House of Representatives
1 December 1965

25th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 25th Parliament
  3. 1965

Mr. SPEAKER (Hon. Sir John McLeay) took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 3399

UNEMPLOYMENT

Petition

Mr. CONNOR presented a petition from certain electors of New South Wales praying that Government funds be made available to encourage the establishment of suitable Industries in the City of Greater Wollongong to help alleviate the critical unemployment problem prevailing in the Illawarra region.

Petition received and read.

page 3399

QUESTION

VIETNAM

Mr CALWELL:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

– I desire to ask the Prime Minister two questions in one. Is it true, as stated in certain sections of the Press today, that the Government has decided to increase our commitment of troops in Vietnam and that we propose to send conscript troops to Vietnam next year? Secondly, is it true, as reported in one newspaper - a report which, frankly, I do not believe - that Senator Fulbright asked members of the Government parties and, presumably, the Government - to increase Australia’s commitment of troops in Vietnam by another 6,500?

Sir ROBERT MENZIES:
Prime Minister · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · LP

– We have had no such request either from the Government of South Vietnam, which is, of course, the requesting party, or from the Administration of the United States of America, or Senator Fulbright. If we were to receive, in the future, a request from the Government of South Vietnam, we would have to consider it then on its merits. But the question has not arisen. As to how the forces involved in our present commitment will be made up, I do not know. I have no information on that point. The rumours about additional forces are just rumours.

page 3399

QUESTION

TARIFF BOARD

Mr ERWIN:
BALLAARAT, VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister for Trade and Industry a question. In view of the many speeches made in tariff debates by the honorable member for Wakefield, and the failure of the Government to reply to his statements, certain manufacturing firms are now of the opinion that he is the spokesman for an underlying Government policy. They are also of the opinion that he is exerting influence on the autonomy of the Tariff Board. Can the Minister tell tha House whether there is any cause for concern in such statements?

Mr McEWEN:
Minister for Trade and Industry · MURRAY, VICTORIA · CP

– While I pay attention to speeches in the House, the policy of the Government is decided by the Cabinet, and by the Cabinet alone. I am sure the Tariff Board is quite aware of its own autonomous position as an advisory body to the Government and I would hope and believe that it reaches its conclusions only on the evidence put before it.

page 3399

QUESTION

ANTI-SUBMAKINE AIRCRAFT

Mr O’CONNOR:
DALLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Minister for Air. Is the report correct that the Government has postponed indefinitely the purchase of 10 Orion antisubmarine aircraft for the Royal Australian Air Force? Has this been due in any way to the recent decision of the Government to purchase eight American Skyhawk fighter bombers to equip the aircraft carrier “ Melbourne “? Is the report correct that this position has been brought about by Treasury objections following the purchase of tha Skyhawk aircraft? If the report is correct that Treasury objections prevailed, can the Minister inform the House as to the nature of these objections?

Mr HOWSON:
Minister for Air · FAWKNER, VICTORIA · LP

– The quick answer to all these questions is “ No “. The Prime Minister announced in this House last November the three year programme in which 10 Orion aircraft were to be bought for the R.A.A.F. for delivery towards the end of 1968. That programme still stands. There are some people, mainly in the aircraft factory at the Lockheed company, who for obvious reasons desire to see earlier delivery, but delivery is still scheduled for that time. That is when we want them and when we will get them.

page 3399

QUESTION

MAIL DELIVERIES

Sir Wilfrid Kent Hughes:
CHISHOLM, VICTORIA · LP

– I ask the Postmaster-General a question. What happened to cause the greatest mess-up of all time over the dispatch of Christmas mail to England? Who was responsible for the mail being delayed? Was there nothing in the contract with the shipping line to force it to take the mail or else pay a very heavy fine? Does the Minister realise the distress caused to a large number of people whose presents and mail will not arrive in England before Christmas, even though they complied with all the conditions of posting as advertised by the Postmaster-General’s Department?

Mr HULME:
Postmaster-General · PETRIE, QUEENSLAND · LP

– It is impossible to enter into a contract which stipulates damages sufficient to make good the losses that people suffer by the late delivery of mail. Under the Post and Telegraph Regulations the only penalty that can be imposed against the shipping line which does not carry out the terms of the contract entered into is, as I understand it, one of £50. There is no responsibility attaching to the Post Office in respect of this matter. We played our part by having some 5,000 bags of mail delivered to the wharf in Melbourne and available when the ship berthed, but after it had loaded only a proportion of this mail, in order that it might leave on a particular tide the ship, which had a very tight schedule, just - if I may use the term - upped anchor and left. There is no contract that places a time and obligation on the company beyond that provided for in the Act.

page 3400

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Mr NICHOLLS:
BONYTHON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I preface my question to the Minister for Immigration by saying that recently several United Kingdom migrants within my electorate complained that they had not been informed, prior to leaving the United Kingdom, of the requirements of the National Service Act. If this is correct will the Minister inform his overseas officers that intending migrants should be made aware of this particular legislation? If it is not correct, will he inform the House of the date his officers overseas were instructed to tell migrants that their sons could be conscripted and that this could eventually lead to their service overseas in the bloody jungles of Vietnam?

Mr OPPERMAN:
Minister for Immigration · CORIO, VICTORIA · LP

– I assure the honorable member that the Department’s office in London goes to extreme lengths to provide prospective migrants with every item of information that would be valuable to them in deciding whether to migrate to Australia. Those items include information about housing, employment and shipping. I cannot say whether prospective migrants are told anything about national service, but I will make further inquiries as soon as possible into this matter. I will be surprised if the obligations of migrants under the national service training scheme have been overlooked. These people are British subjects. Special facilities are provided to enable them to come to Australia. I do not think any reasonable British subject would have the idea of coming to Australia and escaping obligations in relation to national service.

page 3400

QUESTION

BANK OVERDRAFTS

Mr FAILES:
LAWSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Treasurer a question. I understand that an interest charge is to be made in relation to unused portions of bank overdrafts where the overdraft limit is £50,000 or higher. If this is correct, will the charge apply to finance arranged or proposed to be arranged in the event of the wool marketing plan being approved by wool growers? Will there be any provision in the legislation setting up the wool marketing authority to prevent the authority from investing any unused portion of its funds in investments not related to its normal or specific purpose of financing the wool marketing scheme?

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
Treasurer · HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

– As to the first part of the question, the charge on unused limits does not apply in the case of public authorities, so I assume that it would not apply in the case of the authority set up under the wool marketing plan. As to the investment aspects, I would like to have an opportunity to look into this matter before giving the honorable gentleman an authoritative answer.

page 3400

QUESTION

TRADE BALANCE

Mr UREN:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for Trade and Industry a question. On his recent visit overseas was the Minister able to come to any agreement with United States and United Kingdom authorities to reduce the deficit trading balance of £3,500 million that has been created during our trading with those countries over the past 15 years? Did he raise the matter of the restrictive franchise which United States and United Kingdom owned companies place on Australian based companies, preventing them from assisting to build up our export trade?

Mr McEWEN:
CP

– As I have already stated in the House, in my recent mission overseas I did not enter into negotiations in the United States. My discussions in the United Kingdom were confined to general circumstances influencing trade between Australia and the United Kingdom. Negotiations were not of a kind that touched on the particular matters referred to by the honorable member.

page 3401

QUESTION

DRUG ADDICTION

Dr GIBBS:
BOWMAN, QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Minister for Health a question. Concern has been expressed overseas at the increasing addiction to narcotic drugs. How many drug addicts have been notified in Australia in the last year? To which drugs are these people addicted? Is the addiction rate in Australia increasing or decreasing?

Mr SWARTZ:
Minister for Health · DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I have seen some recent reports relating to this matter, particularly as regards the situation in the United Kingdom. As far as addiction to narcotic drugs is concerned, Australia is in a more fortunate position than are many other countries. At present, there are only 200 known drug addicts in Australia. Under State laws they are required, as recommended in the first instance by the World Health Organisation, to report to the State Directors-General of Health. During the 1964 calendar year only two additional cases were reported in Australia. One was that of an addict to cocaine and the other of an addict to heroin. Heroin, as honorable members know, is a prohibited import, while cocaine is not. I will not comment on how this addiction to heroin was acquired. The narcotic drug situation in Australia is under very strict control. Imports are strictly controlled. Most narcotic drugs, with the exception of heroin, which is a prohibited import, are on the pharmaceutical benefits list but can be used only under very strictly controlled conditions.

page 3401

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY

Mr HAYDEN:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Treasurer a question. Is the Government concerned at the sharp build-up of non-farm stocks that is taking place in the economy, paralleled by a significant dampening down of the rate of growth of consumer demand, particularly when these movements are taking place at a rate greater than that which can be accounted for by drought conditions alone? Has the Government any proposals for fiscal action to be taken soon to stave off a rundown of the economy, or does the Government intend to allow the economy to drift once again into a troubled and desperate situation?

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
LP

– The honorable gentleman appears to have had a very limited experience of the operations of a national economy.

Mr Hayden:

– As long an experience as the Treasurer has had.

Mr HAROLD HOLT:

– I can recall a period when a government formed by the party of which the honorable gentleman is a member allowed a situation to develop in which 30 per cent, of the available employable people of this country were out of work.

Mr Calwell:

– That 30 per cent, level was attained in Lyons’ day.

Mr HAROLD HOLT:

– But as a consequence of the Labour Government’s failure to handle the situation at the time.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I ask the Treasurer to resume his seat for a moment. It is impossible to conduct question time along these lines. A question has been asked of the Treasurer. He has the right to reply and all honorable members are entitled to hear him. I must ask honorable members to refrain from interjecting. If they do not, it will be necessary to take firm action.

Mr HAROLD HOLT:

– The point I was hoping to make for the information of the honorable gentleman is that over the period in which this Government has been in office there has been less fluctuation in the Australian economy than there has been in the economy of almost any other country the honorable member may care to name. Having regard to the fluctuations that this country must always be prepared to cope with, as a result of seasonal hazards and variations of the prices we receive overseas for our products, we can all take some satisfaction and pride in the fact that Australia has been able to sustain such a high level of progress over a period of years with such little fluctuation in the economy. This does not mean that we do not keep the closest watch upon trends that develop within the economy. We have no wish to restrict the economy, but to the extent that it is within the power of a government, and a government inside a federation, to cope with economic fluctuations as they occur we try to do so. The review that is made in the Treasury and in other economic departments is constant, and from time to time the Government makes its own policy reviews of the situation. That process, Sir, will be continued. To the extent that we have it in our power to maintain the economy in steady progress, we shall take whatever action appears to us appropriate for this purpose.

page 3402

QUESTION

AUTOMATION

Mr BRIDGES-MAXWELL:
ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the

Minister for Labour and National Service whether, having in mind the technological advances that have been made in Australian industry, the fears that have been expressed that automation will cause mass unemployment are well-founded. What evidence is available of the situation in the United States of America, a country which is known to have more highly developed and automated industries than any other country?

Mr McMAHON:
Minister for Labour and National Service · LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– We have had several questions in this House and have seen several newspaper articles which have created the impression that automation is likely to cause large-scale unemployment in this country. The Government does not hold this view. Members of the Government have made it clear on several occasions that we think automation is one of the means by which the take-home pay and working conditions of the working man may be continually improved. We believe also that by the application of modern methods of economies we can usually keep demand sufficiently high to ensure a high level of employment and also that our work force is continually employed. So, Sir, we do not fear automation in this country. All of the researches that have been carried out by the Departments of Labour and National Service indicate that automation can help to contribute a high level of employment rather than of creating a high level of unemployment. As to’ the experience of the United States, I am glad that the honorable gentleman has directed my attention, and incidentally the attention of the House, to this, because the United States is the most highly automated country in the world. As automation has gone on there, the degree of unemployment has decreased.

Mr Calwell:

– The United States of America still has 5 million unemployed.

Mr McMAHON:

– Maybe it has, but as automation has gone on there has been a gradual recline in the percentage of unemployed and the percentage of unemployment today is lower than it has been for many years despite the fact that automation has gone on in America at a pace unprecedented anywhere.

page 3402

QUESTION

GENEVA CONVENTION

Mr BEAZLEY:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I desire to ask the Prime Minister a question in his capacity of Acting Minister for External Affairs. Have any of the belligerents in South Vietnam, by which I mean the administration of Ho Chi Minh, the leadership of the Vietcong, the Government of South Vietnam and the Governments of the United States, Korea, Australia and New Zealand, stated that they regard themselves as bound by the terms of the Geneva Convention in their treatment of prisoners and civilians, in their use of weapons of war and in their methods of warfare? If any such statements have been made I ask the right honorable gentleman whether the Australian Government considers itself bound by the terms of the Convention.

Sir ROBERT MENZIES:
LP

– We do. As to what happens in these other cases I will be very glad to find out. If there is any variation from that proposition I will advise the honorable member.

page 3402

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Mr LINDSAY:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for the Interior. Driving control and courtesy in the Australian Capital Territory used to be exemplary. Can the Minister inform me when any action will be taken to curb the speed, lawlessness and complete disregard for the rules of the road which have now become the standard in the Australian Capital Territory?

Mr ANTHONY:
Minister for the Interior · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– I am afraid I do not agree with the honorable gentleman. I think that the road behaviour standards in this city are high considering the volume of traffic. The Department of the Interior and the police make every provision to see that the laws are maintained and that the maximum courtesy applies at all time.

page 3403

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY

Mr L R JOHNSON:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the

Treasurer a question. Why has the growth rate of the economy fallen from 9 per cent, last year to 6 per cent, for the first quarter of this financial year? Does this trend reflect the full in consumer demand following the failure to increase pensions and the basic wage in the face of rising prices? Will the Treasurer say in specific terms what action is to be taken to arrest this trend, or is the decline in growth to be allowed to drift until another credit squeeze has to be applied, with consequential unemployment?

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
LP

– I know that the honorable gentleman would be only too happy to see a state of affairs develop that would cause some political embarrassment to the Government. I assure him that this will not occur. The decline he speaks of in the growth rate was predicted in the Budget Speech, if he will recall it. I pointed out that having absorbed the labour which had previously been idle we could not rely on the same rate of addition to the work force in the current financial year. We predicted, in effect, that where there was a 4 per cent, growth in the work force there would be a 3.5 per cent, growth this year. In addition I think it is well known to all honorable members that production, which would be counted in relation to gross national product, on many of the farms and in many of the rural areas of this country has suffered as a result of drought conditions. A rate of 6 per cent, at constant prices is a relatively high rate of increase of gross national product. While I state it as a rate which stands comparison with most other countries, I am not putting a rate of 6 per cent, at current prices forward as a level which we would regard as satisfactory in a continuing sense. But the factors that I have mentioned have to be taken into account. No doubt there are other factors which would be brought into a full statement on this matter.

page 3403

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN DAIRY INDUSTRY

Mr ROBINSON:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Acting Minister for Primary Industry. I refer to the publication of details of some aspects of the economic survey of the Australian dairy industry by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics which discloses that more than half of the dairy farmers in Australia receive less than £1,000 a year in income. In view of the importance of having available all possible information concerning the industry, particularly in regard to disparity in. income as between the New South Wales milk zone farmers and farmers outside it will the Minister have the remaining information from the survey made available as soon as possible in regard to region and other statistical aspects?

Mr ANTHONY:
CP

– Yesterday a selection of initial information from the review of the Australian dairy industry carried out by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics was published. It will be some time before the complete report can be published and made available to the public. I am sure that, should any section of the industry with valid reasons make a request to me or to the Minister for Primary Industry when he returns, the results for any particular regions will be given as promptly as is possible.

page 3403

QUESTION

FREEDOM FROM HUNGER CAMPAIGN

Mr REYNOLDS:
BARTON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Treasurer a question. Is it a fact that the 1964-65 Freedom From Hunger campaign appeal has been described by its organisers as a flop? Did the appeal raise barely more than £300,000 or 20 per cent, of its target of £1) million, which was the amount raised in 1963? Did the Reverend Hobbin, the national chairman of the appeal committee, say that one of the main factors contributing to the failure was the withdrawal by the Federal Government of contributors’ rights to income tax concessions? Does it not seem particularly inappropriate for the Government to withdraw its financial encouragement and public support for this estimable appeal at the very time when it is spending increased millions on military operations in- Asia-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honorable member is making comment now. I ask him to direct his question.

Mr REYNOLDS:

– I am just finishing it. Does not the withdrawal of the concession seem particularly inappropriate at the very time when it is spending increased millions on military operations in Asia reputedly against the spread of Communism?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order!

Mr REYNOLDS:

– Finally, . will the Government reconsider now its attitude in relation to this matter?

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
LP

-The Government gave careful consideration to this matter. It will be recalled that the initial appeal carried with it, as a result of the decision of the Government and for a specified period, the right to claim donations as taxation deductions. In the case of the subsequent appeal that decision was not continued, it being pointed out that there are many worthy charitable causes both inside and outside Australia which do not carry-

Mr Reynolds:

– Is this appeal less worthy?

Mr HAROLD HOLT:

– This appeal is not regarded as less worthy. The point is that there are many worthy causes inside and outside Australia which do not carry the entitlement by law to claim donations as taxation deductions. It is the practice of the Government periodically, in its Budget reviews, to examine requests for the allowance of deductions and to see which, if any, causes should be added to the list. The honorable gentleman has mentioned the additional amounts being spent by the Government for war purposes. I point out that the Government has accepted an increasing scale of international aid commitments, including the supply of foodstuffs. An example was the gift of a substantial quantity of wheat to India during the year. The Minister for External Affairs has just announced our decision to contribute 85 million dollars to the funds of the Asian Development Bank. In these and other ways, we are materially assisting people out of the resources of the Australian taxpayers. It is they who ultimately meet the cost of allowing as tax deductions donations to charitable organisations. So I believe that when these matters are seen in their full perspective it will be considered that, ranking as we do among the first three or four nations in terms of external aid contributions per capita, we have a record of which we need not be ashamed.

page 3404

QUESTION

TRADE PROMOTION

Mr FALKINDER:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Trade and Industry. Did the right honorable gentleman have time, during his recent visit overseas, to notice the way in which the products of other Commonwealth countries are advertised through various media in the countries that he visited? Did he find that some Commonwealth countries - notably New Zealand and South Africa - appear to advertise more widely and more effectively than we do? Does the Minister consider that Australia could do much more by means of advertising to stimulate overseas trade? Are plans to step up such advertising in hand at both industry and Government levels?

Mr McEWEN:
CP

– Over the last 10 or 12 years, both the Government and industry have each year increased the funds provided for and spent on advertising and promotion overseas. There is now a partnership in spending between the Commonwealth Government, the statutory marketing boards, the commercial exporters from Australia and, to an increasing extent, the importers of Australian goods in Britain. We are trying to extend this practice to the Continent and to Japan and other countries. It is true that one sees, for example, New Zealand butter and South African wine more extensively advertised than the Australian products. But I believe that there is an explanation for this. Much more New Zealand butter is available for sale than there is Australian butter. This is a simple and obvious explanation. With South African wine, there has grown up the practice of blending wine and selling a product of standard quality under a limited number of brand names. This has permitted a more pointed and more extensive advertising campaign than is possible under the Australian practice of every company selling its own comparatively small quantity of wine under its own brand name. However, other products such as canned deciduous fruits, canned pineapple and dried vine fruits are much more extensively advertised by Australia than are similar products of other Commonwealth countries.

page 3405

QUESTION

SHIPPING

Mr HANSEN:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

– I direct my question to the Minister for Shipping and Transport. Have representations been made to him recently proposing the operation of an Australian overseas shipping line using Japanese built bulk carriers and financed by Japanese capital? Is the Minister convinced that the operation of such a shipping line, equipped with bulk carriers for the transport of coal and iron ore to Japan, is economically possible and that such a service could earn overseas income far greater than the income derived from the royalties on these commodities at present payable to the States? If he is convinced of this, will he now consider allowing the Australian National Line to participate in this trade with Australian built ships?

Mr FREETH:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– The Government has under consideration certain proposals along the lines mentioned by the honorable member. They pose a number of problems. The Government currently is examining all of the proposals.

page 3405

QUESTION

NOWRA TRADE FAIR

Mr JEFF BATE:
MACARTHUR, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for Trade and Industry whether he has been informed that the trade fair at Nowra, which he was to have opened before his departure for overseas, achieved an award not only as the best trade fair in Australia but also as the best project of its particular type in the world, being one sponsored by or under the auspices of the Junior Chamber International. If he has not been informed of that by the Minister for Social Services, who deputised for him on that occasion, will he ask his Department to inquire into this matter and to give appropriate recognition of this splendid feat by the Nowra Junior Chamber of Commerce?

Mr McEWEN:
CP

– I must speak to the Minister for Social Services about this matter. He has not informed me of this splendid occasion, unless he has done so by correspondence with which 1 have not yet caught up. However, I congratulate the Nowra Junior Chamber of Commerce; I congratulate the people who conducted the fair, and I congratulate the honorable member, who has been a great supporter of such activities in his electorate.

page 3405

QUESTION

HONOURS AND AWARDS

Mr CROSS:
BRISBANE. QLD

– I address a question to the Prime Minister. I refer to the death in England recently of Professor Frank Debenham, a distinguished Australian Antarctic explorer and geographer. Does not the right honorable gentleman feel that Australia should be able to honour her distinguished sons and daughters for their services, without resort to the titles and honours of the United Kingdom? Will he consider the establishment of an appropriate Australian award?

Sir ROBERT MENZIES:
LP

– This proposal has been considered occasionally, or spasmodically. I cannot say that I have thought about it of late; but I am very well prepared to give further thought to it at some convenient time. I do not know what the result will be.

page 3405

QUESTION

DRIED FRUITS INDUSTRY

Mr TURNBULL:
MALLEE, VICTORIA

– Is the Minister for Trade and Industry aware that the Australian dried fruits industry is concerned at the fact that the implementation of the objectives of the Kennedy Round talks may seriously affect the satisfactory marketing of its products in Commonwealth countries? Is there any ground for such concern? Will the right honorable gentleman give this aspect the significance that it deserves in any negotiations in which Australia is engaged on this subject?

Mr McEWEN:
CP

– We all know the concern of the honorable member for the dried vine fruits industry. Dried vine fruits are one of the important items of export trade which are at some measure of risk because our sales to the United Kingdom are conducted under the benefit of a preferential tariff and our sales to Canada and other important markets command quite an important preferential tariff. In Canada preference is equivalent to about 20 per cent. If the Kennedy Round were completely successful as conceived, in the United Kingdom and Canada our tariff advantage over our foreign competitors would be cut in half and we would be disadvantaged. If that happened, being disadvantaged by the halving of the tariff advantage that we not only have enjoyed but also have paid for, we would be entitled to ask other countries to give us some compensating advantage within the tariff field. What that could be I cannot explore. If the Kennedy Round were not completely successful and if the other countries did not cut all their tariffs in half, I would ask them to exempt from any ‘tariff cut certain items of trade which are important to Australia. Dried vine fruits obviously are among the items of trade that ought to be considered.

page 3406

QUESTION

SUGAR

Mr FULTON:
LEICHHARDT, QUEENSLAND

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Trade and Industry. During his visit overseas was he met by the Premier of Queensland, Mr. Nicklin, and did they together seek sugar agreements? If they did, were they successful? Can the Minister give us any idea of what we can expect from the agreements? Are they much less favourable as to quantity and value than was expected?

Mr McEWEN:
CP

– I think I have made a statement in the House on this matter.

Dr J F Cairns:
YARRA, VICTORIA · ALP

– The statement was not specific about that.

Mr McEWEN:

– I thought it was, but I shall be specific now. Although it may appear from the question to be so, I did not just happen to meet the Premier of Queensland while I was overseas. By arrangement with him and his Government, the sugar industry and this Government, I led the delegation and the Premier of Queensland was my deputy leader. We acted at all times in conjunction as leader and deputy leader at a conference in which the representatives of about 80 countries were present. About half of these countries were represented as exporters, as Australian was, and about half were represented as importers. It is now a matter of history that no success attached to that conference - none at all - except that we talked and agreed to meet again. I have said something in the House about the circumstances that give me some reason to expect that the next time the whole conference is reconvened it may come to a satisfactory conclusion, stabilising the world price of sugar, strengthening the Australian economy and, very importantly, strengthening the economies of all those less developed countries for which sugar exports are such a tremendous factor in their prospect of growth.

page 3406

QUESTION

WAGES

Dr GIBBS:

– I ask the Minister for Labour and National Service a question supplementary to that asked by the honorable member for Hughes. Will the honorable gentleman tell the House how the regulation of wages in Australia compares with that in Britain? Is the United Kingdom Labour Government encouraging a wage freeze upon the workers’ pay packet at the present time?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– There are several different methods of wage fixation or wage adjustment. In Australia we have a comprehensive system which includes conciliation, arbitration, private negotiation and other methods. Fundamentally we believe in a system which in the last resort depends on arbitration as the most satisfactory method of arranging or deciding both the basic wage and the margins structure of Federal awards. In the United Kingdom there is a system of collective bargaining which, as is obvious at the present time, is not entirely successful.

As to the second part of the question, the prices and wages commission in the United Kingdom has recently recommended freezing an increase in wages that was determined for one section of the working class in the British economy. An increase of the order of 5 per cent., I think, was decided upon, and immediately the wages commission recommended that those wages be frozen at the pre-existing level. The substance of the information contained in the honorable gentleman’s question is quite correct. In the United Kingdom they are not now leaving it to the free play of market forces and arbitration. A commission can recommend the veto of increases should it think it wise to do so.

Mr CALWELL:

– Will the Minister give further consideration to the question, although it is a loaded political question, asked by the honorable member for Bowman and state what the position is in the United Kingdom today, both in regard to the regulation of wages and prices? Will he compare what is happening under a unitary form of government with what is possible in a federation? Will he further examine the question whether the time has arrived when the Constitution should be amended to give the Commonwealth Parliament complete power over industrial matters?

Mr MCMAHON:

– It is obvious that the honorable gentleman has been deeply stung by the question by the honorable member for Bowman.

Mr Calwell:

– Not at all.

Mr MCMAHON:

– He has been deeply stung and deeply hurt. It is obvious that he has wanted to ask a question relating to constitutional reform, the system of industrial arbitration in this country and the system that applies in the United Kingdom at the present moment. I think every member - at least every sensible member - of this House will realise that it is not practicable to give answers to all these questions-

Mr Bryant:

– The Minister says “every sensible member “. Include members of the Liberal Party.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member for Wills will rise in his place and apologise for interjecting.

Mr. Bryant. - I apologise for interjecting, Mr. Speaker.

Mr MCMAHON:

– What can be said, if we wish to make a comparison, is that no highly developed country has had a growth rate equivalent to that of this country.

Mr Calwell:

– I did not ask about the growth rate.

Mr MCMAHON:

– No country has had an employment record as good as that of this country.

Mr Calwell:

– I rise to order. I asked a question that had nothing to do with the growth rate but had everything to do with industrial powers and the regulation of prices and wages.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I point out to the Leader of the Opposition that the Chair has no control over the reply of the Minister. He has complete freedom to answer as he thinks fit. I hope it will always be with discretion.

Mr MCMAHON:

– I will not give the rest of the answer to the honorable gentle man’s question now. I shall either treat the question as being on the notice paper and give him a formal reply, or ring him and give him a reply personally.

page 3407

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE

Ministerial Statement

Mr HOWSON:
Minister for Air · Fawkner · LP

– by leave - Honorable members will recall that the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Menzies) announced in this House in November of last year that in the course of this current three-year programme new navigation trainers would be purchased to replace the Dakota aircraft in the Navigation Training School. These Dakota aircraft have been in service for at least 20 years. They are now inadequate for aircrew training purposes, having regard to developments in training techniques and equipment and the modern operational aircraft being obtained for the Royal Australian Air Force.

Having surveyed the types of aircraft that might be suitable to replace the Dakota, the field was eventually narrowed down to four aircraft. A detailed comparison was made of the advantages of each type and eventually I recommended to the Government that it select the HS748 aircraft for this purpose.

Mr Whitlam:

– A British aircraft?

Mr HOWSON:

– This aircraft, as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Whitlam) will see, is made by the Hawker Siddeley company in Great Britain.

Mr Whitlam:

– When did we last order a British aircraft?

Mr HOWSON:

– I am glad that the honorable gentleman supports the proposal. The Government has now approved my recommendations and eight HS748 aircraft are to be purchased as navigation and air electronics trainers for the Royal Australian Air Force. The HS748 has been designed as a Dakota replacement and incorporates all the features of a simple, rugged and easily maintained aircraft. It is powered by two Rolls Royce turbo-propel I or Dart engines.

This aircraft is already in service in many parts of the world. Six of the V.I.P. version are in service with the Royal Air Force, including two in the Queen’s Flight, the remainder being used for other official purposes. The military version, the Andover, is being introduced at present into the R.A.F. The R.A.A.F. plans to introduce these aircraft into navigation training service in the latter half of 1968. Total cost of this project, including navigation training and supporting equipment will be about £9 million.

At the same time the Government has reviewed the requirements for V.I.P. aircraft operated by the R.A.A.F. in 34 Squadron. The Chief of the Air Staff has made a recommendation to me that the Dakota aircraft, which have been in R.A.A.F. service since the early days of World War II, should be retired from V.I.P. service. As a decision has been made to buy HS748s as navigation trainers, the opportunity is being taken to purchase two further HS748s for the V.I.P. service. The V.I.P. version is considerably cheaper than the navigation trainer and can be purchased at a cost of approximately £600,000.

Mr Whitlam:

– Is it just as simple and rugged?

Mr HOWSON:

– It is just as simple and rugged. As the honorable gentleman will see, these aircraft are especially suitable for operations in areas where airfields aTe relatively undeveloped.

The House will be aware, however, that there is a total of five Dakota aircraft in 34 Squadron. Consequently, as they all must now be replaced as soon as possible, the Government examined other types of aircraft in addition to the HS748. It has selected a smaller type of aircraft, the Mystere 20, and will purchase three of these aircraft, costing about £500,000 each, to replace the remaining Dakotas. The Mystere 20 is a product of Generate Aeronautique Marcel Dassault, designers of the Mirage fighter aircraft now in squadron service with the R.A.A.F. It is a fast, twin jet aircraft, seating eight passengers and is becoming increasingly used overseas for this class of work.

The Government has also given consideration to the replacement, at a later date, of the two Convair Metropolitan aircraft which have been in operation in 34 Squadron for about ten years. Having regard to the increasing number of visits to Australia by distinguished citizens from overseas, and also taking note of the general increasing demand for aircraft for official purposes within Australia, the Government has decided that it is essential to make provision for more efficient air transport aircraft. It has decided, therefore, to replace the two Convair aircraft with two BAC1 1 1 aircraft. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will notice that these aircraft are made by the British Aircraft Corporation. They have a considerably larger capacity, speed and range than the Convairs. They will be able to fly non-stop to any part of the Australian mainland and at the same time their range is sufficient to facilitate contact with countries adjoining Australia, as, for instance, New Zealand and countries of South East Asia. It is expected that the first BACIII aircraft will be delivered in 1968 and the second in 1969. They will cost about £1.5 million each.

All the aircraft to which I have referred in this statement will be under the control and operation of the Royal Australian Air Force and will be fully maintained by Air Force personnel. They will be available therefore for service transport duties in the event of an emergency. The delivery dates for the HS748, the Mystere 20, and the BACIII will be spread over a lengthy period. The first is likely to be delivered late in 1966 and the last one in 1969. This will mean that the Dakotas and Convairs, the oldest aircraft now in service in 34 Squadron, will gradually be replaced over the next four years. I present the following paper -

Royal Australian Air Force - Purchase of Training and Transport Aircraft- Ministerial Statement, 1st December 1965

Motion (by Mr. Chaney) proposed -

That the House take note of the paper.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Whitlam) adjourned.

page 3408

TRADE PRACTICES BILL 1965

In Committee.

Consideration resumed from 30th November (vide page 3359).

Clause 1 (Short title).

Mr WHITLAM:
Werriwa

.- This clause gives the short title of the Bill. In many ways it sets the tone of the whole Bill. It summarises very clearly the extent to which the objectives of this legislation have been eroded over the last six years. It will be remembered that when the legislation was first forecast in the Governor-General’s Speech at the opening of Parliament in March 1960 it was stated -

The development of tendencies to monopoly and restrictive practices in commerce and industry has engaged the attention of the Government which will give consideration to legislation to protect and strengthen free enterprise against such a development.

The same wide objective was maintained until the Administrator’s Speech opening the Parliament on 7th March 1961 in which it was stated - my Attorney-General has been examining the possibility of Commonwealth legislation to protect free enterprise against the development of tendencies to monopolies and restrictive practices in commerce and industry.

At the end of that year the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Menzies) giving the policy speech of the Government Parties on 15th November stated -

We desire, in co-operation with State Governments, to do something to protect and strengthen free productive and business enterprise against monopoly or restrictive practices.

When the Governor-General opened the next Parliament on 20th February 1962 he stated -

Discussions between Commonwealth and State Attorneys-General in relation to monopoly and restrictive practices in business are continuing.

It will be noticed that every statement made by the Prime Minister, by the GovernorGeneral or by the Administrator referred, for two years, to monopolies and restrictive practices. That was the scope of the legislation which the Government was proposing, which thrice was put by the Head of State when opening the Parliament, and which was put by the Prime Minister at the first election after the legislation was forecast.

The same words continued in use by the former Attorney-General, Sir Garfield Barwick, now the Chief Justice of Australia. On 6th December 1962 the House was given a statement about his proposals for legislation on restrictive practices and monopolies. In a paper delivered to the 13th Legal Convention held by the Law Council of Australia at Hobart in January 1963 Sir Garfield Barwick wrote on some aspects of Australian proposals for legislation for the control of restrictive trade practices and monopolies. In a speech at the convention he again used exactly the same terms. He used them in the printed version that he made available to honorable members and to the community.

On 16th August 1963 Sir Garfield Barwick delivered a speech - the G. L. Wood Memorial Lecture - at the University of Melbourne, entitling it, “ Australian Proposals for the Control of Restrictive Trade Practices and Monopolies “. In the same month he published a booklet with exactly the same title, containing two tables - one a table of the basic forms of practices which had come directly under the notice of the Commonwealth Government and the other a table of practices that had been reported by the Tariff Board and by other boards of inquiry - and concluding with a bibliography. The speeches and the papers of Sir Garfield Barwick were all printed. They have been widely circulated. Until two and a half years ago the public was promised legislation to control monopolies and restrictive practices.

Last May we were given the present Bill - the Trade Practices Bill. The short title of the Bill clearly shows the extent to which the Government’s proposals have been watered down, the extent to which the Government has succumbed to outside pressure and the degree to which the father of the legislation has been betrayed.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 2 and 3 - by leave - taken together.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– Perhaps the Attorney-General (Mr. Snedden) can help me. Clause 2 (2.) states -

The remaining provisions of this Act shall come into operation on a date to be fixed by Proclamation . . .

I think it is fairly clear that the Commonwealth’s power in this field may be somewhat limited in regard to trade and operations that are strictly intrastate. I know that this depends upon the maintenance of the principles laid down a long time ago in the Huddart Parker case. If these principles have been invalidated by subsequent decisions then the existing Australian Industries Preservation Act has more meat in it than the Government would like to admit, and perhaps the case for bringing in this whole new Bill is not as strong as it should be.

Let me take the view that I understand the Government takes and which, in my opinion, is the better view - that the Government’s powers intrastate are very limited. Let us suppose that this Act is proclaimed before there is complementary legislation in some States. What will happen is obvious. Those ventures that would otherwise be caught by the monopolisation clauses would tend to go intrastate in those States that do not pass complementary legislation, and if this is so they will be able to operate quite successfully intrastate, passing intrastate their products to holding companies whose operations, of course, would not be affected in any way by the monopolisation clauses, because they would satisfy all the necessary criteria in the State. If - and this is a hard practical question - one big State were not to pass complementary legislation, then industry would tend to drift to the State and to centralise in it.

Mr Buchanan:

– Not drift, but rush.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– My honorable friend may be right. I did not want to go that far. In point of fact if this Act were to be proclaimed before there was satisfactory complementary legislation in at least New South Wales and Victoria we might get into rather a bad spot. As a New South Welshman I would say that it would be very wrong for New South Wales to pass complementary legislation and make it effective if Victoria did not do so. In fact I would try to look after the interests of New South Wales by seeing that it did not pass complementary legislation in advance of Victoria doing so. I am informed, and I do not know whether this is authentic or not, that the Victorian Government has set its face against passing complementary legislation. If this is so, surely New South Wales should not pass such legislation, because it would just drive industry to Victoria. If neither New South Wales nor Victoria passes complementary legislation then the Commonwealth Government’s powers would be very limited. I can see the merits of passing this Bill so that the States would know what their complementary legislation has to fit into. If you have an act passed, as this legislation will be passed in some form or other - perhaps with amendments - the States could at least know, when they are framing their legislation, what they have to fit into. So there is merit in passing this Bill. I doubt whether there is merit in proclaiming it until the States, or at least most of them - particularly the bigger Stated - have passed complementary legislation.

I ask the Attorney-General - perhaps he can satisfy my mind on this point - what is in his mind regarding the date of proclamation. He may well have in mind the kind of delay which I think is appropriate. I think it would be appropriate to pass this legislation in some form or other and leave these operative provisions to be proclaimed at some future date when the States have passed their complementary legislation. If this is in the AttorneyGeneral’s mind - it certainly would be consonant with these provisions - I shall be glad to hear it. But it looks to me as if it is rather presumptuous or a little unwise to be proclaiming this Bill as an act after we have passed it. I am not suggesting that we should not pass it. I think it would be a little unwise to proclaim it until the situation has been properly cleared with regard to complementary legislation in the States. I repeat this hard practical fact: If, for example, Victoria were to carry out its foreshadowed policy of not passing complementary legislation, it would be madness for New South Wales to pass complementary legislation, and I do not think that any government of New South Wales which had the interests of its State at heart, as I am sure the present Government of New South Wales has, would pass complementary legislation until it was assured that Victoria would come into line. In these circumstances, although I concede that there is merit in passing an act which could be put as a schedule into complementary State legislation, it seems to me that there is no merit in proclaiming this Bill as an Act. In point of fact there is perhaps some demerit in proclaiming it before we get this vexed matter of complementary State legislation properly fixed and on a reasonably uniform basis.

Mr SNEDDEN:
AttorneyGeneral · Bruce · LP

– I understand completely what the honorable member for Mackellar (Mr. Wentworth) has in mind. I am glad to say that that which he fears has been given careful consideration and I find that there is no need at all for fear. The matter of complementary legislation will, of course, be one for the States themselves after this Bill has been passed. Clause 8 of the Bill is drawn in that way. After the Bill is passed there will be further discussions.

Let me turn now to the matter of a haven, so to speak, in one State. This sounds to be correct, but on examination it is shown not to be correct for the reason that the Commonwealth’s power runs interstate. It does not run intrastate. What the honorable member has in mind are intrastate matters. Intrastate matters, by very definition, are of a more domestic and limited kind. If industries left their present domiciles to go into a place where there is no complementary legislation, more competition would be created in that field. If, on the other hand, they stayed where they were, they would, by the complementary legislation, again be in an area where there was more competition.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– May I put the practical point in regard to this matter? We are not concerned only with existing industries. We are concerned with the States in which new and expanding industries would settle. It is probably out of the question for long established industries to pull up their roots and move from one State to another. There have been examples of this. I think the Philips organisation left New South Wales a few years ago and went to South Australia. This is not unprecedented. But I agree with the Attorney-General (Mr. Snedden) that it is not something which would be of very great practical consequence.

What is of practical consequence is the establishment of new industries. Australia is a growing community. Our economic development is going on apace. I think it will continue to do so. If you have this haven, to adopt the Attorney-General’s word, the new industries, the expanding fringe, in some ways the most important industries, will tend to go towards that haven. When it is a case, not of agreements but of monopolies - most of these big and important new industries will, by their very nature, come under the definition of a monopoly in this Bill - they may well find themselves impelled to go towards this haven. Perhaps I do not blame the businessman. This is the kind of thing which attracts him. Growth would be diverted and concentrated in the haven. I point out that this haven would enable interstate operations to be conducted effectively as well as intrastate operations, because it is quite open for the new company going into the haven to put up inside that haven a holding company also, with which it has its transactions inside the haven. The holding company would not be amenable to any of the objections set out in this Bill because the holding company’s practices would conform to the Bill. The profits would be made by the intrastate company in its transaction with the holding company and not by the holding company. These are the practical implications of business.

It seems to me sometimes that the advisers to the Government are not always entirely au fait with the way in which business conducts itself and of the practical considerations which influence a businessman to erect his factory here in preference to there or in that State in preference to another State. I do say that if this haven should exist it would tend to attract particularly the growing industries from the parts of Australia in which the haven did not exist. So if one important State - Victoria has been instanced - refused to pass complementary legislation, I think it would be unwise for other industrial States to pass complementary legislation. I make those practical points. I am glad that the Attorney-General seems to consider that this matter of date of proclamation is not one that I need to fear.

Clauses agreed to.

Clause 4.

The following Acts are repealed: -

Australian Industries Preservation Act1 906.

Australian Industries Preservation Act 1907.

Australian Industries Preservation Act 1909.

Australian Industries Preservation Act 1910.

Australian Industries Preservation Act 1930.

Mr SNEDDEN:
AttorneyGeneral · Bruce · LP

– I move -

Omit the clause and insert the following clause: - “4. - (1.) The Australian Industries Preservation Act 1906-1950 shall be construed as if the references in sections 4, 7, 7a, 7b and 10 of that Act to trade and commerce referred only to trade and commerce by way of the carriage of goods by sea between Australia and places outside Australia. “(2.) The last preceding sub-section does not -

affect the operation of the Australian Industries Preservation Act 1906-1950 before the date of commencement of this Act, or anything duly done or suffered under that Act before that date;

affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under that Act before that date;

affect any penalty or punishment incurred in respect of any offence committed against that Act before that date; or

affect any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right, privilege, obligation, liability, penalty or punishment, and any such investigation, legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced, and any such penalty or punishment may be imposed, as if this Act had not been passed. “(3.) Section 6 of the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910-1963 is repealed. “ (4.) Section 7 of the Northern Territory (Administration) Act 1910-1962, as amended by the Northern Territory (Administration) Act 196S, is repealed. “ (5.) Section 1 of the Northern Territory (Administration) Act 196S is amended by omitting sub-section (3.). “ (6.) The Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910-1963, as amended by this section, may be cited as the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910-1965. “ (7.) The Northern Territory (Administration) Act 1910-1962, as amended by the Northern Territory (Administration) Act 1965 and by this section, may be cited as the Northern Territory (Administration) Act 1910-1965.”.

The purpose of the amendment is to make provision for the decision of the Government not at this stage to introduce the ocean shipping provisions. The Australian Industries Preservation Act contains certain provisions relating to Australian shipping. It is therefore not desirable completely to repeal that Act because it must be left still to regulate and operate upon ocean shipping. The clause which I have moved should be inserted will take account of the fact that the Australian Industries Preservation Act will apply only to trade and commerce by way of carriage of goods by sea between Australia and places outside Australia. Then, that general statement having been made, it is necessary in sub-clause (2.) to make it clear that the last preceding sub-section does not apply to categories (a), (b), (c) and (d). Sub-clauses (3.) and (4.) of the clause are machinery provisions to repeal the application of the Australian Industries Preservation Act in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory.

Mr WHITLAM:
Werriwa

.- In the Bill as introduced, clause 4 provided for the repeal of the Australian Industries

Preservation Act. Insofar as the AttorneyGeneral (Mr. Snedden) is now asking that the original clause be omitted we shall support him with our vote, for we wish to preserve the Australian Industries Preservation Act. He is, however, moving that another clause be substituted. The consequence of inserting this other clause would be that the Australian Industries Preservation Act would have no application, as it does at the moment, in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. The new clause also would ensure that its effect otherwise would be limited to the carriage of goods by sea between Australia and places outside Australia.

When the Attorney-General introduced the Bill last May he said that in the present sessional period - the Budget sessionfurther clauses would be inserted to deal with the situation of Conference Line restrictions of Australian exports. He has not introduced those clauses. We assume that he is preserving the Australian Industries Preservation Act insofar as it relates to overseas sea transport, in lieu of the promised new clauses. During the second reading debate the Labour Party stated its objections to the repeal of the Australian Industries Preservation Act. There had been very little litigation under the Act for nearly 50 years, although it was an Act based on the United States Sherman Act of 1890. Last year and this year, however, there have been several cases. In the debate on the second reading I referred to the decision of the High Court in February last year in Redfern’s case, in which the Court held that section 4 fell within the scope of the Constitution. That was a unanimous decision of the Full High Court. In addition, Mr. Justice Taylor, in three cases in which he gave judgment in Canberra on 30th June last - incidentally, I believe that was the first time the High Court had sat in Canberra - interpreted section 7b. of that Act as applied to the Australian Capital Territory by the Seat of Government (Administration) Act. The three cases in Canberra were prosecutions by the Attorney-General against wholesale spirit merchants.

It has now been demonstrated that the Australian Industries Preservation Act is a very effective instrument. It nullifies con tracts which are in restraint of trade. It makes certain actions offences. It gives persons affected by those actions the right to treble damages, as provided under the Sherman Act. Accordingly, the Act has very real advantages both as regards the public interest and the private interest of persons concerned. The present Bill does not cover all the public mischief which the Australian Industries Preservation Act was designed to deal with and which it has now been shown to be capable of dealing with beyond any doubt or hesitation. Furthermore, this Bill very greatly reduces the remedies available to private citizens or individual companies. Under the Bill, individuals and companies will have the right to damages only in respect of practices which are declared by the trade practices tribunal to be against the public interest, and they will be able to receive damages only in respect of losses sustained from the time the tribunal has so found. Under the Australian Industries Preservation Act, however, there is no such limitation in time. There does not have to be any private finding by any administrative body or a finding by any court. Citizens and firms are able to seek damages for their injuries for the normal times that apply within the Statute of Limitations. Furthermore, the damages which they may receive are treble damages. There is a very real advantage in the Australian Industries Preservation Act for individuals and companies which is in no way provided by this Bill. There are items of public mischief which the Australian Industries Preservation Act covers and which are not covered by this Bill.

Accordingly, we do not want the Act to be repealed. We want it to be preserved in its entirety until better legislation is shown to be available. We are buying a pig in a poke as the matter now stands. The Act is now being preserved presumably until the new shipping clauses promised for this Budget session can be introduced. The real cure for the situation in which Australia finds itself with regard to overseas maritime commerce is to provide Australian competition in this field. It can be done by the Commonwealth Gove, .intent or by any State Government. The Australian National Line is permitted by the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission Act to trade overseas or with the Territories. It is not limited statutorily, although it is limited administratively, to coastal shipping or interstate shipping. However, this Australian competition need not be purely government competition. It could be competition provided by a consortium between the Australian Government and Australian private companies, or between the Australian Government and foreign governments, or between the Australian Government and foreign companies. All these courses are entirely feasible.

Questions have been asked by my honorable colleague from Wide Bay (Mr. Hansen), concerning the proposal that there should be a 60-40 shareholding by Australian and Japanese interests in a bulk shipping service between Australia and Japan. Because the bulk products would go from Australia to Japan the ships would be in ballast on the journey from Japan to Australia. It is often thought that therefore the operation would be an uneconomic one. I am unable to see why the operation of such ships, highly automated as they would be, would be uneconomic in Australian or joint Australian-Japanese hands but would be economic - as it is - in Japanese hands alone. The proposal is, however, as I understand it, that there should be three legs - that there should be a voyage in ballast from Japan to Yampi, that an iron ore cargo should be taken from Yampi to the east coast and that coal should then be taken from the east coast to Japan. Two of the three legs would thus be with full loads. Another proposal that has been made by the Australian National Line to the Department of Shipping and Transport is that the Australian National Line should be permitted to buy, charter or order refrigerated ships for the carriage of our meat and fruit overseas so that we can participate and compete. The Department of Coastal Shipping, as the Department should be more properly defined, has not yet rejected the proposals. It is still considering them after months of opportunity have gone. The Australian National Line has shown that it is not only the largest but the most economic and efficient shipping line on the Australian coast. It could undoubtedly make a significant contribution to our overseas trade.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock:
LYNE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Order! The honorable member’s time has expired.

Mr KILLEN:
Moreton

.- I have misgivings about the repeal of the Australian Industries Preservation Act, as I indicated earlier in the course of the general debate. I believe it is rather drastic for the Government, as it were, to set fire to the house just to get the cat out into the garden. The Government’s proposal can be described in those terms. The Government having reached a conclusion that the Australian Industries Preservation Act is lacking in substance or significance as to the possibilities of its use, I think it is reasonable to conclude that some studies have been made as to the possibility of the use of that Act. I should like the Attorney-General (Mr. Snedden) to indicate on precisely what grounds the Government concluded that it was not possible to use the Australian Industries Preservation Act for the general purposes to be carried out by the Bill. I should like him to indicate also whether or not any studies have been carried out in connection with the Australian Industries Preservation Act into the possibilities and potential powers that lie within that Act. Thirdly, and finally, if studies have been carried out, and if any opinions have been prepared, would the Attorney-General mind making them available for the consideration of honorable members?

Mr DALY:
Grayndler

.- Along with other members of the Parliament I desire to express my concern at the repeal, in effect - despite the amendment moved by the Attorney-General (Mr. Snedden)-of the Australian Industries Preservation Act. The Act should not be repealed until - as the honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Killen) and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Whitlam) stated in the course of the second reading debate - we have seen whether the new legislation, particularly in respect of overseas shipping, has been effective. The amendment that has been moved does not remove our concern that the Australian Industries Preservation Act is being repealed at this early stage. The fact that concern has been expressed on both sides of the Committee shows that the Government’s action is somewhat premature.

I suppose that no other section of the economy is subject to more trade malpractices than is overseas shipping. During the course of the second reading debate I read out the names of the members of the Australian Overseas Transport Association. Those names are listed in today’s “Hansard”, so I will not read them out again. In order to show the danger of repealing the Australian Industries Preservation Act I bring before the Committee an agreement that has been signed by shipping companies carrying goods between Australia and ports of Europe, the United Kingdom and other places. I have not time to read this document in detail, but attached to the names of the shipping companies which I mentioned yesterday is the agreement, signed by those people in the shipping conference with shippers of goods from this country. It is an agreement that ties hand and foot the people who are exporting goods in ships. It binds them as to prices that can be charged and, to the companies and the ships which can be used. At the present time, as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has said, possibly the only way of dealing with a matter such as this is under the Australian Industries Preservation Act. I shall refer to some clauses in the agreement and I should like the AttorneyGeneral to tell me whether under the proposed Act, when it is in full force, these practices can be covered. Clause 16 of the agreement provides -

The Australian Overseas Transport Association is the Association formed in Sydney on the 25th day of June 1929 to carry out the recommendations of the Conference of producers exporters and importers and of oversea Shipowners and their representatives which reported to the Prime Minister on the 6th day of April 1929 and/or the responsible Executive acting for that Association as determined by its Constitution.

The Association certainly went into this business in a big way in order to tie up Australian exporters so far as freights are concerned. Clause 2 of the agreement provides -

It is agreed that the rates of freight to be charged for the carriage of such commodities (subject to any alterattion thereof as provided in Clauses 13 and IS hereof) shall be those appearing opposite the names of the respective commodities included in the said Schedule subject to the conditions set out in the said Schedule.

When we consider that there are many conferences involved we can see that the freights are tied up completely, irrespective of the company carrying the goods. Clause 4 provides -

The Shipowners further agree (luring the term of the Agreement and in respect of the commodities specified not to enter into any arrangement with any Shippers on more favourable terms than those of this Agreement and that any Shipper is entitled to enter into an agreement with the Shipowners in all respects similar to this Agreement and for the same cargoes, rates and conditions irrespective of the quantity of cargo shipped by him.

In other words, these companies tie up band and foot all persons, particularly primary producers, who desire to ship goods overseas. The agreement further provides in clause 6 -

Should the Shipowners or any of them have cause to believe that the Shippers have not carried out or are not carrying out their obligations under Clause 5 the Shippers if requested shall produce proof to the contrary to the satisfaction of the Australian Overseas Transport Association.

I mention these few clauses in order to show the hold that this overseas shipping conference or combine has over the exporters of this country and particularly primary producers.

The repeal of the Australian Industries Preservation Act is undoubtedly premature when we consider what is happening in respect of shipping. This matter has concerned none other than the Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt), who in this Parliament on 9th November 1965, answered a question relating to it. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked the Treasurer his attitude towards the establishment of a national shipping line. This is what the Treasurer replied -

I am still living and hoping that there will be a day - I am sure the honorable member will rejoice in it, too- when we shall see an Australian shipping line carrying Australian goods to various parts of the world.

The Treasurer knows, members of the Country Party know and members of this Parliament know that we are being exploited by overseas traders because of the trade practices being indulged in by the shipping Conference. I suggest therefore that the Attorney-General explain to the Committee why, even in the initial stages, the Australian Industries Preservation Act is being repealed before we know whether the new legislation will cover effectively these huge shipping combines that have a stranglehold on the exports of this country. The Attorney-

General might even go a step further and say whether he would support the establishment of what has been called a socialist line but which would be an Australian shipping line to cany Australian goods abroad.

As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said, the Opposition does not oppose the clause. The amendment that has been moved does not to any great extent allay our fears. We believe that the Australian Industries Preservation Act should not be repealed until such time as the legislation we are considering is shown to be effective. I ask the Attorney-General to give the Committee a reply on the matters to which I have referred relating to the shipping combine which has, ‘as I have said, such a stranglehold on our trade at the present time.

Mr. CONNOR (Cunningham) (4.4].- I believe that the Government, in seeking to repeal the Australian Industries Preservation Act, is giving up the substance for the shadow. We have in the Australian Industries Preservation Act a substantive act which has been held definitely to be within the constitutional competence of the Parliament. It is a paradox indeed that the Government which seems, to use the vernacular, to rubbish this legislation, namely the Australian Industries Preservation Act, is forced to turn to it as a bridging expedient until it can make up its mind as to what it is going to do with respect to legislation dealing with overseas shipping. The case of Redfern v. Dunlop clearly showed the validity of sections 4, 7a, 7b and 10a of the Australian Industries Preservation Act. To me, in the light of the operation of this Act and tha approach of the Government to it conditioned by the right of the Attorney-General to veto or permit prosecutions, the timidity and apprehension of honorable members opposite are just beyond my understanding.

The key parts of the legislation, particularly proposed sections 4 and 7, are based on the Sherman act on which there is a substantive body of law in the form of decisions in the United States of America and counterparts of that act in other parts of the world, which lay down a whole line of distinctions between what are reasonable and unreasonable practices. Let us take the very title of the Australian Industries Preservation Act. It was an Act to preserve Australian industries and was designed for the repression of destructive monopolies. While there may not be any protection directly of Australian industry, indirectly there may be some protection within certain definitions of registerable contracts and examinable practices. But, in itself, this Act has been the shield and buckler of all Australian industry for many, many years. Undoubtedly this Government will be held to account to Australian manufacturers for depriving them of direct and specific protection. One of the main matters that does concern me is the question of restrictive franchises. This is a matter that I have raised on a number of occasions by way of questions directed to the Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr. McEwen). In that regard it is quite clear that of 1,100 licensing agreements between overseas holders of patents and processes no fewer than 800 have restrictions imposed on the areas to which Australian manufactures can be exported. This present legislation would permit of prosecutions in respect of restrictive franchise. The subsequent sections of this Bill certainly will not provide for them. I think this is a deliberate omission on the part of the Government.

Wilh regard to shipping, as the honorable member for Grayndler (Mr. Daly) has said, I think the deficit between our payments for overseas freights and moneys spent by overseas shipping companies in Australia is of the order of £130 million. I can recall the words of the AttorneyGeneral when he said in his second reading speech on this Bill that he would introduce in fact a new part of this Bill with relation to that matter. I think he suggested it would be Part XI. Just what are the proposals of the Government in this regard? There again, let us examine the policy - or absence of policy - of the official federal platform of the Liberal Party of Australia in relation to coastal shipping. I quote item 144 which provides -

Recognising that coastal shipping makes a contribution to transport, particularly with reference to heavy and long haulage, the taking of measures to assist coastal shipping, to maintain and develop services of standards comparable to other forms of transport.

Mr Whitlam:

– There is nothing at all about overseas shipping.

Mr CONNOR:
CUNNINGHAM, NEW SOUTH WALES

– There is nothing whatever in relation to overseas shipping. This is quite a change of heart. It is encouraging to see at least that the Liberal Party does recognise the existence of overseas shipping combines and trade.

Another matter that should be taken into account by the Committee is the weighty comments of no less a person than Professor Richardson, the Professor of Law at the Australian National University. Consistently on many occasions he has stated in no uncertain terms that the Australian Industries Preservation Act is infinitely preferable to the present proposals of the Government. The Government, of course, because of its over timidity and its innate ultra conservatism could not even tolerate the word “restrictive” in the title of this Bill and it has bowdlerised the title down to “ trade practices”. The legislation with which we are dealing is limited. It is puny. It is ill conceived. It represents a retrograde step. There have been few occasions on which a Government in the name of progress has introduced legislation claiming that it is for the benefit of the Commonwealth in which it has deliberately abrogated, destroyed or sought to destroy the substantial body of law which exists and which can be proved to be used for the benefit of the community. Instead of that the Government for its own devious political purposes has interposed a system of registration and examination which is antiquated and cumbersome, and which has been proved already to have serious limitations in the United Kingdom.

Mr POLLARD:
Lalor

.- Mr. Chairman, I could not allow this phase of the Bill to pass without adding some protest against the proposal of the Government to repeal the Australian Industries Preservation Act. It is significant, and I suppose natural, that conservative governments lean towards their friends. It is significant also that in a period of 16 years in office the Government has made no attempt to deal with the overseas shipping combines until recently when we had the admission from the Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt) that the Government is somewhat interested in the need for the establishment of an Australian owned overseas shipping line. Sixteen years is a long time to wait for an admission of this type from the Government. But it is odd that, at a time when an admission of that type has been extracted from the Treasurer, the Government takes action in this Bill which deals with restrictive trade practices to exclude any further operation of the Australian Industries Preservation Act as such.

All primary producers in this country know, as do all statutory boards dealing with the export of primary products, that primary producers are in the grip of one of the most powerful monopolies in the world, to wit, the overseas shipping Conference lines. The only criterion of these overseas shipping Conference lines as to what should be charged for the type of primary products being exported by Australia to overseas markets is: What will the traffic bear? It is true that in the agreement between the shipping companies, the statutory marketing boards and shippers generally there appears a formula by which the charges that will be imposed on the shippers will have some relationship to the profits or the income of the shipping companies. But everybody knows that the formula is favorable to the shipowners and unfavorable to the shippers of this country. How strange it is, in view of all those circumstances and the admission of the Government that it would like to see an Australian owned overseas shipping line, that the Bill removes in toto in relation to restrictive trade practice the operation of the Australian Industries Preservation Act. As has been pointed out by my colleague, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Whitlam), the High Court has indicated recently that the Australian Industries Preservation Act has some teeth. It is my opinion, after looking at the provisions in this Bill which allegedly will have teeth as strong as those in the Australian Industries Preservation Act, that the Bill has not the strength of that Act.

As an illustration of the rapacity of the overseas shipping companies, let me relate a story in which our friends in the Country Party corner will be interested. It is not many years since the Australian Wheat Board was confronted with a situation in which charter rates for the shipment of our wheat to overseas markets rose to extravagant heights. Outrageous prices were charged for the shipment of wheat. It is true that the people who own charter ships are not members of the Conference. I understand that charters are arranged through the Baltic Exchange. When the question “ On what basis do the charter shipping companies fix their freight rates? “, was posed, the answer given was: “ On the basis of the rates that they think the traffic will bear “.

The explanation given at that time when the Australian Wheat Board wanted ships was that the demand through the Baltic Exchange for tramp ships or charter ships to take coal across the Atlantic Ocean was so great that the owners of such ships were able to impose almost prohibitive freight rates on the Australian wheat growers for the transport of their wheat overseas. That story highlights two things: First, that we need an Australian owned overseas shipping line; and secondly, that since the introduction of a measure such as this was proposed by Sir Garfield Barwick every powerful commercial interest in Australia, including no doubt, the representatives and allies of the overseas shipping lines, have been pressurising the Government to weaken the provisions of the measure in order to make it less adequate than the legislation that was proposed by Sir Garfield Barwick.

Before I conclude I want to mention that the overseas shipping lines have become so avaricious that recently the Australian Meat Board sent a delegation to London to argue the point in their London palaces. A great nation, with nearly 12 million people, a 12,000-mile coastline and the need, perhaps more than any other maritime nation, to own and control its own shipping bottoms, is placed in the humiliating position of having to send people to London to pray to the overseas shipping lines in order to obtain reasonable freight rates for the shipment of meat which is so badly needed in other countries. Anybody who endeavours to work this matter out must realise ultimately that this Government runs true to form and always leans heavily in favour of the people to whom it is so beholden for its return to office in this Parliament.

Mr TURNBULL:
Mallee

.- The statement that has just been made by the honorable member for Lalor (Mr. Pollard) is based on the assumption that an Australian owned overseas shipping line would be of economic advantage to Australia in that it would carry goods at cheaper rates and Australia’s financial position in the future would be better than it is today. It is also based on an unfair interpretation of a statement made by the Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt). The Treasurer said something to this effect: That he still had hopes of seeing an Australian owned overseas shipping line. But those words cannot be taken to mean that he had hopes of seeing it this year or next year or under present conditions. Therefore, the whole basis of the statement made by the honorable member for Lalor is erroneous, for the simple reason that he read into what the Treasurer said-

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honorable member for Mallee is developing an argument in regard to an Australian owned overseas shipping line on the basis of something that the honorable member for Lalor said. What the honorable member for Mallee is now saying is not relevant to the subject matter before the Committee.

Mr TURNBULL:

– Just let me say this, Mr. Chairman: The honorable member for Lalor spoke on this very subject for at least seven minutes, whereas I have been speaking for only two minutes. But, if that is your ruling, I must abide by it.

Mr DALY:
Grayndler

.- The honorable member for Mallee (Mr. Turnbull) was out of order, but the real question which was raised by the honorable member for Lalor (Mr. Pollard), and to which the honorable member for Mallee was endeavouring to reply, was that of competition in the shipment of Australian exports. The honorable member should know that the greatest sufferers from lack of competition in this field are the people who produce primary products - the very people whom he is supposed to represent.

Mr Turnbull:

– Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order-

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honorable member for Grayndler is now developing an argument-

Mr Turnbull:

– Mr. Chairman-

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! I am calling the honorable member for Grayndler to order. He is now developing the very argument in respect of which the honorable member for Mallee was ruled out of order.

Mr DALY:

– Naturally, Mr. Chairman, I will not proceed against your ruling. I recognise the wisdom of the judgments that you give. It is nice to know that you are impartial. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Whitlam) points out to me, the honorable member for Lalor was dealling with the restriction of the application of the Australian Industries Preservation Act and the position of overseas shipping companies under that Act. The point about the overseas shipping combines and the Conference lines is that as a result of agreements into which they have entered there is no competition whatever between them. As I mentioned a few minutes ago in my first speech on this clause, under the agreement that I produced the shippers are tied hand and foot. They are told the ships on which their goods shall go and the companies which will carry their goods. There is no opportunity for any company to go outside the agreements or to enter into competition in respect of the carriage of Australian exports.

That is why the Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt) was moved to advocate the establishment of an Australian owned overseas shipping line. The Deputy Prime Minister and the Leader of the Australian Country Party (Mr. McEwen) indicated in this Parliament that he had to step in and stop the overseas shipping companies from raising their freight rates, because they were exploiting Australian primary producers. Only yesterday in the House the Deputy Prime Minister’s answer to a quetsion showed that he believes that we would overcome much of the trouble-

Mr Turnbull:

– Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order. I notice that the honorable member for Grayndler has had his two minutes. I was ruled out of order after speaking on this subject for two minutes. Will you treat him in the same way?

The CHAIRMAN:

– On the point of order raised by the honorable member for Mallee, I suggest that the honorable member for Grayndler is getting a little wide of the subject matter before the Committee. I suggest that he confine his remarks to the restriction of the application of the Australian Industries Preservation Act, instead of making a general statement on overseas shipping.

Mr DALY:

– I cannot go all the way with you on that judgment, Mr. Chairman; but I will wind up my remarks. I point out to the honorable member for Mallee that he does not know his own party’s policy; that he does not know that supporters of his own party have been exploited; and that he does not know that the leader of his own party has condemned the Conference lines. This Bill does not do anything to relieve the situation–

Mr CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honorable member for Grayndler will resume his seat.

Mr SNEDDEN:
AttorneyGeneral · Bruce · LP

– There is only one matter on which I feel I should say something in concluding the discussion on this clause, and that is one raised by the honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Killen). He raised this specific question: Why could not the Australian Industries Preservation Act have been amended for the purpose of controlling practices and agreements which contain restrictions against competition? Of course, the answer is that that Act could have been used in that way. There is no doubt about that. The reason why it was not used in that way was that it proceeds on a criminal base and the Government decided that it was not desirable to have a criminal form of control in relation to trade practices. In the opinion of the Government, in the first instance, it is not desirable to have a criminal form of control; and secondly, when you have a criminal form of control you do not have certainty. The Government decided that it is much better to have certainty, so that when a person does an act in the course of trade or commerce he knows that his act certainly is lawful or it certainly is unlawful. That is what the Bill achieves. That could not have been achieved by proceeding with the Australian Industries Preservation Act. That was the reason.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The question is: “ That the clause proposed to be omitted stand part of the Bill “.

Question resolved in the negative.

Question put -

That the clause proposed to be inserted (Mr. Snedden’s amendment) be so inserted.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr. P. E. Lucock.)

AYES: 57

NOES: 45

Majority .. … 12

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Progress reported.

page 3420

TARIFF PROPOSALS 1965

Customs Tariff Proposals (No. 12)

Mr FAIRHALL:
Minister for Supply · Paterson · LP

– I move; - [Customs Tariff Proposals (No. 12T).]

  1. . That the Customs Tariff 1 965, as proposed to be amended by Customs Tariff Proposals, and as proposed to be amended by Customs Tariff (No. 2) Bill 1965 introduced into the House of Representatives on the twenty-fourth day of August, One thousand nine hundred and sixty-five, be further amended as set out in the Schedule to these Proposals and that the amendments operate on and after the second day of December, One thousand nine hundred and sixty-five.
  2. That in these Proposals, “ Customs Tariff Proposals “ mean the Customs Tariff Proposals introduced into the House of Representatives on the following dates: - 17th August, 1965; 18th August, 1965; 16th September, 1965; 30th September, 1965; 12th October, 1965; 28th October, 1965; 16th November, 1965; and 18th November, 1965.

  1. After note 9 to Chapter 48 insert the following note: - “ 10. In sub-item 48.07.3, “ wall coverings “ means paper -

    1. without margins;
    2. of a width exceeding 60 centimetres;
    3. in rolls; and
    4. of a kind used solely or principally for wall or ceiling decoration.”.

  2. In sub-item 48.07.3, after “ filter “, insert “ ; wall coverings “.

Mr. Speaker, Customs Tariff Proposals No. 12 which I have just tabled relates to proposed amendments of the Customs Tariff 1965. The amendments will operate from tomorrow morning. Proposals No. 12 incorporates tariff changes consequent on the adoption by the Government of two reports by the Tariff Board on tinned iron and steel hoop, strip, plates and sheets, and magnetos and parts. Deferred duties of £5 15s. a ton general rate and £2 17s. a ton preferential rate were to operate on and after 1st January 1966 on tinned iron and steel hoop, strip, plates and sheets. Customs tariff legislation requires, however, that the question of whether deferred duties should or should not operate from the date of deferment shall be referred to the Tariff Board for inquiry and report. The deferred duties on tinplate were first introduced in 1920, but have been progressively deferred after each subsequent inquiry and report by the Tariff Board. In the latest report the Board indicates that tinplate production, which commenced in Australia in 1957, is now an integral part of the iron and steel industry. It commends the local manufacturer, Australian Iron and Steel Pty. Ltd., on its ability to compete with’ imports without any increase in the present operative rates of 71/2 per cent, ad valorem general rate and free, preferential rate, and considers this ability to be of national importance. It recommends no change in these rates but cancellation of the deferred duties which, it points out, are no longer realistic in relation to current f.o.b. prices. Proposals No. 12 gives effect to the Government’s acceptance of this recommendation.

For flywheel type magnetos, which are now manufactured locally, the proposals introduce new protective ad valorem duties of 421/2 per cent, general rate and 25 per cent, preferential rate. Other types of magnetos formerly produced in Australia, however, will become subject to non-protective duties. Details of these changes are con tained in the summary of amendments being circulated to honorable members.

Proposals No. 12 also includes amendments necessary to correct discrepancies which resulted from the translation from the Customs Tariff 1933-1965, now repealed, to the Customs Tariff 1965. These changes are in accordance with the undertaking given when the new tariff was introduced last May. Details of the changes are contained in the precis of tariff alterations being circulated. I commend the proposals to honorable members.

Debate (on motion by Dr. J. F. Cairns) adjourned.

page 3423

TARIFF BOARD

Reports on Items.

Mr FAIRHALL:
Minister for Supply · Paterson · LP

– I present reports by the Tariff Board on the following subjects -

Chain and chains.

Magnetos and parts.

Tinned iron and steel hoop, strip, plates and sheets.

The report on chain and chains does not call for any legislative action.

Ordered to be printed.

page 3423

CUSTOMS TARIFF VALIDATION BILL (No. 2) 1965

Bill presented by Mr. Fairhall, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr FAIRHALL:
Minister for Supply · Paterson · LP

. -I move -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill provides for the validation until 13th February 1966 of the collection of Customs duties under Customs Tariff Proposals Nos. 8 to 12, that is to say, the proposals which have been moved in this House from the 12th October 1965 to date. Honorable members will appreciate that time will not permit these proposed tariff changes to be debated before the close of the session. The tariff changes will be re-introduced next year by “ Gazette “ notice as amendments to the Customs Tariff 1966 and will operate from 14th February 1966. The changes will later be introduced as Tariff Proposals in the first days of the autumn session and subsequently in a bill, when the opportunity to debate them will become available to honorable members. I commend the Bill to honorable members.

Debate (on motion by Dr. J. F. Cairns) adjourned.

Mr Fairhall:

– With respect, I should like to mention that I think there is an agreement to take this Bill through all stages now. There is very little substance in the measure and it will be available for debate in the autumn session.

Mr SPEAKER (Hon Sir John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Does the honorable member for Yarra seek leave to continue the debate now?

Dr J F Cairns:
YARRA, VICTORIA · ALP

– Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER:

– There being no objection, the honorable member may do so.

Dr J F Cairns:
YARRA, VICTORIA · ALP

.- The Opposition does not oppose the Bill, and is satisfied to allow it to pass through all stages now.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

Bill (on motion by Mr. Fairhall) read a third time.

page 3424

TRADE PRACTICES BILL 1965

In Committee.

Consideration resumed (vide page 3419).

Clause 5.

In this Act, unless the contrary intention appears - “goods” includes -

Mr KILLEN:
Moreton

.-I have a few comments on this clause. My first comment relates to the interpretative provisions in clauses 91 and following in the Bill. I wonder why it is that a new drafting technique is being developed. I say this with the greatest of respect to the professional officers of the Attorney-General’s Department. I am a little puzzled as to the new technique in drafting and why these interpretative provisions are put at the back of the Bill. The result is that if one looks at the definitions clause one can be trapped by concluding that those are all the definitions required. It is only subsequently that one finds the interpretative provisions which have a very sharp relevance and one is then in trouble. I hope that some consideration can be given to having a definitions clause that contains all the relevant definitions. For example, the definition of “ agreement” is to be found in clause 91. I submit that the definition of “ agreement “ should be found in the definitions clause.

My second comment on this clause concerns the new drafting technique of putting, for the purposes of debate in this place, too many principles in the one clause. That makes the clause difficult to debate. I instance clauses 37 and 50 and, subsequently, the review provisions in Division 3. It is difficult for honorable members, without trying the patience of the Chair and, to a very large extent, transgressing the Standing Orders, to cope adequately with the various principles that are involved.

My third comment is on what I believe is a singular omission from the Bill. “ Competition “ is nowhere defined in the Bill, yet the word is used in clause 37 and again in considering the public interest in relation to clause 50. By contrast with that we have a definition of “ services “ which would reach out and, in my submission, would include ultimately - or could include in a given set of circumstances - the proprietor of a squash court and the proprietor of a ten pin bowling alley. It could control the Elizabethan Theatre Trust, the Sydney Turf Club and the Victoria Racing Club because these all come under the general umbrella of - the provision of, or of the use or enjoyment of facilities for, amusement, entertainment, recreation or instruction;

I cited that instance to point out what I submit is a sheer absurdity, that whereas we can run to that form of extensive definition, we cannot run to even a compact definition of “competition”. A few moments ago I walked down to the Clerk’s table where I took the dictionary to get a definition of “ competition “. I cannot recall the name of the dictionary, but the definition of “ competition “ given by it was, among other things - rivalry between persons for an object they both want.

Is that the competition in this Bill? Is it the act of competing? This still is rather elusive and leaves one up in the air. The definition continues - friendly strife.

Mr Whitlam:

– It is a 1936 dictionary.

Mr KILLEN:

– Be that as it may: I should like to know whether we accept the definition as “ friendly strife “ or, as it continues^ - making rival claims to superiority of a kind.

I submit that this is a tremendous subjective power which is given to the Trades Practices Tribunal. The Tribunal has to determine what is competition. I think it is a pity that, whereas we can find the wit and vigour to define a whole host of things in the definitions clause of the Bill, we have not found the sense of enterprise to set out to define “ competition “ because, in a very real sense, the meaning of “ competition” will be at the base of many of the arguments that will attend.

Mr Haworth:

– What about “ competitor “? Is that mentioned?

Mr KILLEN:

– It is not. I am indebted to my honorable friend for his interjection. If I may I shall point out to the AttorneyGeneral the difficulty that arises here. Let us consider competition dealing with floor coverings. Do we deal with linoleum as against carpets, linoleum as against vinyl tiles, linoleum as against rubber or what? They are competitors and are floor coverings vis-a-vis another type of floor covering but among themselves. There would also be competition among the competitors within the linoleum industry or the carpet industry. Is “ competition “ to be given a narrow, limited meaning or is it to be given a wide meaning? I regret intensely that the Government has not seen fit to include a definition of “competition” in the Bill. I venture to express the view that before too many months are over that will be a regret that the Government may itself be prepared to express.

Mr CREAN:
Melbourne Ports

.- I propose to move on behalf of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Whitlam), an amendment to the definition of “ goods “ but before doing so I wish to comment on the statement made by the honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Killen). I said in my second reading speech that I thought the Government had displayed a certain amount of wisdom in not attempting to define “ competition “. It is what one might call a term of art. I would sometimes like honorable members on the Government side who talk about private enterprise to define that term. Doubtless they would find it difficult to do so. The same difficulty attaches to defining such terms as “ competition “ and ‘* public interest “.

During that speech I read some extracts from an article compiled by two fellow countrymen of the honorable member for Moreton - two gentlemen from the University of Queensland. It was an article which was published over their names in “The Australian Accountant “ two or three years ago. In it they asked whether a reference to competition meant price competition, cut throat competition, unfair competition or, as the Americans put it, a kind of reasonable competition. This is the kind of ground that the Commissioner and the tribunal will have to tread upon. There cannot be any such thing as absolute competition. The term “ competition “ has to be qualified in some way, and if we begin to think of qualifying it I doubt that dictionary definitions would be in order.

The Opposition is desirous of including newspapers in the definition of “ goods “. The definitions already in the Bill are fairly wide, and it seems to me that newspapers could well come within the ambit of the legislation. But the present definition of “ goods “ specifically sets out such things as ships, aircraft and other vehicles, and animals, including fish, lt reminds one somewhat of the game “ Animal, Vegetable and Mineral “. It also includes minerals, trees and crops, whether on, under or attached to land or not, and gas and electricity. We wondered why water had not been included. Apparently there are no private providers of water services in Australia or, if there are, the number is so small as not to be worth covering by this legislation. However, there are still some private distributors of gas and electricity. One of the things not brought within the scope of the legislation is the provision of public utilities by the States. Because there are still some private concerns purveying gas and electricity, it is deemed advisable to include those two items in this definition. We believe that newspapers ought to be included, because there is some doubt as to whether they are a good in the ordinary sense.

Mr Snedden:

– Is the honorable member suggesting that they are not good?

Mr CREAN:

– No. I am not suggesting that they are evil, either. But when we talk about goods and chattels we have in mind things a little more concrete than newspapers. Most newspaper proprietors regard their newspapers as more than just commodities. They regard them as purveyors of services and information. We think the Bill is deficient in not ensuring that newspapers are covered by the definitions. I remind honorable members that later on we shall deal with the question of resale prices maintenance. Irrespective of whether we regard newspapers as good or bad, I suppose, they are the greatest perpetrators of resale prices maintenance in the community. Newspapers are sold at the same price from one end of a State to another. I am sure it is intended that in some circumstances newspapers should come within the ambit of the legislation, and in order to make the provision specific, I move-

At the end of the definition of “ goods “ add the following paragraph: - “ (e) newspapers;”.

Mr KELLY:
Wakefield

.- I just want to ask a question of the AttorneyGeneral. Does the reference to “animals, including fish”, mean that animals which have not eaten fish are excluded?

Mr BOWEN:
Parramatta

.- I oppose the amendment, which seeks to add the word “ newspapers I oppose it on the ground that newspapers have already been held to be “ goods “.I recall that in 1927 an argument was advanced to the High Court that newspapers were mainly valuable because of the information and knowledge which they conveyed to the public and, therefore, that they fell into the real of communications rather than of goods. The High Court rejected that argument and held that newspapers were goods. The result of the decision was that a tax of one halfpenny per paper - a very convenient tax to collect - which the New South Wales Government had sought to impose upon newspapers was held to be a tax upon goods and, therefore, a form of excise, which it was beyond the power of the New South Wales Parliament to impose. In view of the decision in “John Fairfax and Sons Ltd. versus the State of New South Wales “, reported in 39 Commonwealth Law Reports at page 139, it would seem to be unnecessary to add this word to the definition.

Mr Whitlam:

– Would the honorable gentleman say that newspapers are no more informative now than they were in 1927?

Mr BOWEN:

– No. I leave that kind of political remark to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.

Mr CREAN:
Melbourne Ports

.- I take it that the Attorney-General (Mr. Snedden) supports the view expressed by our learned friend from Parramatta (Mr. Bowen) that newspapers are covered, by implication. That satisfies me, and I do not persist with the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

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

Clause 8. (3.) Without prejudice to the generality of the last preceding sub-section, the State Acts that may be specified in a Proclamation under that subsection include a State Act that applies, or provides for applying, the provisions of this Act, as amended from time to time and with any necessary modifications, as law of the State, to matters within the legislative power of the Parliament of the State (including matters that are also within the operation of this Act as a law of the Commonwealth).

Mr SNEDDEN:
AttorneyGeneral · Bruce · LP

.- I move-

In sub-clause (3.), before “ the provisions “ insert “any of”.

The words “ any of “ were left out by oversight. They should have been inserted in the Bill at an earlier point of time. I do not think the proposal needs any further explanation.

Mr KILLEN:
Moreton

.- Can the Attorney-General (Mr. Snedden) indicate bow far negotiations with the States for complementary legislation have gone? What success has been achieved? Could he give to the Committee a summary of the negotiations?

Mr SNEDDEN:
AttorneyGeneral · Bruce · LP

– No, I am not able to do what is requested of me. Clause 8 is drawn on the basis that there should be an opportunity for proclamation by the GovernorGeneral that a State Act is complementary. Whether or not there will be a State Act which can be proclaimed to be complementary is a matter for the States themselves. No doubt the States will not be prepared to make any decision on that matter until they see the Bill which is passed by this Parliament.

Mr WHITLAM:
Werriwa

.- 1 must say with respect that I do not think the answer of the Attorney-General (Mr. Snedden) to the honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Killen) is satisfactory. It was said from the earliest days when the Government was proposing this legislation that complementary legislation by the States would be necessary to make it effective. The previous Attorney-General - the present Chief Justice - was certainly of that opinion. After the legislation was forecast in the Governor-General’s Speech opening Parliament in March 1960 there were two occasions on which the question of restrictive practices was debated on an urgency motion raised by a member of the Australian Labour Party - on 24th March 1960 about wool pies and on 27th October 1960 concerning tyres, batteries and accessories. On each occasion Sir Garfield Barwick stressed either that the practice was one entirely within the power of the States, since it was intrastate, or that it was not a. power that the Commonwealth could exercise single handed; it needed complementary State legislation. It was on this basis that later, in March 1961, the

Administrator in opening Parliament stated -

The Attorney-General has so far progressed in his investigation of this matter, and the Government has developed its thinking to the stage that consultation with the States win now be advantageous.

In his policy speech in November 1961 the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Menzies) said -

We desire, in co-operation with Stale Governments, to protect and strengthen free productive and business enterprise against monopoly or restrictive practices.

In opening the new Parliament in February 1962 the Governor-General stated -

Discussions between Commonwealth and State Attorneys-General . . . .are continuing.

In December 1962 the then Minister for the Interior (Mr. Freeth), in reading a statement on behalf of Sir Garfield Barwick said - and the pronoun in the first person refers to Sir Garfield -

May I say that, as a result of these discussions-

With the State Attorneys-General -

I have reason to believe that at least a clear majority of the State Attorneys would recommend to their governments the introduction of complementary State legislation to implement the scheme of legislation I describe.

At the Legal Convention in Hobart in January 1963, both in his paper and in his speech, Sir Garfield Barwick emphasised that complementary State legislation was desirable, probably necessary and, in fact, expected. How effective will this legislation be without such complementary State legislation?

Sir Garfield Barwick’s theme was the natural one that in an equivalent land mass the United States has 48 contiguous mainland States and Australia 5. Accordingly it was overwhelmingly more likely that transactions would be interstate in the United States than in Australia. One could not therefore expect Federal legislation to have the same effect in Australia if based purely on Federal powers as it would have in the United States. I am not overlooking the fact that the United States Federal Congress has intrinsically greater powers in its Constitution on trade and commerce than Our Constitution has; nevertheless Sir Garfield Barwick was careful to warn against any easy expectation that a Federal act in the United States would be equally effective if transferred to this country.

His whole view in 1960, 1961, 1962 and 1963 was that complementary State legislation was, as I have said, probably necessary, certainly desirable and probably to be expected. In my second reading speech on this Bill I quoted a statement by Mr. Hamer, the Liberal Minister for Local Government, in introducing the Collusive Practices Bill in the Victorian Legislative Council, as follows -

It might have been expected that the Federal Government would have sought in advance the co-operation of the States on its legislation . . . I am quite sure that it was the intention of Sir Garfield Barwick, when he was Attorney-General, to seek the co-operation of the States. I was present at a meeting of Attorneys-General late in 1962 when Sir Garfield Barwick said he proposed that when the Federal Bill had been drafted he would show it to the State Attorneys-General so that action could be co-ordinated. Unfortunately, that has not happened as yet.’ The States did not see the Federal Bill before it was introduced into the Federal Parliament in May. In July, at a meeting of Attorneys-General, a request was made that the States either pass complementary legislation or refer their powers to the Commonwealth under the Constitution.

The Victorian Minister has made, in effect, a charge that the Australian AttorneyGeneral has not carried out the programme or the promise that the Chief Justice made when he was Attorney-General. I believe that we are entitled to have a statement from the Attorney-General as to what in fact did happen between Sir Garfield Barwick’s translation and the present time.

On 14th September I put a question on the notice paper for the Attorney-General in these words -

On what dates, by what means and with what results has the Government consulted with State Governments concerning (a) the Bill and (b) restrictive practices in general?

Last Thursday evening the Attorney-General supplied this written reply -

My predecessor and I have consulted with the Attorneys-General of the States from time to time since 1961. The purpose of these consultations has been to induce the State Attorneys-General to propose to their governments legislation to complement the Commonwealth legislation. The consultations have all been on the confidential basis, and the particulars sought in regard to them cannot therefore be supplied.

I believe we are entitled to have the information. Sir Garfield Barwick stated that negotiations were taking place. The

Victorian Minister has stated that since Sir Garfield Barwick was translated no negotiations have taken place except by way of a suggestion made at the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General last July. If complementary State legislation is required we are entitled to know what is happening. Sir Garfield Barwick said that State laws or State jurisdiction by far occupied this field. He might have been saying this for the purpose of his argument on the wool pies and on the tyres debates but he said it. There is no question that there will be great gaps without complementary State legislation and we are entitled to know what has happened since his days. Is this still the view? If it is the view, how much has been done to effectuate the original intentions? It is a matter of notoriety that the Victorian Liberal Government, both in Parliament and outside, has let it be known that it objects to this form of legislation. I have stated on previous occasions that the principle held out to employers and investors in Victoria is that there will be “ more booty under Bolte “ - if they invest in Victoria their industrial standards will be lower or investment practices and commercial practices will be more relaxed, accordingly they should invest or employ in Victoria. This is scarcely the standard that we can follow here. It is not the standard that Sir Garfield Barwick proposed. It is not the standard that the Administrator, the Governor-General and the Prime Minister held out to the Parliament and to the public when this legislation was in its early years.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 9 (Constitution of Tribunal).

Mr KILLEN:
Moreton

.- Clause 9 refers to the appointment of presidential members and other members of the Trade Practices Tribunal. I think this clause is a little vague when read in conjunction with clause 11, which refers to “a member”. Some people may take the view that “a member “ in that context refers to a member, be he a presidential member or another member. Judges must have life tenure. I suggest that there is a measure of vagueness in the provision that a member shall hold office for a period not exceeding seven years. There may be an opportunity between the passage of the Bill in this place and its presentation in another place to tidy up that point.

Where will the tribunal sit? Will it be an itinerant tribunal or will it be located here in Canberra, to which all parties who may be involved in proceedings before it will have to come? The community would be grateful if the Attorney-General (Mr. Snedden) could indicate, now or later in the debate, whether this will be a peripatetic body or whether it will be a body that will be found under all circumstances here in Canberra.

Mr BUCHANAN:
McMillan

.- I, too, find this reference to a judicial appointment rather difficult to understand. There is no reference to it in the Bill itself. The clause which refers to the President of the Tribunal says only that he shall be a barrister or solicitor of not less than five years standing. Surely, if it is intended that this is to be a judicial appointment, it should be written into the Bill that this is so. I cannot understand how judges will find time to handle the colossal amount of business that could come their way under this legislation. I have always thought that our courts were rather cluttered. Will the judges take two salaries - a remuneration for sitting on the Tribunal and their salary as judges? These are points that need clarification. This is one aspect in which the Bill has fallen down. We need clarification of the intention of the legislation. Surely industry and business are entitled to know what they will be confronted with.

I would like to refer also to the matter raised by the honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Killen) as to whether the tribunals are to be appointed one in each State. Are they to be itinerant? More particularly, how many members will there be? If, in the opinion of the Attorney-General (Mr. Snedden), it is no longer necessary to have full time appointments and if they are to be, instead, part time appointments, how many do we need? What is to be the set up? Or does the Attorney-General expect that not many examinations will be made and, consequently, that it will be necessary to call in somebody only once a month to do an odd job?

Mr SNEDDEN:
AttorneyGeneral · Bruce · LP

– I do not accept that there is any vagueness as regards the appointment of a member of the tribunal, as suggested by the honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Killen). The tribunal is an entity that can sit in divisions. The divisions will be itinerant but the tribunal itself is a corpus. The divisions are capable of moving. The intention is that they will sit at the place most convenient for the hearing of the matter. The convenience which will be considered will be the convenience of all the parties.

Mr Killen:

– The Australian Broadcasting Control Board hears in Melbourne a matter relating to television licences for Queensland.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– I am answering the honorable member’s query. The divisions of the tribunal will be itinerant and will sit to suit the convenience of all the parties. I can take the matter no further than that. As to the point raised by the honorable member for McMillan (Mr. Buchanan) about salaries, two salaries will not be paid. Honorable members will notice that I propose to move an amendment to delete the word “salary” and substitute the word “ remuneration “. The amount of remuneration will be that fixed by the GovernorGeneral.

Mr Buchanan:

– Can a judge receive remuneration as well as salary?

Mr SNEDDEN:

– Under this legislation he can, but the amount will be fixed by the Governor-General. It has to be an ambulatory provision to cover both a judicial member who is a presidential member and the other members.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 10. (2.) A person shall not be appointed as a member other than a presidential member unless he appears to the Governor-General to be qualified for appointment by virtue of his knowledge of, or experience in, industry, commerce or public administration.

Mr WHITLAM:
Werriwa

.- I move -

In sub-clause (2.), after “commerce” insert, “, economics “.

Sub-clause (1.) of clause 10 prescribes the legal qualifications of presidential members of the tribunal. Sub-clause (2.) reads -

A person shall not be appointed as a member other than a presidential member unless he appears to the Governor-General to be qualified for appointment by virtue of his knowledge of, or experience in, industry, commerce or public administration.

By my amendment I seek to add the word “economics” to enlarge the qualifications. The Opposition believes that the present qualifications are too narrowly stated. There are quite a number of people in this country with an interest in and knowledge of restrictive practices who cannot be said strictly to have knowledge of or experience in industry, commerce or public administration, unless university people or academics have knowledge of and experience in public administration. It is significant that most of the people who have spoken or written and who have been asked to speak or write about restrictive practices have been either the present Attorney-General (Mr. Snedden), his predecessor or academics - persons who have knowledge of and experience in economics.

Mr Buchanan:

– They have the time. That is how they make a living.

Mr WHITLAM:

– Most of the articles in such papers as the “ Economic Record “, and the “ Financial Review “ and the lectures before various business or professional bodies have tended to be by such persons. It is true, as the honorable member for McMillan has pointed out, that these people have to make a living. So, of course, do the people with the qualifications specified in the Bill. Are we to say that people whose very qualification is a knowledge of or the practice of economics are to be disqualified from this tribunal? The professional and business bodies which have held seminars on this subject or which have asked for papers to be prepared or lectures to be delivered on the subject, all have sought economists as the principal or sole contributors. I would have thought that a knowledge of or experience in economics should be an important qualification. Why exclude economists in this way? We have said all the time that the Arbitration Commission or the Tariff Board would be fortified by an infusion of economists. I know that sometimes such people are discarded, as was the case with Mr. Date and Sir Leslie Melville. Nevertheless, we have all said that economists should be used on or attracted to the Tariff Board or the Arbitration Commission. Why is it that in this instance they are to be discarded?

I find it discouraging, frankly, to quote Sir Garfield Barwick on this subject because nobody on the Government side is now prepared to stand up for what be used to say about this matter. But among the documents available to honorable gentlemen is one which has the title - or shares the title with some others - “ Some Aspects of Australian Proposals for Legislation for the Control of Restrictive Trade Practices and Monopolies.” It contains speeches delivered by Sir Garfield Barwick, Lord Devlin and Mr. Justice Shaefer of Illinois at the Thirteenth Legal Convention of the Law Council of Australia, held in Hobart in January 1963. Sir Garfield Barwick there referred to a tribunal composed of legal men or of legal men and laymen trained in business and economics and serving for a term , of years. I think this was a sound concept and my amendment gives expression to it.

Mr HAWORTH:
Isaacs

.- I do not support the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. The more I have heard of his arguments and also of the chit-chat, if I may call it such, that has been going around the Committee, the more I have been confirmed in my early opinion that this Bill had its origin in the universities. There seems to be a profound desire to have as members of this tribunal persons of academic economic background. Let me read clause 10 of the Bill to the Committee so that honorable members will recall how it is worded. It says - (1.) A person shall not be appointed as a presidential member unless he is or has been a barrister or solicitor of the High Court or of the Supreme Court of a State of not less than five years’ standing. (2.) A person shall not be appointed as a member other than a presidential member unless he appears to the Governor-General to be qualified for appointment by virtue of his knowledge of, or experience in, industry, commerce or public administration.

There is no question that a person aspiring to membership may become a member not just by virtue of his experience but by virtue of his having some knowledge. So I come back to what I said a little while ago, that I believe this Bill had its birth and origin in the universities. One can very easily understand that a person might have a knowledge, which he could get out of a book, of the building industry. He might have a very good knowledge of the building industry, but all of us who know something about that industry realise that it would require more than just having mere knowledge of it to set the industry straight so that people engaged in it would not become insolvent.

Mr Irwin:

– Everybody knows how to run a person’s business except the person himself.

Mr HAWORTH:

– That is true. The point I want to make to the Committee is that the provision is dangerously wide when it relies simply on the word “ or “, referring to knowledge or experience. I think it has to be more specific. Since the tribunal will be dealing with various industries, I think it should have among its members at least one person with experience in the particular industry that is being dealt with at a particular time. I believe that at least one-third of the people on a tribunal which is going to decide the business life of an industry should have some experience of that industry. They should have more than mere knowledge. It is not enough just to have a knowledge of an industry. As I have said, any academic could read a book on the machine tool industry and still know nothing about it except how it functions. He would have only textbook knowledge 1 think it is very important, if we are to engender confidence in this tribunal, to ensure that it will not be simply an academic body. It should be composed of persons of experience who know what they are doing. I do not believe that academics or top public servants have sufficient knowledge of the industry, and I believe that we should have at least one-third of the members of the tribunal persons of practical experience. We do not want this tribunal packed, if I may use that expression, with perhaps leftwing Socialists, particularly if another government happens to come to power. I can imagine, for instance, the honorable member for Yarra (Dr. J. F. Cairns) being Prime Minister of Australia.

Mr Buchanan:

– Oh, no!

Mr HAWORTH:

– After all, such things do happen. The honorable member for Bradfield (Mr. Turner), who sits next to me, is always talking about the wheel turning. The wheel could easily turn in such a direction and the honorable member for

Yarra might one of these days become Prime Minister. No doubt he would like to see this tribunal packed with a lot of leftwing Socialists. Private enterprise, which the Attorney-General (Mr. Snedden) is so anxious to preserve, would then be almost forgotten. I think it is important for the Attorney-General to consider this question so that when we come to a later clause in Part II of the Bill we may introduce an amendment for the purpose of having onethird of the members of the tribunal, or one member of it, with some practical experience of the particular industry being adjudicated upon.

Mr CONNOR:
Cunningham

– I support the amendment moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Whitlam). After listening to the honorable member for Isaacs (Mr. Haworth), we can all understand why this Government is still dwelling in the 19th century in respect of restrictive trade practices legislation. I venture to say there is a greater demand in big business today for the services of economists than there has been at any other time in our commercial history, and today there is a considerable dearth of economists. Lads and lassies in secondary schools are being advised to take courses in economics.

The Attorney-General (Mr. Snedden) has said that the tribunal is to be an administrative and sub-legislative one. As this legislation takes its inspiration and its pattern to some extent from the British Restrictive Practices Act, I would like to refer to section 4 of the British Act of 1956, which says that the members of the Restrictive Practices Court in Britain who are not judges shall be persons appointed by the Lord Chancellor who appear to be qualified by virtue of knowledge or experience in industry, commerce or public affairs. In contradistinction to that we have the wording of this clause, “experience in industry, commerce or public administration”. Public affairs cover a far broader field than public administration. If we are going into what will be for us a completely virgin field, with a tribunal which will not follow ordinary legal forms and will be unfettered as far as possible, dealing with any situation as it thinks fit, there is all the more need for a public champion, who can consider the interests of the consumer.

Perhaps one of the greatest problems the tribunal will have to face will be in arriving at decisions on whether practices and agreements are contrary to the public interest. Who would be in a better position in the tribunal to make such an assessment than the economist? Consider another major problem that will arise, in dealing with the definition of monopolisation. Professor Richardson in his comments on the Bill pointed out the very real difficulties there will be in proving monopolisation, because, by definition, monopolisation refers to the circumstance when some organisation is in a dominant position in respect of one third of the market. Who could assess the extent of the market better than an economist?

Let us take the experience of the English Restrictive Practices Court up to the present time. Stevens and Yamey published a work which shows that the average period taken for the consideration of an average case is more than 30 days. In 1962 only three decisions were arrived at by the English Restrictive Practices Court. In 1963 six decisions were arrived at. This shows that most intricate matters will have to be considered. In addition, let me quote the precedent that we have in our own arbitration legislation. Legislation setting up the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission provides for an economic bureau to be established to advise the Commission. It is true that the provision has been honoured in the breach and not in the observance, but nevertheless today, as never before, we need the services of trained economists in every field of administration, in every field of government and in every field of commerce and industry.

Mr BOWEN:
Parramatta

.- Clause 10 as it stands permits economists to be appointed as members of the tribunal providing they have a knowledge of, or experience in, industry and commerce. What is suggested by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Whitlam) is that we should appoint an economist who might be a pure academic who has no knowledge of industry and no experience in commerce, because if a person has such knowledge and such experience he may be appointed as the clause stands at present. I have considerable respect for economists and the contribution which they make towards solving problems of the type with which this tribunal will be concerned, but it must be remembered that the tribunal will be concerned with judging and not with theorising. It will have to make judgments about the affairs of a particular business and I am not persuaded that it would be an advantage to have on the tribunal a pure academic.

There is one other matter to which I should like to refer. Clause 10 (1.) provides that a person shall not be appointed as a presidential member unless he is or has been a barrister or solicitor of the High Court or of the Supreme Court of a State of not less than five years standing. The AttorneyGeneral has indicated that the Government intends to appoint persons who also have judicial status. It would not be a difficult matter to insert in the Bill a provision to that effect, and I ask the Government to consider specifying that in the Bill. At the time when this matter was first under discussion the business community seemed to favour an informal tribunal. The suggestion was perhaps that lawyers should not have too much say on it. I understand that now there is an increasing desire to have on the tribunal a lawyer of the highest possible standing. The reason for this is not far to seek. Businessmen have come more and more to realise that the decisions which will be made by this tribunal will be of far reaching importance. We know that one can proceed in the High Court as a matter of right if as ‘little as £1,500 is involved. It can be expected that matters involving far greater amounts will come before this tribunal. Therefore the business community requires the members of the tribunal to be of the highest standing. They do not want a tribunal that could be described as a second rate quasi-judicial tribunal.

I offer the suggestion that the reference to a person having judicial status might well be written into the Bill because otherwise in the future the course which the Government has said it will observe could easily be abandoned. There is no great difficulty. It is true that judges cannot be appointed to perform the functions set out in this Bill, but a judge could be made persona designate for seven years, and as that designated person he could carry out the duties of a presidential member of the tribunal.

Mr DALY:
Grayndler

.- The amendment moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Whitlam) is a simple but important one which I think might well be accepted by the Attorney-General (Mr. Snedden). When all is said and done, clause 10 provides for the qualifications of members to be appointed to the tribunal. Their capacity and their ability to judge the matters that will come before them will decide whether or not this legislation is a success. The honorable member for Isaacs (Mr. Haworth) mentioned certain people who might ultimately be appointed to these positions. The honorable member for McMillan (Mr. Buchanan) has indicated that there is great fear on the Government side that the men appointed might not have the desirable qualifications. On this side I express extreme concern about whom this Government might appoint to the tribunal. One has only to recall the qualifications of members of the Commonwealth Bank Board of the 1930’s which a government of the same political ilk as this one appointed. We had, for instance, one man appointed because he was a good polo player, a man named Ashton. He knew nothing whatever about banking but he was put there because he was a supporter of the government that appointed him. He was certainly a reputable citizen but his qualifications for the position were nil. I cannot recall the names of the other members, but the records of this Parliament show that in the 1930’s, when finance was a most important matter to the economy and the welfare of the people, as it is today, the Commonwealth Bank Board was dominated by people, appointed by an anti-Labour government, very few of whom had any knowledge of banking.

So, Sir, I view with trepidation the type of men who might be appointed. So does the honorable member for McMillan. He said the other day -

As for the Commissioner - the person who will put everybody on the spot for examination. . . . This could make a good job for a defeated Minister.

As I look round the chamber at the legal men aspiring to this position I think that there are a few candidates opposite who are making a trial run - and I am not impressed by their capacity to carry out the job. The honorable member for McMillan asked what the term “knowledge of Industry” meant. He said -

This leaves the field wide open for senior public servants who may need to be shifted from posi tions they hold or ex-members of Parliament who may be looking around for jobs.

Imagine if the honorable member for McMillan were appointed? What a shock to front up to him on a tribunal of this type? Where would that get the people of this country? One can see the dangers in the legislation unless the precaution proposed is added.

What about a man from the banking industry, like the honorable member for Mitchell (Mr. Irwin)? What if he ended up on the tribunal? He has certainly got a limited knowledge and has had limited experience of commerce and public administration, and therefore has the qualifications in those fields. But what does he know about economics? Nothing whatever, and yet he would be judging on matters of great importance to the community. When Government supporters express concern about who might be appointed to the tribunal we on this side shudder to think of whom the Government might appoint. We could even have the honorable member for Isaacs (Mr. Haworth) and people like that. Honorable members can see the dangers that exist. Take for instance the honorable member for Balaclava (Mr. Whittorn). If he were defeated at the next election he might be appointed to this tribunal, and in the Eisenhower tradition he might be administering a law with which he did not agree. So, the dangers are there.

What is wrong with a knowledge of economics? Take my friend the honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Crean) who is a man with notable achievements in the field of economics. People with his qualifications might well be the type who are required on this tribunal. I should like to know, with due respect to my deputy leader, why those in the legal profession are being exalted? Have they all the knowledge in the world required to administer this Bill when it becomes law? The only qualification for appointment as a member of the Trade Practices Tribunal is that an appointee must have been a barrister or a solicitor of the High Court or of the Supreme Court of a State of not less than five years’ standing. I have the greatest respect for the members of the legal profession but the fact that a man has been a lawyer of five years’ standing does not qualify him for appointment to this Tribunal. I have seen some lawyers of 10 or 20 years’ standing who could not get a person out of a case before a Court of Petty Sessions. The point I am making is that the appointment of a person with legal qualifications to this Tribunal must be justified. That is why in the amendment moved by the Opposition, simple though it is, would give full cover on the question of economics.

Clause 10 (2.) provides -

A person shall not be appointed as a member other than a presidential member unless he appears to the Governor-General to be qualified for appointment by virtue of his knowledge of, or experience in, industry, commerce or public administration.

Now, everybody realises that the GovernorGeneral, with due respect to him, will not know whether the person concerned has the ability or qualifications necessary. The man who will be making the appointment is the Attorney-General. The appointment is to be made exclusively on his recommendation to the Governor-General. No-one will convince me that the distinguished Governor-General we have today will consider the qualifications of all persons who might be appointed to this Tribunal. He will take the word of his Ministers, as he is bound to do. What could be better than to know that the man to be appointed to the Trade Practices Tribunal, as well as being a barrister or solicitor, is qualified in the field of economics. In every way he would be qualified to carry out the responsibilities of a member of this most important Tribunal. I urge the AttorneyGeneral to give consideration to this proposal.

I understand that the Attorney-General is to introduce an amendment in relation to the part time members of the Tribunal. The polo players who were members of the Commonwealth Bank Board in years gone by were part time members also. If it is good enough for the Government to set up a tribunal of this kind to control restrictive trade practices, it ought to be good enough for members of that Tribunal to be appointed on a full time basis. I can see no reason why they should not be appointed full time. It is like the part time company directors of which the judges spoke at the recent legal convention. It is because of these part time directors that so many companies have crashed in commerce and industry in recent times. These crashes occur because part time directors are members of a dozen, 20 or 30 boards. I think that appointment to the Trade Practices Tribunal ought to be on a full time basis and also that the appointee ought to be qualified in economics. Above all else, he ought to be completely free of political interference, or anything of that kind, by the government of the day.

In view of some government appointments, I sincerely trust that the gentlemen appointed to the Tribunal will be impartial. I hope that none of them will have been tied up with some of the great combines in this country or have appeared for them before courts or bodies of that nature. If appointment to this Tribunal is to be part time, the Government will find that those appointed will not give up their interests or their connections in industry or law. For that very reason, and to safeguard the integrity of the Tribunal, to see that its members are impartial in every way and to ensure that it is not used as the pawn of government policy, the Government must make appointments full time. The persons appointed should have not only those qualifications already written into the Act but also a sound knowledge of economics. I urge the Attorney-General, in his wisdom, to accept the amendment. It is a very important one which cannot be taken for granted. A dozen and one honorable members looking at me at the moment appear intelligent and act intelligently but they may not be qualified, as defeated members, to take a position to which the Government might appoint them on this Tribunal. I submit these constructive remarks to the Attorney-General for his consideration.

Mr IRWIN:
Mitchell

.- After hearing the remarks of the honorable member for Grayndler (Mr. Daly) I ask: What does the honorable member mean by an economist? A person can study economics for years. That proves nothing. There are only four or five salient features in the study of economics. But a man who makes this study is simply a theorist. If he has had no experience in commerce and industry he would serve no useful purpose as a member of the Trade Practices Tribunal. I ask the honorable member for Grayndler: How many economists control any business or public concern? If the honorable member can answer that question I will be pleased.

Economists axe a necessary commodity to give opinions and to bring out statistics, but as for their controlling any industry or works, I ask the honorable member for Grayndler whether he can point out any economist in any sphere at all in Australia today other than in an advisory capacity?

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Dr. Vernon.

Mr IRWIN:

– Of course, there may be economists in positions of control, but they have had further training in marketing, merchandising and managerial control. To appoint a theorist economist to this Tribunal would be simply stupid. A person would not be excluded from appointment to the Tribunal because of the fact that he was an economist provided he had the other experience in commerce and industry. To appoint a theorist economist to this Tribunal would be courting disaster. I oppose the amendment.

Mr STOKES:
Maribyrnong

.- Having listened to the debate on this matter, I am quite concerned that the Committee seems to be divided and is considering academics as against experienced men for appointment to the Trade Practices Tribunal. Clause 10 (1.) provides that the only qualification for appointment as a presidential member is that a person must be a barrister or solicitor of five years’ standing. It does not provide that he must have practised as a barrister or solicitor for five years. Such a person possibly would know nothing whatsoever about matters of industry, commerce and public administration.

Mr Whitlam:

– As the honorable member says, the person need not be in practice.

Mr STOKES:

– That is so. He need not have practised. I come to my second point. Clause 10 (2.) provides -

A person shall not be appointed as a member other than a presidential member unless he appears to the Governor-General-

That is to say, his representative, the Attorney-General - . . to be qualified for appointment by virtue of his knowledge of, or experience in, industry, commerce or public administration.

So, immediately the door is opened to a man with absolutely no experience whatsoever but with academic knowledge only in the subject. The position would be that there would be three people with no experience on the Tribunal. If the amendment that is foreshadowed by the honorable member for Isaacs (Mr. Haworth) is taken notice of, the Tribunal could comprise two people without experience and one person with experience.

In the case of business practices, the Tribunal should be made up of people who have experience in industry and not people who are academics. As far as the amendment proposed by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Whitlam) is concerned, I would have said that a man with knowledge of commerce would qualify as an economist without any addition to that clause. I think I would much rather see an amendment which contained the words - by virtue of his knowledge of, and experience in, industry, commerce or public administration.

Knowledge and experience should go hand in hand particularly when we are dealing with trade practices. It is practices with which we are dealing. It is the practical application of commerce and not airy-fairy economists or various sorts of pressures on the economy. I do not know what all this feeling is about. I cannot understand why the draftsman has used the words, “knowledge of, or experience in.”, giving the alternative. The requirement should be knowledge and experience.

Mr CREAN:
Melbourne Ports

.- I would agree with the honorable member for Maribyrnong (Mr. Stokes) if the clause read “knowledge and experience”. But it is not written that way. It reads “ knowledge of, or experience in”. It was because the clause was written in that way that our committee, when it came to examine the clause, believed that anybody could be brought within its ambit, except a person who had had mainly an academic experience in economics. I do not suggest that just anybody ought to be appointed to this tribunal. I believe that its personnel ought to be carefully chosen. A person who has had an academic experience in economics may have a great knowledge of all sorts of other things, but it seemed to us that such a person was excluded.

I cannot understand why we have had all this argument this afternoon. It is easy enough to score off other people and to be glib about economists. Anyway, our amendment does not refer to an economist, but to a person with knowledge of or experience in economics. The term “ economist “ is like a lot of other terms. When the terms “ psychologist “ and “ psychiatrist “ are used, they sometimes arouse certain reactions in people. In our view, this is a field in which a large part of the discussion will take place at the level of professional economics. As has been said here this afternoon, scarcely any businesses of any substance, including the banks, do not have economists. Perhaps the economists that businesses have are in their right place; they are on tap rather than on top. There seems to be a fear that if an economist were a member of the tribunal he would be a bad mix with the other people. All we believed was that our amendment would complete the clause.

I hope that the Attorney-General, in replying, will indicate whether he proposes to change “ or “ to “ and “. If that change was made, I would see some logic in the exclusion of economics. But the word in the clause is not “ and “; it is “ or “. There are two groups of qualifications. A person can be appointed to the tribunal because he has knowledge rather than practical experience, or he can be appointed because he has experience rather than theoretical knowledge. I ask honorable members to think about the words in the clause. Almost the only person who could not be appointed to this tribunal is one with a specialised knowledge of economics. Why should not such a person be appointed? We have no particular brief for people skilled in economics or for economists, if honorable members opposite like that term.

We went through this Bill fairly carefully. We might say that we went through it almost word for word. It seemed to us that it was wrong to exclude a person with knowledge of or experience in economics, as distinct from industry, commerce or public administration. The English Act, to which my friend the honorable member for Cunningham (Mr. Connor) referred, uses the words “public affairs” rather than the words “public administration “. If this clause had used the words “ public affairs “, a person with knowledge of economics might have been regarded as being eligible for appointment. After all, what is the difference between public affairs and public administration? Finally, I ask: Why exclude a person with knowledge of or experience in economics? That is the only question that the AttorneyGeneral has to answer. We would be interested to hear what his answer is.

Mr BUCHANAN:
McMillan

.- This clause is a pretty vital one. I can understand why there is quite a lot of feeling on it. I refer, first of all, to sub-clause (1.), which says that a person shall not be appointed a presidential member unless he is or has been a barrister or solicitor of not less than five years’ standing. The point has been raised that he need not have practised as a barrister or solicitor. I suggest that the Attorney-General has an alternative here. He has said that this is to be a judicial appointment. The honorable member for Parramatta (Mr. Bowen) has pointed out how the alternative could be adopted. The clause could be amended to read that the legal member of the tribunal should be a judge. If, in the view of the AttorneyGeneral, this should be a judicial appointment, I believe that that should be stated specifically in the Bill.

After all, when this legislation is in force other governments may come to power and they may have a different view from that of the present Government. As the clause stands, a presidential member has merely to be a barrister or solicitor. I suggest very definitely that the word “ practising “ should be inserted between the word “ a “ and the word “ barrister “. I would even suggest that the words “ or has been “ seem to be superfluous. But in the legal jargon they may be necessary. Those words are indicative of something that appears throughout this Bill. There are always alternatives or references to something in the past. They may be necessary, but I can see no real benefit in their inclusion in the wording of the Bill.

The other matter is the phrase “ knowledge of or experience in industry”. The honorable member for Maribyrnong (Mr. Stokes) suggests that the word “ or “ should be “ and “. I believe that that would solve the problem to some extent. It would certainly be much more acceptable for the member to have knowledge and experience. However, the point at issue at the moment is in regard to economists. Much more than necessary has been made of this point. We have no objection to economists as economists. The honorable member for Parramatta has pointed out that there is no reason why an economist should not be a member if he has the other qualifications. The honorable member for Melbourne Ports has just made the point the other way round; namely, that an economist may have the other qualifications. But the clause, in its present form, as the Government has written it and as I expect the Government hopes to have it passed, reads “ knowledge of, or experience in, industry, commerce or public administration “. I hope that we will alter clause 18, when we come to it, so that one member of a Division of the Tribunal must very definitely have experience in industry. The way that clause stands now, a division of the tribunal could consist of two economists. Where would we be in that event? They would never agree.

It must be pretty clear from other clauses - particularly clause 12 - that public servants will comprise a very important field of recruitment for members of this tribunal. The result could be that the members had no experience in business at all. Public servants do a fairly good job in their own place. Although I suggested in my speech in the second reading debate that public servants might be appointed to this tribunal, I did not mean it to be taken that I was at all in favour of that. I do not think anyone would read my speech in that way. Now the Opposition proposes the addition of the word “ economics “. I was rather intrigued by the reference made by the honorable member for Parramatta to pure economists. That seemed to envisage university professors or lecturers being appointed to the tribunal. Such people love these part time jobs. They give talks on the radio, they appear on television and they write articles for the newspapers. These people infuse into our lives a lot of material that very often is a source of amusement and usually a basis for debate - or perhaps for argument, if honorable members like to put it that way.

Surely we are not to take it that these economists, academics, public servants and people from industry are to sit in judgment on what goes on in industry. It may be a very good idea to have these people engaged in many fields. As was mentioned to me a moment ago, the banks like to retain economists. But they retain them only to provide statistics and opinions and to give advice. The banks do not put economists in positions in which they will have judicial powers and make decision of the sort that are inherent in the far reaching examinations that the proposed Trade Practices Tribunal will have to make. I ask the AttorneyGeneral seriously to consider these two points and see whether he can agree to the alterations that have been suggested. If he wants judicial appointments, all right: Let us specify judges. If he wants to leave the clause in its present form, in which it uses the phrase “ a barrister or solicitor “, let us accept the proposition that an appointee shall be a practising barrister or solicitor. Let us also accept the proposition that in the phrase “knowledge of, or experience in, industry “ the word “ or “ should be replaced by the word “ and ‘*. As I was making my last observation it was suggested to me that there will not be sufficient barristers or solicitors available to become members of the Tribunal because they all will be so busily engaged by industry as not to want appointments on the Tribunal.

Mr SNEDDEN:
AttorneyGeneral · Bruce · LP

– Mr. Chairman, I very briefly make the point that, as has been said, there will be no disqualification of a person who has knowledge of economics, but he would have to comply with the other requirements in the clause. The honorable member for Parramatta (Mr. Bowen) and the honorable member for McMillan (Mr. Buchanan) made a point concerning this question of judicial appointment. I direct the attention of the Committee to the wording of sub-clause (1.), which specifies not less than five years’ experience as a legal practitioner. This is the qualification specified in legislation relating to the appointment of judges, and I would not expect the Committee really to quarrel with it. I have also been asked the question: Why not write into the clause provision that a presidential member of the proposed Trade Practices Tribunal shall be a judge or a person of judicial status? The point is that to qualify for appointment as a presidential member of the Tribunal as the clause stands a person must have qualifications for appointment to judicial office or a position that has the rank, status and title of a judicial office. The Government has announced that as a matter of policy it will appoint only a person with the experience to qualify him for judicial office. I do not think it would be desirable to include in the Bill at present the sort of provision proposed in the amendment; Therefore, I do not accept it.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Clause 11. (1.) Subject to this Part, a member holds office for such period, not exceeding seven years, as is specified in the instruments of his appointment, but is eligible for re-appointment. (2.) A member shall be paid salary at such rate as the Governor-General determines, but his salary shall not be diminished during a term of office.

Mr SNEDDEN:
AttorneyGeneral · Bruce · LP

– I move -

Omit sub-clause (2.), insert the following sub-clause: - “ (2.) A member shall be paid remuneration at such rate as the Governor-General determines, but the rate shall not be diminished during a term of office.”.

Honorable members will see by reference to the Bill that the differences in the proposed new sub-clause are very slight. It is proposed to take out the word “ salary “, first appearing, and to insert in its place “ remuneration “ and then, later in the subclause, to take out “ his salary “ and to put in its place “ the rate “. The difference is not very great, but it goes to the point that I made when giving notice of these amendments, that is, that as I see the position it will not be practicable to regard the Trade Practices Tribunal as being capable of being occupied full time in the early stages and, perhaps, not being able to be occupied full time at any stage because of the nature of the proceedings before the Tribunal.

In the early stages we will need to have a Tribunal because of the duties of presidential members, but in those early stages there are not likely to be many matters coming before the Tribunal until the time at which the Commissioner of Trade Practices has had an opportunity to process them - I use the word “ process “ in a broad sense - and engage in the consultations which, by the statute, he is obliged to engage in. The

Government felt, and I fully concur in this view, that it would not be proper to appoint as members of the Tribunal individual people whose only occupation was exclusively that of sitting on the Tribunal and leave them unoccupied for large periods of time. At this point of time it is not possible to say accurately for what periods they will be unemployed in the sense of not being occupied on the duties of the Tribunal, but we do know that they will not be fully occupied and they cannot be fully occupied because the Commissioner will have to go through this processing.

Further, the purpose of the consultations in which the Commissioner is obliged to engage is to narrow down the issues and to shorten the period of time that will be occupied in the hearings, but, perhaps more importantly, to enable the consultations to reach the result that the Commissioner and the parties can see a manner in which an agreement may be amended or a practice may be amended so that it will no longer be contrary to the public interest and, therefore, will no longer need to go to the Tribunal for determination. The Commissioner may put in quite a deal of time with this process, but what I think is more important in terms of regarding this amendment as necessary is that we could well have, as has been the experience in England, the situation where a matter is got ready to be taken to the Tribunal, a date may have been fixed for the hearing before the Tribunal and, shortly before the hearing is about to take place, the consultations having proceeded, a successful result is concluded by the parties to the consultation. It may be that the matter will come before the Tribunal and at that time the parties will take advantage of the provision in the legislation which will enable them to give undertakings to the Tribunal and the Tribunal to accept those undertakings. It may be that the proceedings before the Tribunal will collapse and that there will not be the opportunity to bring other proceedings before the Tribunal until a reasonable period of time has elapsed in which to enable the Commissioner to go through the statutory processes which he will be obliged by the Act to do. For these reasons I suggest to the Committee that it accept the amendment which I propose.

Mr WHITLAM:
Deputy Leader of the Opposition · Werriwa

– The Australian Labour Party will not accept the amendment which the Attorney-General has proposed. It is true, as he has said, that there will be no work for the Trade Practices Tribunal to perform unless and until the Commissioner of Trade Practices refers matters to it. Furthermore, there will no longer be work for the Tribunal to perform once the Commissioner no longer sends matters to it. The conclusion he draws, that the Tribunal should therefore consist of part time people, would be valid if the Bill required the members of the Tribunal to be appointed at the same time as the Commissioner is appointed, but the measure does not require this. We all know that the mere provision that a Tribunal is hereby established does not establish it. The GovernorGeneral still has to appoint members to it. The Constitution has always said that there shall be an Inter-State Commission, but only for seven years was there ever an InterState Commission in existence. Accordingly, there is no need to appoint members to the Tribunal until there are matters to be referred to it by the Commissioner.

The Tribunal can sit in divisions. There may well be an increase in work for the Tribunal and, therefore, the necessity for several divisions as more matters are referred to it by the Commissioner. In the first instance, members need not be appointed to the Tribunal until the Commissioner is ready to send matters to it. Furthermore, no more members need be appointed to the Tribunal than are sufficient to constitute one division until the Commissioner has referred more matters than one Tribunal can tackle single handed. Accordingly, we are not impressed by the Attorney-General’s argument for making the Tribunal part time. There is another reason, however, why we think the Tribunal should be appointed for at least the seven year period. It is not being appointed for life as a court would be appointed; it was to be appointed, under the Bill as introduced, for a maximum of seven years, as happens with the Inter-State Commission under the Constitution. So members of the Tariff Board are appointed for not more than five years and members of the Commonwealth Grants Commission for not more than three years under their statutes.

The advantage of having a fixed term of appointment is that thereby the Tribunal will attract men of greater competence and greater independence. If the Tribunal is to be a part time body it is obviously not likely to attract men who will give their full efforts to it. Moreover, it is not likely to attract men who will be single minded in carrying out the functions entrusted to the Tribunal under the proposed Act. The early years of the Tribunal will be crucial in devising controls over restrictive practices and monopolies in this country. The tribunal in Britain found that it had to take a very long time over the first matters with which it was dealing. It was fully engaged and its work has not since diminished. We believe that the Attorney-General’s change of heart in this instance is not a good one. We do not believe that he has made out a case for it.

Mr KILLEN:
Moreton

.- This afternoon, when the Committee was dealing with clause 9, I drew attention to what I considered was a vagueness in relation to clause 11. My learned friend, the AttorneyGeneral (Mr. Snedden), rejected my argument. I now appeal to him to reconsider it. Clause 11 reads -

Subject to this Part, a member holds office for such period, not exceeding seven years, as is specified in the instrument of his appointment, but is eligible for reappointment.

If my honorable friend will look at the definitions clause, he will notice that “ member “ means a member of the tribunal, and includes the president and a person appointed to act as a member. In his speech dealing with the amendment then, the Attorney-General referred to the fact that the presidential members of the tribunal will be judges. I submitted to him that there is a vagueness which could give rise to a good deal of misunderstanding and which could possibly lead to needless litigation. As we all know, we cannot appoint a judge to be a member of a tribunal for but a few short years. As clause 11 now stands, reading it with the definitions clause, it picks up the president of the tribunal. To paraphrase, the clause could be read this way: “ Subject to this Part, a member “ - that is to say, a presidential member - “ and a non-presidential member hold office for such periods not exceeding seven years “ and so on. I do not press this upon my honorable friend, but I do ask him to look now, before any misunderstanding arises, at the scope that is available within this argument that I have advanced to him.

Having said that, I want to ask the Attorney-General this: When a nonpresidential person is appointed - I do not use that term disrespectfully - is he given a commission, as it were, for seven years? Is it an ad hoc appointment? Do we say, in effect: “ You are a non-presidential member of the tribunal for seven years. Whenever there is work for you we will invite you to come in and sit on the tribunal”? I hope my friend will explain that to the Committee.

The last point I want to make in connection with clause 11 is this: I submit there is a ground upon which public disquiet could arise regarding the retiring allowance of a non-presidential person who is appointed for seven years. Before it was announced that the presidential members would have the status of members of the judiciary, I had contended that it would be virtually impossible to get practising members of the legal profession to give up their profession for seven years if they did not know what was ahead of them. I ask my friend to explain on what basis the retiring allowances will be paid to non-presidential members.

Let me sum up the points I have made. I invite him to look again at the difficulty that could emerge, having regard to the definition of “ member “ in the definitions clause. As I read the clause, it could encompass presidential as well as non-presidential members. I ask him to consider the basis on which the non-presidential members will be appointed and the basis on which retiring allowances will be paid to non-presidential members.

Mr CREAN:
Melbourne Ports

.- I suggest that clause 1 1 cannot be considered without at the same time giving some consideration to the amendment which the Attorney-General (Mr. Snedden) proposes to move to clause 17. He proposes to move for the deletion of clause 17, which, as it now stands in the Bill, states -

A member shall1 not engage in paid employment outside the duties of his office.

Apparently, when the Bill was drafted, the presumption was that the members of the tribunal ought to be full time members.

What the Attorney-General is suggesting now - I can see his point - is that in the early stages there will not be enough work-

Mr Snedden:

– No. I made the point that certainly in the early stages there will not be enough work, and that in the later stages there might not be.

Mr CREAN:

– Let me make my point in my own way. With all respect to the AttorneyGeneral, I think he is wrong. Even if there is not any work for the tribunal, I think that during the time when they are not very busy the members whom he appoints should have a look at how some of these tribunals in other parts of the world are working. In the academic world - we had an argument about academics this afternoon - sabbatical leave is taken at the end of a certain time. The members of this tribunal could enjoy the luxury of being able to take their sabbatical leave in advance. The amendment proposes that they shall be paid on a pro rata basis. I presume that instead of paying them £5,000 or £6,000 per annum, they will be paid at a certain rate per month if they serve for a month. I should think that some of these people would be much better members if they saw how other tribunals work before this tribunal gets cluttered up with business. It was suggested during the second reading debate that the Commissioner and the tribunal could get cluttered up with work. Very little, if anything, will go through to the tribunal except through the Commissioner. I suggest, with respect, that we should appoint the members of the tribunal and give them an opportunity of travelling around the world. I should think they would get a great deal of valuable information if they were to visit the United Kingdom, the United States of America and possibly Scandinavia, where tribunals of this kind are established. I suggest also that they be appointed at an annual salary, not just on a pro rata basis.

Looking at what is suggested in clause 17, it would seem that when the AttorneyGeneral drafted the Bill in the first place he thought that the members of the tribunal should be full-time members. I think that is a fair enough deduction to draw from the Bill as it was written originally. It would seem that the Attorney-General has had second thoughts about the matter. I suggest that he have third thoughts about it and appoint the members with full-time status. I think that the work of the tribunal in the future will be greatly advantaged if the members are given the opportunity in the next 12 or 18 months to examine die procedures under corresponding legislation in other parts of the world.

I support the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Whitlam) in his opposition to the Attorney-General’s proposal. In doing so, I am offering a new ground for our opposition. I ask that the Attorney-General give serious consideration to appointing the members of the tribunal with full-time status and to giving them the right during the next 12 or 18 months to examine how other tribunals are working. I think our tribunal will be all the better for the knowledge that its members will be able to gain from being able to move freely from one part of the world to another.

Mr BOWEN:
Parramatta

.- I suggest that the proposed amendment will improve the tribunal. As the Bill was drafted it would have been necessary to approach a barrister or solicitor and offer him appointment as a presidential member for seven years. It would have been a limited appointment for a man to accept. I doubt whether we would have got people of sufficient quality. The proposal of the AttorneyGeneral (Mr. Snedden) is to appoint persons having the status of judges in another capacity who will sit for whatever times they are required to sit as presidential members of the tribunal. This is a definite improvement.

So far as the lay members are concerned, I suggest again that if we proposed to try to persuade someone of competence to leave an industry in which he had good prospects of advancement, it would be most difficult to get a man of the right calibre if we offered him a seven year term. It is most unlikely that we would attract men from the top or second echelon. We might possibly get someone from the third echelon - someone who was dissatisfied with his advancement in industry and who would be prepared to leave that industry and serve on the tribunal. It is unlikely that an industry would be happy about a person of that type sitting permanently inquiring into the industry. If this amendment is adopted lay members will still be offered a seven year term, but they will not be required to serve only on the tribunal. What it means is that there will be a panel. One can visualise that the top echelon of business will be prepared to have their names on a panel, with a seven year appointment, so that they can sit on particular matters in which they are experienced. Experience of arbitration panels in the United States of America and elsewhere suggests that we would be more likely to get a good type of person to sit on such a tribunal by having names on a panel rather than by requiring people to abandon their position in industry and devote themselves entirely to the tribunal. I support the amendment.

Mr. CONNOR (Cunningham) [8.211.- I think I might well quote to the Committee the comment of Professor Richardson as reported in the “Australian Financial Review” of Thursday last. The report stated -

Professor Richardson also criticised the decision that the members of the Trade Practices Tribunal could be appointed on a part-time instead of a full-time basis . . . Mr. Snedden’s comment that the work of the tribunal might not occupy its members full time in the early stages of operation might prove to be the opposite of the tribunal’s experience.

It could be that the tribunal would be fully occupied in the early stages laying down its principles of operation.

We lag 50 years behind the rest of modern industrial democracies in legislation, of this nature, and that precisely is the backlag with which the proposed tribunal will need to deal. I find it difficult to believe that the Attorney-General (Mr. Snedden) is serious. There is perhaps another more transparent motive in this because, after all, judging by his comments during the second reading, he addressed himself primarily to the “ reluctant dragons “ within his own ranks, explaining away their particular reservations. It would sugar-coat the pill to these people to suggest that after all these nonpresidential members will be part time functionaries only, that the Bill is not going to hurt anyone in particular and that the functions of the tribunal will be very limited indeed. However, the position will be precisely the opposite, because we live in the most monopoly ridden of the industrial democracies of the Western world.

The former Attorney-General stated that there were no fewer than 500 to 600 trade associations, a considerable part of whose activities was directed towards restrictive trade practices. The number has grown with the years. Professor Hunter made an estimate of 1,100, and in more recent months a Mr. R. D. Freeman estimated that there were 1,250 of these associations of which at least two-thirds were engaged In doing their very best to devise, promote and continue restrictive trade practices. In addition we have the word of Professor Hunter that in terms of concentration of industry Australia is twice as bad as the United Kingdom and three times as bad as the United States of America, which is normally considered to be the home of monopoly. I doubt the Attorney-General’s seriousness in making a submission of this nature to this Committee. As I see it, the tribunal will have work to do - serious work. Let us consider the experience of the United Kingdom Established Restrictive Practices Court where the average time spent last year was 30 days a case. In England there were almost 3,000 registered agreements - I think the Attorney-General mentioned a figure of 2,700. I venture to say that there will be at least 1,000 agreements registered in Australia. Of course there is the possibility that some of the parties may - to use the vernacular - take a punt. It may pay them not to register their agreements. It may pay them to go on their own sweet way for a considerable time and at the worst if they are caught there will be a fine of £1,000. However, they may have made millions in the meantime by carrying on their practices. Even when caught up with, the only offence with which they will be charged is for nonregistration of agreements. There will be no antecedent damages payable from the time of the tribunal’s findings.

This tribunal will have immediate work to do. The Committee must consider the implications of clause 61 under which negative clearances will be sought by people who are in a hurry to start new ventures or who wish to develop, on a substantial scale, existing ventures. In both cases they will be anxious, after the mere formalities of inquiry by the Commissioner of Trade Practices, to get a negative clearance. There, for a start, will probably be the first type of cases to be dealt with. The Bill, as originally drafted, should stand.

Mr BUCHANAN:
McMillan

.- I should have thought that the honorable member for Cunningham (Mr. Connor) would have had a much greater appreciation of what has been done for his home town of Wollongong by the steel industry in making possible employment, and the benefits derived therefrom, and of the fact that in that instance an intelligent industry has known what it has been doing and has done a darned good job in providing for Australia and for the people. However, I mention this just in passing. He was completely despondent and said we were 50 years behind the times. This legislation is 25 years ahead of its time, as I said the other night during the second reading debate.

In the last few days this clause has worried me more than anything else about the Bill. Until last Wednesday I took it for granted that we were to have a tribunal that would, for good or bad, investigate various agreements that were made, but then the Attorney-General (Mr. Snedden) told the House that those who comprised the tribunal would be occupying a part-time position. This really worries me, particularly as I try to grapple with the intricacies of the Bill. It makes me even more convinced that this legislation should never have proceeded.

Mr Daly:

– The honorable member should have voted against it.

Mr BUCHANAN:

– I think every honorable member knows that my feelings are all against it. However, enough time has been wasted by enough people already. The tribunal members are going to be part time. We have been asked to adjust our thinking to a different concept of the tribunal. The honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Crean) has suggested that the members of the tribunal should go for a world trip. I should have thought he would have had more regard for the taxpayers than that.

The honorable member for Parramatta (Mr. Bowen) suggests that we will have a panel from which to draw members of the tribunal. He said that people who have made a contribution to industry would comprise the panel. I can think of many people, whose names I would love to mention but out of kindness I shall not mention, who have been put on panels by this Government.

Mr Whitlam:

– Sir James Vernon?

Mr BUCHANAN:

– I did not mention names. It is horrifying to think that these people will be asked, now, to make a few bob on the side by placing their services at the disposal of the Government.

Mr Stokes:

– To sit in judgment.

Mr BUCHANAN:

– Yes, to sit in judgment. It was suggested that in doing this they would bring their knowledge of particular industries to bear on particular problems. I do not want to mention names, but I can envisage certain people sitting on this tribunal who are interested in an industry which has for years engaged in certain practices or been party to certain agreements. They may be asked to deal with another industry with which they are not associated. After all, who is to say that carpets are not in competition with linoleum or that glass bottles are not in competition with paper cartons? These people could do one of two things. They could report their competitor for doing certain things and retain their own practices. On the other hand because they are doing certain things which their competitor is accused of doing they could say: “ We had better not be too hard on poor old Joe because he is one of our mates.” It horrifies me to think that we have got to the stage of considering the appointment of part time members of the tribunal. The effects of this legislation came to our notice only in the last few days, so honorable members will, I hope, forgive me if I appear to be a little confused. Honorable members opposite may think that because of what I have said I will be prepared to vote with them on this issue.

Mr Courtnay:

– The honorable member will, too.

Mr BUCHANAN:

– I will not. There is another side to the matter. If we had permanent appointments another factor would have to be considered. These people are appointed to do a job. They will be paid big money. If there are not too many jobs being made available to them they will needle the Commissioner and say: “What about a bit of business, boy?” They must justify their existence. The more cases they sit on, the more harm they can do.

Mr L R JOHNSON:
Hughes

.- I want to add my voice to those of honorable members who have expressed concern at the Government’s inclination to relegate the tribunal, by virtue of this clause, to comparative obscurity. It seems to me that the tribunal will be bound to become a second rate body. In fact, the clause rather indicates that the Government anticipates the tribunal becoming a second rate body - an ineffective body. One gains the impression that the Government and, in particular, the Attorney-General (Mr. Snedden) hardly expect this legislation to work. To my way of thinking, everything seems to be back to front as far as clause 11 is concerned. We are debating whether people should be full time or part time appointees to the tribunal. If we are to look at this matter objectively I think we should first look at the salaries to be paid to these people. One would not want to fix the number of hours a person will work unless his salary were specified in some way and salaries certainly are not specified in this Bill.

A number of things in the legislation are ambiguous. Not only are salaries unspecified but also the time to be spent on the job, the amount of allowances, and matters ancillary to salaries are not specified. Nor is the number of personnel specified. How many of these people will be appointed, whether they be barristers or solicitors or whether they be people who have been appointed by virtue of their knowledge or experience in industry, commerce and public administration? This seems to me to be a most vague proposition and certainly the tenure of office is ambiguous and vague. The honorable member for McMillan (Mr. Buchanan) touched on an interesting point. If the proposition is that we are to have part time appointments - people who will, as it were, blow in and blow out every now and then - what will they do when they are not working for the tribunal? Suppose they are solicitors or barristers. Is it all right for them to be retained by the great monopolies on whom they may have to sit in judgment?

Mr Snedden:

– The honorable member has it all wrong. He is speaking in terms of solicitors and barristers. Is he referring to presidential members or to other members?

Mr L R JOHNSON:

– I am referring to members of the tribunal, whatever they happen to be. As I understand the proposition, it is quite competent for a barrister or solicitor to be appointed to the tribunal.

Mr Killen:

– We have finished with that.

Mr L R JOHNSON:

– We have not finished with it at all. This is referred to in clause 11.

Mr Giles:

– The honorable member is all behind.

Mr L R JOHNSON:

– Honorable members opposite will not face up to the fact that a solicitor or barrister may become a member of the tribunal.

Mr Killen:

– Did the honorable member not listen to the Attorney-General?

Mr L R JOHNSON:

– I have listened to every word that has been said in this debate.

Mr Davis:

– The honorable member is a glutton for punishment.

Mr L R JOHNSON:

– I am a permanent member of this tribunal, this Parliament - not a casual one. I am at an advantage because of my permanence and continued interest in the proceedings of this place. I suggest that honorable members opposite should face up to the fact that it is competent for a barrister or solicitor to be a member of the tribunal. What is he to do if he is retained by the Broken Hill Pty. Co. Ltd. or a big tobacco combine? He could in some other gentle and high capacity pass judgment on the people whom he represents. If the member is one of those people appointed by virtue of his knowledge of or experience in industry, commerce or public administration - not so much the latter but particularly the first two categories - he could be a businessman of accomplishment. He may be the general manager or a member of the board of a great commercial concern which is the subject of some examination by the tribunal. In other words, is there any possibility that these casual employees, who will have to sustain themselves with some other employment, may have a pecuniary interest in the matter upon which they are to deliver judgment? If this possibility exists it seems to me that it is far more desirable to advocate permanent employment of these people. If permanent employees had some time to spare they could, as the honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Crean) suggested, engage in a study of the complex legislation that operates throughout the world in respect of this kind of activity. This certainly would be desirable.

It seems to me that in the future some career men may well emerge to participate solely in various forms of government commissions and tribunals. This may become a profession for which people can train. These people may spend some time on tariff boards, restrictive practices tribunals or as members of the Australian Broadcasting Commission or a similar organisation. It does not seem to me to be unreasonable to encourage the development of an analytical, academic, yet practical group of persons who could be deployed for the purpose of examining the needs of the hospital authorities, universities and various other bodies about which reports come forward these days with great frequency.

I put this forward as a serious proposition. From what I have heard, there is a sharp division in the Committee between those who fear that permanency will lead to the development of a kind of ultra-bureaucracy and those who feel that the casual employment of members of this body will not do justice to the importance of the legislation.

Mr FREETH:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · Forrest · LP

– I rise to make one or two minor points. In the first place, we do not know what kind of work this tribunal will be called upon to do. This is new legislation covering a new field in Australia. The honorable member for Cunningham (Mr. Connor) gave a figure purporting to represent the total number of registrations of agreements under the English legislation. He did not tell us the kind of work the tribunal in that country was called upon to do. I have not the complete and final figures on this aspect of the matter, but I do have some figures in my mind. I think that in the first year of operation of the English tribunal some 2,300 agreements were registered. Of these more than 1,000 were abandoned before they came to hearing. There were 63 examined and of these 52 were not defended, so that in the outcome 11 out of more than 2,300 were contested. If we are going to have a similar experience in Australia, then obviously in the early days of the tribunal at least there will not be a great deal of work to do. But, as I have said, we do not know what our experience will be. Our legislation is slightly different from the British legislation and our experience may be different. We do not know. That is my first point

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Whitlam) made the point that we do not have to appoint a lot of ordinary members or presidential members to start with, and that we need only one division. Quite obviously we must have at least four presidential members to start with, because there is a later clause in the Bill providing for a review of determinations, and that review must be made by three presidential members who did not sit at the original hearing. This means that at least four presidential members will be required. We will not necessarily need to have four complete divisions, but we must have at least four presidential members and we must have more than one division, I suggest, in order to make up a reasonable sort of court. I believe, with the honorable member for Parramatta (Mr. Bowen), that we can have far greater flexibility, far greater expertise, in these tribunals if we have a fairly large panel from which to choose what we may call the lay members.

The other point I want to make is this: I do not know myself at this time what industry wants in this matter. I have had quite a long series of discussions over the years with various sections of industry. At one time industry did not want any lay members at all. The representatives of industry said: “ We might have our commercial rivals sitting on a tribunal. Therefore, we do not want any lay members.” Then at a later stage they said: “ We do not want any lawyers in this. Let some people expert in business sit on this tribunal.” When it was put to them that they might want some legal advice on how to handle a case, and that it was hardly right to have a lay tribunal hearing lawyers arguing points of law, they departed from their original point of view.

The kind of tribunal we now propose is one which was designed really to meet the views of industry as best we could intepret them from time to time. I believe the Go- vernment has done a good job in trying to meet the ideas of the commercial world on what would give them fair hearings of their cases.

Mr Whitlam:

– May 1 ask whether industry and commerce expressed a preference for the part-time tribunal or for the sevenyear tribunal?

Mr FREETH:

– As to that, I cannot give an answer. We have had all kinds of views. What I was trying to say was that at various times we have had expressions of views over the whole range, and that this legislation represents the Government’s judgment of what industry regards as fair. I want to make the point that over the years - this has been going on for many years now - we have swung from one extreme to the other. We have heard preferences for tribunals of laymen only, of judicial members only, of partly one and partly the other. We have heard as many views from industry as we have heard here tonight. 1 believe the decision the Government has finally reached is a fair and just one.

Mr CONNOR:
Cunningham

.- In reply to the Minister for Snipping and Transport (Mr. Freeth) I think I can do no better than quote from a book called “ The Restrictive Practices Court” by R. B. Stevens and B. S. Yamey, published this year. On page 143 the following appears -

Such a fundamental weakness has meant that the other virtues claimed for the judicial solution at the time of the passing of the 1936 Act have not become apparent. Advocates of the judicial solution insisted that its unique feature was the establishment of legal precedents and doctrines which led to certainty, predictability and consistency. After the first few decisions of the Court it did look as if such precedents and doctrines were growing up; one adverse decision appeared to have the effect of driving other similar agreements off the register. But as the ‘jury’ approach has become increasingly accepted, the value of any one case as a precedent has rapidly declined. None of the recent decisions appears to have had the effect of causing any but closely related agreements to be abandoned. Some standards, for example the idea of ‘ the reasonable price ‘, have, it is true, been evolved by the judges. But these developments, without a framework ot traditional legal principles, have done little to justify the claims for certainty and predictability. Nor is it even possible to talk of consistency in the Court’s decisions: the concept of consistency is scarcely relevant once the Court has insisted that its basic task is the evaluation of the facts and particularly the peculiarities of each particular industry. Another virtue claimed in 1956 was speed. It was said that this would distinguish the Court from its predecessor the Monopolies Commission. But even this has become increasingly less obvious. None of the recent cases has lasted for less than thirty days. This means not only heavy expenses, but, inevitably, that very few cases can be disposed of. In 1962 there were three decisions; in 1963 there were six. The wheel has come full circle, for the Monopolies Commission, at its peak, was capable of producing almost the same number of reports.

Mr BUCHANAN:
McMillan

.- I want to make a direct comment on what has been said by the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Mr. Freeth). He said that he did not know what industry wants.

Mr Freeth:

– I did not say exactly that.

Mr BUCHANAN:

– The Minister said he did not know what industry wanted because at one time it wanted legal men on the tribunal and at another time it wanted businessmen on it. There is only one thing that businessmen do want; they want the whole Bill withdrawn. Both the Minister for Shipping and Transport and the Attorney-General (Mr. Snedden) have given us figures relating to the number of registrations in England under similar legislation in that country. The Attorney-General gave a figure of 2,700. They seem to have completely forgotten the entirely different conditions that apply to registration in England compared with those that will apply in Australia. Under this legislation all agreements will have to be registered. In England they have an entirely different system of selecting certain industries and naming certain ones whose agreements have to be registered.

Mr DALY:
Grayndler

.- On this clause, as on others, I am altogether intrigued by the fact that members of the Country Party are significantly silent. Is it because they do not know anything about the Bill, or is it because they support the Bill whereas the back benchers of the Liberal section of the coalition do not? That is a question worth pondering. The clause appears to be closely allied with original clause 17 which reads -

A member shall not engage in paid employment outside the duties of his office.

I make passing reference to the fact that the Attorney-General (Mr. Snedden) intends to move that clause 17 be deleted. When the Bill was introduced the Government in tended that members of the tribunal would be full time members. Why has the Government changed its views? Why did it provide in the first place that the members were to be full time and now, for some reason or other, decide that they are to be part time?

The Attorney-General has said that the members of the tribunal would not have anything to do for 12 months or so. The members, if they were on a full time basis, could well travel to other countries, if necessary, to see how legislation of this type was working elsewhere, because this Government is 50 years behind practically every other country in regard to such legislation. New clause 1 1 (2.) provides -

A member shall be paid remuneration at such rate as the Governor-General determines, but his salary shall not be diminished during a term of office.

This puts the members on a part time basis. But the persons who are appointed will have to earn their livelihood. The Government says it wants men of integrity and capacity in these positions. These men, if they are on a part time basis, will seek lucrative employment in outside industry. How can they be impartial on a tribunal that is deciding possibly the most judicial matters outside the courts of this country if they are to be only on a part time basis? The Government realised the implications here when it introduced the Bill and provided that the positions were to be full time positions, but now it has decided that they shall be part time. This could place in question the integrity of the people who will be appointed.

I do not know why this was done. The people on this tribunal should be completely beyond reproach. There should be no possible challenge to their integrity or their impartiality, and there should be no semblance of association on their part with industry on a part time basis, even in respect of their incomes. To have men connected with industry as members of this tribunal must shake the confidence of the public in the capacity and the integrity of the tribunal to adjudicate on matters that come before it. If, in the early stages of this Bill, the Attorney-General and other members of the Government thought fit to make positions on this tribunal a full time occupation, why the sudden change? I think I know why. Since the very day that this legislation was first mooted by the former AttorneyGeneral, Sir Garfield Barwick, all the resources of vested interests have been brought to bear on Government Party members to change the legislation so as to suit industry and those engaged in the kind of malpractices with which the legislation was to deal.

During the debate we have seen Government supporters jump like puppets and give expression to views which we know have been forced on them by people outside the Parliament who are practising the things which this legislation should seek to defeat. That is why the Government has changed this provision. The honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Crean) pointed this out earlier in the debate. The change will place the integrity of the tribunal in question. The very fact that the tribunal will have nothing to do for 12 months is nol a justifiable reason for putting its members on a part time basis. Any tribunal requires time to settle in and study what is required of it. I point out that this tribunal would necessarily require many months for its members to settle into their positions and to study the situation. They would need to investigate the nature of the many problems with which they will be faced.

This Committee will need to be much more reassured than it is so far before it can give assent to the Minister’s proposal. I say again that I should like to hear members of the Country Party speak on this matter and let us know whether they think that this type of tribunal would be impartial. We know where the members of the Liberal Party stand. Whether we think of the honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Killen) or the honorable member for McMillan (Mr. Buchanan) or any one of many Liberal supporters, it is all the same. It is like picking a box. You can pick any one you like but you will find few of the Government backbenchers who really support the measure. The Country Party is significantly silent. Probably its members have a view on the legislation. Probably they know a bit about it but they are not prepared to speak on it. I should like the Minister to explain to me why the Government has changed its mind. How can the Minister expect people from the highest paid sections of industry, the best brains of industry, to take part in a judicial capacity on this tribunal when there is always the possibility that the tribunal’s reports will get the same treatment as the Vernon Committee’s report received from the Government? The Government rubbished the Vernon Committee’s report. Now it is going to ask people in industry to join this tribunal and perhaps have their reports similarly dealt with. The Minister might well ponder these matters. We desire to be assured regarding the reason for the change because we are far from satisfied so far and, indeed, I do not need to tell anybody that two thirds of the honorable members sitting behind the Minister are not satisfied either.

Mr HAWORTH:
Isaacs

.- I agree with a small portion only of the remarks of the honorable member for Grayndler (Mr. Daly). I agree with his reference to clause 1 1 (2.). As a result of the new clause which will be moved by the Attorney-General (Mr. Snedden) members of the tribunal will receive a remuneration and not a salary. As the honorable member for Grayndler said, the clause we are discussing must be read in conjunction with clause 17, which the Attorney-General proposes to remove. Clause 17 provides -

A member shall not engage in paid employment outside the duties of his office.

The removal of that provision means that the members of the tribunal can have two positions. They can be members of the tribunal and also carry on their normal occupations. That, I think, raises certain dangerous questions, because a member of the tribunal should have to give notice to the Attorney-General of the direct or indirect pecuniary interest that he might have acquired in some business or businesses in Australia. At present such a provision is not in the Bill, but if a person can be a member of the tribunal and also engage in a business which might be discussed by the tribunal it should be necessary for him to give written notice to the Attorney-General of his direct or indirect pecuniary interest in that business. If that notice is given to the Attorney-General it should also be given to the relevant parties that are before the tribunal. I think that the President would not only be anxious to have this information but would also be anxious to see that the people he appointed to the tribunal from the panel would not be people with interests that conflicted with their duties as members of the tribunal.

I hope that the Minister is listening to what I am saying. I am suggesting to the Attorney-General, Mr. Chairman, that he might lay down that the members of the Tribunal must advise him of what their pecuniary interests are so that confidence will be created in them. It looks as if I am wasting my time speaking to the AttorneyGeneral on this matter because he is engaged in discussion with another honorable member. This is a very important Bill. It will cut right across the interests of the business people in the community. It will cost the taxpayers of this country hundreds of thousands of pounds. Therefore I believe this matter should be thoroughly discussed by the Committee. It is on matters like this that the Minister should be listening to me.

Mr KILLEN:
Moreton

.- Mr. Chairman, I do not want to use the spurs on the Attorney-General but I had hoped that he could be persuaded to answer the questions that have been raised in Committee. I rise with respect to Clause 11 and refer to the drafting position as it now stands covering the presidential member as well as the nominated members of the Tribunal. Earlier this afternoon the Attorney-General suggested -

Mr Snedden:

– I made a note of the honorable member’s points and I will reply to them if he will wait until other honorable members have spoken.

Mr KILLEN:

– I am sorry. The Chairman was about to put the question in relation to this clause. It was my clear understanding that the Chairman was about to do so. That was the sole reason that prompted me to rise and ask the AttorneyGeneral whether he had intended to reply to the matters that had been raised.

Dr MACKAY:
Evans

.- Mr. Chairman, I should like to add a few words to what has been said on this matter. I have remained silent on the Bill realising that I do not possess any expert knowledge of it. I must say that I am in general agreement with the concept of the Bill. At the same time, I admit that I am disturbed by many of the things that are envisaged by the speakers to whom I have listened. The.heart of this legislation, it appears to me. lies in the calibre of the panels which supply the members of the various tribunals. I believe that unless we make every effort to see that these panels are as highly regarded as any in the community then we are falling short of our duty. I am gratified indeed that the Government has seen fit to raise the presidential member to the status of the judiciary. This is something which I believe is borne out of a sincere desire on the part of the architects of the Bill. It is an indication of the importance of this whole proposition in the eyes of the community. But the question of the so called lay members is something which begins to disturb my mind. Lay members indeed. This seems to me to be a retrograde step. It also savours of the process of going back to trial by a justice of the peace or to the employment of people because they have a certain kind of expert knowledge of industry or business as they have known it. But are these people going to fit in with the concept of a close knit community of administrators with a vision of the things the Government and the architects of this Bill are trying to achieve?

All of us who have any knowledge of the men who administer our government departments - the public servants who administer the Taxation Branch or any of the other government departments - are impressed by one thing regardless of our politics. That is the dedication of these people to their jobs, and the way in which they go about their work without fear or favour. I have had good reason recently to come into immediate contact, on behalf of some of my constituents, with those people administering the income tax section of the Taxation Branch. I must say that I came away from the Taxation Branch deeply gratified because of the dedication of these people to their jobs. Can we expect from the people who will make up the panel from which the lay members of these tribunals are to be drawn a similar dedication? I was going to use the word “ aloofness “, but I do not mean that. Are we to expect a dispassionate abstraction from the thrusts or intertwining loyalties of industry? These things are so important. I believe, that we must have something which is as much above suspicion as any of the laws of the land that are being drawn up or administered. I cannot share the concept of the honorable member for Hughes (Mr. L. R. Johnson) that it is possible that these people may have little to do in the early stages of the operation of this legislation. In any case, even if they do, is this such a grave matter? There are tons of material for them to read and plenty of experience for them to gain. If the men appointed are to build up a tribunal of the calibre I want to see, they have a lot of homework to do. Why should we be fearful that they may spend a week or two weeks perhaps at a loose end as regards the activities of the tribunal?

I believe that what we have to do is to seek out the men who will be the best servants possible of the Government and the people of Australia in this field. We do not want someone who will be an “omnibusman “, to coin a word, on the Australian Broadcasting Commission or the Tariff Board one day and the Australian Universities Commission on the next, as the honorable member for Hughes pointed out. As I say, they must be persons of high calibre who are dedicated to this task. I believe it is pinch penny if we are going to think of financial saving by giving these members the opportunity to earn a salary elsewhere in some part time capacity. The majority of people, perhaps not understanding this legislation fully, are nevertheless looking to it with the hope of a new kind of attitude in many places. I believe that this is the heart of the matter. Unless we are prepared to go out of our way to obtain the right people and to give them the time and the tools to do the job, we are falling down on the launching of the whole concept of this legislation.

Mr SNEDDEN:
AttorneyGeneral · Bruce · LP

– There seems to be a good deal of misconception about this matter. I hope, if I can in a few short words, to put it into correct perspective. The first thing is that at the initial stages I did contemplate that the members of the Trade Practices Tribunal would be full time members. I have given very close examination to the rapidity with which matters can come to the tribunal. I have had the opportunity of looking at the experience in the United Kingdom. I came to the irresistible conclusion that it would not be proper to require people to serve full time on the Tribunal when they could not be occupied full time. For that reason I decided to put to the Government - and the Government agreed with my submission - that an amendment should be introduced to enable members of the tribunal to serve part time. By enabling members to serve part time on the Tribunal we are able to have on the panel of members men of calibre who may have been difficult to obtain if the appointment had been full time. A great number of men reaching the age of 60 or thereabouts have had a life time of experience in industry and commerce and have a great contribution they could make to this tribunal. But they would not have been prepared to serve full time on it. I was constantly meeting complaints by people who no doubt, generally speaking, support the views of those three or four members who oppose this Bill to some degree. These people representing that point of view strongly put to me the proposition that they did not like the appointment of full time members who had been drawn out of industry. They said that to accept the appointment these full time members may be people with little future in industry or alternatively people who had reached the end point of their capacity in industry. Therefore the proposition was strongly put to me that there should be a panel of members which could be drawn from on a part time basis as and when required. The members of this panel would not need to serve full time and they might be able to bring to the Tribunal a wealth of experience and knowledge which otherwise would be denied to it. Allied with that is another very important aspect; namely, that by having part time members of the tribunal it would be possible to have as a presidential member a man already of judicial status. When he was not fully occupied, he could return to his normal judicial duties.

I am reinforced in the views which I put to the Government, which the Government accepted and which are the essence of these amendments, by the experience of the United Kingdom Restrictive Practices Court. The President of that Court is a member of the judiciary. When the Court is not sitting he returns to his duties in the High Court. He serves a considerable part of his time in the Restrictive Practices Court, but also spends part of his time, when he is not in that Court, on his normal judicial duties. That is what the Government sees for the presidential members of this Tribunal. The other members of the United Kingdom Court are part time members. They are drawn from a panel by the presidential member. That is what is proposed in these amendments. I believe that they are highly desirable.

I undertook to reply to my friend, the honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Killen), on a couple of points. As we sat next to each other for so many years, I owe him a reply. Although a presidential member is appointed for seven years, be carries with him the tenure of office that he had in his original appointment. If, for instance, a judge of a court or a person with judicial status in some arbitral tribunal were made a presidential member of the Trade Practices Tribunal, he would retain his original tenure of office and he would have his tenure of office of up to seven years, depending on the terms of his appointment, on the Trade Practices Tribunal. So they are in separate compartments.

The other point that the honorable member for Moreton raised was on the retiring allowances of other members of the Tribunal. This provision was inserted principally because it was contemplated that the other members would be appointed full time. That is not now the proposition. However, one does not know what experience will show. It may show that there should be full time members at some time in the future. If that were the case, it would be necessary to have this provision. So I think it is wise to leave it undisturbed for the time being.

Question put -

That the amendment (Mr. Snedden’s) bc agreed to.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr. P. E. Lucock.)

AYES: 57

NOES: 43

Majority 14

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 12 to 16 - by leave - taken together.

Mr KILLEN:
Moreton

.- Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask one question of the Attorney-General. Clause 12 has given rise to a considerable measure of public disquiet. People who have looked at it have concluded that it will open the floodgates for the appointment to the proposed Trade Practices Tribunal of members of the Commonwealth Public Service. I can readily understand that from time to time a member of the Tribunal would be drawn from the Public Service. The Minister has, I hope, put himself in a position to give us an assurance that for his part and certainly for the Government’s part this Tribunal will not be allowed to become a Public Service preserve. I can assure him that there is already a great deal of disquiet on this account.

Mr SNEDDEN:
AttorneyGeneral · Bruce · LP

– Mr. Chairman, I can give the honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Killen) an unqualified assurance. But even if only one member of the Public Service were ever to be appointed clause 12 would be necessary.

Clauses agreed to.

Clause 17.

A member shall not engage in paid employment outside the duties of his office.

Mr WHITLAM:
Werriwa

.- Mr. Chairman, I move -

At the end of the clause add the following subclause: - “ (2.) A person who is a director of a company shall not be appointed as a member, and a member shall not accept appointment as or act as director of a company.”.

This amendment would make in respect of members of the Trade Practices Tribunal the same provision as that made by the Bill in respect of the Commissioner of Trade Practices. This seemed to us to be a proper provision to make in a bill providing for a standing tribunal of members appointed for periods of up to seven years. However, as the Committee has indicated since my amendment was circulated that it believes that the Tribunal should be composed of part time members it is plain that the Committee would deliver the same decision on this amendment. Accordingly, I put no further arguments in support of it. I imagine that the Committee can express its view of the amendment on the voices.

Amendment negatived.

Clause negatived.

Clause 18. (1.) Except as otherwise provided by this Act, the Tribunal shall, for the purpose of hearing and determining proceedings, be constituted by a Division of the Tribunal consisting of a presidential member and two members who are not presidential members. (4.) The validity of a determination or order of the Tribunal purporting to be constituted by one or more members in accordance with this Act shall not be affected or called in question by reason of any defect or irregularity in the constitution of the Tribunal by that member or those members.

Mr KILLEN:
Moreton

.- Mr. Chairman, I move -

Omit sub-clause (4.).

My argument is blunt and, I hope, to the point. Sub-clause (4.) is completely inconsistent with the rule of law. I submit that it is of no avail for the Attorney-General or any other honorable member to point to the existence of a comparable provision in any statute and to say: “There it is. We defend the presence of this provision in this Bill on the ground that similar provision exists elsewhere “. The fact that some of us may have been asleep or indifferent or that we simply did not notice a similar provision sneaking through in any other measure passed by this Parliament does not defend the presence of this provision in the Bill now before us. I put it to the Attorney-General that a determination involving a question of law under the terms of clause 21 (1.) could be made other than by a presidential member of the Trade Practices Tribunal. This situation might arise completely by accident. It might result from the assumption that the matter on which the determination was made did not in fact involve a question of law. On the other hand, under the provisions of clause 22, two members of the Tribunal may be allowed to make a determination in the absence of the third member. They may have presumed that the President of the Tribunal would have approved their action or alternatively that he would have appointed a third member.

I put it to the Attorney-General that sub-clause (4.) of the clause now before the Committee is completely unworthy of this Parliament and completely inconsistent with the rule of law. I submit that it should be omitted. I do not believe that the Bill will lose anything by the deletion of this subclause. I put it to the Minister that the fact that the sub-clause may offer some tentative ground on which a person could seek to attack a determination made by the Tribunal is no reason for seeking to defend the presence of this provision in the Bill. T hope he can be persuaded to agree to its removal.

Mr HUGHES:
Parkes

.- Mr. Chairman, I cannot bring myself to agree with my friend, the honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Killen), on the point that he has just advanced. His suggestion is that sub-clause (4.) of the clause now before us will in some way infringe some rule of law. He mentioned the well known fact that this provision has its counterpart in many Commonwealth statutes. He conceded that, but he seemed to suggest that some fundamental rule of common law will be infringed by a provision such as the one now being considered by the Committee. In truth, the principle expressed in the sub-clause is but a reflection of a common law principle of very great antiquity. In an article by Sir Owen Dixon entitled “ De Facto Officer “ - that is the subject with which the subclause deals - which is printed in volume I of “ Res Judicatae “, at page 286, we find a reference to the matter in these terms - an independent principle which can be traced as far back as the Lancastrian period at least.

That is old enough for any keen common lawyer, I think -

Under that principle the acts of an officer de facto done in the apparently regular execution of his office have equal force and effect with those of an officer de jure when they concern the rights and duties of the subject.

That is the principle to which Sir Owen Dixon adverted in this learned publication. Therefore, I disagree with the suggestion of the honorable member for Moreton that some basic principle of the common law will be infringed. It would be more accurate to say that this sub-clause merely reflects and restates in statutory form an ancient common law principle. I see no objection to it.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

.- Mr. Chairman, I believe that what the honorable member for Parkes (Mr. Hughes) has said illustrates a feature of the Bill that is a little dangerous. I consider that it is dangerous to allow these practical questions to be quibbled about by lawyers. I have no doubt that what my honorable friend has said is impeccable in point of law. He is, after all, a senior member of the Bar. But what he said does not really make common sense when one looks at it in the context of the Bill.

Mr Kelly:

– It does not pretend to be common sense. It is a legal view.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– The honorable member for Wakefield has put the matter better than I could put it. Would the Committee mind looking at clause 52 (7.) of the Bill? I am hoping that this subclause will be altered when we come to it, but for the purpose of my argument we must take it that the clause stands unless the Attorney-General can now give us some assurance to the contrary. Clause 52(7.) states-

Orders of the Tribunal have the force of law.

This means that the Trade Practices Tribunal is, in effect, a law making body because it has no precedents to guide it and the guide lines that we are laying down are so wide and nebulous that the Tribunal is, in point of fact, to be vested with the functions of the Parliament. It is being set up as a law-making body.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– Part time.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– Part time, as my friend says. If we have a law making body set up outside the control and cognisance of the Parliament, and if the Committee does the foolish and, I think, reprehensible thing of passing clause 52 (7.) in its present form, then we have to be particularly careful about a clause such as the one now before us. The honorable member for Parkes has quoted a maxim which relates to the actual doing of specific acts, but he has applied it in a context where laws are being made. With respect, I point out that the sub-clause to which I have referred even contemplates circumstances where the Tribunal consisting of one member is making the law. In these circumstances, I think, it is incumbent upon us to be particularly careful that the Tribunal is properly set up and properly constituted. I do not think we should be swayed by the kind of quibbles which no doubt would sway a court of law; I think we must look beyond the legal form to the facts of the case. The facts of the case are that the Committee is at present being asked to put the law making powers of Parliament into the hands of another body which, in some cases, might consist of a single member of the Tribunal. While there is no redress for the Parliament in respect of the laws thus made, I think it is incumbent upon us to be particularly careful about how the Tribunal is constituted. I think there is force - perhaps not legal force, but the force of common sense - in what the honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Killen) has said.

Mr HAWORTH:
Isaacs

.- The honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Killen) has discussed clause 18 (4.), but I want to go back to clause 18 (1.), which the Committee will remember relates to the constitution of the Trade Practices Tribunal. This provision has a very close relationship with clause 10 which was discussed this afternoon. Clause 18 (1.), which I have a particular reason for reading, states -

Except as otherwise provided by this Act, the Tribunal shall, for the purpose of hearing and determining proceedings, be constituted by a Division of the Tribunal consisting of a presidential member and two members who are not presidential members.

I give notice that after the Committee has considered clause 18 (4.) I propose to move as an amendment that in sub-clause (1.) after the words “ are not presidential members “ the following words be added: “ and that each Division includes one member who has had practical experience in industry or commerce “. This gets back to the question which was raised and discussed earlier, namely one of the three personnel constituting the Tribunal will be a practical person who has a particular experience - not knowledge, but experience - of industry.

Mr L R Johnson:

– Any particular industry or any industry?

Mr HAWORTH:

– Any industry. I have no objection to academics or public servants being on the Tribunal, but I do believe that one member should be a person of experience. I believe that the adoption of this suggestion would give confidence to industry that its interests were being looked after. There is quite a deal of precedent for what I have suggested. Similar requirements work very well in the State wages boards. They work well also in the court of industrial appeal, in the compensation boards and the Tariff Board. I hope that the Attorney-General will accept this amendment because I believe that it would strengthen the Tribunal. It would remove any prejudice that might arise from the fact that it is composed of legal luminaries, academics, public servants or administrators. In this way industry would feel that it is being looked after and that its interests are being represented. At a later stage I shall move that amendment.

Mr STOKES:
Maribyrnong

.- I support the remarks of the honorable member for Isaacs (Mr. Haworth). Several of my colleagues have expressed the fear that at some time the tribunal may consist of a judicial presidential member who has no knowledge of a particular subject and two other members, who also may have no experience or knowledge of the particular subject. This could prevent the tribunal from giving practical consideration based on experience. I think this is most important. I was brought up in the hurly-burly of business practice and I have seen the way in which big companies tend to gobble up smaller companies and how there is a collusive get-together of the smaller companies to prevent this from happening. There are many features such as this that would not be appreciated by people who have not had the practical experience. Nor would they understand some of the background to agreements which are sought to be registered and dealt with. I believe that the safeguard proposed by the honorable member for Isaacs is necessary.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock:

– I do not want to interrupt the honorable member, but if he is supporting or speaking to the amendment foreshadowed by the honorable member for Isaacs I suggest that the Committee dispose first of the amendment moved by the honorable member for Moreton. Although we are considering the whole of clause 18, it may be advisable to complete the discussion on the amendment moved by the honorable member for Moreton before discussing the proposal suggested by the honorable member for Isaacs. I suggest that the honorable member may like to defer his remarks until we have disposed of the amendment that has been moved.

Mr STOKES:

– If that is your wish, Sir, I shall defer my remarks.

Mr KILLEN:
Moreton

.- 1 shall reply briefly to my honorable and learned friend, the honorable member for Parkes (Mr. Hughes). I was delighted with his refreshing return to the pristine qualities of the common law. However, I respectfully remind him that we are dealing on this occasion with a tribunal whose decisions will not be readily reviewable in a court of law. That is the first point I make. My honorable friend will recall that in my speech on the motion for the second reading of the Bill I laboured, possibly a little too heavily, the fact that this was to be a tribunal vested with tremendous discretionary powers which made the scope for the successful prosecution of a prerogative writ rather remote. That is the first count on which I invite my honorable friend to reconsider his stand. The second count on which I invite him to do so is this: Here is a tribunal that does not provide what I describe as a proper system of appeal. We simply have a review. There is no appeal to a court on a point of law. I put it to the honorable gentleman that those two arguments combine to make up a substantial case for the removal of this provision from this clause. If there is any defect or any irregularity in the constitution of the tribunal, there is no means readily available, by way of prerogative writ, to appeal. In this case, there is no appeal open whatsoever.

My friend has referred to the views expressed by Sir Owen Dixon. May I respectfully draw his attention to the views which are expressed on page 62 of “Judicial Review of Administrative Action”. They relate to the question of res judicata and are as follows -

Neither the order nor the findings can be upheld on the ground that they are res judicatae only that which is the subject of adjudication by a body exercising judicial functions can be res judicata.

Is my friend describing this as being a judicial tribunal? It is not.

Mr Whitlam:

– He is not quoting the principle of res judicata but the magazine “ Res Judicatae “.

Mr KILLEN:

– If that is the case, I apologise to him. I thought that was the principle on which he was seeking to impugn my argument. I withdraw my argument and ask to be allowed to expunge it from the record. My argument is that this is a tribunal that has power to make determinations of tremendous significance to the Australian economy. Its decisions are not open to review by way of the ordinary prerogative writ or by way of the ordinary appeal system. I fail to see why we should give to this provision the approval of this Committee or of this Parliament when it suggests that any defect or irregularity in the constitution of the tribunal will not raise the presumption that it could be called in question. I will not press the argument. I have no doubt that honorable members will be persuaded by what I have put to them.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– I have had the opportunity of refreshing my mind and I find that my memory was correct with regard to the principle that Sir Owen Dixon was putting forward in the article quoted by the honorable member for Parkes (Mr. Hughes). As would be expected, Sir Owen Dixon expressed it rather better than I could do. May I therefore quote his words? He said -

An inexorable application of the general principle that a nullity produces no legal consequences would mean that, since such a man was no more than a private citizen, his public acts must be considered ineffectual. It would mean, for instance, that an order of a court of summary jurisdiction would bind no one, if the appointment of a magistrate who made it were found to be invalid for want of the requisite qualifications: that an assessment for income tax was no assessment if the appointment of the Deputy Commissioner by whom it was authenticated were found to be void. . . .

That is quite obviously a practical approach. Sir Owen Dixon says that we have to adopt this principle in regard to particular cases, because otherwise administration would be hard to work. But in the case before us, there is a different principle involved. The orders of the tribunal will have the force of law, according to the Bill before us. I suggest that they will have also the force of precedents binding all subsequent decisions of the tribunal. Under these circumstances, when we are giving a law making power in general, we have to be actuated by somewhat different principles. Sir Owen Dixon is correct. It is obvious that the Chief Justice would be correct in a matter of this nature. What he says is based on the principle that administrative convenience requires this principle to be adopted in regard to particular cases. But this is not just the adoption of a principle in regard to a particular case. As my friend from Moreton (Mr. Killen) has pointed out, there is no appeal from decisions of the tribunal.

Mr Killen:

– There should be.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– Of course there should be, but that is not provided for in the Bill. We are conferring on this tribunal something more than a power to make a decision in a particular case; we are conferring on it - wrongly, I think - a power to make a decision which has the force of law. Under those conditions, I would suggest that the principle put forward by Sir Owen Dixon and quoted by the honorable member for Parkes is not strictly applicable. The circumstances are different. My friend from Parkes has perhaps been misled by not reading the full quotation from the Chief Justice.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Honorable members might care to grant leave for the honorable member for Moreton to withdraw his amendment in order to enable the Committee to deal with an amendment which the honorable member for Isaacs wishes to move. It relates to an earlier part of this clause. Is leave granted?

Mr Snedden:

– The honorable member for Moreton has indicated that he does not wish to press his amendment to a vote. As we have discussed the point raised by him, perhaps he might not wish to pursue his amendment.

Mr Killen:

– I do not propose to withdraw. I want the amendment to be included in the Bill, but I do not propose to call for a division. However, I will withdraw the amendment temporarily.

Amendment - by leave - temporarily withdrawn.

Mr HAWORTH:
Isaacs

.- 1 move -

In sub-clause (1.), after “ members “ insert “ and that each Division include one member who has had practical experience in industry or commerce “.

We are discussing the question of the constitution of the tribunal. My proposal is that at least one-third of the membership of the tribunal shall consist of persons who have had practical experience in industry or commerce. Some of the people who are appointed may be very good administrators. They may be - although it is unlikely - public servants. They may even be economists, although that too is unlikely. As I have said before, there is no objection to a public servant, an economist or an academic. However, we should have on this tribunal some people with practical experience of industry or commerce so as to remove all possibility of criticism of the tribunal on the grounds of bias.

Mr STOKES:
Maribyrnong

.- To go back to where we started from, this amendment moved by my friend the honorable member for Isaacs (Mr. Haworth) arises from the fact that in our earlier consideration of sub-clause (2.) of clause 10 we found it stated that a person shall not be appointed as a presidential member unless he is or has been a barrister or solicitor of not less than five years’ standing. Under sub-clause (2.) the persons appointed, other than presidential members, must exhibit to the Governor-General that they have had knowledge of or experience in industry, commerce or public administration. It is because clause 10 has been accepted in that form that I accept this amendment. As this provision now stands it would be possible to have a presidential member with no business experience whatsoever, a man with knowledge of industry but no experience and a member with knowledge of commerce or public administration and yet no experience. This could result in many difficulties. To understand, to have a fellow feeling or to properly adjudicate - in other words to judge one’s peers - there needs to be a leavening of industrial and commercial experience in these tribunals. I strongly urge the Attorney-General to consider accepting this amendment which will ensure that at least one member of the divisional tribunal is a man with the necessary experience.

Mr GIBSON:
Denison

.- I cannot agree with the honorable member for Maribyrnong (Mr. Stokes). It seems to be a fallacy to laymen that a lawyer should be able to adjudicate on a matter in respect of which he has had no experience. On that basis, according to the honorable member for Maribyrnong a judge could not hear a running down case unless he had been run down; he could not hear a building dispute unless he were a builder. I should think that a person with legal experience would be able to make a judgment through the normal process of hearing evidence. One does not have to have had immediate experience to be able to judge a matter, and this has been well proved in the courts over the centuries.

Mr BUCHANAN:
McMillan

.- The honorable member for Denison (Mr. Gibson) has not appreciated the purpose of the amendment. The presidential member will still be a l» gai man, but there are to be two other members. A barrister, solicitor or a judge will be the president of the tribunal, but the tribunal will be examining some far reaching agreements concerning business operations. I do not question the ability of the legal profession to consider matters of law. They can look at this Bill and understand it far better than I can understand it, because so many legal aspects of it are confusing. However, the tribunal will consist of three men and it is absolutely vital that when a business practice is being examined some member of the tribunal should be able to put his colleagues right in evaluating the conduct of a business. It may be said that the legal man may have been a party to hundreds of cases concerning business. It is common practice for businesses to be represented in court by legal men, but legal men have no actual experience in business. I opposed the idea of having an economist on the tribunal. Theories differ from facts. On the face of it an agreement may seem bad and not in the public interest, but an experienced businessman, familiar with the needs of business and understanding the chaos that can occur if everybody is given a free run, can guide the other members of the tribunal in satisfactorily determining a matter. I fully agree with the spirit of this amendment. Unfortunately it has not been circulated and I am not familiar with its exact wording, but I suggest that the Attorney-General examine the basic thought behind it and formulate precise wording for it. I suggest that after the reference to two members who are not presidential members we might add words to the effect “provided that one at least of these other two members is experienced in industry and commerce “.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– I would say with some regret, because in these matters I always like to follow legal advice, that I do not quite follow my friend the honorable member for Denison (Mr. Gibson) on this matter. He said a moment ago that if we were to accept the amendment moved by the honorable member for Isaacs (Mr. Haworth)-

Mr Buchanan:

– No, the statement of the honorable member for Maribyrnong.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– If we were to accept the statement of the honorable member for Maribyrnong (Mr. Stokes) we would have to have a judge experienced in being run down before he could hear a running down case. If he is right, why the devil did we pass clause 10 in its present form, because in it we state that the lay members of the tribunal must have business experience? I should have thought that the amendment states explicitly the kind of thing that would be done anyway. If it is good enough to have members with business experience on the tribunal it is good enough to have them on the divisions. If the Government intends this clause to operate, what does it lose by accepting the amendment put forward by the honorable member for Isaacs? I would think that we would gain. Perhaps the Attorney-General (Mr. Snedden) will explain why he proposes to accept or reject the honorable member’s amendment.

Mr BOWEN:
Parramatta

.- Some observations have been made about the function of the judicial member.

Mr Buchanan:

– I was not talking about him.

Mr BOWEN:

– I will. The judicial member under clause 19 is the presidential member. He may give directions as to the arrangement and business of divisions and the constitution of divisions of the tribunal. Therefore one may assume that he will decide whether he will have assisting him a member with practical experience or a member with knowledge of industry, commerce, or public administration. I suggest that we can leave the clause with its present degree of flexibility and leave it to the discretion of the President of the tribunal to select from the lay members those best fitted for the particular case. At the heart of this matter there is a person of judicial status as President. He does not need practical experience because what he brings to the judgment of the tribunal is a technique of judging which he has gained by his professional training over a great many years. It could be that anybody could, by devoting their life to a study of law, acquire this technique of judging and sit as a judicial member on the tribunal. I doubt whether the lay member who brings his personal knowledge to the matter will contribute a great deal to the decision. We do not object to that. I suggest that it is not necessary to circumscribe the authority of the President under clause 19 to determine the constitution of the division.

Mr HAWORTH:
Isaacs

.- The honorable member for Parramatta (Mr. Bowen) referred with great clarity to the fact that the President may, if he wishes, select a person with practical experience. If we recall clause 10 we will note that the President may have no opportunity of doing this. All he can do is select a person who has a knowledge of industry, commerce or public administration. As the honorable member for Mackellar (Mr. Wentworth) said, this amendment is only a refinement. lt makes the matter specific instead of leaving it in doubt. It is purely a matter of selecting a person who has actual experience and not only knowledge. What the honorable member for Parramatta said about clause 19 is not accurate because the President may have no opportunity to select a person with practical experience because those on the panel may have only knowledge.

Mr BUCHANAN:
McMillan

.- Clause 19 gives the President some latitude but distinctly says that he may give directions. In his second reading speech the Attorney-General (Mr. Snedden) stressed that we should have certainty. I do not agree that we are getting certainty. Throughout this Bill there is uncertainty. Industry and commerce do not understand what is required of them. If the Attorney-General is to stick to his principles and give us certainty he should accept the amendment so that industry will at least know that there is on the tribunal somebody who has some understanding of business. I am sure that this is what the honorable member for Isaacs meant when he formulated his amendment.

Mr DALY:
Grayndler

.- It would be a good thing if members of the Liberal Party settled their differences and understood the Bill before they came into this place. We have been treated tonight to a most undignified and public display of the differences that exist among members of the Liberal Party. The Government is supposed to be united, but honorable members opposite have cast aspersions on the Attorney-

General’s handling of this legislation. After all, the Attorney-General is doing his best. To hear the insinuations made against the Attorney-General by some of his supporters depresses honorable members on this side of the chamber. For the last 30 minutes or longer we have listened to all kinds of talk by Government supporters as to what should be done about this clause. I think the suggestion put forward by the honorable member for Isaacs (Mr. Haworth) has considerable merit. But, as always, Government supporters will fight like heck but they will not call divisions. We can all- be great freedom fighters if we are not prepared to stand up and be counted. As I have said, I think there is merit in the suggestion of the honorable member for Isaacs. I trust that those who sit with him on the other side of the chamber will call for a division on his amendment. If honorable members opposite are only sham fighters on these issues why do they hold the Parliament up to ridicule? Why not be like members of the Australian Country Party and say nothing, knowing full well that what the Country Party Chairman of Committees said today about many honorable members opposite is quite true? A report in today’s “ Canberra Times “ is interesting. It reads -

The Federal president of the APPU, Mr. J. P. Heffernan, said in a statement released in Canberra that a considerable amount of muddled thinking had been apparent from remarks made both inside and outside the House of Representatives.

The Country Party knows this. It has listened to members of the Liberal Party and has remained silent. The report continues - “The main fault with the legislation is that it has been weakened too much from the original proposals put forward by the former AttorneyGeneral, Sir Garfield Barwick,” he said.

I note that members of the Country Party are not giving public expression to dog fights on legislation which we believe has the support of the Government. Why do honorable members opposite waste the time of the Parliament by casting aspersions on the ability and the attitude of the AttorneyGeneral, moving resolutions, and not calling for divisions? Honorable members opposite either firmly believe in what they are putting up or they do not. Putting on a sham fight for the wealthy interests that back the Government parties does not solve anything. While the expressions of disunity in the Government’s ranks have been interesting, they have not added much to the debate.

Mr WILSON:
Sturt

.- The honorable member for Grayndler (Mr. Daly) seems amazed to discover that Government supporters are free to act and to vote according to the dictates of their consciences. They are not like the slaves of the Labour Party, who are subject to the dictates of 36 faceless men who have never been elected to Parliament. If the honorable member wants to call the attention of the people of this country to the freedom of members of the Liberal Party and the Country Party and the slavery of members of the Labour Party, that is all right by us. There is a vital difference between the amendment moved by the honorable member for Isaacs (Mr. Haworth) and clause 10. Clause 10 makes it obligatory for a member of the tribunal to have knowledge of or experience in industry, commerce or public administration. Therefore it would be quite possible for two non-presidential members to be public servants because they would have knowledge of public administration. The point the honorable member for Isaacs (Mr. Haworth) was making - and making very forcefully - is that as the members of the tribunal are to deal with matters of commerce and industry at least one of them should have had practical experience in commerce and industry, so that he would know how commerce and industry worked from a practical point of view. The Committee should realise that what the honorable member is proposing is something quite different from and in addition to the conditions that are laid down in clause 10. I would ask the members of the Committee to consider whether one of these members should or should not have had practical experience - I emphasise practical as against theoretical - in commerce or industry and not just in public administration.

Mr SNEDDEN:
AttorneyGeneral · Bruce · LP

– The Government cannot accept this amendment. I understand it and I respect the honorable member’s reasons for putting it. But what he has overlooked is that a significant reason why it cannot be accepted is to be found in sub-clause (2.) of clause 18, under which all the parties before the tribunal will be permitted, if they agree to such a course, to have a hear ing before a single presidential member. This amendment would make that impossible.

Mr Buchanan:

– Not at all.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– The honorable member says “Not at all”. I repeat that this amendment is completely at odds with subclause (2.) of clause 18 and for that reason is not accepted.

Mr BUCHANAN:
McMillan

.- The Attorney-General (Mr. Snedden) has quite rightly said that under sub-clause (2.) of clause 18 if all the parties agree that the proceedings shall be dealt with by a tribunal consisting of a single presidential member the tribunal shall be so constituted.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honorable member for McMillan has already spoken twice on this amendment. He cannot speak again.

Mr STOKES:
Maribyrnong

.- I certainly have not spoken twice and I would very much like to say a few words on this matter. I am amazed to hear the AttorneyGeneral (Mr. Snedden) introduce this argument as a reason for not accepting the amendment proposed by the honorable member for Isaacs (Mr. Haworth), dealing with the personnel to constitute the tribunal. The honorable member merely suggests that one of them should have certain qualifications. Sub-clause (2.) refers to an application by consent of both parties to have a matter heard before a single presidential member. This is the normal procedure that is followed in courts. By consent, a case can be heard before a single judge. However, this can have nothing whatsoever to do with the composition of the tribunal and the calibre of its personnel. Why the Attorney-General cannot accept the amendment, I fail to see.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– I think the Attorney-General (Mr. Snedden) has completely overlooked the first half dozen words of sub-clause (1.) of clause 18, which are -

Except as otherwise provided by this Act

Sub-clause (2.) is another provision of the measure. The objection raised by the Attorney-General would be quite valid except for the fact that we have in the clause the words I have just quoted. Those words being considered, the objection is seen to be not a valid one at all. I think the Attorney-General might have second thoughts on this matter, and when he realises that his objection is without substance he may reconsider his decision not to accept the amendment of the honorable member for Isaacs (Mr. Haworth).

Amendment negatived.

Amendment (by Mr. Killen) negatived -

Omit sub-clause (4.)

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 19 to 21 - by leave - taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 22. (3.) Where this section applies in relation to proceedings that were being dealt with before the Tribunal constituted by three members, the President may, instead of giving a direction under the last preceding sub-section, direct that the hearing and determination, or the determination, of the proceedings be completed by the Tribunal constituted by the members other than the member referred to in sub-section (1.) of this section.

Mr KILLEN:
Moreton

.- 1 move -

After sub-clause (3.) insert the following subclause: - “ (3a.) Where a Tribunal is constituted in accordance with the provisions of this sub-section and the members fail to agree, then no further proceedings shall be commenced with respect to the matter on which the members failed to agree save with the leave of the Court.”.

I ask the Attorney-General (Mr. Snedden) to consider carefully the consequences of clause 22 as it stands at present. I put it that in certain circumstances these provisions would act most unfairly against a person who was a party to proceedings before the tribunal. Sub-clause (1.) of clause 22 provides for sittings of the tribunal with two members - presumably when one member of the tribunal becomes ill. In sub-clause (2.) the presidential member has a discretion to appoint a third member. Sub-clause (3.) confers a presidential discretion not to appoint a third member. Going back to sub-clause (2.) of clause 21, one finds provision for a determination in accordance with the opinion of the majority.

I put it to my honorable friend that if, in accordance with the discretion which is provided in sub-clause (3.) of clause 22, the presidential member failed to appoint a third member, a stalemate could result. The Commissioner could take proceedings under clause 47 and bring a party before a tribunal. The tribunal might start off with three members, constituted in the orthodox fashion. Let us suppose the proceedings no sooner open than a member becomes ill. The president in his discretion decides not to appoint a third member and at the end of the hearing the two remaining members of the tribunal arrive at different conclusions. This means that the tribunal cannot make a decision in accordance with subclause (2.) of clause 21. What is the position of the party involved? It could well be that the Commissioner would come back in two months or two years and re-open the matter, hauling the party before the tribunal again.

I put it to the Attorney-General that my amendment does not cut across Government policy on this Bill at all. I suggest that when the president does exercise a discretion and refuses to appoint a third person it should not be open to the Commissioner to take further proceedings against the party concerned after the tribunal constituted by only two members has failed to arrive at a determination, save with leave of the Court. I hope the Attorney-General will be prepared to accept the amendment.

Mr SNEDDEN:
AttorneyGeneral · Bruce · LP

– The Government is not prepared to accept the amendment. The next sub-clause after the sub-clause proposed to be inserted by the honorable gentleman provides for the situation where two members of the tribunal are not in agreement. At that point of time the President can appoint the third member to resolve the disagreement. What the honorable gentleman is seeking to provide for is already provided for, but quite apart from that there is yet another ground for not accepting this amendment. The honorable gentleman proposes that leave should be obtained from the Court. The Court can have no part in the determination of whether or not a matter is consistent with or contrary to the public interest. Therefore, the Government is not prepared to accept the amendment.

Mr KILLEN:
Moreton

.- I am very disappointed to hear what the AttorneyGeneral (Mr. Snedden) has said. With great respect I put it to him that he has completely misunderstood the argument that I have advanced to him. Where a party comes before the tribunal and after an extensive hearing that may last for weeks, two members of the tribunal disagree, the Attorney-General says that under the provisions of the next sub-clause - that is subclause (4.) - the President may appoint a third person. The Attorney-General suggests that that will meet the problem that I have outlined. My point is precisely that it will not. If what the Attorney-General suggests were done it would mean that the party would then have to argue his case afresh. There is only one way in which sub-clause (4.) can be effective and that is by starting the argument afresh or by handing to the new member the record of the proceedings to enable him to acquaint himself with the argument from that record. Otherwise the effect of sub-clause (4.) of clause 22 is completely nugatory. There are two circumstances and two circumstances only in which sub-clause (4.) can work.

As far as discretion is concerned, I put it to the Attorney-General that, the Bill reeking as it does with manifest discretions throughout, the amendment would not impose any burden on the Court. Neither does it cut across any principle that I can discern to go to the Court and say, in effect: “ We seek leave to bring proceedings against John Jones under section 47 “. I put it to the honorable gentleman that the argument he has advanced in reply to me is unconvincing, to say the least.

Mr Whitlam:

– Why not have the review division give leave instead of the Court?

Mr KILLEN:

– I would be quite happy with that.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 23 and 24 - by leave - taken together.

Mr KILLEN:
Moreton

.- I refer to clause 23 which deals with the appointment of Commissioner of Trade Practices.

I should hope that the Attorney-General (Mr. Snedden) would indicate to the Committee, and through the Committee to the outside community, the sort of person who will be appointed Commissioner of Trade Practices. In dealing with the tribunal the Bill goes to some pains to spell out the qualifications of the members who will constitute it, but no qualifications are stated for the Commissioner. He may be an expert in one particular sphere of industry. He may be a practising lawyer. He could be a person with experience in commerce. He could be a Professor of Economics. I believe that the Government should know what sort of individual will be appointed Commissioner of Trade Practices and I hope that the Attorney-General will take the opportunity during the consideration of these clauses to indicate what sort of qualifications he would expect the Commissioner to have.

Mr SNEDDEN:
AttorneyGeneral · Bruce · LP

– Clause 23 has specifically not included a rigid description of the qualifications which will be needed by the Commissioner of Trade Practices. The reason is that the person to be appointed to this office will need to have the utmost probity, the utmost capacity and the utmost devotion to the statutory duty he has to perform. For these reasons, and as there can be but one person occupying the office, the Government concluded that it would be undesirable to try to detail in the statute a set of qualifications which might very well have the result of depriving the Government of the opportunity to appoint a particular man who, upon an analysis of the situation, was considered the best person for the job.

Mr Whitlam:

– Does he have to be an Australian citizen? I ask that, because the suggestion has been made than an officer of the United States Federal Trade Commission might be appointed.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– There is a provision in the Public Service Act which requires that he be an Australian citizen or that at least he take an oath of allegiance. No consideration has been given to the prospect of any particular person being appointed, and certainly no consideration has been given to appointing an officer of the United States Federal Trade Commission.

Clauses agreed to.

Clause 25. (3.) The Commissioner shall give written notice to the Attorney-General of all direct and indirect pecuniary interests that he has or acquires in any business carried on in Australia, or in any corporation carrying on any such business.

Mr KILLEN:
Moreton

.- I move -

In sub-clause (3.), after “ Commissioner “, insert “and members of the Tribunal other than the President”.

I am prepared to press this amendment to a vote if I can find some honorable members to join with me in calling for a division, because I believe that the amendment goes to the heart of a fundamental principle. At least I regard as being a fundamental principle that no person should sit in judgment on his own case. I contend that the whole fabric and substance of natural justice requires that any person with a bias on, or with a pecuniary interest in, any matter should not be at liberty to adjudicate on that matter if it be brought before him. The Commissioner of Trade Practices must, under the terms of clause 25, give written notice to the AttorneyGeneral of any direct ori ndirect pecuniary interest that he has or acquires in any business carried on in Australia. I should imagine there would be no practising member of the legal profession, or any judge, who would not be sharply conscious of the obligation upon him to disclose any pecuniary interest that he might have in any matter.

I should like to give to the Committee an illustration of the sort of thing I have in mind. Some years ago, when the Government had an administrative body which was an import licensing advisory appeal body - it had some long, compendious title - a constituent of mine was refused an import licence. I went before this body on his behalf and presented a case seeking a review of the decision. The appeal failed. A few months later my constituent came to me and alleged that the chairman of that body at the time was the financial adviser to one of his competitors. I do not know whether that was true or false, but the view of my constituent, to put it in homely language, was that he had not got a fair go. That was his reaction. As I have said, he alleged that the chairman of the board was the financial adviser to one of his competitors. This sort of thing could well occur in relation to this tribunal. The presidential members, who could be judges who come over from the Industrial Court, would be sharply conscious of the obligation upon them to disclose their position, but I put it to the Attorney-General that in the case of the lay members of the tribunal this would not be so, and we could well have the circumstance of two individuals sitting on a tribunal who would have interests in an industry of a nature that would subjectively - at the worst - influence them against a party appearing before them. I suggest to the Attorney-General that this is completely wrong.

Now, for convenience sake, I turn to the circumstances of the inquiry by the Donoughmore Committee on Ministers’ Powers. In this report is set out the case of Dimes against Grand Junction Canal (Proprietors of) (1852) 3 H.L.C. 759, where the House of Lords after consulting the judges decided that the decree of the Lord Chancellor, affirming the order of the ViceChancellor, granting relief to a company in which the Lord Chancellor had an interest as a shareholder to the amount of several thousand pounds, which was unknown to the defendant in the suit, was voidable on that account and must therefore be set aside. I would like to read what was said in that report. Lord Campbell said -

No one can suppose that Lord Cottenham could be, in the remotest degree, influenced by the interest that he had in this concern; but, my Lords, it is of the last importance that the maxim that no man is to be a judge in his own cause should be held sacred. And that is not to be confined to a cause in which he is a party, but applies to a cause in which he has an interest. Since I have had the honour to be Chief Justice of the Court of Queen’s Bench, we have again and again set aside proceedings in inferior tribunals because an individual who had an interest in a cause took a part in the decision. And it will have a most salutory influence on these tribunals when it is known that this High Court of last resort, in a case in which the Lord Chancellor of England had an interest, considered that his decision was on that account a decision not according to law, and was set aside. This will be a lesson to all inferior tribunals to take care not only that in their decrees they are not influenced by their personal interest, but to avoid the appearance of labouring under such an influence.

This is a well defined and well apprehended principle.I put it to the Attorney-General that this Bill should not seek to destroy that principle in any shape or form.

Mr Whitlam:

– Does the honorable member know whether that case was cited to Mr. Justice Starke and Mr. Justice Williams in the Banking case?

Mr KILLEN:

– No, but if I recall the transcript of that case the person who led, my late friend the former right honorable member for Barton, Dr. Evatt, decided not to argue. He did not object-

Mr Whitlam:

– The Solicitor-General put that point.

Mr KILLEN:

– But the former right honorable member for Barton decided not to argue the case. Whether he would have presented the case I have quoted is a matter for speculation. I continue with what the Donoughmore Committee had to say on this particular point -

In that case the Lord Chancellor’s disqualification was pecuniary interest. It goes without saying that in no case in which a Minister has a pecuniary or any other similar personal interest in a decision, e.g. as the owner - whether in his own right or as a trustee - of property which may be affected, should he exercise either judicial or quasi-judicial functions. Such cases may be presumed to be rare, but we do not think it necessary for us to make any special recommendations about them.

Applying the adjustments of ministerial discretions to the discretions of this Tribunal I submit that the views of the Donoughmore Committee on Ministers’ Powers are very apposite to this matter. The Committee went on to report -

Indeed we think it is clear that bias from strong and sincere conviction as to public policy may operate as a more serious disqualification than pecuniary interest. No honest man acting in a judicial capacity allows himself to be influenced by pecuniary interest: if anything, the danger is likely to be that through fear of yielding to motives of self-interest he may unconsciously do an injustice to the party with which his pecuniary interest may appear to others to identify him. But the bias to which a public-spirited man is subjected if he adjudicates in any case in which he is interested on public grounds is more subtle and less easy for him to detect and resist.

For the information of the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Mr. Freeth), who is speaking to the Attorney-General, I point out that I have been putting a case to the Attorney-General. If the Attorney-General is not disposed to listen to the case I put, there is not much point in advancing any argument to the honorable gentleman. But

I indicate to the Committee that I propose to press this amendment to a vote. I believe we will sort out the sheep from the goats then.

Mr BUCHANAN:
McMillan

.- I do not wish to be counted as either a sheep or a goat. I support the honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Killen) although I would not have thought I would be in company with him on this matter. What he has said has a great deal of force. I agreed wholeheartedly with this proposal when I thought the Trade Practices Tribunal was to be a permanent body. I have written certain notes across my papers here in regard to clause 17, which has been eliminated now. Briefly my note is that a member of the Tribunal should have to give notice of his interests - in this I agree with the honorable member for Moreton - and also that he should not hear any case in which he has a pecuniary interest. I think this is a vital matter to which the Attorney-General should give very serious thought.

We now find ourselves with a part time Tribunal. We are to have a panel. The number of persons to be appointed to that panel is completely unknown. I suppose they will be fairly well placed in the jobs that are their normal means of livelihood. It would be a little impractical if each member of this panel the size of which no-one has yet indicated - I have heard mention of a figure as high as 100 which rather horrified me - had to give written notice of all direct and indirect pecuniary interests which he had or which he acquired. Every time a member of the panel sold some shares, he would have to write to the AttorneyGeneral. I can see so many difficulties in the way of putting this proposition into practice as it stands now.

I support the honorable member for Moreton fully when he says that members of the panel should give some notification of their pecuniary interests and I agree that they certainly should not hear a case relating to anything in which they have a. pecuniary interest. I understand that this refers to the examination of a section of an industry or a company. It is difficult to define just how much interest in an industry a man’s shareholdings in a certain company will give him. For that reason I believe the suggestion made by the honorable member for Moreton is right. I ask the Attorney-General to find some way of incorporating this suggestion into the legislation because the clause in its present form is not acceptable to me.

Mr DALY:
Grayndler

.- It is quite obvious from the attitude of the honorable member for McMillan (Mr. Buchanan) and the honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Killen) that Government members are determined to stall this Bill and to put up a sham fight on this clause in order to be able to claim credit possibly for trying to amend the Bill in keening with the views of the interests behind them. But honorable members opposite have not been prepared to this stage to carry the fight to the point to which it should be taken, and call for a division. The honorable member for Moreton has said that on this clause he will force the Committee to a division. The honorable member for McMillan, who has been sham fighting all night, has strongly supported the proposal put forward by the honorable member for Moreton. I challenge the honorable member for McMillan on this issue to call for a division with the honorable member for Moreton. If they do so the Committee will divide. If the honorable member is not prepared to do that, why hold up this legislation and why hold up the Committee? Why claim all the credit for putting up a good fight on this point when the honorable member is not prepared to divide the Committee on it?

The Attorney-General is under attack. He has been under attack from his own party all night. I hold no brief for the AttorneyGeneral. 1 think that, as he has abandoned Sir Garfield Barwick’s proposals, he ought to stand up for his own: But he is not prepared to do so in this respect. For instance, the Attorney-General has refused to accept propositions to ban resale price maintenance, to examine mergers and monopolisation of credit finance. On this issue and on others I think he should stand up for himself. But with other members of the Opposition I am sick and tired of sitting here and hearing the sham fights put up by honorable members opposite. Their Attorney-General is under attack. If this Bill was ever taken before the caucus of honorable members opposite it could never have been discussed. We have had in the Committee tonight the kind of fight that should have taken place when this legislation was being examined in caucus. Therefore, I do not want to hear any more talk on that subject from the honorable member for McMillan unless he is prepared to cross the floor on this issue and vote against the proposals of the Government. Is he prepared to do that? The honorable member for Moreton has challenged the Committee to divide. The honorable member for McMillan, with magnificent courage, stood up in his place and asked the Attorney-General to accept the amendment. If the honorable member is not prepared to stand up and be counted on this issue, he has no right to make further submissions against this legislation.

Evidently members of the Country Party are in complete agreement with this legislation. Even the honorable member for Mallee (Mr. Turnbull), who would talk under water with weights on, will not stand up and speak tonight. He has been silent all night. So we can see the support that he is giving to the legislation. Members of the Liberal Party, who represent the big and vested interests in the community, are sham fighting. They will not stand up and be counted. Now is their opportunity. I challenge the honorable member for McMillan to support the honorable member for Moreton in a division on this issue. If members of the Liberal Party are not prepared to do that, they should have their bickerings at their secret meetings in their party room where the great white master stands over them and tells them what to do. They should not come into this chamber looking like freedom fighters and then skulk out like rabbits. That is what they are doing on this issue. We on this side of the chamber are sick and tired of it.

Mr HAWORTH:
Isaacs

.- I do not think the Committee takes very much notice of the honorable member for Grayndler (Mr. Daly), who likes to engage in this sort of buffoonery and in making fatuous remarks about what happens in the Liberal Party or other parties. All that we are endeavouring to do is to bring before the Attorney-General points which are of great interest and great moment on the question of the appointment of the Commissioner of Trade Practices and the members of the Trade Practices Tribunal.

I ask the Attorney-General how he can reconcile two things. You will remember, Mr. Temporary Chairman, that he asked that clause 17 be deleted. It stated -

A member shall not engage in paid employment outside the duties of his office.

So, obviously, a person could be engaged in industry or commerce or in a number of other jobs and still be a member of the tribunal on a part time basis. Sub-clause (3.) of clause 25 states -

The Commissioner shall give written notice to the Attorney-General of all direct and indirect pecuniary interests that he has or acquires in any business carried on in Australia, or in any corporation carrying on any such business.

I emphasise that the Commissioner will be permanently engaged in looking after the Register of Trade Agreements, examining agreements and sending them on to the tribunal. Therefore, it will not be so easy for him to be engaged in any other kind of interest. But, obviously, a member of the tribunal will be able to engage in many other interests.

Under the Bill, members of the tribunal are not required to give written notice to the Attorney-General of their other interests, but the Commissioner is required to do so. If it is good for the Commissioner to do so, how much more desirable is it that the members of the tribunal should do so. I believe that the Attorney-General should give the Committee a very full reply to the remarks of the honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Killen) because, in my view, this is a matter of very great importance. If this matter is not cleared up, the tribunal could very easily be suspect.

Mr SNEDDEN:
AttorneyGeneral · Bruce · LP

– A great amount of consideration was given to this very point. I considered it over a long period of time. For a considerable time I was of the view that probably such a provision should be inserted. But I was not thinking of it in terms of the amendment moved by the honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Killen), which restricts it to the ordinary members of the tribunal and does not include the presidential member.

Mr Whitlam:

– It could include him, too.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– If we were to do this, we would have to do it in respect of all members of the tribunal and not draw a distinction between the presidential member and the other members.

Mr Buchanan:

– The presidential member will be a judge.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– That is the very essence of the matter. To my knowledge, it has never been the practice that a judge should be required to disclose his interest in advance. The well known practice is that, if a judge has a matter to come before him for hearing and he has any relevant interest, he proclaims his interest and declines to sit on the matter. It was on that basis that I decided that this provision could not be appropriate to the presidential member, and as it was not appropriate to him it could not be appropriate to the other members either.

But, in point of fact, there is a stronger reason why it should not apply to the other members. They will have no judicial background. They will have to be carefully selected - I use the term “ selected “ in a real sense - for their capacity, temperament and probity. They will sit on the tribunal. They ought to have created around them an aura of responsibility and of acting in a semi-judicial manner. If such people, who are sitting in this quasi-judicial manner, were required to disclose not only direct but also indirect interests - that is, if their wives were their trustees, or anything of that kind, they would have to disclose such interests - that would tend to detract from the standing that they ought to have.

It was for those reasons that, on balance, I came down on the side of declining to include such a provision. I assure the honorable member for Moreton that this matter occupied my attention for a very considerable period. After giving the matter very close consideration, having had the advantage of putting k to members of the Cabinet and having had the advantage of their consideration of the full range of its implications, one way and the other, I say that the Government does not accept this amendment.

Mr KILLEN:
Moreton

.- Of course, I do not subscribe to the doctrine of Cabinet infallibility. The argument that the Attorney-General has advanced to the

Committee is strikingly unconvincing. I put this situation to him: He is a party to proceedings before the tribunal. He is a furniture manufacturer. It has been suggested that he is engaged in an examinable practice. It so happens that a member of the tribunal is also a furniture manufacturer or has an interest in a future manufacturing company. The tribunal hands down a determination which is completely unfavourable to him.

I put it to him that no amount of argument in the world would convince him that that tribunal had acted in accordance with the principles of natural justice. I put it to him that no amount of argument in the world would convince him that that individual, who was a furniture manufacturer or had an interest in a furniture manufacturing business and was sitting on the tribunal, had not acted in a way which was influenced by bias or by abnormal interests. I put it to the Minister that it is completely unreasonable to imagine that he could be so convinced.

I suggest that it is unreal to liken presidential members of the tribunal to judges in this matter. All judges would be heartily conscious of any suspicion that they might have a pecuniary interest in any matter with which they were dealing. Here we are not dealing with a judicial tribunal. We are dealing with a tribunal which, frankly, I find impossible to describe accurately. We are dealing with an administrative tribunal, largely; but it also has some quasi-judicial functions and, to use a new word that has crept into the lexicon, is sub-legislative. I will have something to say about that word before this debate is over. This is an administrative, quasijudicial, sub-legislative body. It is not a judicial body, pure and simple. I put it to the Attorney-General that on no ground whatsoever can the stand of the Government or the Cabinet be defended. I press this amendment. I hope that even at this stage I will find someone who, with me, will be prepared to call for a division, because I certainly want one.

Mr WHITLAM:
Werriwa

.- Mr. Temporary Chairman, the proposition that all members of the Trade Practices Tribunal should give to the Attorney-General written notice of all direct and indirect pecuniary interests that they have or acquire in any business carried on in Australia or in any corporation carrying on any such business is eminently reasonable. I do not consider that the President of the Tribunal should be excluded from this requirement. Therefore, as an amendment to the amendment proposed by the honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Killen) I move -

Omit “ other than the President “.

If our amendment is agreed to, we shall then ask the Committee to divide on the proposition that all members of the Tribunal should declare their interests. If the Committee does not agree with our contention on this matter, we on this side shall support the more limited proposition of the honorable member for Moreton that members of the Tribunal other than the President be required to declare their interests.

The Committee has already rejected on the voices the Opposition’s proposal that members of the Tribunal hold fixed terms of office, as was proposed in the Bill as it was brought in last May. The Committee has rejected also our proposal - which became superfluous - that members of the Tribunal should not be directors of companies and that no director of a company should be appointed a member of the Tribunal. However, the amendment moved by the honorable member for Moreton and the amendment to the amendment which I have proposed would not disqualify members of the Tribunal. They would merely enable the Attorney-General to know the interests - perfectly proper interests - that part time members of the Tribunal may have in various enterprises.

Mr Hulme:

– The Minister is the only one who would know.

Mr WHITLAM:

- His officers and all the other people who advise and assist him in carrying out his duties would know the fact, too. This would ensure that persons would not be appointed to determine matters in respect of which they might not appear to be completely uncommitted and impartial. The old proposition that justice not only must be done but also must appear to be done ought to apply to this Tribunal as fully as it does to the courts and the increasing number of administrative tribunals that we have in Australia. I press my amendment, which is designed to ensure that the President of the Tribunal shall not be excluded, merely because he is a judge, from the requirement that interests be disclosed.

Mr Freeth:

– The honorable member proposes to apply to the President a standard different from that applied to judges in any court.

Mr WHITLAM:

– It is true that judges do not have to declare their interests when they are sitting as a court. Nevertheless, in this instance, judges would be sitting in essentially commercial matters. Therefore, it becomes of more moment that their interests be known. It is perfectly legitimate for judges, their wives or their children to have investments. Generally judges are most scrupulous in refusing to sit on cases in respect of which they may appear to have some particular interest. I recall that before the war when the Supreme Court of New South Wales was drawn from a body more restricted than that from which it is drawn now there was a period of some years during which a judge could not be found to sit in a case between the Commissioner of Taxation and the Royal Sydney Golf Club because all the judges were members of that club. So seriously did the judges take their obligation that they were not available to sit in the case. However, there was a case, which honorable gentlemen will well recollect, in respect of which a different view was taken. This was the Banking case. Mr. Justice Starke and Mr. Justice Williams had direct or indirect pecuniary interests in some of the parties. Nevertheless, they sat.

Mr Bowen:

– They declared their interests.

Mr O’Connor:

– But they still sat.

Mr WHITLAM:

– They still sat. It would have been better if they had not done so.

Mr Bowen:

– The parties did not object.

Mr WHITLAM:

– That is true. But are parties to be in .the position of objecting or should judges abstain from putting themselves in this position? Why should parties have to play the role of dogs in the manger by objecting in these circumstances?

Mr O’Connor:

– At the time, objections to the judges sitting were made in this chamber.

Mr WHITLAM:

– My recollection is that the Solicitor-General called on them in chambers before the court sat.

Mr Daly:

– They still sat.

Mr WHITLAM:

– They persisted in their intention to sit. At all events, we on this side of the chamber want to avoid the occurrence of that sort of situation in respect of the Trade Practices Tribunal. Judges are entitled to have investments. However, when judges are being called, summoned, or invited to sit on the Tribunal the persons extending the invitation or requesting that they sit should be aware of their interests and thus be able to avoid embarrassing them.

Mr Freeth:

– The honorable member’s amendment will not prohibit judges from sitting because they have interests and those interests have been disclosed.

Mr WHITLAM:

– No, but it will mean, if it is agreed to, that the Attorney-General and his officers, who would be charged with calling the Tribunal together-

Mr Snedden:

– That is not so. They do not call it together.

Mr WHITLAM:

– Who does call the Tribunal together?

Mr Snedden:

– Since the honorable member has proposed an amendment on the matter, one would expect him to know that the President of the Tribunal will constitute Divisions of it.

Mr WHITLAM:

– There have been several consequential matters flowing from the fact that this is to be a Tribunal of part time members instead of members with fixed appointments. So far as I can recollect, nothing was said in the Minister’s second reading speech and nothing appears in the Bill to suggest how the Divisions of the Tribunal are to be constituted. At all events, if the amendment moved by the honorable member for Moreton, amended as I propose, is agreed to, any consequential amendments can be inserted in the Bill. Does any honorable member suggest that the President of the Tribunal, because he is a judge, should be able to sit on a matter in which he has a direct or indirect pecuniary interest?

Mr Hulme:

– Some people might want him to. A furniture manufacturer might want a furniture manufacturer to sit, because such a person would know the business.

Mr WHITLAM:

– Maybe and maybe not. The declaring of an interest will impose no disqualification. The interest should be known. I suggest that there should be no greater immunity in this respect for a judge who is a member of this Tribunal than there is for a layman. At all events, honorable members can declare their attitude to the proprieties in this matter. We have proposed our amendment to the amendment moved by the honorable member for Moreton in an endeavour to ensure that all members of the Tribunal declare their direct or indirect interests. If our amendment is rejected we shall support the more limited proposal embodied in the amendment moved by the honorable member, which will require members of the Tribunal other than the President to declare direct or indirect pecuniary interests.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– I think there is substance in what the honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Killen) has said and what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Whitlam) has said. However, I feel that there are practical difficulties as pointed out by the honorable member for McMillan (Mr. Buchanan). I suggest that as the hour is late we might perhaps defer this matter until another proposal is brought before us when the House meets tomorrow. I suggest that the correct approach is that any member of the Tribunal which is sitting be required to declare his direct or indirect interests in the matter before the Tribunal in that case and that any party to a case be entitled to object to the sitting of any member who has declared such direct or indirect interest. In other words, I think this should be put on the footing which, although not declared by law, is general in regard to the sitting of judges.

I believe it was the honorable member for Parramatta (Mr. Bowen) who drew attention to the fact that in the Banking case the parties did not object to an interest which was very properly declared by judges. If the parties had objected, it may be that Mr. Justice Starke and Mr. Justice Williams would not have sat on that matter. I think it is essential that if a member of a Tribunal in the case before that Tribunal holds a direct or indirect pecuniary interest, then the interest should be declared. Since we are dealing not with judges who are bound by the ethics of long practice but with a panel of businessmen who are being appointed to this type of office for the first time, without having behind them any code of ethics for their discharge of this particular duty, I suggest that what we assume on the part of judges should be incorporated verbatim in the Bill. I do not think it would be practicable to ask members of this large panel always to be declaring all their interests in any business in Australia, especially since these will be men who will have fluctuating interests. We expect that they will be men of some consequence and substance in many cases. But I do think that it is absolutely essential that justice not only shall be done but shall be seen to be done. For that purpose, any member of a Tribunal should be called upon to disclose any direct or indirect interest that he might have in the case before the Tribunal and any party to a case should be entitled to object to the sitting of any member of the Tribunal thus interested.

A few moments ago I noticed an interjection by the Postmaster-General (Mr. Hulme). I think that was a good interjection and was well timed. It may be that the parties to a case might prefer to have somebody who has some indirect interest in the matter in which they are involved because they would be glad of and benefit by his experience. It may be that the President of the Tribunal would be quite happy to have that man sit, but the interest should be disclosed. In some ways what I am suggesting goes further than the honorable member for Moreton would go because under his proposal the interest would not necessarily be disclosed - it would be known in the secret files of the Attorney-General. This is not good enough. If the members of the Tribunal have a direct or indirect interest in the matter before the Tribunal, that interest should be disclosed publicly before the Tribunal sits on that case. This, I think, should be a watertight principle. I am not satisfied with the amendment moved by the honorable member for Moreton. In some respects I think it goes too far, but in other respects

I do not think it goes far enough. I am satisfied with the validity of the argument that he has put forward. I am also satisfied with the validity of the argument that has been put forward by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Since we are going to adjourn shortly, I suggest that we might leave this question unresolved. Perhaps the Attorney-General might have an opportunity overnight to consider the best way of dealing with it.

I think that every honorable member will agree with me when I say that the AttorneyGeneral is trying - whether we agree with him or not - to get the best, the fairest and the most complete bill before the House. In this instance he might like not to make a snap decision, but rather to consult his colleagues. There is something missing in the Bill. I do not think that the proposal of the honorable member for Moreton goes entirely to the root and substance of the matter. There is something missing and something should be done about it. I ask the AttorneyGeneral to defer this matter so that he can put a constructive and definite proposal before the House when we meet to discuss this Bill tomorrow morning.

Mr SNEDDEN:
AttorneyGeneral · Bruce · LP

– A number of points have been made in this debate which really carry on from where I left off. I regret that what I said seems to have made little impact. I will very briefly refer to it again because. I am not sure whether the honorable member for Mackellar (Mr. Wentworth) was present in the chamber. I find it very difficult to distinguish between the presidential member and the other members because they are sitting on the same bench and each of them has the same right of decision. That is the whole essence of the tribunal. The lay members of the tribunal have power to override the judicial member. The tribunal has a predominance of lay members.

That being the case, it is manifestly unreal to say that that presidential member, upon being appointed the presidential member of the tribunal, must disclose his direct and indirect interests when he has not been required to disclose them in relation to his initial judicial appointment - the appointment in which he experiences life tenure. To say to a presidential member: “When you go on to the Trade Practices Tribunal you must do what you have not been required to do before “, would be to foreclose the opportunity to appoint people whom you would otherwise wish to appoint. They might say, and very properly: “ We will not do it.”

I come to the next point. An amendment has been moved by the honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Killen) and an amendment has been moved to that amendment which I think does not differ from the original amendment in respect of the fact that the disclosure is to be made to the AttorneyGeneral. There is no point whatever in disclosure to the Attorney-General because he has no part in the consideration of the divisions of the tribunal. Under clause 19 of the Bill, this is the responsibility of the presidential member of the tribunal. If one says “All right, then the disclosure is to be made to the presidential member “, why is there need to make a statutory requirement for disclosure when the President is a member of the same tribunal?

One might equally say, in relation to the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, that every member of that Commission, the Commissioners and the presidential members, should disclose all of their direct and indirect interests to the President of the Commission. That has never been suggested, and I think that it would be demeaning the standard of that tribunal to impugn the motives of its members. I have never heard that suggested, and I personally would never support it in relation to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Yet I am positive that if a member of that Arbitration Commission did have a direct pecuniary interest in a matter that was coming before it, he would say to the President of the Commission, who has the same powers of constitution of the Commission as the President of the Trade Practices Tribunal will have in respect of that body: “ I should not sit on this matter.” I am not quite sure whether the honorable member for Mackellar means that every member of the tribunal should forthwith make a public disclosure.

Mr Wentworth:

– No, I do not say that for a moment.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– Then the honorable member suggests that, at the time when he

Is about to sit, the member should make the disclosure.

Mr Wentworth:

– If he has an interest in that case.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– The honorable member says he should make the disclosure if he has an interest in that case. The point I am making is that the men who will be appointed to this tribunal will have already indicated to the president of the tribunal that they have an interest and the president, therefore, when constituting the tribunal to hear the case will not include the particular member making the disclosure.

I cannot accept the suggestion that this would not happen unless there was a statutory requirement to do it. I do not believe that a statutory requirement would achieve any more than one would expect the members of the tribunal to do in any event. What the honorable gentleman seeks to enforce by statute will happen in any event. This matter was given most intense consideration. I do not agree with either the amendment or the amendment to the amendment.

Dr MACKAY:
Evans

.- Surely this is something that the Companies Act requires any director of a company to do. That Act requires a director, upon his appointment, to disclose his interest, such as shareholdings and so on, in other companies. Is there anything very exceptional about requiring this of a person who is sitting on a tribunal of this kind? I do not see that there is.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– Apparently the Attorney-General (Mr. Snedden) has not taken the point 1 was endeavouring to establish. All I am suggesting is that the members of this tribunal should adopt the same standards as judges adopt. In the case of the judiciary, this flows from long experience of legal ethics. People appointed as judges have a lot of previous experience of legal ethics.

The point I am trying to make is that judges have this established system of legal ethics. It is not necessary to write into the law as regards judges. There is a body of legal precedent which governs the conduct of judges, who have come up through the legal profession. In the tribunal that we are establishing, especially with the lay members whom we are appointing, there is no established code of ethics as to how they should act on a tribunal. They will not have been on a tribunal before. They will be practised in business, but they will not be practised in acting on a tribunal. This kind of tribunal is coming in de novo. It has no tradition behind it. If it had a tradition behind it equivalent to the tradition of the common law, it would not be necessary to write in this provision. If we were dealing only with judges, then, of course, again it would not be necessary to write in this provision, But since we are dealing with lay members who are going to be appointed to act in a field where they have no experience and where there is no body of ethics relating to the conduct of such a tribunal to guide them, I think we should incorporate this provision. If I remember correctly, earlier in the debate the honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Killen) made a statement relating to the conduct of a person who, without disclosing his interest, sat as a member of an import tribunal.

Mr Killen:

– It did happen.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I can well imagine it happening. It may not be so reprehensible if we do not write this specific provision into the law. I have already indicated that I cannot accept the amendment moved by the honorable member for Moreton because I do not think it goes far enough in one direction but goes too far in another direction. I think it is impractical to ask these lay members to disclose all their interests in every company and in every organisation in Australia. I do not think it is worth much to ask them to disclose their interests to the Attorney-General, but I do ask for something which although more limited is much sharper - that any person sitting on a tribunal should publicly disclose his interest in the case before the tribunal prior to the tribunal sitting. If he does not want to disclose his interest publicly, he should go to the President and say: “ Do not put me on this tribunal because I have an interest “. He then would not be required to sit as a member of the tribunal and this question would never arise. But if he does not say this to the President and, in fact, sits on the tribunal while having an interest in the matter before it, he should disclose that in the public interest, in the interests of justice and in order to be fair.

I cannot support the amendment before the Committee or the further amendment to it, but I suggest to the Attorney-General that something is needed. There is a gap in the legislation, and for the very reasons that he has given I believe that the gap should be closed.

Question put -

That the amendment (Mr. Whitlam’s) to the proposed amendment (Mr. Kitten’s) be agreed to.

The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Mr. E. N. Drury.)

AYES: 45

NOES: 57

Majority . . . . 12

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Question put -

That the words proposed to be inserted (Mr. Kitten’s amendment) be inserted.

The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Mr. E. N. Drury.)

AYES: 48

NOES: 54

Majority . . . . 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– I move -

At the end of the clause, add the following subclause: - “ (4.) No member of a Tribunal shall sit in any matter on which he has a direct or indirect pecuniary interest unless he has first publicly disclosed that interest, and either the Attorney-General or any party to the matter may object to the sitting of any member who has so disclosed an interest in that particular matter.”.

I think my amendment achieves the purposes of the honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Killen) and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Whitlam) without attracting the very proper objections raised by the honorable member for McMillan (Mr. Buchanan). I do not intend, unless the Committee wishes, to speak further on the matter, as I think I have explained my objectives in earlier remarks. If I can obtain the support of honorable members I intend to take the matter to a vote. Perhaps the Attorney-General would like an adjournment in order to consider my proposal.

Mr SNEDDEN:
AttorneyGeneral · Bruce · LP

– I understand the desire of the honorable member for Mackellar (Mr. Wentworth) to pursue this matter as far as he can. I understand his motives in moving the amendment but there are several reasons why it cannot be accepted. Perhaps the most significant reason is that the honorable gentleman would be putting members of the Tribunal in a situation where they would not know what they had to disclose. Suppose a case came before the Tribunal relating to an agreement as to the price of pencils. Suppose also that a member of the Tribunal had an interest directly in a company manufacturing pens, in a company which owned forest holdings or in a company which sold pencils. How would he know when he had to make a disclosure? About what would he have to make a disclosure? The consequence of it is that the members of the tribunal would find that they were forever in jeopardy in relation to sitting on a matter. The net result would be that the procedures of the tribunal would be seriously interrupted. In this matter the tribunal must act in a quasi-judicial fashion. It must wherever possible be regarded as having a judicial function, although constitutionally it cannot be regarded as a judicial body. For all that it will, in reaching these most important determinations as to wherein lies the public interest and whether or not a particular matter is consistent with or contrary to the Act, act in an objective fashion. To suggest that the tribunal would not do so, or that individual members of it would not do so, does not do them a service.

As it was put to me while I was walking over to this side of the House recently by an honorable member: “ It rather sounds like wanting to eat your cake and have it too “. If we want these members to be of such a standard that we can have confidence in them and can regard them in all senses as being objective and behaving in as judicial a fashion as it is possible for them to behave, they must be equated in all ways to holders of judicial offices, especially when we think that the Committee has already negatived the idea of separation of these people as between judicial members and other members. I can understand the anxiety of the honorable member to pursue this matter. He has made his point. It has registered. If I may say to him, with due humility, the same point registered with me months ago and I gave it intensive consideration. I had the benefit of the advice of senior officers of the department who know this matter very well and who have had the opportunity of sitting down and considering the full range of implications. I had the opportunity of discussions with the Parliamentary Draftsman. But most importantly I had tha opportunity of consideration with Cabinet, when the matter was canvassed. The decision which was there reached, is that which is in the Bill. There has been a great deal said. I think that the arguments have been fully and adequately canvassed.

Progress reported.

page 3471

STATES GRANTS (ADVANCED EDUCATION) BILL 1965

Bill returned from the Senate without amendment.

page 3471

ADJOURNMENT

Cyclones

Motion (by Mr. Snedden) proposed -

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr DUTHIE:
Wilmot

.- I want to speak on a matter which is on the lighter side in contrast to the heavy material with which we have been dealing during the day. I have been intrigued for a long time with the reason for naming cyclones which occur around the world after the female of the species. I have never found a satisfactory answer to this intriguing question. We hear of Cyclone Bertha, Cyclone Alice, Cyclone Caroline, Cyclone Mavis and so on. We hear of them tearing the insides out of cities, blasting the beaches around the world, sinking ships at sea, flattening crops, smashing towns, destroying human life, causing millions of pounds worth of damage and striking terror into the hearts of people in their path. Why is it that they are named after the so-called weaker sex when they deal such tremendous destruction as this? Is it that females are basically more vicious, more spiteful, more ferocious, more unpredictable and more changeable than males? We have all heard that hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. What is there about the female that results in cyclones being named after them? I would like meteorologists to answer this question in due course. Here are a few examples of female cylones at work. We read of Cyclone Hazel howling her eyes out in the haystacks of Hungerford, Cyclone Betty battling through the breakers in Bingil Bay, Cyclone Tessa tearing at the throat of Townsville, Cyclone Katy careering through the cattleyards of Katherine, Cyclone Sylvia shifting the sand dunes between Southport and Surfers, Cyclone Teresa tearing down the trees on the tablelands, Cyclone Bertha blasting beaches from Broome to Bundaberg, Cyclone Tania terrorising the townspeople of Toowoomba, Cyclone Caroline carrying on with the carpenters of Cairns, Cyclone Robina roaring down the railway lines to Rockhampton, Cyclone Tammy taming the tourists of the Territory, Cyclone Sabrina smashing to smithereens the skyscrapers of Sydney, Cyclone Dulcie digging a ditch between Darwin and Dorrigo and Cyclone Donna dealing out devastation from Duchess to Darling Downs.

This is what we read about the female cyclones. Why do we not hear about male cyclones? We might read of Cyclone Robert raging roughshod over the rights of the rebels in the Vernon Report, Cyclone Harold hurling his hatred on the humans of Hayman, Cyclone Arthur avalanching his anger at the avarice across Australia, Cyclone Gough grafting his image on the grafters of Grafton, Cyclone Jack gerrymandering his way through the junkyards of Jandarra, Cyclone Sam sucking the sand from the sea near Sabina, Cyclone Nick gnawing at the nerves of the newlyweds in the Never Never, Cyclone Irwin igniting the insects of Isa, Cyclone Pat pushing down the pansies in Parkes, Cyclone Jim jackknifing his way through the jackeroos and jumbos of Jackson, Cyclone Reg roaring and raging through the rookeries of Roma, Cyclone Fred feasting on the frenzies of the farmers in Ferndale, Cyclone Beaton blasting the billiards battlefields in Bendigo, Cyclone Willie Wentworth wrecking the red rusted wheatcrops of the west, Cyclone Billie Mac. blinding the eyes of the beauties of Birdsville, Cyclone Bob barnstorming his way through the ballrooms of Brisbane, Cyclone Winton whistling and whiplashing his way through the skeleton weed of Woomelang, Cyclone Kim killing with kindness the kiddies from Kalgoorlie to Kennedy, Cyclone Gordon gaily giving some grandeur to the grandsons of Gove, Cyclone Gilbert grinding a groove through the granaries of Gwydir, Cyclone Tom testing the tycoons of the tabloid by trial and terror and Cyclone Tony tickling the toes of the Tories in Tamworth.

We do not hear of male cyclones doing things of this kind in Australia or anywhere else. Does the female species of the human race deserve to be remembered and indeed immortalised in the nomenclature of the world’s most devastating cyclones? Are women really as bad, as ruthless, as this? I have been married for nearly 24 years. I have three daughters. I have seen our womenfolk in scores of different careers and I say emphatically that to name cyclones or typhoons after them is an insult. Our women should rise up in angry protest and petition the women-hating, women-insulting weather men of the world to end this outrageous slur on their sex. Let them adopt this battle cry: “Women of the world unite - you have nothing to lose but your pains “.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 11.45 p.m.

page 3473

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated -

Civil Aviation. (Question No. 1410.)

Mr Killen:

n asked the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice -

  1. How many (a) passengers and (b) aircraft movements were handled at each of the capital city airports in the last five years?
  2. What expenditure was incurred on capital city airports in the last five years?
  3. What expenditure is proposed to be incurred on these airports during the next five years?
Mr Fairbairn:
Minister for National Development · FARRER, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The Minister for Civil Aviation has supplied the following information -

  1. Passengers and scheduled airline movements during the five calendar years ending 1964 were -
  1. It is not possible to forecast the expenditure on the capital city airports during the next live years as this depends on the funds made available by the Government from year to year for aerodrome development.

The only forecast that can be made is of the expenditure on projects already in progress or approved by the Government. These are -

The further development of terminal facilities at Brisbane is not included in the current five years programme ending in 1967/8 but it is anticipated that it will be a project of priority in the next and subsequent five year programme.

It will be recalled that expenditure in excess of £2 millions was incurred between 1955 and 1960 when Brisbane was developed into an airport capable of taking large overseas aircraft.

Finance.

Mr Harold Holt:
LP

t. - On 19th November 1965 the honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Killen) asked me the following question -

My question to the Treasurer relates to the freezing of funds. What formula, if any, is in existence which regulates the freezing of funds held by the United Kingdom as the banker for the sterling area? Is this essentially a pragmatic business, or is there some criterion which would enable a country to know what form of behaviour it could adopt or to what limit it could go before its funds would be in jeopardy?

I am now able to supply the following information -

The United Kingdom has imposed restrictions on the use of funds in non-resident sterling accounts only in the most exceptional circumstances. There is no “ formula “ governing action of this kind but, under the Articles of Agreement of the International Monetary Fund, any member country restricting payments against other members of the Fund has an obligation to obtain Fund approval of its action. Rhodesia is not a member of the Fund and is regarded as still being a nonmetropolitan territory of the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom action could, of course, affect payments between Rhodesia and members of the Fund.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 1 December 1965, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1965/19651201_reps_25_hor49/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant