils for Union Training, I was interested to see that one member will be appointed to the State Council by the Minister after the Minister has consulted with the Minister of State responsible for education. Again I stress that that is desirable. I wish that that concept could have been more readily accepted when other councils relating to education have been formed. I need go no further than to repeat the comments that I made a few days ago regarding the formation of the Technical and Further Education Commission and the Curriculum Development Centre. I again ask for an understanding that there is a need for co-operative assistance and an exchange of views between State and Federal bodies. It seems to me that this concept is now recognised, and I hope that the enlightenment will continue.

I was interested to note that clause 57 of the Bill provides that the Australian Council for Union Training shall make an annual report to the Parliament containing details of the syllabuses and study undertaken at the Australian Trade Union Training College and at each of the Trade Union Training Centres. I think it is desirable that an annual report be made to the Parliament, to indicate the work and the development being undertaken by the Trade Union Training Authority. It will be of interest to us to review the syllabus to see in what areas of activity we are able to widen the educational opportunities for trade union members, and to see how this might lead us to a new understanding of the problems and aspirations of the people who work within the trade union movement. I regret to some extent that there is not more accent on the free exchange of views and understanding between management and the trade unions. I would like to have seen a greater development of the concept of exchange of curricula, of discussion and in fact of membership of the various training courses. I know it has been said that it is hoped that there will be some exchange between management and trade union members. I hope that this develops quite freely, because if there is to be an understanding of the relationship that must be observed between the 2 forces- the force of labour and the force of management- this would be one area in which that could be done.

I am not expressing a new interest in this matter because I recall that when the Government first mentioned a long time ago the thought of establishing a trade union school I asked whether there would be opportunity for management to take courses in conjunction with trade union members. I believe it was Senator Bishop who advised me that that was not the concept for the school, that it was rather for the training of trade unionists. But there must be a greater emphasis put upon the compatability that needs to exist between management and labour. That aspect was referred to, I believe, by Senator Button when he spoke of the qualities that are needed in the trade union member, the quality of advocacy and the recognition of the need for negotiation. We must always be seeking to avoid confrontation unnecessarily and to have a greater understanding between worker and management. Surely it is a lack of co-operation and understanding in avoiding the confrontation which has led to so much industrial unrest in this country to the detriment of us all.

I wonder always whether we need to be thinking of the establishment of new bodies. I would not like to think that, with the State bodies and the Federal bodies that are now in existence, we would be seeking a further proliferation of bodies. There are many existing facilities in the way of educational opportunities that could well be used for a specialised trade union training function. I would like to think that the colleges of advanced education with management courses or industrial courses or other functions might also be used in conjunction with whatever syllabus is devised by the Trade Union Training Authority.

When speaking about the need for greater understanding between management and labour we must draw attention to the figures that are revealed for 1974. They show that 2809 disputes involving 2 million workers and also involving the loss of 2.4 million working days and the loss of $ 128m in wages took place in that year. When those figures are related to the remarks of Senator Mulvihill, who said that we must not get hung up about productivity, I think it is fair to recognise that there has been a negative growth in our economic activity in the past year. There has been a great incidence of demands for improvement in wages and conditions, which have not been related to growth in productivity and economic growth. Without wishing to disagree with his comment that an over-emphasis on productivity has accelerated the accident rate, I think in practical terms it must be recognised that demands in excess of productivity and not related to technological advancement or improvement in economic return must result in the inflation which we have seen rising at a rapid rate in our economy and the very great difficulties which we are experiencing as a manufacturing nation at this time.

Joint programs between management and labour would, I believe, be desirable if they were to avoid the monopoly of interest which could occur in a trade union training school which adopted the latter approach exclusively. Again I emphasise the hope that there will be some greater exchange of views and understanding between the two groups of people who need to work together.

I want to ask a question with regard to the capital that will be required for the establishment of the Trade Union Training Authority. I have a feeling that the amount is $4m. I would like to receive a response to that question as a matter of interest, because it seems to me that the Authority needs to be established in the best way that is possible to attract the people who are able to give the sort of training that we hope will not have an ideological bias or will in no way inhibit the development of the person who enters the trade union school.

The fact that clause 5 1 provides for assistance from experts, although perhaps on a short term basis, also means that we can have interest in the curriculum which is developed in the trade union concept. I hope that opportunity is taken to secure people who will provide the skills and training that the average trade unionist may require. We are not talking now of trade unionists as being exclusively those who left school at an early age and had no opportunities for training or education; we are talking of the person who may wish to develop more fully his skills as an advocate, as a negotiator, as a person who represents large numbers of people, as a shop steward or as someone higher in the trade union movement. For all these reasons I support the remarks that have been made by Opposition senators and I welcome the amendments that have been accepted by the Government and which we believe strengthen the authority which the Government proposes to set up.

Senator STEELE HALL:
South AustraliaLeader of the Liberal Movement

– It seems to me that we are in many ways approaching this matter with a very starry-eyed view which is not taking into account the realities of power which travel with the trade union movement. The trade union movement is the most powerful entity in the community. It is far more powerful than governments and it can dictate government policy at will. There are outstanding matters in the community at the moment in which the Government is unable to be effective at all. That point has been brought up previously in debates in this chamber. An example of such an incident which is quite easily identifiable and not arguable involves a $40m contract of wheat destined for Chile which it is the policy of the Government to have shipped and which it is the policy of the respective unions not to have shipped. The union view prevails and the Government is utterly powerless to intervene or to act in any way to have done what the Australian community wants done in relation to this very important economic matter. So, without question, we are talking about the somewhat ludicrous position of educating the most powerful group in the community. We, the weaker, are about to set up an authority to educate the stronger.

Senator Georges:

– Your premise is wrong.

Senator STEELE HALL:

– I am sure that Senator Georges would argue that my premise is wrong because he is a product of the very movement we are about to educate. Senator Georges is a part of the parliamentary wing of the industrial movement. I am sure that he would speak on its behalf and defend it at any time. I shall quote for Senator Georges a statement made by Mr Wells, who is a member of Parliament in South Australia, who was President of the South Australian Trades and Labour Council, and who is a man for whom I may say I have a tremendous respect and with whom I have some personal friendship.

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

– Even if he was a trade unionist?

Senator STEELE HALL:

– Yes. At the time he was President of the South Australian Trades and Labor Council and he was then the member for the seat of Florey in the South Australian Parliament. He still holds that seat. He made this statement in the House of Assembly in July 1971:

Of course, the trade union movement is a fundamental pan of the ALP. However, some Opposition members seem to be under the impression that we as members of the political wing of the ALP are ashamed to admit that the unions are a fundamental part of the Party. Every member knows that the political wing of the Party was born of the trade union movement and will retain its ties for as long as the Party exists.

Senator Georges:

– Who disagrees with that?

Senator STEELE HALL:

– I thought Senator Georges did because he seemed to make protesting remarks when I referred to that very point at the beginning of my address. I congratulate Mr Wells M.P. for the forthright honesty for which he is known. He makes no pretence. My second point is that not only are we setting up a Trade Union Authority Act to assist in the training of trade union personnel, we are also setting about training the most powerful group of persons in the community and the parent of the Australian Labor Party. Let us get this in context. Therefore we find a very contradictory situation. We want to improve those people who can say to this community: ‘We are the bosses’. They are the bosses. They are the most powerful group within us and of us. This was borne out very neatly in an article reprinted in ‘Nation Review’ of last week. The article was written by Paul Johnson. At the head of the article it says:

Paul Johnson is regarded as one -of Britain’s leading left wing intellectuals. Last week this article appeared in the New Statesman. We reprint it in full because we believe his remarks bear relevance to the present situation in Australia.

A study of this article will show that it is extremely well written from a left wing point of view, as the author’s credentials indicate, and it draws some rather disturbing parallels with what is happening in Australia. I would like to quote from the article for a short while, if I may, because it refers to the responsibilities of trade unions, a subject which I think is very relevant. Senator Wright rightly introduced this subject at the beginning of the debate. The author said:

Socialism expresses the essential unit and common humanity of society- our sisterhood, our brotherhood. That is why it is inseparable from democracy and why, to be true to itself, it must work through a government responsible to a universally elected assembly. That is where all the essential decisions which affect the life of the community must be taken, and nowhere else. Any institution in a society which challenges this principle cannot be a socialist institution; indeed, it must be an ami socialist one.

He went on to say:

Now let us look at the trade unions. A trade union does not necessarily have anything to do with political morality. It is simply a pragmatic arrangement. It grew up within the capitalist system as a defence mechanism.

Further on he said:

Once the vote was secured, and the road to socialism lay open, the riot and the strike ceased to be the only weapons, and could be seen for what they were: methods socially destructive by their very nature, and therefore anti socialist.

Senator Georges:

– What are you trying to prove?

Senator STEELE HALL:

– If Senator Georges listens he will find that this gentleman came to a well founded conclusion. He went on to say:

But this is not what has happened. The unions have refused to recognise the limits of their historical role. They have not only rejected the idea of a progressive abdication, and the shift of their social and economic function to the political process, but they have flatly declined to allow the smallest diminution of their power to press the sectional interests they represent.

Indeed they have steadily, ruthlessly and indiscriminately sought to increase that power. And in recent years, and in particular in the last S years, they have exhausted or beaten down any opposition and have finally succeeded in making themselves the arbiters of the British economy.

I think that anyone reading in the Press of the difficulties of the economy in Britain would not deny the simple statement that that is. I quote further from relevant parts of this article. The author said:

Dazed and bewildered, -

The author is referring to the unions- they are like medieval peasants who have burnt down the lord’s manor. What next? They have no idea, since they did not think ahead to this sort of situation, and indeed are not equipped by function or experience to embark on positive or constructive thinking. That is not their job.

Here we come to the heart of the matter. The trade union is a product of 19th century capitalism, lt is part of that system. Against powerful, highly-organised and ruthless capitalist forces, it had an essential, even noble part to play. But when those forces are disarmed; when they are in headlong retreat- indeed howling for mercy- the union has no function to perform. The trade union movement may be dressed up with economic committees and so forth; but its only real purpose is to bargain for better wages within an all-powerful capitalist system.

The British trade union movement has now been taken out of that context and placed in an entirely new one. Yet it is still carrying on doing the only thing it knows how to do- ask for higher wages. As it has beaten all its opponents, as it is for all practical purposes the state, it naturally gets them. A subject government prints the money, and the result is inflation on an unprecedented scale.

Is that not a parallel with what is happening in Australia? I go back to that one instance of $40m of overseas funds that cannot flow through producers, through the suppliers, through the multiplier effects in the Australian community because one union says it shall not. This Government is powerless to act in defence of the general community. This is not a parallel really; it is an exact description of what is happening in Australia. The author went on to say:

British trade unionism has thus become a formula for national misery. For, mark you, trade unionists have no means of enjoying the spoils they secure. The trade union movement is not a unity. It has no common interest, lt is merely an amalgamation of sectional interests. And in an inflationary situation, where real wealth is static or, in our case, actually declining fast, unions demanding higher wages are simply competing against each other. Any union which does succeed, albeit temporarily as a rule, in raising its real living standards is and must be doing so at the expense of the community.

The author later said:

Powerful mcn who conspire together to squeeze the community are gangsters. Let us identify them as such.

Further on he said:

The logic, indeed, is that the most powerful must get the most money all along the line. This is not socialism. It has much more in common with capitalism.

I will not burden the Senate with much more of what I think are the excellent writings of a left wing intellectual but in a part of his article which I do not intend to quote he says that anyone who criticises the union movement is subject to the utmost vilification. This is one of the things which the union movement reserves to itself - that it must not be criticised. Everyone knows of the victimisation incurred by those within the union movement who criticise their own union structure. I can give chapter and verse, and individual names in private if honourable senators want me to, on this type of victimisation. This author went on to say:

Since the war, management talent has tended to drift increasingly to the financial sector, where there are no industrial unions and where the able can devote themselves to more creative and purposeful work. Hence the relative strength of Britain’s financial sector.

In industry, where the unions are strong and active, there is bad management. Where good management is to bc found, and that is increasingly rare, it usually coincides with inactive or acquiescent (or highly intelligent) trade unions.

Further on the author said:

Men ought to be judged by their record, and their record is contemptible. Smug and self-assured, oblivious of any criticism, they have encouraged British industrial workers in habits and attitudes, in rules and procedures, in illusions and fantasies, which have turned the British working class into the coolies of the western world, and Britain into a stinking, bankrupt industrial slum.

Further on he said:

With union leaders asking for wage increases, immediately, of up to 70 per cent, and deaf to threats or entreaties, the magnitude of the inflation involved is outside the experience of anyone in Britain, or indeed anyone in a modern industrial economy.

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

– I take a point of order. I direct your attention, Mr Acting Deputy President, to standing order 42 1 which states:

The President or the Chairman of Committees may call the attention of the Senate or the Committee, as the case may be, to continued irrelevance or tedious repetition, and may direct a Senator to discontinue his speech:

Provided that such Senator shall have the right to require that the Question whether he be further heard be put, and thereupon such Question shall be put without Debate.

I am raising a point of order on the question of the relevance of the contribution that has been made by Senator Steele Hall. I make no apology for raising the point of order. I think this Senate has been extremely tolerant. The Bill being debated before the Senate at the moment is entitled ‘A Bill for an Act to establish an Australian trade union training authority and for purposes connected therewith’ and I cannot for the life of me in the most charitable way connect to this debate the contribution that Senator Steele Hall is making. As I have said, this debate involves a Bill for an Act to establish a trade union training authority. I would ask you to so rule.

Senator STEELE HALL:

-Mr Acting Deputy President, if I could -

Senator Georges:

– On a point of order, I wish to speak to the point of order.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator McAuliffe)- Is it the point of order raised by Senator Brown?

Senator Georges:

– Yes, and I want to add to his point of order by referring also to standing order 4 1 9, which provides:

No Senator shall digress from the subject-matter of any Question under discussion;

In fairness to Senator Wright, against whom I raised a point of order previously without quoting the relevant standing order, I now draw your attention to standing order 419 as well as 421. For the last 5 or 6 minutes the honourable senator has not dealt with the subject matter of the Bill before us. I think Senator Steele Hall ought to be advised that he should return to the Bill in question.

Senator Steele Hall:

- Mr Acting Deputy President, I would like to speak to that point of order. I respectfully draw your attention to page 2 of the Bill and to paragraph (b) of the definition of trade union training which states: educational, technical and practical training for members of trade unions in any other fields approved by the Australian Council.

As those areas have not been laid down I assume one must take them in their widest form. However, I believe that my description of the objectives of trade unionism in Britain as translated in a practical way is relevant to the tightest scrutiny and interpretation of the Bill. Therefore, I suggest that, whilst it may be tedious of me to use part of the half hour that is allocated to me in describing my view on this, I believe it is entirely relevant.

Senator Wright:

- Mr Acting Deputy President, on a point of order, I invite your attention to sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) of the definition of trade union training’ on page 2, to which Senator Steele Hall has referred. Sub-paragraph (i) is capable of advancing and developing an understanding of the functions and objectives of trade unions’ and sub-paragraph (ii) is ‘capable of advancing and developing knowledge and skills in the fields connected with the powers and functions of trade unions . . .’ The words knowledge’ and ‘understanding of the functions’ are the very kernel of the training that is being dispensed by the institution.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator McAuliffe)- I have been asked to rule. Senator Brown has raised a point of order under standing order 42 1 , which states:

The President or the Chairman of Committees may call the attention of the Senate or Committee, as the case may be, to continued irrelevance or tedious repetition, and may direct the Senator to discontinue his speech.

I am not going to uphold the point of order, although it is a very hairline decision, because Senator Steele Hall himself admitted that he may have been tedious. Senator Georges, supporting Senator Brown on the point of order raised under standing order 421, quoted standing order 419, which I feel is more relevant and which states:

No Senator shall digress from the subject-matter of any Question under discussion:

The Bill under discussion is known to everybody. Senator Wright has supported Senator Steele Hall and endeavoured to protect him by saying that he is well within the provisions of the Standing Orders. I am not going to uphold the point raised under either standing order but I am going to make an earnest appeal to Senator Steele Hall, particularly knowing his background and experience, to link his remarks, which are no doubt cutting and proving effective, to the Bill that is before the Senate. In that way I think we will be able to get on with the business.

Senator STEELE HALL:

-Thank you very much, Mr Acting Deputy President. I accept your mild reproof and thank you for your ruling. I admit that I have probably used a sledge hammer to crack a nut, but I think I have in fact proved the point that the objectives of trade unions as translated into practical terms in Britain are simply to hold the British economy to ransom. They have successfully done this and of course have created, as the writer has said, what is now an industrial slum. That is parallel to Australia because we have very many instances here to which we can refer of similar industrial action. That is one factor which I believe stands proven.

I would now like to refer to a statement which was published yesterday in South Australia about the objectives of the union movement in our State. These objectives are to be placed before the Australian Labor Party Convention to be held in Adelaide next month. I will not be tedious or repetitious in quoting these matters but hopefully will be swift about it. However, I think it is essential to quote them in order to look at the objectives in Australia. We have dealt with Britain. In South Australia, about which I do know something, the following statement has been published:

Among the most controversial moves are proposals to put the onus on employers to justify dismissals and to give the workers and unions in particular industries one-third representation at board level.

I ask senators to realise that this is going before the ALP Convention next month and that is one of the objectives.

Senator Georges:

– It is a point of view.

Senator STEELE HALL:

-No, it will be a political objective of the Dunstan Government in South Australia translated through the union movement.

Senator Georges:

– It has to go through the conference first.

Senator STEELE HALL:

– If honourable senators opposite do not approve of it let them get up and say so. Their one defence seems to be that it has not proceeded through the formalities yet. If that is their defence, let them get up and say it is wrong. But if that is the only thing they have- that it has not gone through the formalities but that it is right- they will be confirming what I am saying. I am saying it is the objective of the general union movement in South Australia to force union participation to a very significant level in management.

Senator Georges:

– What is wrong with that anyhow?

Senator STEELE HALL:

-This is one thing I do not approve of and it is one thing that is greatly demoralising the industrial sector in South Australia and is leading to the British situation. This is the very point I make. So in looking at the objectives of the trade unions, we can say without fear of contradiction that they are power objectives. Trade unions are about power as political parties are about power. One must therefore ask what will happen in some time to come when the Council has had experience and has been subject no doubt to a great deal of union influence. Look at the Council structure; in what field will it be training union management and personnel? What Will be its objectives then? I suspect that we may some day in the future regret this Bill in its present form unless it is tied to some democratic principles because we seem to be looking at it and saying that we aU admit there are misuses in unions and that there are malfunctions involving the simple matter of dishonesty.

I have a particular case to which I referred very extensively in the South Australian Parliament and which caused a great deal of trouble when it was reported outside the Parliament involving writs and damages. But there is that one notable case that can be proven in South Australia in relation to embezzlement and so forth at that level. We can look at that level if we like and say that we want to improve the business management of unions. We can look at the economy in general and we can say that the personnel of the union movement should know more about economics, as management should know more about economics. We can say that that is a necessary function. Who would disagree with that? No one here would disagree with that. If we are looking at this Bill and thinking that out of it will come the cure-all and a recognition of all the economic realities in this community and that within 10 years or whatever time we like to put upon it we will have a sane and sensible union approach to the economy and to its management and to the acceptance of government decisions, we will be sadly mistaken. Unless the Authority is allied to the application of democratic principles in the operations of unions it will be futile and it wil simply educate people in how to use or misuse power more effectively than it is used or misused now. We should not be too starry-eyed about this proposal.

There is little more I can say. In the Authority’s limited field, I hope it does some good. This is one more instance of the Government’s spending money it does not have, if we want to come down to that level. I do not know what this Authority will cost; but we do know that, whatever it will cost, the Government will not have the money this year or next year. It will print the money. That is just one aspect of the Bill. But the Government is doing that in regard to nearly every new proposal it makes at the moment; so why antagonise this one? I suppose that is a fair sort of attitude. Let us say that we will pass the legislation and approve the expenditure of money to set up the Authority. Then we have to look at what it will achieve. I hope that it will achieve more than I think it will achieve. I have no illusions, however, that it will take the bitterness out of the class warfare which exists between trade unions and management. This is a reality and is expressed in many ways on every day of the week throughout the various areas of conflict.

I say this quite firmly: Unless we pin our hopes on the enforcement of democratic procedures in the union movement we will be following a very weak star in the future. We must concentrate on the democratic procedures which elect us to this Parliament and have them applied to the union movement. Any other course is simply a palliative and is simply the easier course. It is easy for the Senate and the Parliament to express pleasant sentiments and to say: ‘Let us educate everyone; let us draw everyone to the common goal of greater knowledge and understanding of the community and the economy’. How hard it is to say to the most powerful groups, the political parents of honourable senators opposite: ‘You will be democratic’. That is too hard for this Parliament. Let me say in all fairness that it has been too hard for this side of the Senate as well as too hard for that side of the Senate. It is the hardest thing to say, and that is why we do not tackle the problem. That is why we take the easy, least effective way and take the minimal action instead of the maximum action that we require.

I should like to have seen some way that this training could be related to the personnel of unions which use democratic principles and can show that in their articles and the election of their officers they use democratic procedures. I do not think we should go about offering assistance and improvement to the minority of union personnel- I hope they are in a minority- who believe in strong arm tactics, who use dictatorial methods and flout the opinions of the general membership and who approve of victimisation of that membership when it tries to stand up. I do not think we should try to offer those people the assistance offered in this Bill. I am quite sure that we ought to have a qualification that in some way those people who come from the unions which are not so much in the news and which are democratic get the approval of this Parliament and the finance that will be expended under this Bill to improve their organisations.

Senator Georges:

– Withdraw all services from the Country Party.

Senator STEELE HALL:

– We are not talking about the Country Party. We hear enough about the Country Party from honourable senators opposite. What honourable senators opposite do not like to hear is any criticism of their own parent organisations.

Senator Georges:

– It is not that at all.

Senator STEELE HALL:

-Of course it is. It is the same old story year after year. Anyone who criticises the most powerful group for the most blatant misuse of power in this community is called a union basher. It does not dismay me and it never will. I conclude by saying this: We are following a false road in thinking that education will do what only the enforcement of democratic principles finally will do for the Australian trade union movement and the decent Australian trade unionist who is so subject to the strong arm tactics of union personnel today.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-The remarks of Senator Steele Hall- as he prefers to be named- force me into this debate, even though it has been the practice of the Government, in order to expedite legislation, to limit the number of its speakers in support of Bills which are not opposed by the Opposition. This Bill is intended, in spite of what Senator Steele Hall says, to provide a facility by which trade union members, who are coming up through the ranks of their organisation and who are coming up through a particular industry, can be trained. When they are appointed as delegates, organisers or secretaries they can be trained in the methods which will make them far better representatives and people who are better equipped to put a case before the tribunals that have been set up to decide upon the industrial conditions of the workers of this nation. Yet Senator Steele Hall attempts here to denigrate this provision. (Quorum formed) I thank Senator Marriott for the calling of the quorum. Only 2 Liberals were in the chamber and prepared to listen to me. I notice that since Senator Marriott called the quorum one more has come in. Actually, Senator Marriott has been guilty of using the device which the Opposition has been using recently, namely, calling quorums -

Senator Marriott:

– What did you do this afternoon?

Senator GEORGES:

– I raised a point of order when I thought that -

Senator Marriott:

– It was your usual stupid one.

Senator GEORGES:

-No. I point out to Senator Marriott that the point of order which I raised referred to -

Senator Greenwood:

- Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. It is particularly apposite with Senator Georges. He is debating a Bill called the Trade Union Training Authority Bill; it is not a matter of explaining why he took a point of order. My submission is that he is digressing from the subject matter.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator McAuliffe)- There is no substance in the point of order.

Senator GEORGES:

-Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. The Opposition is now using the device of calling quorums, but at the same time as it is calling quorums its members are staying out of the chamber. That has to be made fairly clear. We are aware of what the Opposition is up to. Nevertheless let me get back to the Bill we are discussing, which is the Trade Union Training Authority Bill. I have risen in this debate because 1 take strong objection to Senator Hall’s speech. Before I was interrupted I was speaking in support of the proposition to train men who, by the very nature of industry, when they are appointed as delegates, organisers or secretaries have no basic training, although they use their native wit and they do that successfully. However, they have not had any basic training in general management or organisation, but they survive despite this. The Bill will give them the facility and will provide the time and the finance for them to obtain these skills.

Surely it is evident that the Opposition does not really object to this proposition in the same terms in which Senator Hall objects. Senator Hall in his paranoia has sought to give to the objects of the Bill some sinister motive, but the sinister motive exists only in his mind and is a development of that attitude he has taken against unions almost without pause in the State of South Australia when he was Premier and since that time. It is quite unfair of him to attack the trade union movement, which is a responsible movement, in the way in which he has done. Admittedly the trade union movement believes that it has a responsibility to its membership beyond its industrial provisions, that it has a moral responsibility to its membership, to society and to the environment in which the trade union movement works.

The denigration of which Senator Hall has been guilty should be rejected in the strongest terms, and I intend to do that. However, before I do so I also make the point that trade union training and this college will give not only skills to trade union members but will also give them some standing. For too long trade union officials have been carrying out an onerous duty to the benefit not only of their members but also to the entire community and they have received very little in return. As Senator Button said earlier, the demands on a trade union official are varied and complex, and for meeting them he receives very little return.

It is to be hoped that, as a result of the training to be provided, there will be a new recognition of the standing of trade union officials and organisers. At present a trade union organiser for a job that can extend from Monday to Sunday, and into the early hours of the morning if he belongs to a union engaged in shift work, receives in comparison, even with his members, a pittance in return for his services. For that pittance he is required in many cases to be an advocate before a court and to argue a very skilled case for which a member of the legal profession would probably charge between $300 and $400 a day. The magistrates before whom they appear also receive a substantial salary, yet the organiser, who is basically untrained because he probably entered the industry as a workman or perhaps as an apprentice, is required to train himself to become an advocate in the interests of his membership and of the community, and to date he has not been recognised and he has been considerably underpaid.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m. (Quorum formed)

Senator GEORGES:

– I notice that the call for a quorum did not in any way lead to a response from Liberal senators opposite. I noted that a few of them were hesitating at the door and not entering the chamber. Be that as it may, let me continue with the remarks that I was making before the sitting was suspended. The Bill before the House is the Trade Union Training Authority Bill 1975. We need to remind the Senate of the importance of this Bill. It is not a major Bill but it is important to the members of the trade union movement which all speakers have recognised in some way or other during the course of this debate. Senator Steele Hall said that it was the most powerful movement in Australia, so powerful that it controlled government. We can put that remark down to his paranoia. The trade union movement is a well established and substantial organisation. It is by its very nature a responsible organisation and should be accepted as such.

I know that Senator Steele Hall perhaps chose to use this Bill as a means by which he could express his views, extravagant as they are. But the views that he expressed must be accepted as coming from a person whose reputation has been one of continual and unreasonable opposition to the trade union movement based upon a lack of understanding of the trade union movement. No doubt he will be supported in this view by Senator Greenwood who, I think, is seeking an opportunity to speak on this matter. Senator Wright also chose the opportunity to speak at length on the principles of the trade union movement. In his speech he moved from 1 830 to 1 900 and then to 1970 and in a rather backhanded way he did give some credit to the trade union movement for improving the conditions of the workers. I think he referred to the sum of 2% pence being paid for a day’s labour in 1 830 and even he was prepared to admit that there were some improvements in 1975 and that the trade union movement, the organised workers movement, the organised labour movement, was responsible for the improvement in the conditions of the workers from which he himself benefits today.

Honourable senators must be reminded that the improvement in the conditions of the workers of this country, those who apply their skills, flows on to us all. There is no doubt that in an enlightened society we must be endeavouring to improve the conditions of those people from which we all benefit by way of substantial flow-ons. In the kind of system in which we live a flow-on to workers also means a percentage flow-on to the rest of the community. My attention is directed by my colleagues to the fact that the Opposition has now reduced its numbers on the Opposition benches in order to call, or perhaps be able to call, another quorum.

Senator McLaren:

– It is a deliberate attempt to frustrate business.

Senator GEORGES:

– It is a bad attempt to frustrate the work of the Senate. But I must return to the Bill and indicate that the Government is giving an opportunity to those who work on behalf of the trade union movement or within the trade union movement to improve their skills. This opportunity will enable a shop steward, whether he be a boilermaker or she be an airline hostess, to participate in a course which may extend over a period of two weeks or 10 weeks and perhaps at a later stage even 12 months. It will give such people an opportunity to participate in the work of the college which is to be built at Wodonga and which will serve this trade union training program. It will give them an opportunity to participate and to receive some recognition for the many hours of devotion to the work which they have to do and to the hardships which they have to face. I said before the sitting was suspended that trade union officials at all levels do work of dedication which is considerably underpaid. The trade union movement in this country works for a very small level return. The trade unionist in this country has yet to accept the responsibility of paying for good trade unionism, for good trade union officials, for good trade union researchers. The amount which a trade unionist has to pay in this country by way of fees is far too low. This emerges from indifference, which possibly leads to some of those malpractices about which possibly Senator Greenwood will speak- the possible breakdown in the democratic method within a union which-

Senator Greenwood:

– The crooked union ballot.

Senator GEORGES:

– I did not say that. I referred to the breakdown in the democratic procedures within a trade union which can be sheeted home to the indifference of the mass of trade unionists in this country who are not prepared to pay, and would object to, an increase in fees. Many a trade unionist in this country is prepared to pay $ 150 a year to insure his car but yet would reject the payment of an extra few dollars in trade union membership fees. From this poverty stricken approach stem a lot of the errors and failures of the trade union movement to match the challenge which management today throws out. For this reason this Bill must be recognised as something which will accept the position of the trade union delegate, official or organiser. I said before the sitting was suspended that the trade union official, especially the person who becomes a trade union advocate, carries out the work of an organiser on the job not only to stimulate his members- they do stimulate their members- to do a fair job but also to accept the quality value of the job they do. The trade union organiser does this work, and he does it substantially.

A trade union official is a public relations man who has not only to go out and spread the message of unionism and the need to become a part of that democratic system but also to front up to those members of the union who refuse to pay their fees or those workers who refuse to join the union and participate in or contribute to the upkeep of the organisation that protects their interests. Additionally, the union organiser has more often than not, because of the inability of the union to meet the heavy financial strain, to go into the court and act as an advocate. In many cases his advocacy will match that of those who are skilled and highly paid; that is, those who are employed by the employer organisations. He has to use his native wit. In many cases because he has come up through the ranks- he needs to come up through the ranks if he is to do his job correctly and to understand what is his job- he has not had any training in the field of advocacy or organisation. For the first time this country has recognised, through this Government, the need to train those people.

This Bill is to my mind a wonderful concept which I am pleased to say is being supported by the Opposition. In spite of one, two or three speeches that have been made and perhaps one that is about to be made there is general support for the Trade Union Training Authority Bill. The attitude that Senator Steele Hall has adopted that this training is something to be feared and that this trade union program will be used to indoctrinate or to subvert the worker and make him an enemy of society is a dishonest approach and he must know it. If we on this side of the House were to take the same view concerning this Bill we would say: ‘We are afraid of this Bill. What it is going to do is to tame cat the trade union officials. It is going to make them a sort of elite. It is going to separate them from the working class. It is going to give them certain privileges, certain benefits. It is going to duchess them ‘. We could take that stand, but that is just a passing fear on our part. We do not hold such a fear as Senator Steele Hall held on this occasion.

There is to be within this Bill, as a result of an amendment proposed by the Opposition, a participation by this Parliament in the functions of the Australian Council. I do not raise any great objection to that, but I cannot see the need for it. I cannot see the need for it being done in this respect when it is not done in other respects. I wonder whether Senator Steele Hall will look carefully at the provision that parliamentarians should be members of the Council. Perhaps he may in his rather, shall we say, diverted way consider issuing a writ against those members in case, for some reason or other, they decide to take some reimbursement of their expenses. That is, of course, a consideration that would exercise the mind of Senator Steele Hall. As far as I am concerned such Council membership is not a bad idea. It will allow this Parliament to participate in the work of an Authority which this Parliament will set up. It is possible that it will lead to there being a more enlightened member of the Opposition. It certainly will reinforce the position of the supporter of the Government on the Council.

But why is it necessary for the Opposition to treat the trade union movement differently from any other organisation? Why is it necessary for the Opposition to demand a supervision of the syllabus or, as it was at one stage, the curricula of this organisation? Because it desires to interfere and to limit. If honourable senators opposite ever return to Government they will compromise the whole concept of this Bill.

The argument has been raised- I think it was raised by Senator Steele Hall- that there ought to be some training of management. There is considerable training of management in this country and it is supported by funds that this Parliament provides. In fact in every university throughout this country there is some management course and in every college of advanced education there is such a course that is supported by the many thousands of dollars provided by the Government. So all we are endeavouring to do by this Bill is to provide specialist training for trade union officials and members. For that reason I believe that this Bill ought to be strongly supported.

Senator Steele Hall made some reference to an overseas article that indicated some concern about the over-power of unions. He should have qualified his remarks by saying that there is an over-power of certain unions. There is in the hands of perhaps one or two unions in this country an ability excessively to use certain powers. We can take as an example the Federation of Airline Pilots, which can hold this country to ransom. Let us take a look at the record of that trade union. It is the record of a trade union that holds itself apart from the affiliated trade union movement of this country. It is a union that misuses its power. But never let it be said, in spite of what Senator Steele Hall said, that many of the other unions involve their membership in their day by day decisions -

Senator Steele Hall:

– But they do fight politically, you must admit.

Senator GEORGES:

-They have a right to fight politically.

Senator McLaren:

– So does the AMA, which is a union.

Senator GEORGES:

– Yes, and so do the stock exchange and chambers of commerce. A union has a right to do so providing, of course, the aims and objects of the organisation allow it to do so and it is financed in a way in which it is intended that the finances should be used. The affiliated unions of this country are the unions that- I agree with Senator Steele Hall on this- are the backbone of the Australian Labor Party. They provide a substantial part of the Australian Labor Party’s support through the efforts of their membership and perhaps by way of finance. Those unions accept a responsibility outside of their industrial area and it is right that they should do so. No one should impose upon an association of people the demand that they should in some way destroy the environment in which they live and in which their children shall live. That organisation- that union- has a right to deny the use of its members, efforts and skills in protection of the environment. That is the acceptance of a moral responsibility and it ought not to be denied them. The action to which Senator Steele Hall objected was the action of the Seamen’s Union of Australia, which has imposed an embargo on the export of wheat from this country to the barbarous regime in

Chile that even Senator Steele Hall would not support if he took the time off to investigate exactly what has happened.

Senator Steele Hall:

– But your Government supports the union.

Senator GEORGES:

-Perhaps the Government agreed to the export of this wheat under some international agreement or some international understanding, but the Seamen’s Union has in this case done a service to the Government. No one can impose upon a person or the organisation to which he belongs a demand that he do something that would be completely contrary to his moral and ethical attitude.

Senator Steele Hall:

– Do you mean that the Waterside Workers Federation should adjudicate as to who should export from Australia? That is what you are saying. Obviously you do not believe in government.

Senator GEORGES:

-The Waterside Workers Federation, the Seamen’s Union and other unions are responsible organisations that make responsible decisions and ought not to be imposed upon to do those things that are completely contrary to the desires of their membership. Senator Steele Hall is saying that the Seamen’s Union should allow wheat to be exported from this country to a country which has imprisoned -

Senator Maunsell:

– It should abide by the decision of the Labor Government; that is what it should do.

Senator GEORGES:

-Irrespective of the Government in power. Remember this, and remember this always: The law is not -

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator McAuliffe)- Order! The honourable senator’s time has expired.

Senator YOUNG:
South Australia

-I listened with great interest to Senator Georges’ speech on this Bill.

Senator Cavanagh:

– You did not. You were outside.

Senator YOUNG:

– I listened to it from inside and in my office as well. I heard him prior to the suspension of the sitting. I support this policy of training for trade unionists. I think it is most important that they are trained. I question one area. Why is the training to be done outside the usual areas where tertiary education takes place? Nevertheless, I support the principle because it is necessary that unions in this country have a much better understanding than in the past of the whole industrial and commercial area of this country. One thing that has concerned me for a long time is the radicalism of, and the misunderstanding that has crept into, so many of the unions in this country. Trade unionism is a very important part of our community and of the industrial and commercial sectors of our community. I fully support trade unions. But I do not support the radicalism that has crept into so many of our trade unions. That has been one of the tragedies of this country. A few moments ago we heard Senator Georges still trying to defend the actions of certain unions, particularly the Seamen’s Union of Australia, regarding trade in this country- trade that affects not only the delivery of the commodity to another country but so many people in this country.

I heed the comments which Senator Hall made by way of interjection. Who is governing this country? Who is responsible for the various departments in this country? Who is responsible for trade in this country? Is it the trade unions? Is it a few leaders? Is it the Government of this country? Quite frankly, tragedy will strike in this land if we are dictated to by a few people who elect themselves by one means or another to govern this country but who are not elected to govern this country. There can be only one Federal Government in this country, and that is the Government which sits in this building. If we are to be dictated to by union leaders and sections of unions we are in for a sorry state of affairs in time. One of the greatest problems which we face is the discrimination by and the attitudes of some of these unions. It is all very well to use Chile as an example. That is the country which has been referred to and with which we have a trade agreement. How discriminatory have these people been in respect of other areas of the world where trade has taken place? Have they shown any balance? Have they shown any respect? No. All they have shown is political bias and irresponsibility. They are taking government away from the Government which they claim they support.

I want to go further and refer to the guerrilla tactics which have been used in so many areas of industry. I refer to the position in my home State of South Australia where, in the motor industry, we have seen guerrilla tactics used by means of spot strikes. How costly have the strikes been? Whom do they affect? Do they affect an industry as much as they affect the community? It is John Citizen who finally pays the price by way of increased costs of those products, because of the high cost that is paid when disruption takes place in industry. What about the average worker? The average working man is a decent, honest Australian who wants to support his family. Because of the radicalism of a few union leaders, and more importantly shop stewards, he is pulled out of work. He does not have the opportunity to decide democratically whether he will stay at work. He is forced into a situation. One of the things that I hope will happen in this country- the sooner the better- is the replacement of what are called the belly-aching pommy shop stewards in this country who are disrupting so much of the industry in this country. Let me qualify that statement by saying that I have the greatest respect for English migrants and European migrants, but I am sick and tired to death of these shop stewards who cause so much disruption. How often of a morning when there has been a strike do we hear on ‘A.M.’ a strange accent? I consider that many of these people are industrial drop-outs from the United Kingdom. They could not make the grade in the union cause in the United Kingdom. They have come out here as semipros, with one purpose in mind- to be disruptive. The sooner they are replaced with good English, good European or the good old Australian shop stewards, the better off the unions, including the individual members, and this country will be.

I return to this Bill. I think it will give an opportunity for so many more people in the industrial movement to get the education and a better understanding to deal with the various aspects of industry and commerce in which they are operating. They will eventually have a far better understanding and appreciation of the real problems of unions, the real problems of management and the real need for responsibility not only on one side but on both sides- the workforce and management, collectively. It is only when people have respect and full understanding that we will get, I hope, a better industrial situation than we have had in this country for quite a few years. I could refer to many things- to costs and to the number of man hours lost in industry. Senator Guilfoyle referred to them this afternoon. It is a tragedy for the whole of the country. It is a tragedy for the consumer who has to pay the higher price because of these disruptions. More importantly, it is a tragedy for the people employed in those industries because they are unable to work. Think about the working man who so often does overtime.

Senator Georges:

– Stop it.

Senator YOUNG:

-It is all right for Senator Georges sitting here saying that. If he were honest he would admit that many of these working people have said to him: ‘I have worked for weeks. I have done overtime. I have committed myself to various things- a new car or something else for the family. I have been out of work for a fortnight, not because I want to be out of work but because the radical so-and-sos have taken us out on strike. I am back where I started. ‘ I hope that this problem will eventually be overcome by a better understanding by the shop stewards, and a replacement of some of them who today are not leading but misleading unions and causing so much disruption in areas of industry and commerce. I hate to think where we will eventually finish if that does not happen. I have faith in the average Australian. I am referring to all the people, whether they are new arrivals or not. Let me generalise by saying that I have faith in the great majority of the workforce of this country.

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

– Even pommy shop stewards?

Senator Georges:

– He excluded pommy shop stewards.

Senator YOUNG:

– I referred to pommy shop stewards. Let me clarify what I mean by that, for the sake of the interjector Senator Georges. There is a big difference between a pommy shop steward and an English shop steward. Let me make that clear. There is a big difference. If Senator Georges talked to many of the people in the workforce today he would find that they agree with me. They are getting rather tired of working in the factory and suddenly finding that they are out of work, not through choice but because of the decision of some radicals who have gone on strike. Do not deny it. It is a fact of life. I could name many of my friends in the workforce who would stand by that statement.

Having said those things, I wish to turn to another area. It relates to educating industry and the trade union movement about this Bill- not only what is contained within the Bill but also what is implied by the Bill. I fully support the setting up of the Trade Union Training Authority, because I believe that it is essential. I hope that it will have the support of all the Australian people because it is an entirely new idea and I think it is an extremely good idea. I wish to question the Postmaster-General (Senator Bishop) about the very elegant presentation of the Bill, the second reading speech and also the explanatory notes which have been circulated. I do not know how many copies were sent out or to whom they were sent. I should like to know how many copies were printed. It has been very expensively done. The folder in which these documents were enclosed has a very heavy gloss cover. It would have been extremely expensive to print because it has been done on a 3-colour basis. I question why it was necessary to send out such a glossy document.

I repeat that it was important and essential that these documents should have been sent out, but they could have been presented far more cheaply. They have been sent out by a government that claims to be cutting its costs, trying to reduce costs wherever it can.

Senator Georges:

– It is too good for the workers, isn’t it?

Senator YOUNG:

– Irrespective of where the documents were sent, this Government has been boasting that it is cutting costs; but this is a ridiculously expensive presentation. I do not think it was at all necessary that the Government should go to such expense to send out such grandiose documentation. I would be pleased if the Minister could tell me what costs were involved, how many copies of these documents were sent out and also where these documents were printed. One of the documents- the Bill- has the name of the printer on it, but that is not shown on the other 2 documents. Possibly they were printed by the Department; I do not know. This is something that I should like to know. If this Government is to continue to say that it is cutting costs, I think it is time it set an example by showing that it is cutting costs. These documents are certainly no such example. The Government was prepared to spend an excessive amount of money to get the message through to the people when the message, important as it is, could have been got through to them much more cheaply. I would be pleased if the Minister could give me an answer to these questions. I support the Bill, but I still stand by the comments and criticisms I made earlier.

Senator DONALD CAMERON:
Minister for Labour and Immigration · South Australia · ALP

- Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise in this debate mainly to refute some of the suggestions that have been made by the last 2 Opposition speakers. They took the opportunity not to discuss the merits of the legislation but to engage in their usual union-bashing tactics. As we know, Opposition senators have had no experience whatsoever in the trade union movement. Therefore, they would not know what the Bill is all about, or what the need for trade union training is all about. That was shown quite clearly by Senator Steele Hall. He spent most of his time in addressing the Senate in reading from an article by a journalist who wrote mainly about the trade union scene in England. Senator Steele Hall has achieved notoriety in South Australia for his anti-trade unionism and for his trade union bashing in that State. Probably it was something new to hear his attitude to the trade union movement being presented to the Senate.

By this Bill we seek to train trade union officials, rank and file members of trade unions and shop stewards not only in the administration of a trade union but also in the other very complex matters of trade union activity, including the preparation of claims to be presented to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission or to be used in negotiations between the employer and the employee. Trade union training in industrial law is not given in any college or university in Australia. Today the unions in Australia have to compete with employers who have capable and trained industrial advocates. In order to do this, union officials have to be trained right from the shop floor through the whole administration of a union. Being a former secretary of the Australian Workers Union, I know that in the State of South Australia from which I come we had great difficulty in engaging an industrial officer. Nobody in that State or, to my knowledge, in any other State has training as an industrial officer. It is very important that people in the trade union movement should have this training.

It is pleasing for me tonight to be able to say that a former industrial officer of the Australian Workers Union, Mr John Bannon, is now acting as a departmental adviser to the Minister representing the Minister for Labor and Immigration. When unions are able to get an efficient advocate on industrial affairs, they usually do not keep him for very long. That is one reason why this Bill has been introduced. There will be a training centre which will keep members and officials of unions up to date on the latest techniques in preparing a case and presenting it to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. This task is becoming more complex with the changes in the Commission’s decisions. I need to refer only to the recent arbitration case on wage indexation to show how important it is today for trade union officials to be educated so that they know what is required and how best they can present a case in the interests of the members whom they represent.

This evening Senator Steele Hall took the opportunity of the debate on this Bill to attack the trade union movement in South Australia and, as a matter of fact, in all other States. He referred to the fact that 40 000 tonnes of wheat is waiting to be exported to Chile. If there is an increase in the world price of wheat in 6 months time the current position regarding the export of wheat to Chile may be an advantage, not a disadvantage, to the Australian wheat growers; but I know that if that happens Senator Steele Hall will not admit that he was wrong in what he said this evening. We know, of course, that there is no wheat surplus in Australia; we are able to sell all of the wheat that we can grow. So the decision of the Waterside

Workers Federation of Australia does not affect in any way the wheatgrowers of Australia. The only reason Senator Hall raised this matter this evening was to appeal to and please his supporters in the big companies such as the Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd, General Motors-Holdens Pty Ltd, Chrysler Australia Ltd and similar big companies that rely on the likes of Senator Hall and other honourable senators in the Opposition to continually bash down the trade unions. Opposition senators believe that if they can come into the chamber, particularly when the proceedings are being broadcast, and bash the trade union movement and blame the trade union movement for everything that is affecting the economy of Australia irrespective of what Bill we are debating, they are serving their masters, and they hope to be rewarded for it.

As Opposition senators have indicated that they are going to support the Bill I see no purpose in my delaying the passage of this legislation. It provides for something that we hope and we believe will improve the relationship between the trade union movement and the employers. We hope that any further contributions in this debate will be based on the merits of the Bill and not on union bashing, as have the contributions from the last 2 speakers from the Opposition side.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– The Senate is debating a Bill to establish a Trade Union Training Authority. This is one of those times which occasionally arrive in the Senate when there is general agreement on the objectives which a Bill embodies, but notwithstanding that general agreement the debate engenders a large number of participants. It is not surprising in this case that the objectives of the Bill should have brought a large number of people into the debate. The trade union movement in Australia is an immensely powerful institution. One might ask: Why do trade unionists have to be trained? The trade unions have done pretty well by their members in the various objectives which they have set themselves. I think the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) within the last few months has reiterated time and again that the root cause of inflation in this countryone might go on to say the root cause of unemployment- has been excessive wage demands. One reason for these excessive wage demands has been the desire of various trade union officials to impress upon their membership that they are not slacking in looking after their members’ interests. That has led to the incessant demands which have produced a position which even the Prime Minister of a Labor Party government has acknowledged to be of tremendously serious proportions.

One might look at the various other objectives which the trade union movement has been able to achieve. Senator Hall earlier instanced the fact that our trade in wheat with Chile, amounting to $40m, has been brought to a termination because of trade union power. One might look at what is proposed in the area of wage indexation, which again is a matter which the Prime Minister has said is vital to the Government’s antiinflationary activities, and which the metal trade unions are proposing to challenge by direct strike action. One might look at what is happening in New South Wales where the power of the Teachers Federation is being used in an attempt to overthrow the authority of the State Government, the teachers tribunals and the Department of Education in that State. There is a host of other activities which, if they are not current at the moment are about to be engaged in, represent the power of trade union leaders. I have mentioned these things simply because they indicate that in the areas in which the trade union officials operate they have been pretty successful in establishing the unions as a rival to the power of legitimate government. It is this confrontation between the unions and government which I think poses ultimately the greatest challenge which democracy in this country has had to face.

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

– What a lot of rubbish.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I hear Senator Brown say that it is a lot of rubbish. It is interesting that a Labor Party senator should view the situation in that way because I think there are only a few ardent Labor Party supporters who would contend that there is no problem in what has been happening. The vast majority of the people of Australia recognise the real problem in reconciling the power of the trade union movement when it is exercised for political ends, or even exercised for industrial ends which run counter to what is the interest of the community at large, with the power of the Government, the political complexion of which everybody in the country has an opportunity of determining.

Senator Poyser:

– You want to starve the workers into submission.

Senator GREENWOOD:

-That is the sort of nonsense, the claptrap, the absolute rubbish that one hears by way of interjection from Labor senators. Unfortunately they seem to be the Labor senators from Victoria, in which State, of course, the Labor Party has got a most unmeritorious record. Both Senator Brown and Senator

Poyser are the nominees of the Victorian Labor Party’s executive which the Labor Party’s Federal Executive dispossessed in 1971, and they ought to recollect their antecedents because they are not in great standing in the Labor Party of which they are members.

The Bill proposes to establish the Trade Union Training Authority whose functions will be to undertake and carry out the planning and development of programs of trade union training in Australia; to provide trade union training; to co-ordinate trade union training in various places throughout Australia; actually to provide- I presume that means financially- for the trade union training; and to ensure that the trade union training is kept under constant review. They are the functions of the Authority, the body which has those responsibilities. The people who are to control this Authority are nominated by the Bill, and there is a predominance of Labor Party personnel in the Council which will control this Trade Union Training Authority. Within the Authority there will be State authorities which can conduct trade union training within the States. As the PostmasterGeneral (Senator Bishop) indicates in his second re:ding speech, the State bodies are to have an autonomy with regard tq, the actual syllabus which is laid down.

What is the term ‘trade union training’ actually to comprehend? The Bill is not tremendously informative because the words that are used in the Bill could comprehend a variety of types of trade union training. The term ‘trade union training’, according to the definition, means educational, technical or practical training which is capable of advancing and developing an understanding of the functions and objectives of trade unions in Australian society. It also involves educational, technical and practical training which is capable of advancing and developing knowledge and skills in fields connected with the powers and functions of trade unions or the powers, functions and duties of officers or officials of trade unions. That is a tremendously broad objective. It could cover the types of activities to which I shall refer shortly and which the communist trade union officials make no secret in disclosing as the objectives which they have, or it could embrace more the reasonable types of objectives to which I think Senator Georges earnestly gave expression in the course of what he said earlier tonight. But trade union training also involves educational, technical and practical training for members of trade unions in any other fields approved by the Australian Council. I would suspect that that would give to the Trade Union

Training Authority an opportunity to enhance the broad educational base of persons who are engaged in trade union activity.

There is no real difference of opinion between the Government and the Opposition as to the desirability of an authority being established which has those objectives. What is important is to ensure that those objectives are given an interpretation which enables trade unions to serve the purposes of their members and to serve the purposes of the society of which they are part. Those objectives should not be interpreted in a way which enables the trade union movement to overthrow the system or to undermine the society of which it is a part. If I understood what Senator Hall said tonight it was to emphasise the fact that there are elements within the trade union movement which would use the powers and objectives of this Trade Union Training Authority to stimulate a desire and an equipment and an ability amongst more and more trade unionists to overthrow the existing society.

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

– No, to conform.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I heard Senator Brown say the words ‘to conform’. What he is looking for is the non-conformity which will change the existing system. Senator Wright indicated earlier this evening that Mr Cairns, the Deputy Prime Minister, time and again-

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

- Dr Cairns, if you do not mind.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I should not say time and again because he has not said it too frequently but he has indicated that what is wrong with the present condition of Australia is the system and he would like to change the system. Mr Clyde Cameron, the Minister for Labor and Immigration who is responsible for this Bill, has indicated that Marx was right after all.

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

– I agree with him.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I sense from what Senator Brown just said- that he agrees with him- that he has the same view. I wonder how many people in the Labor Party hold that view. Senator Brown might be prepared to indicate his colleagues because there is a real and growing apprehension among the people of Australia that lurking within the Labor Party are a lot of Senator Browns, a lot of Clyde Camerons, and a lot of Dr Cairns. What is it that they are really about? I think that an occasion like this is an appropriate one to indicate some of the purposes which could be achieved and to express the hope that the Council responsible for these training schemes will ensure that the purposes for which some people would want to use this Authority are not realised.

The Amalgamated Metal Workers Union is Australia’s largest union. It is a very militant union, lt has, I think, and I may be wrong in my assessment, some 5 per cent of the trade union members throughout this country and in the last two or three years it has been responsible for 30 per cent of the strikes. It also has its own trade union training authority- the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union Training Authority. It is said in the union’s journal, in an explanation as to what this trade union training authority is all about, that it will not have a bar of any workermanagement courses because that type of cooperation is anathema to the Metal Workers Union of this country. It has said:

It has had, and will continue to have, a radicalising effect upon unions. Union training can help to widen and deepen the challenge to capitalism. It can help to widen and deepen the opportunities of overthrowing the capitalist system.

Senator Georges:

– No, challenging.

Senator GREENWOOD:

-Of course it can and there should be no doubt about it. I want to refer to one of the arch priests of the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union. So many of these people have indicated in statements precisely what they are about. Mr John Halfpenny, the Victorian State Secretary of the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union and a member of the Communist Party of Australia, the same Communist Party of which I think the Assistant Federal Secretary of the Union, Mr Carmichael, was recently the President- he may still be the president -

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

– No. He is in the council now at Federal level.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I am indebted to Senator Brown for his greater information on matters about which I am not so well informed. Mr John Halfpenny spoke at a symposium at the University of New South Wales in November last year. The symposium was on new developments in trade union interests and activities. Mr Halfpenny spoke on the subject ‘Union Views’. I simply want to quote his final 3 paragraphs in which he said:

Very few in the community today challenge the right of trade unions to exercise some power, but there is considerable debate about how trade union power should be exercised and in what direction it should be channelled.

I interpolate to say that that is really what this debate in this chamber has developed into in the course of the exposition of views on this Bill. Mr Halfpenny continued:

Briefly put, there are 2 points of view. One suggests that trade unions should be involved in a power-sharing arrangement with employers. This view supports such concepts as worker participation with unions and workers seeking to gain a voice in management with seats on the Boards of Directors. It also supports trade union excursions into business and commercial ventures.

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

– Which you reject.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I personally do not reject that and I do not believe that the Opposition parties reject it. I welcome the advent of the Australian Council of Trade Unions into commercial ventures like Bourke ‘s Melbourne Pty Ltd. I welcome its enterprise in moving into the hotel field. If it can get some entry into the areas of tourism and the oil industry that again is to be welcomed because it will mean that organised unionism will be participating in the functions of our society and will have a vested interest in the wellbeing of that society. Of course, they must respect- this is the only worry I would have- the general rules which apply to other corporate enterprises which are engaging in those areas. Providing that there is an acknowledgment of those rules, those laws, I think that the more co-operative trade union activities there are in these areas the better will be the ongoing of our type of society. That, of course, is not the view that John Halfpenny would encourage. I come back to what he was saying:

The other view, to which I subscribe, is that trade union power should be directed towards challenging the very basis of the present system and replacing the power of employers, particularly the national and multi-national monopoly corporations, with the power of workers and of the people.

There he sets out quite clearly the objective of overthrowing the existing system.

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

– No, not overthrowing. Senator Wright said that this afternoon.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I assure the honourable senator that what Senator Wright said was based on a sound and long understanding of the objectives of militant trade unions and communist trade unions in this country. There was so much said by Mr Halfpenny in this address that it is worth reading by anybody interested in what Mr Halfpenny, a significant trade union leader in this country, aspires to. Indeed, I am so tempted to see whether people are interested that I seek leave to incorporate his address in Hansard.

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

UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES 1974 SYMPOSIUM NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN TRADE UNION INTERESTS & ACTIVITIES “UNION VIEWS”

by

JOHN HALFPENNY VICTORIAN STATE SECRETARY AMALGAMATED METAL WORKERS’ UNION

Thursday, 2 1st November 1974

NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN TRADE UNION INTERESTS & ACTIVITIES

The newest development relating to the trade unions is the interest which trade union interests and activities are arousing amongst sections of the community outside of the trade union movement.

It is fashionable these days to put trade unions under the microscope in an effort to detect what is new about the interests and activities of the working class in Australia. This, of course, is not a uniquely Australian phenomenon, it is almost universal.

Many who engage in the exercise of discovering and identifying what is new in the trade union movement are often disappointed when their examination reveals that the newness represents in the main a quantitative rather than a qualitative change.

I am not suggesting that there is nothing new, and that trade unionism has stood still during the past 120 years. I do want to indicate clearly that the aim of the trade union movement to acquire political and economic power remains now, as it did at the beginning, the principal objective of trade unionism.

It is true that the Australia of the 1970s is a very different place from that in which early trade unions developed. In particular, industry and employer organisations have become more highly integrated and efficient. They have not, however, become more generous or changed their aim of keeping political and economic power in order to use it in their own interests.

The developments in trade union interests and activities have taken place to meet these and other challenges of our increasingly complex society, and to allow the trade union movement to mobilise its resources more effectively.

Trade unionism owes its beginnings to the economic changes brought about by industrialisation. Workers were required to organise collectively to protect themselves from the new social and industrial conditions created by capitalism. Today workers still need trade unions to protect themselves from the social and industrial conditions created by capitalism.

I have dwelt initially on what is old rather than new, because too often it is suggested that today trade unions in Australia have a different role and function to perform than those of the past.

I reject that notion, because while capitalism remains, the role and function of trade unionism will remain essentially unchanged. To deny that fact is to abandon the aim of seeking to win political and economic power, which is the only way which the working class will end exploitation and reform society to achieve an equitable redistribution of wealth and social justice.

New developments in trade union interests and activities have been stimulated by a number of factors including-

1 ) The increasing complexity of the social, political and industrial conditions which have been created by modern capitalism.

Disenchantment with the results achieved through a reliance on separation of industrial and political objectives to achieve what are often referred to as political and social aims or non-industrial aims of trade unions.

The emergence of an awareness that is challenging society’s values and judgment systems.

It should be recognised that these are quantitative developments which have led to new developments in trade union interests and activities, without in any way qualitatively changing the role and function of the trade union movement.

I should, before proceeding any further, qualify my reference to the trade union movement. This term does not always mean very much, because what we have is a movement of trade unions and trade unionists rather than a singleminded trade union movement.

There are several trends within the trade union movement. Sometimes they come together, but very often they are separated, mainly on fundamental questions which relate to the role and functions of trade unions.

What is euphemistically called the trade union movement is the organisational expression of a conglomeration of ideologies, opinions and levels of awareness. That, of course, means that I am not speaking about the trade union movement, but rather of what I regard as the more significant new developments and interests in the movement of trade unions.

The most significant new development in trade union activity around what might be regarded as purely industrial matters, has been the movement away from arbitration. 1 express this development as a move away from arbitration, rather than in more positive terms as a move towards collective bargaining. While the technique of collective bargaining is far more widespread today than 2 or 3 years ago, there is still considerable reliance on the arbitration system, and most results of collective bargaining are formalised through that system.

The development towards collective bargaining has occurred not just because of the support for the technique amongst trade unions and workers. It has also occurred because it is being supported more and more by employers. In fact, it was the employers who in many instances took the initiative in moving away from the arbitration system towards collective bargaining.

The reason for this was that the arbitration system was no longer effective, particularly after the penal powers were paralysed in 1969, as a means of imposing wage standards and other standards on workers. The employers, particularly the more enlightened among them, wanted a process which would more directly involve the workers, so that by the process of involvement they would get a greater commitment from the worker to the terms of settlement of a dispute.

Employers have realised that it is almost impossible to expect workers to accept wage rates and conditions which are determined by some remote body like the Arbitration Commission. The employers saw collective bargaining as an alternative to arbitration which would restore stability and order to the wage fixing processes.

On the other hand, collective bargaining has long been supported by the more enlightened section of the trade union movement, because it provides a basis upon which workers can become directly involved in the process which determines their wage rates and conditions. It also reflects more accurately the relationship between workers and employers and does not conceal the conflicts which arise from this relationship.

Several unions have been quite innovative in their approach to collective bargaining by their refusal to adopt the traditional approach of relating the results of a collectively bargained agreement to a period of time. This approach was at the centre of the debate during the 1974 review of the Metal Industry Award.

The debate was for and against what was termed open or closed agreements. The debate was resolved in favour of an open agreement. I regarded that as a particularly significant political victory for metal trades workers, because the issue really was whether or not workers would take for themselves some of the same freedoms exercised by the employers.

In the non-industrial area, new developments in trade union interests and activities are concerned with worker involvement, environmental issues, foreign policy, business ventures and union amalgamations. There may be other areas, but I regard these as the most significant.

Trade union interest and activity in each of these areas has been stimulated by one or more of the 3 factors mentioned earlier. Of course, the primary stimulant has come from the new conditions which are constantly being created by the increasing complexity of modern capitalism.

For example, the growing interest in worker involvement, and here I don’t want to enter into the polemics of worker participation or worker control, because I do not support either concept in the way they are presented, and I want to avoid the language with political connotations which has grown up around both concepts.

While not subscribing to either worker participation or worker control, I totally reject the concept of worker participation because it is little short of management/labour cooperation for the achievement of management objectives. In my view, greater worker involvement should be achieved by worker interference and intervention through independent trade union organisation rather than by participation.

The new interest by trade unions in worker involvement has arisen from the need to improve life at work and to combat the alienation and dissatisfaction which arise from the requirements of modern industry. Worker participation is also based on the notion of power sharing which stimulates some sections of the trade union movement.

The increasing complexity of the social, political and industrial conditions which have been created by modern capitalism are also stimulating trade union interest in environmental issues and trade union business enterprises.

Trade union interest in environmental issues has arisen because of the growing concern about the effects of capitalism ‘s notions of perpetual economic growth and profit making. There is also concern at the devastation caused by capitalism’s regard for the natural environment as its sole preserve for the production of profits. In other words, the conversion of natural resources into waste and pollution.

Trade union interest in such issues may not be new, but trade union action in this field is certainly new and has given a new dimension to the struggle of environmentalists, ecologists and conservationists.

Trade union action has added a new dimension because there is something final about a black ban or a green ban as opposed to the traditional means of protest such as letter writing, demonstrations and deputations.

There is something new also about present day trade union amalgamations. In the past, union amalgamations have usually taken the form of one large strong union taking over other small unions whose membership and industrial strength have suffered because of technological change. While this sort of amalgamation will continue, the new amalgamation will be of the type which created the Amalgamated Metal Workers’ Union.

That Union is a combination of three Unions, each was quite strong and large and none being compelled to amalgamate to survive.

That amalgamation, and many others will undoubtedly follow, was brought about by an understanding of the need to develop aggressive trade union structures that would arm workers with the capacity to cope with the increasing complexity of the social, political and industrial conditions created by modern capitalism.

While trade union interest in non industrial matters is not new, what is new is that trade unions are now taking a much more direct interest in these matters than in the past when they tended to regard non industrial matters as being the province of the political side of the Labor Movement.

This has been brought about primarily by a disenchantment with the results achieved by relying on the separation of industrial and political objectives.

There will, at least in the foreseeable future, always be political and industrial wings of the Labor Movement, but more and more trade unions will take back for themselves some of the power which at the turn of the century they transferred to the political wing.

This will continue, not because of any disappointment with the performance of the present Labor Government, but because of an emerging awareness that is challenging society ‘s values and judgment systems.

Many sections of the community and, of course, trade unions are a part of the community, are becoming increasingly concerned about the alienation of people from the decision-making processes in society. Trade unions are responding to that growing awareness by demanding a greater share in all areas of decision making.

The extent to which these new developments make an impact on trade unions and the extent to which trade unions become involved in these new areas of wider interest, is very much dependent upon the attitude, mainly within the trade unions, towards the question of trade union power.

Very few in the community today challenge the right of trade unions to exercise some power, but there is considerable debate about how trade union power should be exercised and in what direction it should be channelled.

Briefly put, there are two points of view. One suggests that trade unions should be involved in a power-sharing arrangement with employers. This view supports such concepts as worker participation with unions and workers seeking to gain a voice in management with seats on the Board of Directors. It also supports trade union excursions into business and commercial ventures.

The other view, to which I subscribe, is that trade union power should be directed towards challenging the very basis of the present system and replacing the power of employers, particularly the national and multi-national monopoly corporations, with the power of workers and of the people.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I am indebted to the Senate. I hope that honourable senators who are interested will read that address. Let us recognise also that there is a menace in this country which ought not to go unstated, notwithstanding that it is somewhat unfashionable to give currency to these views. In the 1930s, following a Labor government which held office for some two or three years, we were faced with massive unemployment, industrial dislocation and concern as to the future by both employers and employees. The Communist Party at that stage was a significant but not a very large factor. I think that there were approximately 3000 members of the Communist Party in 1937. As the ‘New Left Review’ stated in an article in 1970- for Senator Brown’s benefit, if he cares to check it is at page 22- at the beginning of 1937 there were more than 20 Communist trade union officials. Within the semi-professional and the white collar unions their influence at that time was non-existent. Today, members of the Communist parties, and there are three in this country, lead or control unions with a numerical strength approximating nearly 1 300 000 workers, almost half the number of union member affiliated with the Australian Council of Trade Unions. Outside the ACTU they lead a significant number of unions.

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

– You are being thoroughly dishonest.

Senator GREENWOOD:

-The honourable senator in due course may correct me if he wishes to do so. What I am saying is based upon what knowledge I have. Outside the ACTU they lead a significant number of unions in banking, teaching, insurance, drafting and other white collar fields. In all these unions in which communists play a leading and influential role there is an annual income variously estimated at between $20m and $30m every year. If that is not a matter that ought to be of concern, it is because people do not regard the communist objectives as anything about which to be apprehensive. When one counts the number of full time communist officials employed by these unions the figure would be close to 1000, whereas in 1937 it was approximately 20. This of course excludes the rank and file agitators, the shop stewards, part-time committeemen and so on.

It should be borne in mind that these officials are not only officials but also are professional communist party political activists whose common aim, whatever communist party they happen to be a member of, is to destroy the system. In that objective the communist parties, whilst they may not have this monolithic view which has been so often talked about, will co-operate with a view to achieving the primary objective that they all have. One only has to mention, for example, incidents that have taken place in recent years.

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

– On a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise the same point of order as I raised earlier today concerning Senator Steele Hall. I refer to standing order 421. I suppose I should emphasise on this occasion, after the last experience, that standing order 42 1 states:

The President or the Chairman of Committees may call the attention of the Senate, or the Committee, as the case may be, to continued irrelevance or tedious repetition, and may direct a Senator to discontinue his speech.

I underline ‘irrelevance’. This Bill deals with the creation of a trade union training authority and, for the life of me, I cannot understand how in any circumstances Senator Greenwood can relate his comments to that context of the Bill. Accordingly I ask you to rule.

Senator Chaney:

– I would like to speak on the point of order. One of the interjections that has interspersed Senator Greenwood’s speech was from Senator Brown to the effect that there is an inevitable conflict between capital and labour. I would have thought that in considering the objectives of a training institution for trade unionists and in debating a Bill which takes into account the training of trade unionists it is relevant to discuss the role of trade unions in the community and their relationship to other sections of the community.

Senator Georges:

– I do not want to take up the honourable senator’s time; that is the last thought I have in mind. But having already referred previously to standing order 419, 1 ask that when you make your decision on this matter you refer also to that standing order in support of Senator Brown’s point of order.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator McAuliffe)- My attention has been invited by Senator Brown to standing order 421, and it has also been invited by Senator Georges to standing order 419, and a response has been prompted from Senator Chaney. I think in my own mind that standing order 419 is more relevant than standing order 42 1. However, as I said this afternoon, it is a hairline decision and 1 must be guided by precedent in this matter and by the illustrious name of Brown. I refer to President Brown when he occupied this distinguished office. He ruled that a senator must always be given an opportunity to show how he proposes to connect his remarks with the subject under discussion. I agree that Senator Greenwood has extended this matter to its fullest, but I am going to appeal to him again to link his remarks with the Bill before the House. I ask Senator Greenwood to proceed and I rule that there is no substance to the point of order in both instances.

Senator GREENWOOD:

-Mr Acting Deputy President, I thank you for the suggestion that to link the remarks might avoid some of the problems raised on the point of order. I am linking my remarks in this way: There are significant communist elements in the trade union movement, and what I believe is important is that the objectives of this trade union authority should not be interpreted in a way that will promote the objectives of the communist party. There are proper objectives to which this Bill should give expression. I do not want to elaborate on this point which I have already emphasised. I hope it is not forgotten and regarded as a matter of no consequence. There are reasonable objectives to which expression ought to be given, and what the Liberal and Country Parties’ joint policies in this area represent is I think a fair indication of the reasonable objectives of such a trade union training authority.

We believe that such an authority- this has been part of our policy and we therefore welcome what the Government is belatedly doingshould instil and inculcate a knowledge of the provisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, its principles and purposes, that it should promote an understanding and better recognition of the functions and duties of shop stewards, that it should develop an appreciation and the need for recognition of union rules to inform trade union officials and officers how to run an office, a recognition of the relationship between branch and federal officers. Also, we believe it should show how to serve a log of claims, how to seek variation awards, how to provide for workers’ compensation, and all the matters related thereto. If the trade union training authority gave effect to objectives of that character, I am quite sure that not only would it be meeting what is I believe the desire of the substantial majority of members- having regard to what Senator Brown has said, not all members- of this Senate but also it will indicate that the trade union training authority will serve the interests of the community.

It is for that ultimate objective and the potential that it has that the Opposition gives its warm support to this Bill, but as indicated earlier we are on the brink of real difficulties. If this trade union authority represents the expenditure of public moneys to promote the activities and the influence of those who would undermine our society, we have not many years before we will become that authoritarian and totalitarian state that marks the communist countries. On the other hand, if this trade union training authority can really instil a better understanding and a better recognition of how trade union officers and officials can serve the interests of their members and the society of which they are part, there is no limit to the wealth and prosperity and the standards of living which all Australians can enjoy.

Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– In this debate every senator has pledged support for the Bill, which is a Bill about trade union education, to set up a college and to set up administration- an Australian and a State council- and it dennes what trade union education is. It is a pity that this debate has taken 6 hours today, and it will have taken more than half the day before we finish- on a question with which everybody says he agrees. Yet the Opposition speakers, including Senator Steele Hall, have spent most of their time way off the course of the legislation. Senator Greenwood has just demonstrated this. More than half his speech was spent on attacking a left-wing union. He may attack a left-wing union on the basis of another Bill during an arbitration debate, but surely it cannot be logical or fair to spend all that time, as other Opposition senators have done, in attacking the union movement, when what we are putting up is a reform, like the other reforms we propose, which will help produce a more stable union movement.

May I remind Senator Greenwood that only today he again attempted to frustrate what the Government is trying to do in establishing new conditions for the labour movement and for better industrial relations. I refer, of course, to the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill 1974. On 3 occasions at least the implementation of the principles in that Bill was held up by the Opposition. I refer to the principles of easier amalgamations to make sure that we will not have the frustrating problems caused by having too many unions and of getting agreement quickly between the employees and the employers. Those were the patterns of reform announced by the Labor Party and brought into the Parliament in the form of legislation. Of course they have been frustrated. How can anybody suggest that the Opposition is trying to bring about a better situation industrially? The Opposition is holding up everything that might reform the present position.

Senator Poyser:

– It is broadcasting day.

Senator BISHOP:

-As Senator Poyser reminds me, members of the Opposition adopt this attitude whenever the proceedings of the Senate are being broadcast. As I said last Thursday, broadcast day in the Senate, which is each Wednesday, is always show time, with the Opposition frustrating the work of the Government, putting forward a lot of political propaganda and saying that it is being reasonable but finally using the time to resist what the Government is doing.

Senator Hall is a good example. His industrial relations policy must have been written in the days of the Industrial Revolution. Senator Greenwood says that his Party believes in joint councils and in worker participation. Senator Hall spent all his time complaining because the unions want a share in management and saying that the concept of having joint councils and worker participation, which the Labor Party is aiming to implement, is all wrong. I refer honourable senators to the most advanced countries, and in particular to one country which has a wonderful record in industrial relations, namely, West Germany. There is a law there which insists there shall be a 30 per cent membership from the trade unions on management boards. There are very rigid joint controls. On the factory floor workers and managers are bound into an organisation. In Sweden the Labour Governmentanother example of a government with a very good industrial relations policy- has the same principles.

Is the Opposition for the proposition or against it? Members of the Opposition say that they are for it, but we notice that every time somebody from the Government side wants to introduce something to this effect the Opposition resists it. That is the clear position. We can talk about France and Belgium. The history of the United Kingdom and other countries shows that in the First and Second World Wars joint councils were established. The Imperial Chemical Industries company has had joint councils for as long as I can remember. These things are well known and they are the pattern of the Labor programs. They mean improved industrial relations. They mean a better work performance. There has been a lot of talk about wage inflation and the effects of inflation. Everybody knows now, of course, that the Labor Government in Australia is no different from any other government which practises democracy, as we do. Every government is plagued by inflation. We are trying to provide remedies such as indexation, amalgamation of unions, worker participation and joint activities. We want to have trade union training. Yet Opposition senators pick out a small fragment of the union movement and say: ‘There is the cause of all our troubles ‘

Senator Greenwood talks about Karl Marx. Senator Greenwood was the deputy leader of a delegation which went to China. The Special Minister of State, Mr Lionel Bowen, told me that Senator Greenwood was a very constructive member of the delegation. Of course, he saw large pictures of Karl Marx. I do not know what he did when he was confronted with them. When honourable senators opposite talk like this, they have their tongues in their cheeks. From their own training they know all about marxism, social democracy and the principles of the Labor Party. They talk as if they have just discovered that these evils are in the world. They do not know that Willy Brandt, the great ex-Chancellor of West Germany, was a Marxist. The ruling Labour Party of the country that is now the idol of the capitalist world, the best country commercially in the world and the country which has the best labour record in the world is a Marxist party. This surprises them, so they say.

It is a pity that a debate which started so well deteriorated. Senator Scott led for the Opposition and made what I consider to be a very constructive speech. He made a number of points which I think were good ones. He said that he was concerned that this training should not be in isolation and should not be separate from the general movement of education in the community or from the educational seminars which are conducted and which bring management and workers together. That is a fair enough point. In addition, of course, he said that the training should be conducted in the framework of the existing educational institutions. As the Minister for Labor and Immigration (Mr Clyde Cameron) said in his second reading speech, the activities outside trade union training- of trade union leaders and delegates meeting employers and management specialists on industrial relations discussions- will go on just the same. In fact it will be improved. A more educated and more lucid group of people in the work force, who are able to share in any sort of discussion, will result from this new organisation.

I have never found any reason for lack of confidence on the part of trade union representatives or delegates. Secretaries and shop delegates are people who know the industry and more times than not, as I think Senator Mulvihill said, they know the business better than the boss. There is no reason why they should be shy about advancing their cause. Surely nobody wants to see a tame cat union movement with people whom one cannot respect, whom one cannot trust, who are not honest and with whom one cannot make deals. The country is moving the way it ought to move; that is, towards collective agreements, with the managers and the union officials respecting each other, being able to make a deal and knowing that they can be sure that the arrangement or agreement they have made will be properly protected and carried into effect.

In my own experience in the Labor movement -as most people know, I have been in it since I was 2 1 years old and I was a shop steward first and later a union secretary and a trades hall secretary- I have found that the experienced trade union advocate who is always prepared to give an honest deal is the man who makes the best progress. In addition, the manager who keeps his word also makes the best progress. That is not isolated to any one group or to any one part of the political spectrum. I found in my own experience that in many cases employers in my State often were more favourable to making agreements with left wing leaders whose word they could accept than to making agreements with some of the people in the middle of the political spectrum. It is a question of experience.

We propose to establish a Trade Union Training College. We will allow the people who will run the College to decide who shall go to the College. I think it was Senator Wright who said that he considered that there ought to be some sort of arrangement whereby a man who was not a union official ought to be able to go to the College. All I can say in answer to that is that it will be for the council, either a State council or the Australian Council, to decide who will be admitted. Any borderline case will be brought to the attention of the Minister and the Minister will make a direction. If the Minister makes a direction on this matter it will have to be reported to Parliament because, as honourable senators know, the Bill contains a provision for an annual report and a provision that any directions which the Minister gives have to be reported to the Parliament. I shall refer quickly to the aspects which Senator Scott raised. The Minister, in his second reading speech, said:

The training provided will be aimed primarily at promoting trade union competence. Such training will go towards bridging the gap between the unionists’ and managments level of industrial relations knowledge and technique. This will undoubtedly diminish the tensions and frustrations between the 2 parties and contribute to the more efficient avoidance and resolution of industrial conflict.

Concerning the question of isolation which Senator Scott raised, the Minister said:

Certainly both unionists and management representatives do attend courses and seminars in industrial relations and associated areas jointly. This is excellent and is to be encouraged. I least of all would support any idea of training activities for unionists being carried out in isolation from the rest of the community.

So it is clear that what we propose is a system which will bring into the workforce and into active association with managers, with industry and others a more accomplished set of union officials. We should remember that in Australia the membership of unions is at one of the highest levels in the world, with about 53 per cent of the workforce. In addition the Government has accepted an Opposition proposition to put on the Australian Council- and there will be an amendment following- a representative from each side of the Parliament, which means that Parliament will have some involvement in the activities of the Australian Council in respect of trade union education.

Many minor points have been raised. 1 think generally the speakers tended to roam all over the areas of industrial relations that were not pertinent to the Bill. Senator Wright referred to one or two propositions, such as the International Labour Organisation declarations. We all know that ILO conventions, declarations and recommendations are applicable to Australia, and my Government responded very quickly to the recommendations. We have ratified more recommendations and conventions since we have been in office than any other government has done, and we will abide by whatever the ILO recommends because we take part in it. The ILO is a tripartite organisation in which are involved governments, employers and the union movement, and we will support its conventions. The honourable senator also mentioned the Donovan report, which was one of the reports that recommended the amalgamation of unions and that also did not recommend the use of any penal clauses. I would say that Senator Wright’s contribution was mostly philosophical. What he did say was not new. What we are faced with in Australia is catching up with the trend in Western Europe, about which I spoke earlier.

Senator Guilfoyle:

asked questions about the cost of the college and what funds would be spent on the project. It has been approved that the college when built will cost between $4m and $5m and the sum of $3m will be appropriated to run the scheme. I remind senators that already an interim body is running this scheme and is presently conducting classes involving the participation of about 100 unions in Australia. For example, some of the activities that have been conducted by the interim committee are the trade union training course, the trade union research seminar, trade union administration, the Australian Public Service Union Officers’ course, advanced industrial officers’ course, national summer school, a course on wages, prices and profits, a seminar on women in the union movement. The interim committee is continuing to do a very good job. The representation for the Council is drawn largely from the union movement but it will come from the central organisations, which is a very sensible approach.

We will not be choosing union officials from any one single union. The Trades and Labor Council, the central national body will be asked to nominate union representatives. The Government has now agreed to allow and will move to have 2 members of the Parliament on the Council.

Senator Young made some odd references, again attacking, like many of the Opposition speakers, pommies and radical people in the labour movement. The labour movement covers a wide spectrum of people and if you are in any business you must deal with all kinds of people in industrial relations. The best employers in the country, those who have the best policies in industrial relations and the best record in industry, are those who deal with whomever represents the union movement and those whose word they can take. They do not select them on political grounds. The senator asked why we used such a glossy folder. The reason is that 3000 were printed. The venture is a new venture and ought to be understood and recognised by all sections of the economy, such as the manufacturers’ association, the employer organisations generally, the trade unions and many other bodies. The brochure that has been circulated in the Parliament is to be used publicly for telling the employer organisations and other interested bodies such as the trade unions and the Department of Labor an d Immigration. That is why the glossy brochure was printed. I have not got the cost of it but, when I get it, I will give it to him. Although the Senate roamed a lot and we would have liked to see the Bill passed earlier, I am glad that the Senate will approve of it. I have noticed what has been said in the other place and by Senator Scott about the acceptance by the Opposition of the project and that they will be looking to see what it does and how it will perform.

Finally, Mr Acting Deputy President, I will refer to the functions as set out in the Bill. In clause 5, the functions of the Authority are:

  1. To undertake and carry out the planning and development of programs of trade union training in Australia;
  2. To provide trade union training at the College and the Trade Union Training Centres.

Regarding suitable persons, clause 10 (2) (c) states: to arrange for suitable persons to undertake, at the College or elsewhere, research, or to make investigations and inquiries, for the purposes of determining what trade union training is required in Australia and the best methods of carrying out trade union training in Australia.

I think it is a great reform. Its performance will be tested and the Parliament has the advantage of being able to watch its functioning because it will have the annual report and will have 2 of its own members on the top Australian Council to decide how the organisation is running. There has been some question as to whether what we are doing is inconsistent with our own industrial objectives. The Conciliation and Arbitration Act, in which the section dealing with objects has not been amended for many years, reads as follows: 2. The chief objects of this Act are-

  1. to promote good will in industry; and provide means for,
  2. to encourage, conciliation with a view to amicable agreement, thereby preventing and settling industrial disputes;
  3. to provide means for preventing and settling industrial disputes not resolved by amicable agreement, including threatened, impending and probable industrial disputes, with the maximum of expedition and the minimum of legal form and technicality;
  4. to provide for the observance and enforcement of agreements and awards made for the prevention or settlement of industrial disputes;
  5. to encourage the organisation of representative bodies of employers and employees and their registration under this act; and
  6. to encourage the democratic control of organisations so registered and the fullest participation by members of such an organisation in the affairs of the organisation.

As everyone knows, since the Government has been in power we have introduced amendments to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act which have provided for that democratic control. Speaking generally I believe that the Labor Government’s record in these matters is very good. I hope that not only in respect of this Bill, the support of which I welcome, but also with respect to the amendments we are proposing to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act the Opposition senators will look again at what we have put up with a view to bringing about a new clinic between workers and employers.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Clauses 1 to 13- by leave- taken together.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

-I refer to clause 3 which contains the definition of ‘trade union training’. I do this because it seems that it was insufficiently understood during the second reading debate. I ask the Postmaster-General (Senator Bishop) by explicit reference to give me his understanding of what is intended by the various components of trade union training. Trade union training is defined as meaning:

  1. educational, technical or practical training-
  2. capable of advancing and developing an understanding of the functions and objectives of trade unions in Australian society; or

Will the Minister please advert to the words objectives of trade unions’? The definition continues:

  1. capable of advancing and developing knowledge and skills in fields connected with the powers and functions of trade unions or the powers, functions and duties of officers . . .

The paragraph refers to ‘fields connected with’. I ask the Minister to give me his understanding of that extension. The third thing that I note is contained in paragraph (b) where the content of the definition is ‘training for members of trade unions in any other fields’. My first point relates to the objectives of trade unions; my second point refers to the knowledge and skills in fields connected with the functions of trade unions, and my third point relates to the words ‘any other fields’. For the enlightenment of those honourable senators who took points of order during the second reading debate, I invite the Minister’s elucidation of those 3 matters in the definition of trade union training’.

Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– Paragraph (a) (i) of the definition of ‘trade union training’ reads:

  1. capable of advancing and developing an understanding of the functions and objectives of trade unions in Australian society;

That would relate to a training course which would provide historical information about trade unions and what they are doing today. It would take into account the activities of unions in the field of arbitration. It would deal with the question of safety in industry. It would cover the role of the shop steward at the ground floor level. So paragraph (a) (i) would be related more to the basic part of a union official’s duties. Paragraph (a) (ii) of the definition reads:

  1. capable of advancing and developing knowledge and skills in fields connected with the powers and functions of trade unions or the powers, functions and duties of officers or officials of trade unions;

I think that this relates to the wider organisational activities of a union delegate who wants to go on to a mangement committee; a member of a union who wants to become a union official; or a member who wants to become a special officer of the union- an advocate in the court, who is called an industrial relations officer or assistant secretary. That is the person who argues a case on the basis of some sort of scientific approach before the courts or before the employers. The other point raised by Senator Wright relates to paragraph (b) of the definition which reads:

  1. educational, technical and practical training for members of trade unions in any other fields approved by the Australian Council.

I think it is expected that a trade union official has also to be knowledgeable about a number of matters including public administration and questions concerning inflation and the economy. He would expect to be trained and to be brought up to date by a person well qualified to talk about the economy and perhaps public administration. This is getting into a wider field which perhaps is somewhat outside of what a person is doing in his normal union job but it is an area which it is essential to understand in presenting a case before a court. Union representatives do this sort of thing today. In the old days unions used to send before the national wage hearing people like Bill Evans, who was for many years the Federal Secretary of the Federated Enginedrivers and Firemen’s Union, and Terry Winter who on their own account were not economists but who had to develop the skills of an economist to present cases at national wage hearings. They had to be equipped to do the job. They developed their skills by going to universities, adult education courses and so on like many of us did. I think I have answered the points raised by Senator Wright. If he has some other questions I would be pleased to answer them.

Senator Wright:

– I am much obliged to you. It completely shows the relevance of all the debate this afternoon.

Senator STEELE HALL:
South AustraliaLeader of the Liberal Movement

– I notice in paragraph (a) (i) of the definition of trade union training’ the words ‘objectives of trade unions’, as has been mentioned by Senator Wright and by the Postmaster-General (Senator Bishop) in reply. I would like to know whether the training refers to the political objective of a union which, of course, is regarded as a legitimate objective of unions themselves. They affiliate with political parties, in particular and most often the Labor Party, and each member pays certain fees. As I understand it, the Labor Party then regards them as members of the Labor Party for voting purposes. So I do not think one argues that there is no political objective in most unions in Australia and as the objectives are quite baldly stated does that then encompass, as I take it to be, political objectives as there is no gradation of objectives in the definition?

Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– There is no such intention at all. As far as I am aware none of the courses which have been arranged by the Interim Council is so designed. As Senator Hall well knows, the Workers Educational Association has for many years been conducting courses related to trade unions. In earlier days I participated in preparing some papers on the subject of trade unions for some people. I would think that in this case the only use of any notation about political affiliations would be simply to identify perhaps for historical purposes where a union movement has been allied to particular parties. There is certainly no intention in any way to become involved in any political canvassing. What the unions do about their political affiliations is in the spectrum of politics. We all know that the Labor Party, as Senator Hall has put it, is historically largely based on the union movement in most of the countries that we have been talking about tonight. What Senator Hall has suggested certainly will not be a function of this Council. We have agreed, as honourable senators know, that the syllabuses to be established will be open to scrutiny by the Parliament. As I have said before, honourable senators will have before them the annual reports and there will also be the involvement of 2 members of the Parliament in the affairs of the Council.

Clauses agreed to.

Clause 14.

  1. 1 ) The Australian Council shall consist of the following part-time members: (a) the Secretary or, if the Minister appoints another officer of the Department to be a member in place of the Secretary, the officer so appointed;

    1. f) 6 other members, namely, one member appointed by the Minister on the nomination of each of the following Councils:
    1. The Labor Council of New South Wales;
    2. Victorian Trades Hall Council; (iti) The Trades and Labor Council of Queensland;
    3. The United Trades and Labor Council of South Australia:
    4. Trades and Labor Council of Western Australia; and
    5. vi) Tasmanian Trades and Labor Council;

  2. The Australian Council shall be deemed to have been constituted upon the appointment of the members referred to in paragraphs ( 1 ) (c), (d), (e) and (f).

Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– I move:

This is a technical amendment which seeks to remove from sub-clause ( 1 ) (f) the word ‘other’. The word ‘other’ was included when paragraph (f) was the last paragraph of this sub-clause. Paragraphs (g), (h) and (i) have been added to sub-clause (1) following the acceptance of an amendment moved in the other place by the honourable member for Corangamite (Mr Street). Therefore the word ‘other’ in paragraph

  1. needs to be removed. Sub-clause (4) of clause 14 reads:

The Australian Council shall be deemed to have been constituted upon the appointment of the members referred to in paragraphs ( 1 ) (c), (d), (e) and (f).

That part of the clause will now read: ‘( 1 ) (c), (d), (e), (f). (g), (h) and (i)’ after I move the next amendment which is necessary because of the amendment moved by Mr Street. I move:

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 15 and 16- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 17.

  1. Subject to sub-section ( 1 ), a member (other than the Secretary or Director of the College) or deputy member of the Australian Council holds office until he resigns his office or his appointment is terminated in accordance with section 28.
Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– I move:

This amendment deals with the tenure of office of members of the Australian Council. It is necessary to provide for the tenure of office of the 3 members of the Australian Council comprehended by Mr Street’s amendment. It provides for those 3 members to be appointed for 3 years. Mr Street’s amendment makes necessary a further consequential amendment to add a new sub-clause (3) to provide for other members of the Australian Council holding office until their resignation is effected.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

-Do I understand the effect of this proposed amendment to be that those members other than parliamentary members hold office until they resign or their appointments are terminated under clause 28? In what circumstances does clause 28 operate? I should have thought it was appropriate that these appointments be for a fixed term in the same way as other appointments generally are. As I understand the terms in which clause 28 is couched, it is really a forfeiture clause. I should have thought that for a parliamentary member of the Council one would fix a term of 3 years and it seems to be intended that members other than parliamentary members hold office until they resign or their appointments are forfeited under clause 28. 1 should like to know whether I am correct.

Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– The situation is as Senator Wright points out. The reason for it is that the people who have been nominated come from State Labor Councils, the Council of Commonwealth Public Service Associations or the Australian Council for Salaried and Professional Officers. Generally speaking they have a regular interchange of delegates. It may well be and probably will be that although the provision is included every 2 years or so the organisation will change its member and he will not resign until the Minister accepts his resignation. That is the reason for not having a fixed term. A fixed term might have been possible but the experience has been that unions usually have annual elections and often change their nominees more frequently than every 3 years. It was thought by the Government and its advisers that it was not necessary in this circumstance to include a fixed period because there will certainly be a turnover in the membership.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 18.

  1. At a meeting of the Australian Council, the Chairman, or the Deputy Chairman, of the Australian Council and 6 other members of the Australian Council constitute a quorum.
Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– I move:

The change here is simply a change in the number required to form a quorum. Because the members have been added to by the representations I have mentioned it has been necessary to increase a quorum from 6 to 8.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 19.

  1. The Council established by sub-section 9 (2) for a State shall consist of the following part-time members: -

    1. an officer of the Department appointed by the Minister;
    2. the Director of the Trade Union Training Centre for the State;
    3. 3 members appointed by the Minister on the nomination of the relevant trade union organisation referred to in sub-section ( 5 );
Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– I move:

This amendment corrects a printing error in subclause 19.( 1) (c) ofthe Bill

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

-May I take the opportunity on this clause to direct the specific attention of the Postmaster-General (Senator Bishop) to a question that I asked at the second reading stage to which he was good enough to refer somewhat indefinitely. I ask whether the Minister will give me an assurance that there is nothing in the Bill to preclude a nonmember of a trade union being accepted for a course in any of a college’s or centre’s courses. If that is so, can I be assured that reasonable consideration will be given to the inclusion of non-members in those courses when the Council considers access?

Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– I understand what Senator Wright said. I am sorry that I did not mention the matter earlier. There will be no prohibition against a non-unionist who wants to undertake a course, but it must be obvious that if attention is to be paid to his training, and if the Government is to spend the money on his training his objective must be to assume an office in the trade union movement. So, logically, one would expect him to set out on a course designed for the trade union movement with the object that he would at some time join a union.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– My question to the Postmaster-General (Senator Bishop) is on sub-clause 19. (1)(g) concerning part-time members of a State Council, which reads: 1 member appointed by the Minister on the nomination of an organisation representing teachers in the State.

I think the Minister will have no difficulty with New South Wales where the Teachers Federation is virtually all-embracing. I am just wondering what criteria the Minister would apply to make such an appointment in a State where there could be a fragmentation of teacher organisations.

Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– I think the test must obviously be whether the Minister appoints an appropriate representative, which I think he would obviously do. But in the event that Senator Mulvihill or somebody else thought that the Minister was appointing a member of a State Council who did not represent the teachers, there is available the method of checking that I mentioned earlier. The Councils can decide, the Trades and Labor Council representative can query the appointment, it can be brought to the attention of the Minister by a member or it can be raised when the matter is reported to Parliament.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 20 to 26- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 27.

  1. 1 ) A member of a council other than the Secretary or a Director may resign his office by writing under his hand delivered to the Minister, but the resignation does not have effect until it is accepted by the Minister.
  2. A deputy member of a council may resign his office by writing under his hand delivered to the Minister, but the resignation does not have effect until it is accepted by the Minister.
Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– I move:

The amendment deals with the resignation of Council members. It is necessary to cover the resignation of the members appointed by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, as honourable senators will see.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 28. (3)lf-

  1. a member or deputy member of a council to whom this section applies becomes bankrupt, applies to take the benefit of any law for the relief of bankrupt or insolvent debtors, compounds with his creditors or makes an assignment of his remuneration for their benefit;
  2. the organisation upon whose nomination a member or deputy member of a council to whom this section applies was appointed notifies the Minister in writing that it has withdrawn the nomination of the member or the deputy member; or
  3. a member or deputy member of a council to whom this section applies fails to comply with his obligations under section 29, the Minister shall terminate the appointment of the member or deputy member, as the case may be.
Senator Wright:

- Mr Temporary Chairman, would it be convenient to the Committee and the Postmaster-General if the Postmaster-General were to take together amendments Nos. 7 and 8 circulated in his name? I suggest that they are complementary.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Davidson:

– Is it the wish of the Committee to take both amendments together There being no objection, it is so ordered.

Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– I move:

Amendment No. 7- the first amendmentprovides for the members of Parliament who are members of the Australian Council to be removed from office by the Minister for Labor and Immigration should they cease to become members of Parliament. Amendment No. 8- the second circulated amendment is designed to cover the situation that can arise when a member of Parliament who is a member of the Australian Council is re-elected at an election. It ensures that such a person will still be classed as a member of Parliament while he continues to be entitled to the parliamentary allowances that are payable to him as a member of Parliament.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I wish to express some concern at the proprietary of proposed sub-clause (3A). I submit that the representative of the Prime Minister, the representative of the Leader of the Opposition and the nominee of the Minister for Education will be put there as members of Parliament for the specific purpose each has in his own field. The representative of the Prime Minister will be put there to represent the Government, the representative of the Leader of the Opposition will be put there to represent the Opposition and the Minister for Education’s nominees will be a member of Parliament who represents educational interests. I submit that it is in their capacity as members of Parliament that those persons will be appointed to the Council to represent three particular sections of the existing Parliament. I raise some doubts as to the propriety of continuing their membership of the Council after they have ceased to be members of Parliament. I do not feel persuaded that it is proper to extend their representation after they cease to be members of Parliament simply because they are drawing the parliamentary retiring allowance. It has been provided in the Bill that each of those nominees shall hold office for 3 years. We are now providing that upon their ceasing to be members of Parliament the Minister shall terminate their appointments. I wish to express the view that that is where the matter should rest and that once a member of the Council ceases to be a member of Parliament he no longer represents the Government, the Opposition or the educational interests in this Parliament on the Council. It is my personal opinion that amendment No. 8 is ill advised and should not be proceeded with.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I wish to make a point that I feel that Senator Wright may have overlooked something. Let us take as an example- it is a purely hypothetical one but such a situation could occur- the case of the appointment to the Council of a gentleman like the former member of Parliament from Western Australia, Harry Webb, who had a vast knowledge of trade unionism. Why should the undoubted industrial knowledge of a gentleman like him who does not hold a marginal seat be cut down like a branch off a tree? I believe that such talent should be utilised further; otherwise there could be a constant changeover of personnel.

Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– At this stage I cannot undertake to do other than to report to the Government and the Minister for Labor and Immigration (Mr Clyde Cameron) what Senator Wright has stated and ask them to consider the matter. The point Senator Wright raised was not picked up in the other place. The provision is designed to provide for what I think is a generally accepted situation. A member of Parliament who stands for re-election will receive his parliamentary allowance until he is defeated at the election. The intention is simply to preserve that continuity. When the Parliament is prorogued he will not lose his allowance as from that date but will continue to receive it until he is defeated at an election.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– If that is the intention I have no objection. I read the reference to ‘parliamentary allowance’ there as retiring allowance’. It seemed to be natural to take that as the meaning of the words ‘any person who had ceased to be a member’. In the light of the explanation given there is nothing in my objection and I will not pursue it.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 29 to 51- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Proposed new clause 5 lA.

Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– I move:

After clause 5 1 , insert the following new clause: - 5 1 a. ( 1 ) A council may, either generally or otherwise as provided by a resolution of the council, delegate to a member of the council or to an officer of the Authority any of its powers under this Act, other than this power of delegation.

A power so delegated by a council, when exercised by the delegate, shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to have been exercised by the council.

a delegation by a council under this section does not prevent the exercise of a power by the council. ‘.

It simply means that if the power of delegation was not there a council would have to act all the time as a full council. As a result of an objection raised by Mr Street to the Minister, which the Minister has accepted, we have left in the words an officer’ but have taken out the words ‘or employee’.

Proposed new clause agreed to.

Remainder of Bill- by leave- taken as a whole, and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.

Third Reading

Motion (by Senator Bishop) proposed:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

-The consideration of this Bill, including the Committee stage, has taken 4 hours 33 minutes. The second reading debate did not take 6 hours, as the Postmaster-General (Senator Bishop) stated.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 1978

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION BILL 1975

In Committee

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– I ask the Minister for Manufacturing Industry (Senator James McClelland) whether it is intended to apply to the relevant authorities for the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination to be ratified and whether that application is to be made forthwith.

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

– The answer is yes. I move the following amendment:

In sub-clause (3), leave out ‘or members of the Council or to make regulations under this Act’, substitute ‘or to make regulations under this Act and the power of the AttorneyGeneral to appoint members of the Council ‘.

The amendment is necessary as a result of an error in the original drafting of the Bill. It had been wrongly assumed that members of the Community Relations Council were to be appointed by the Governor-General, when in fact they are to be appointed by the AttorneyGeneral. It is purely a machinery amendment. I would anticipate that there would be no objection to it.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– I am sure that there is no objection, from what I recall the Minister for Manufacturing Industry (Senator James McClelland) saying.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3 to 16- by leave- taken together.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– I speak particularly to clause 7, which states:

Approval is given to ratification by Australia of the Convention.

I would appreciate a response from the Minister for Manufacturing Industry (Senator James McClelland)- I notice that he has an adviser from the Attorney-General’s Department adjacent to him; so advice might be taken if he feels he needs it- about the impact of the ratification. The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination came into force as a convention in 1 969. Prior to 1969 Australia’s role had been to vote in the United Nations General Assembly for the Convention. It had not, and has not until now, actually ratified the Convention. The attitude of the previous Government was that unless it could give effect in Australia to all the provisions of the Convention it was not appropriate for the Australian Government to take action to ratify the Convention. It indicated its general approval of the principles contained in the Convention by its vote in favour of it in the United Nations General Assembly.

One of the problems which any examination of the Convention highlights is the difficulties of giving effect to the terms of the Convention. The first difficulty which comes to mind is that, on a reading of the Australian Constitution, the power to make laws about racial discrimination seems to rest with the States. There is certainly no express power in the Commonwealth Parliament to make laws with respect to the outlawing of racial discrimination. If there is such a power, as was adverted to in the course of the second reading debate, it must be on a generous interpretation of the Commonwealth Parliament’s power to make laws with respect to external affairs. Whatever the ultimate interpretation by the High Court of these various contentions may be, it is apparent, on the face of it, that there is a practical difficulty which the most cursory examination would reveal. That is the first difficulty.

The second difficulty is that mutually inconsistent provisions are contained in the Convention. Those mutually inconsistent provisions create particular difficulties. I refer the Minister to Article 4 which provides that adherents to the Convention are to ‘condemn all propaganda and all organisations which are based on ideas or theories of superiority of one race or group of persons of one colour or ethnic origin, or which attempt to justify or promote racial hatred and discrimination in any form, and undertake to adopt immediate and positive measures designed to eradicate all incitement to, or acts of, such discrimination’. Then there are some specific requirements. For example, there is a requirement to declare an offence punishable by law all dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred, incitement to racial discrimination, as well as all acts of violence or incitement to such acts. There is also an obligation to declare illegal and to prohibit organisations and also organised and all other propaganda activities which promote and incite racial discrimination. We argued about this matter during the second reading debate. Whatever one might say about ideas based on racial discrimination, just as one might say a lot of things about other social or political tenets to which one can express abhorrence, in this country we have endeavoured to provide as much free speech as we can. To give effect to that aspect of the Convention would involve taking action in this country which I am sure we all would wish to avoid.

Under Article 5 of the Convention there is an undertaking to guarantee the right of everyone, without distinction as to race, colour, or national or ethnic origin, to equality before the law, notably in the enjoyment of certain specified rights. Sub-paragraphs (vii) and (viii) of paragraph (d) refer to the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion and to the right to freedom of opinion and expression. I invite the Minister to say how this difficulty is to be resolved. There are conflicting principles inherent in the Convention and they have posed an inescapable decision. They posed a tremendously difficult decision for the previous Government. Apparently they do not present the same difficulty for this Government. This is why I ask how the Government can in justice ratify this Convention when it does not propose to carry out the obligations which the Convention imposes, except by preferring one aspect of the Convention over another aspect of the Convention. The Convention contains these illiberal provisions. They challenge freedom of speech on the justification, presumably, that such steps are necessary to abolish racial discrimination. It is conceivable that people could say that freedom of speech is a better proposition to sustain and that good ideas, superior ideas and superior precepts will, in a free and open encounter, prove superior. In view of the controversy which has developed over the attitudes of differing governments, these are matters which I think this Government ought to explain. This is the appropriate area in which to make the explanation. How does the Government justify its ratification of the Convention, having regard to those provisions?

The secondary broad question which arises, I think, under this matter is: What does Australia propose to do under the terms of the Convention once it is ratified? As I understand the Articles in the Convention, once we have ratified the Convention, under Article 1 1 and Article 12 another state can criticise Australia because it has not observed the provisions of the Convention. At present there is a senior public servant in this country who has been abroad and, while abroad, declared Australia to be a racist country. Mr Charles Perkins has made no secret of the fact that he proposes to continue to embarrass Australia and the Australian Government. I leave aside the question whether it is proper in those circumstances that he should be allowed to remain as a member of the Commonwealth Public Service without proceedings being taken against him. But what he is doing is bound to attract attention around the world. It is bound to attract the attention of other parties to this Convention.

I regret that Australia could become the focal point for the attention of other nations and that conceivably action could be taken against Australia under this Convention. It is quite clear that if another country protests about Australia’s behaviour, there is a procedure under which the International Committee and the International Commission may meet and consider Australia’s position. It does not appear to be very clear what the outcome of such an investigation might be, particularly if Australia does not accept the views of the other countries which have criticised Australia. Equally, there is a right in any individual, as I understand the Convention, to criticise a party to the Convention. If Australia is criticised by an individual, whether or not other States can examine that individual’s complaint depends on whether or not Australia has indicated it has made a declaration that it is prepared to accept all such criticisms.

I wish to know what the Government proposes to do in that area, if it has given consideration to it. These aspects are not academic questions. We have seen in the United Nations how in the name of racial discrimination countries like Rhodesia and South Africa have been treated as pariahs and have been excluded from the world community. Other countries which practise racial discrimination are lauded in the United Nations and are permitted to condemn other countries while their own conduct remains unexamined. One suspects that there are forces at work in Australia which would like to see this country hauled before the United Nations and possibly treated in the way that South Africa and Rhodesia have been treated. Therefore, it is a matter of some concern as to the course which the Australian Government proposes to follow. I believe that this is one of the consequences which flow from moving into this area. Although I do not embark on the matters raised in the second reading debate, possibly this movement is one that has concealed problems which have not been properly thought out. I have touched upon some of those problems. I would be grateful for the Minister’s response.

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

- Mr Temporary Chairman, I understand Senator Greenwood has indicated -of course this attitude was expressed in the vote at the second reading stage- that the Opposition does not oppose this Bill, but it is becoming increasingly obvious that Senator Greenwood accepts the Bill with great reluctance.

Senator Greenwood:

– Reservations, I think, is a better expression.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-What Senator Greenwood has just said is really a captious objection. He is saying, in effect, that even if we pass this Bill, even if we ratify this Conventionof course, we have to pass the Bill in order to ratify the Convention- we will still be subject to international criticism. There is no question about that. Every country of every ideology has the right to criticise the conduct of another country. We will not escape any slurs about racist conduct in Australia merely by passing this Bill. Every nation which believes that it has a superior morality or a superior legal code to ours- no matter how misguided it may be- will still obviously claim the right to criticise Australia, even if we pass this Bill.

The International Committee which is set up more or less to police this Convention has, as part of its charter, to consider questions as to whether countries which ratify the Convention are really complying with the spirit of the Convention. It has the power to deal with matters of complaint- the sort of matters about which Senator Greenwood was talking- after it has been ascertained that all available domestic remedies have been invoked and exhausted. That means that the constitutional limitations, the general juristic limitations, on our power to deal with racial discrimination in this country will be considered by that Committee in considering as a result of complaints whether we have complied with the terms of the Convention.

Of course, the fact that there is a man named Perkins who has gone from this country and has used all methods of propaganda to criticise Australia is quite beside the point which we are considering. The fact that we are attempting to deal with matters of racial discrimination in this country does not affect the fact that people who consider themselves to be aggrieved by our laws will avail themselves of their freedom to criticise us. Senator Cavanagh amply answered a question on the activities of Mr Perkins during question time a day or so ago. We abhor the conduct of Mr Perkins in availing himself of a Commonwealth grant and then going and using the world forum to criticise the country which gave him that benefit. I think I should fall back on a comment which Senator Greenwood made in his speech in the second reading debate, which I refer to as his Voltairean stance: He may abhor somebody’s opinions but he defends to the death his right to express them. If we are to appear in the eyes of the world as a country which abhors racial discrimination, and which does what it can to eliminate racial discrimination, we just have to cop it sweet, to use a good old Australian expression. When Mr Perkins goes abroad at Government expense and tells the world that we are a racist society, I think we do something to advance our cause as a non-racist society if we allow Mr Perkins- we have not got much choice anyway- to say what he likes about us. A nonracist society or a society which is trying to eliminate racial discrimination is, I suggest, a society which can stand such criticism and which can say: ‘We stand on our record and we are doing what we can to eliminate racial discrimination. ‘ But Mr Perkins, the signatories to this Convention and the rest of the world can go before whatever forum is available to them and still call us racist; we will be judged by our performance.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

– I would like very briefly to say something about the 2 points which Senator Greenwood raised. The first one was in relation to clause 7 of the Bill. Senator Greenwood was wondering whether this ratification would stand up under the external affairs power of the Commonwealth. I express my view that I think it should stand up. It seems to me to be an obvious matter involving Australia’s external affairs, whereas many of the other matters raised in the debate were concerned with more remote arrangements which might be made between countries and which might not end up in the same situation. I certainly have great confidence that that particular clause will be sustained.

The second point raised by Senator Greenwood is a point which I first raised partially last night. There does appear to be in my mind an internal inconsistency in Articles 4 and 5 of the International Convention. Though that be so, of course, it is to my mind but a minor aspect of the whole Convention but one in relation to which I think we can claim quite justifiably that we could not comply with the declaration of offences in the manner in which Article 4 (a) requires in respect of dissemination of ideas because, to quote Article 2, this would not be appropriate means which a State would be required to pursue in taking action under the Convention.

The other aspect to which Senator Greenwood referred was the right to freedom of expression of opinion and peaceful assembly and association in Article 5. We must maintain those things. If we are subjected at some time, as we probably will be, to some view from overseas that we should take some action and stop the dissemination of ideas, I think that we can rely upon what is a reasonable interpretation of the Convention and make consistent what appears at first sight to be internally inconsistent. I agree with Senator James McClelland when he said that we have been criticised in the past; that we will be criticised in the future; and that the adoption of this Convention is not going to make any great difference in that regard.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– I wonder whether the Minister for Manufacturing Industry (Senator James McCelland) could advert- he did not advert, as I recall his remarks- to the aspect which Senator Missen has also raised. Even if that position is not adverted to, is the Minister able to say whether the Government is proposing to make a declaration in the terms of Article 14 of the Convention? Clause 1 of Article 14 states:

A State Party may at any time declare that it recognises the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications from individuals or groups of individuals within its jurisdiction claiming to be victims of a violation by that State Party of any of the rights set forth in this Convention. No communication shall be received by the Committee if it encounters a State Party which has not made such a declaration.

It is in that regard that the issues raised by reference to Mr Perkins would become of some relevance. I regret the manner in which Mr Perkins is belittling his own country, and yet I accept what Senator James McCelland said: If he wants to speak in that way, we in this country acknowledge his right to do so. But one can certainly regret it. One wonders at the same time, however, whether he should be able to do that with the standing of a senior public servant of this country. In the light of Mr Perkins, reported utterances since he returned to Australia, it may well be that once the Convention is ratified this particular avenue will be available to him. There may well be other countries which would welcome receiving a complaint from Mr Perkins, from people in a position similar to that of Mr Perkins, or from people holding the views held by Mr Perkins. It therefore is a matter of some substance. I would be grateful if the Minister could indicate whether this matter has received attention or whether he just regards it, as he said earlier, as captious.

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

– The answer to the last point raised by Senator Greenwood is no, I do not. It is interesting to note that only Sweden and Uruguay have made a declaration in terms of

Article 14. The Netherlands has also made a partial declaration applying, inter alia, in respect of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in Europe. No decision has yet been made as to whether Australia will make a declaration. This is a matter which we do not take lightly but which we will take under consideration in the light of the manner in which this Act works once it becomes law.

Clauses agreed to.

Proposed new clause 16A.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– I move:

I think that the Committee is entitled to a short explanation as to how a provision which makes the incitement of an act unlawful comes to be moved as an amendment when there is in the Bill a later provision which makes it an offence for a person to incite the doing of an act which is unlawful. It is precisely because there is an offence provision that the Opposition has moved this amendment. The scheme of the Bill is that in clauses 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 there are a number of activities which are declared to be unlawful if they take place by reason of an act of racial discrimination, as that expression is used throughout those clauses. Those activities simply are declared to be unlawful. The Bill then provides a means whereby enforcement in respect of those unlawful acts is entrusted to a commissioner or to an agreed individual. Certain civil remedies flow if the unlawfulness is established to the satisfaction of the court. The court then may make the award of damages or impose injunctions. Putting it shortly, the declaration of activities as being unlawful leads to consequences of a civil character.

The Opposition proposes, by its amendments, that the Senate should agree to retaining those unlawful provisions and moderating the powers of the commissioner in respect of their enforcement. So there will be no change if the Opposition’s amendments are successful in those provisions. But there is a provision in the Bill which makes it a criminal offence to incite the doing of any of these unlawful acts. Clause 29 states:

A person shall not incite the doing of an act that is unlawful by reason of a provision of Part II.

Penalty: $5,000.

It seems to the Opposition quite anomalous that you have a number of unlawful acts which are capable of being prosecuted by civil proceedings in which no criminal penalty can be imposed, and yet a person who incites the doing of that act is liable to a penalty of $5,000. 1 leave aside the fact that the person does not have the right to a jury trial; he is liable to be just hauled up before the court and dealt with as any other person alleged to be guilty of a criminal offence is liable to be dealt with. It adds to the anomaly that a person may do an unlawful act and be the principal offender but he might be told by the court that he should not have done it and on his assurance that he will not do it again in the future no order will be made, or he might be required by injunction to desist from such conduct in the future. But a person who said something which amounts to an incitement is not able to be treated in that way. That person is liable to a penalty of up to $5,000.

There is an anomaly in that situation. We in the Opposition agree that if we retain the provisions which make certain activities unlawful, it is a proper thing that, if a person incites another person to do that unlawful act, that also should be unlawful and should be dealt with in precisely the same way as the other unlawful activities may be dealt with. In order to achieve that objective we have moved to insert new clause 16A. It is apparent from what I have said that we will seek in due course to delete clause 29.

Senator CHANEY:
Western Australia

– I rise to support the Opposition amendment and the remarks made by Senator Greenwood. I find it a little puzzling that what is set out in clause 29 is a criminal offence when the other matter to which it relates are all dealt with as civil matters. I find that particularly curious in the light of some of the comments of” the AttorneyGeneral, Mr Enderby, in a speech reported in the ‘Australian Government Weekly Digest’, Volume 1, Number 5. At page 133, and I agree with this comment, he said:

I also mention that the remedies provided under our legislation are civil remedies and not criminal remedies. We consider that to introduce the criminal law into this area would be wrong because it would only serve to exacerbate tensions that underlie race relations.

I find it a little curious that this matter of incitement is dealt with in the way it is. Very careful consideration has been given by the Opposition Parties to this aspect of the Bill. I think it would be fair to say that we are at one with the comments of the Attorney-General that the introduction of the criminal law would bring a bludgeon into an area where a rather softer touch is required.

The other thing I find a little strange is that there has been some compromise by the Government. It was expressed as a compromise in the Committee debate in the Lower House. The Government amended the clause and removed from it what was originally sub-clause (b), which made it an offence to assist or promote, whether by financial assistance or otherwise, the doing of such an act or the commission of such an offence. The Committee will notice that our amendment picks up the 2-headed character of the original clause 31,1 think it was, and retains the 2 classificationsthe incitement or the assisting or promoting- and, I think far more consistently than what is in the Bill at present, fits this aiding and abetting clause in with the clauses to which it relates. I am a little curious as to why the Government adopted the stance it has adopted. I would have hoped that rather than adopt the compromise it has to date it would revert more to the original wording and have the 2 heads to the clause to bring it back into the civil arena.

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

– The Government does not feel strongly about this amendment, but I would like to give some logical sort of explanation of the stand we take. Our attitude is that the remedies which should be available in this proposed statute primarily should be civil remedies. I think the whole purport of the Bill is that there is a minimum of criminal penalties provided. The suggestion is that in this field incitement is a lesser offence than the actual committing of the offence. I am not using the word offence’ in a technical legal sense. In general 1 suppose it would be conceded by anybody that to murder a man is a more serious crime than to incite somebody to murder a man. That may be arguable. It seems that there is some dispute among the lawyers about it. The fact that they have some doubt about it highlights the dilemma that we face here. What is the greater offence in the field of racial discrimination?

I take the worst historical example that we have had in recent history, the example of Nazi Germany. It must be obvious to anybody looking at the history of the worst excesses of the Nazis that in the hearts of a large section of the German people were deep seated atavistic passions of hatred for the Jewish people. Not only that; there were obvious manifestations of it every day. Discrimination was practised by people infected with the anti-semitic virus. In this Bill we attempt to strike against such attitudes by imposing civil remedies for those who are the victims of such practices. But surely it is something a little more heinous than harbouring those civil passions to actively incite people to indulge their prejudices. I suppose that if I sought an analogy I could take the question of drugs. It is commonly accepted that it is far more heinous to be a pedlar of drugs than to be a user of drugs. I would put the inciter of racial prejudice in an analogous position of that of the pedlar of drugs, as against the man who harbours the racial poison of antisemitism or anti-colour. This is the thinking behind the inclusion of clause 29, which the Opposition proposes to excise.

The reason why the Opposition is moving to insert new clause 16A is to place among the civil offences what it is removing as a criminal offence. I do not see anything illogical or inconsistent in the proposition that it is more evil to incite to racial discrimination than to practise acts of racial discrimination. That is our thinking behind this. Also, there is the technical matter that the Convention does require us to make incitement to racial discrimination a criminal offence.

Proposed new clause agreed to.

Clause 17 (Liability of principals and employers).

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– The Opposition opposes clause 17 and will vote against it. This is an exceptional provision in the sense that it reverses the onus of proof. Clause 17 deals with the liabilities of principals and employers and provides:

Any act that is done in contravention of a provision of this Part by a person as the agent or employee of another person shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, to be done by that other person as well as by the first-mentioned person unless that other person did not, either before or after the doing of the act, authorise the first-mentioned person, either expressly or by implication, to do the act.

It is a general rule that no act or default on the part of an agent imposes any criminal liability on the principal in respect of that act unless the principal himself took part in, authorised or connived at the commission of the act or default. That is a well-established and accepted principle of our law. It is not to be inferred that because a person has employed the agent or servant in the conduct of a business the principal has given him authority to commit crimes or offences. A principal therefore is not generally liable for the acts or omissions of his agent. On that general basis, if an agent commits a crime the agent is liable as it may be established against him. If it is sought to impute wrongdoing to the principal, then, in accordance with the ordinary legal canons, that has to be proved against the principal. It has to be shown that the principal authorised or connived at what took place or took part in the actual commission of the act or the default that is culpable.

That is not what this clause provides. This clause certainly places responsibility on the person who does the act. It is proper- we do not seek to alter this aspect- that a person who does an act in contravention of the Part is liable for the consequences that follow. But the proviso places upon the principal the onus of establishing that he did not either expressly or by implication do the act. He is deemed, in effect, to be guilty unless he can establish that he is not guilty. Whilst this may be a fine point and one that appeals more to lawyers than to the laymen, it is still tremendously important that the onus of proof should always rest upon those who allege a wrongdoing.

I do not want to go into too many examples, because we are dealing with legislation that at some stage may have to come before a court and it is always imprudent to try to forecast what might be the consequences. But, if there is the provision of services or the selling of a house and the employee or the agent commits an act of racial discrimination in the performance of his duties, then that is the commission of an act that is unlawful. If he did it without the knowledge of his employer or principal, the employer or principal would be under no liability whatsoever. But, under this provision as it stands, the employer or the principal would, in effect, be deemed to be responsible unless he exculpated himself- unless he showed that he had not expressly or impliedly authorised the act. The Opposition simply says that that should not be the position and that if the principal is to be liable it should be established against him. Therefore we will oppose this clause. The result of opposing the clause will simply be that if an unlawful act is committed the person who has committed the unlawful act will be proceeded against in the ordinary way. There is no need for any provision dealing with principals and agents.

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

– I can understand Senator Greenwood’s anxiety. Anybody who has practised as a lawyer is anxious about any reversal of the accepted onus of proof in matters of contravention of the law; but I think it would be easy to get carried away with addiction to this principle. After all, we are not dealing here with criminal offences; we are dealing with a matter for which there is a civil remedy and, as a matter of practicality, it is very difficult to see how what we are seeking to achieve in this clause could be achieved without this reversal of the ordinary onus.

Let me give an example to illustrate what I am talking about. Take the case of a barman in a hotel who takes it upon himself to refuse to serve an Aborigine or a man from a country in the far north. I am seeking an example of the people who threaten our way of life. I am thinking of someone from a country such as Malaysia or Vietnam- the people about whom some of our citizens feel some paranoia. Suppose the barman said, as this man walked in and asked for a schooner, or even a glass of lemonade, ‘No, we do not serve people like you’- and one can imagine the colourful terms that some of our barmen use. It could be said that this was just an expression of prejudice on the part of the barman, but the case might be that the barman in this hotel was under general riding instructions from the proprietor of the hotel to this effect: ‘We do not have those so-and-so’s in this pub.’ A complaint against the barman would have no effect. The complaint really is against the policy of that hotel. If there is to be any remedy for people who want to drink in that hotel they have to have the practice of the hotel reversed. Unless the proprietor of the hotel can be brought to book for practices which he has instructed his barmen to put into effect, no remedies are available to the people who are victimised by the practice.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Is a master not responsible for the action of his servant?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-This is a delicate matter of law, as pointed out by Senator Greenwood. In a criminal sense, there is a heavier onus to prove in the case in point that it was the publican who told the barman to act in a certain way. It seems to me to be a not unreasonable onus if this is to be workable at all. Surely every publican would be able to say: ‘This is not my policy. I just happen to have a racist barman. I just happen to have a bloke out there in the public bar who just does not happen to like Aborigines. It is nothing to do with me’. Every day an Aboriginal could come into the hotel and be refused a drink by this barman or another barman. This practice could go on for ever and the matter would never be remedied. If a publican does not have such a policy and if he does not mind having Aborigines drinking in his hotel he could come along to the court and say, in accordance with this provision: ‘This was none of my doing. This was the independent act of my barman’. In the absence of countervailing evidence he would be believed and would not be penalised. But if the practice went on day after day and month after month the capacity of that publican to raise this defence would, as a matter of practice, be eroded.

As a way of making the remedies that we propose practicable I suggest that this reversal of onus is eminently reasonable. The publican who had not instructed his barman to refuse to serve Aborigines and who had reprimanded his barman and told him to reverse that practice would surely be in the clear before the law, but if this practice went on and on he would not be able to discharge the mild onus that I suggest is provided in this clause. As a lawyer I share Senator Greenwood’s general mistrust of the reversal of onus, but as a practical matter I do not believe that we would be able to make this Bill work unless we had the reversal of onus for which this clause provides.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

– I suggest that by leaving this clause in the Bill we would be taking a great risk with the system of law we know. Different examples can be produced from those used by Senator James McClelland. Many situations could arise in which people would, at their own duty and at their own peril, have to disprove their guilt. Whether or not criminal penalties are provided very substantial penalties of a financial nature would be involved in what is done. I suggest that time will tell, if the Opposition’s amendment is carried, whether or not it is adequate, but at the present time to reverse the onus and to allow this clause to remain in the Bill would be a breach of the liberty which we have understood and enjoyed for many centuries.

I draw the attention of the Minister for Manufacturing Industry (Senator James McClelland) to the fact that part of the new clause which was inserted tonight, and which was not in the Bill when it was presented to us, makes it unlawful for a person to assist or promote, whether by financial assistance or otherwise, the doing of such an act. I believe that will expand the situation whereby people who are promoting, but quietly promoting, the activities of their servants will probably be brought to book. I suggest to the Minister that that is an additional protection to ensure that the prosecutions will succeed. If the prosecutions do not succeed and we have to try something else, of course we can always amend the Act, but at present I suggest there is no evidence to say that it is desirable to reverse this onus.

Senator MARRIOTT:
Tasmania

– I speak as a layman coming into the field of lawyers. We have argued in this Parliament the onus of proof, especially in relation to repatriation cases, over the years. We have the Minister for Manufacturing Industry (Senator James McClelland), an eminent lawyer, agreeing with

Senator Greenwood, the former AttorneyGeneral, that the onus of proof, normally to the liking of lawyers, is different in this clause from what it normally is. The Minister has taken the example of a barman to explain the matter to the Parliament and to the nation. It appeared from his whole emphasis that this matter would refer only to a barman serving lemonade or liquor in a hotel. I presume from his remarks that he is referring to a coloured barman serving a white drinker or a white barman serving a coloured drinker and the barman using insulting words and refusing to serve a drink. He said that the barman would be free from the charge of discrimination if the owner was proved to have told the barman that he must not serve drinks to this type or colour of person.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– No.

Senator MARRIOTT:

– All I ask is whether the hotelier as he -

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– May I interrupt in the interests of clarity? The proposition is not that the barman would be free of guilt. The intent of the clause is to make the boss, as well as the barman, liable.

Senator MARRIOTT:

– If the Minister had not interrupted me I could have finished a little earlier. All I want to know as a layman, having listened to 3 eminent legal senators, is this: Does the owner of the hotel, the restaurant or any place that serves or treats other people have to have in writing or recorded on a tape instructions to his staff that they must not take this attitude to people of another race, colour, clime or religion, if he is to have the onus of proof as his safeguard? Is it to be decided on hearsay evidence? Who will the court believe- the owner, the hotelier, the barman, the head waiter or the lady receptionist? I do not think that the honourable senators, as lawyers, are thinking and picturing what happens in real life. I believe that if this clause as it is now is passed an unfair disadvantage will be put on the owner, the proprietor, the licensee or anyone serving the public through the agencies of employees.

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

– That is a commonsensical comment, but the courts are not quite as obtuse as many non-lawyers think. This would be a matter of evidence. I am not suggesting that, in order to be in the clear, a landlord or publican would have to produce a written document to his barman saying expressly: ‘You shall not indulge in certain practices’. It will be a matter of interpretation of evidence by the relevant court.

Consideration interrupted.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Davidson:

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

That the Temporary Chairman do now leave the chair and report to the Senate.

Question resolved in the affirmative. (The Chairman having reported accordingly)

page 1986

ADJOURNMENT

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.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 1 1.1 p.m.

page 1987

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Fuel Price to International Airlines (Question No. 336)

Senator Withers:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Has the price rise forced on the oil companies by the Government for aviation fuel sold to international airlines been referred to the Prices Justification Tribunal; if not, why not.
  2. Will the forced increase lead to higher fares for Australian users of international air services.
Senator Wriedt:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) The determination of price for aviation fule for international airline services does not come within the Prices Justification Tribunal’s jurisdiction. It will, however, be before it in its consideration of domestic prices.
  2. An increase in the price of aviation fuel could be expected to lead to some increase in fares for international air services.

Miss Juni Morosi (Question No. 424)

Senator Greenwood:

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

  1. 1 ) Was Miss Juni Morosi at any time an applicant for a position with Qantas Airways Ltd.
  2. Was any investigation made as to her suitability for the position she sought.
  3. Was the result of the investigation at any time made available to Dr Cairns or to the Attorney-General; if so when and on whose initiative.
Senator Bishop:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) Miss Morosi applied for a position as a Qantas Ground Hostess in Manila. On 4 May 1959 she was appointed.
  2. No.
  3. See (2). So that the honourable senator may have the proper perspective on the information which he seeks, I would point out that, at the time of Miss Morosi ‘s appointment in Manila in 1959, the then Minister for Civil Aviation, the late Senator the Hon. S. Paltridge, apparently saw no need for any investigation of Miss Morosi ‘s suitability for the position she applied for. Consequently no such investigation was undertaken.

Ethiopian Airways (Question No. 428)

Senator Greenwood:

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

  1. 1 ) Have any moneys received by Qantas Airways Ltd from the Commonwealth Government for overseas travel warrants been the subject of inter-airline arrangements with Ethiopian Airways.
  2. If the answer to ( 1 ) is in the affirmative, what amounts, if any, have been paid or allowed to Ethiopian Airways by Qantas Airways Ltd in respect of travel on warrants payable by the Commonwealth Government in each of the years 1969 to 1974 inclusive.
Senator Bishop:
ALP

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

  1. I ) Yes. Such travel warrants relate to sectors over which Qantas does not operate. The names of passengers and the relevant sectors travelled are as follows:
  1. Because of the inordinate time necessary to sight all flight coupons and physically select the data required in respect of Ethiopian Airways, the period covered has been limited to 18 months. The value of the billings from Ethiopian Airways during this time is as follows:

Mails (Question No. 449)

Senator Townley:
TASMANIA

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice:

What was the total number of ordinary letters handled by the Post Office during:

December 1973;

December 1974;

January 1974; and

January 1975.

Senator Bishop:
ALP

– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

A continuous monthly record of the total number of letters posted at Post Offices is not kept. However, about SO per cent of all letters posted in Australia are initially received at the six Capital City Mail Exchanges and details of these postings are as follows:

10 1. 485 million

92.262 million

80.462 million

74.933 million

Centurion Tanks (Question No. 487)

Senator Mulvihill:

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

If Australia completes procurement of 53 Leopard battle tanks, is it visualised that supplementary action, similar to that of the Israeli Government, will be undertaken to update Australia ‘s current pool of Centurion tanks.

Senator Bishop:
ALP

– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

The feasibility of updating the Centurion tanks has been examined but no action is contemplated because of cost and technical considerations. The need for a second buy of Leopard battle tanks is now being examined by the Department of Defence.

Post Office Blacktown (Question No. 492)

Senator Baume:

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Is a new post office being provided for Blacktown to be sited in the Westpoint Shopping Centre.
  2. Will it replace the existing post office in Flushcomb Road; if so, what is the date proposed for the opening of the new post office and the closing of the existing facility.
Senator Bishop:
ALP

– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

  1. 1 ) It is proposed to establish a non-official post office in the Westpoint Towers shopping complex at Blacktown.
  2. The existing post office in Flushcomb Road will continue to be the official post office at Blacktown.

I am unable to advise precisely when the proposed nonofficial post office would commence business as negotiations for the lease of suitable premises in the Westpoint complex are still proceeding.

Naval Ships’ Movements (Question No. 498)

Senator Jessop:

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

  1. Why was the HMAS ‘Banks’ which sailed from Port Adelaide on 3 March 1975, for Sydney on exercises diverted at Portland, Victoria, to King Island where that ship mct with another naval vessel.
  2. Were HMAS ‘Banks’ and the other naval vessel sent to King Island to be a back drop for the Minister for Defence at a pastoral fete; if so, was the original naval exercise abandoned as a consequence.
Senator Bishop:
ALP

– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

  1. 1) In December 1974 a request was received for a RAN ship to visit King Island for the Pastoral, Horticultural and Agricultural Show to be held 10-12 March 1975. HMAS Ardent’ which was to be operating in the area at the time was programmed for the visit. HMAS ‘Ardent’ suffered a major defect early in March and to meet the commitment the program of HMA Ships ‘Banks’ and ‘Bass’ was changed to undertake the visit. Both ships, which were reserve manned, were programmed together to allow ‘in company’ time which is a valuable form of training and of mutual benefit to the crews of both vessels.
  2. The Minister for Defence did not attend the Pastoral, Horticultural and Agricultural Show. The original naval exercise was changed as a result of the necessity to reprogram the ships.

British Immigration Laws (Question No. 507)

Senator Mulvihill:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

Will the Minister seek information from the Australian High Commissioner in London about public utterances made by an Assistant Minister to the British Home Secretary which implied that the status of Australian and New Zealand nationals under existing British immigration laws are to be changed.

Senator Willesee:
ALP

– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

The honourable senator is probably referring to a speech on immigration by Mr Alex Lyon, Minister of State of the Home Office, on 5 April 1975. 1 have arranged for a copy of an extract from Mr Lyon’s speech to be forwarded to the honourable senator. From this speech he will note there is no specific mention of Australians or New Zealanders.

VIP Aircraft (Question No. 510)

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · CP; NCP from May 1975

-Brockman asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many hours were flown by VIP aircraft in the financial years 1971-72, 1972-73, 1973-74 and in the first 9 months of the current year.
  2. What is the present per-hour cost of flying each type of aircraft in the VIP fleet.
Senator Bishop:
ALP

– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

  1. 1 ) The hours flown by the various types of VIP aircraft for all tasks, including continuation training, contingency operations and VIP tasks, were as follows:
  1. The present per-hour cost of flying each type of aircraft in the VIP fleet is as follows:

BAC 1-1 1 $675.88

Mystere $379.57

HS748 $178.35

Hobart Airport (Question No. 551)

Senator Townley:

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

Is it possible to site an additional runway at Hobart Airport with safe approaches and departure routes, but one that is at least 2000 feet longer than the present runway.

Senator Bishop:
ALP

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

There are no current representations from airlines for increased runway length at Hobart and there are no plans to extend the runway. A longer runway on a new alignment appears possible but at very great cost and with increased noise nuisance. The present runway could be extended to the south-east but again at substantial cost and with possible environmental impact.

Civil Aviation: Runways (Question No. 552)

Senator Townley:

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

  1. 1 ) What is the length of the main runway at Canberra Airport.
  2. What is the length of the runway at Hobart Airport.
  3. Under normal circumstances would (a) a DC.9 aircraft and (b) a Boeing 727 aircraft be able to stop with reverse thrust only if the brakes failed without overshooting the end of the runway at Hobart Airport.
  4. Under normal conditions would (a) a DC.9 aircraft and (b) a Boeing 727 aircraft be able to stop with brakes, if the reverse thrust failed, without overshooting the runway at Hobart Airport.
Senator Bishop:
ALP

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

  1. 8800 feet- the sea level equivalent being 6737 feet under standard atmosphere conditions.
  2. 6500 feet.
  3. No scheduled data is available as the standards do not envisage brake failure in the circumstances of aircraft equipped with multiple independent braking systems. It is assessed that, in the hypothetical emergency circumstances, and using reverse thrust only, both aircraft types could be stopped within the confines of the airport but with probable consequential damage to engines.
  4. Yes- the scheduled performance data relating permissible landing weight to available runway length does not take account of reverse thrust.

Natural Disasters

Senator Bishop:
ALP

– On 4 March 1975 Senator Drake-Brockman asked me as Minister representing the Minister for Defence a question without notice relating to a request by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals for trained officers of the Society to be sent with the initial task force to areas devastated by natural disasters.

I have now received advice from the Minister for Defence on the matter:

The Society’s request is supported so far as can be done effectively at the national level. Most disasters occur in the States and each State has its own counter-disaster organisation. In these cases, control of disaster relief operations will be in the hands of the appropriate State Organisation with the Natural Disasters Organisation providing co-ordination and assistance only as requested by the State. The Director General of the Natural Disasters Organisation has, however, been asked to bring the Society’s request to the notice of the Directors of each of the State Emergency Service Organisations with a view to them also providing support.

The Minister has replied along these lines to a letter sent to him by the New South Wales State Secretary of the RSPCA:

It is possible that the Society’s request arose out of the rejection of an offer by the RSPCA to send such a team to Darwin on Boxing Day last year. However it should be noted that on 27 December 1974 clearance was given for an RSPCA Inspector to visit Darwin.

Natural Disasters: Use of Defence Supplies

Senator Bishop:
ALP

– On 6 March 1975 Senator Sheil asked me as Minister representing the Minister for Defence, a question without notice relating to Defence Service Stores provided in time of natural disasters.

The Minister for Defence has supplied the following information in reply to the honourable senator’s question:

The replenishment of Service stores used in times of natural disasters is accomplished through the normal procurement procedures of the Armed Forces based on the resulting level of stores holdings.

Normally the cost of replenishing stores provided by all three Services in times of natural disasters is met from the Defence Vote, which is supplemented as necessary for these purposes.

In the current financial year Appropriation Act (No. 3) 1974-75 provided additional funds to the Defence Vote to cover expenditure in 1 974-75 by the Services as a result of Cyclone Tracy.

Government Monetary Policy

Senator Wriedt:
ALP

-On 15 April 1975 Senator Cotton asked me the following question, without notice:

I ask the Minister representing the Treasurer whether he, on behalf of the Treasurer, will table the letter, as he is required to do under section 1 1 (7) of the Reserve Bank Act 1 959, that the Treasurer has received from the Governor of the Reserve Bank, Sir John Phillips, stating the concern of the Reserve Bank Board at the Government’s present monetary policy.

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

The provision of section 1 1 (7) of the Reserve Bank Act, requiring the Treasurer to lay certain documents before Parliament, only relates to a situation where a difference of opinion between the Government and the Reserve Bank Board as to the monetary and banking policy of the Bank has been resolved by a determination by the Government of the policy to be adopted by the Bank in accordance with section 11.

I informed the House of Representatives on 1 5 April 1975 and again on 2 1 April that there was no disagreement between the Government and the Reserve Bank about monetary policy.

The question of tabling, under section 1 1 (7) of the Reserve Bank Act, any letter I may have received from the Governor of the Reserve Bank does not therefore arise.

Australian National Gallery: Statutory Offices (Question No. 520)

Senator Rae:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. With reference to the Prime Minister’s answer to Senate Question No. 506, to which galleries in what other countries was the Prime Minister referring.
  2. What have been ‘the problems’.
  3. To which galleries, at what times and in what Australian States was the Prime Minister referring when he mentioned ‘the problems which have often arisen in . . . some Australian States’.
  4. What were ‘the problems’.
  5. To ensure that the Parliament can assess and guard against what the Prime Minister described as ‘unfortunate results’ would the Prime Minister now itemise the instances which he described as evidencing ‘unlikely and unreasonable combinations’.
Senator Wriedt:
ALP

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

  1. to (5) The problems of galleries to which I referred were administrative and financial, and information concerning them is spread through gallery histories, other writings about galleries, and autobiographies, memoirs and biographies of gallery people.

I do not feel justified in authorising or undertaking the detailed and lengthy research necessary to bring together this large body of material for present purposes.

The general conclusion, however, is not in dispute: that gallery directors, whatever their professional art skills, have not always been highly skilled in matters of general management.

It is expected that the Australian National Gallery will always, through the provisions of its statute, have available to it both professional art and general management skills which will ensure its most effective operation.

Australian National Gallery: Statutory Offices (Question No. 584)

Senator Rae:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

Will the Prime Minister answer in detail Senate Question No. 520 on art galleries which was placed on the Senate Notice Paper on 23 April 1975 before the Australian National Gallery Bill is debated in the Senate.

Senator Wriedt:
ALP

– The Prime Minister has supplied the following information for answer to the honourable senator’s question.

I have today provided an answer to this question.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 28 May 1975, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1975/19750528_senate_29_s64/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant