House of Representatives
16 May 1972

27th Parliament · 2nd Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 27th Parliament
  3. 1972

Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Sir William Aston) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers.

page 2523

PETITIONS

The Acting Clerk - Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will bc referred to the appropriate Ministers -

Social Services

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the Home of Representatives in Parliament assembled the petition of the undersigned electors of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth:

That on 10th December 1948, Australia signed the ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights’, Article 25 reads: ‘Everyone has the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age and other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond bis control.’

Yet, 23 years later, in our country of great national wealth and abundance it is to the nation’s shame that many thousands of our people live in a state of being inconsistent with the dignity and worth of the human person - languishing in poverty and want, neglect and the lack of proper care necessary for their health and well-being.

We, the undersigned, respectfully draw to your attention that the conscience of the nation is not at ease while the records of our country show that social services are not comparable with that of other advanced countries administering such services, therefore, we call upon the Commonwealth Government to immediately legislate for:

Base pension rate - 30 per cent of the average weekly male earnings, all states, plus supplementary assistance and allowances based on a percentage of such earnings. Unemployed benefits equal to the foregoing.

Completely free health services to cover all needs of social service pensioners - hospitalisation, chronic and long-term illness, fractures, anaesthetics, specialist, pharmaceutical, hearing aids, dental, optical, physiotherapy, chiropody, surgical aids and any other applicances.

Commonwealth Government to promote a comprehensive national scheme in cooperation with the States and make finance available to provide for the building of public hospitals, nursing and hostel-type homes necessary to effectively meet the special requirements of aged people, in conjunction with a comprehensive domiciliary care programme to enable aged people to stay in their homes.

Mental illness placed in the same position as physical illness.

Substantial Commonwealth increase in the $5 subsidy a day per public bed pensioner patient in general hospitals.

Ten per cent of Commonwealth revenue to local government for general activities which now include social welfare, health, conservation and other community needs. Commonwealth subsidy for the waiving of rates for pensioners.

Commonwealth Government to increase the non-repayable grant to the States for low rental home units for pensioners.

Royal Commission or other form of public enquiry into Australia’s social welfare structure that Australia may be brought into line with accepted world standards of the most advanced countries.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Anthony, Mr Fairbairn, Mr Nixon, Mr Lynch, Mr Barnard, Mr Calwell, Mr Berinson, Mr Buchanan, Dr Cass, Mr Erwin, Mr Fitzpatrick, Mr Grassby, Mr Hansen, Dr Jenkins, Mr Keith Johnson, Mr King, Dr Klugman, Mr Lucock, Mr Martin, Mr Reid, Mr Scholes, Mr Sherry, Mr Uren, Mr Wallis and Mr Whittorn.

Petitions severally received.

Postmaster-General’s Department

The Honourable the Speaker, and Members of trie House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the Postmaster General’s Department Central Office policy, of centralising Post Office affairs and activities under the various titles of Area Management, Area Mail Centres, Area Parcel Centres and similar titles is resulting in both loss of service and lowering of the standards of service to the public, directly resulting in the closing of Post Offices, which is detrimental to ohe public interest.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will take immediate steps to:

  1. Call a halt to all closing of Post Offices and reorganising within the Post Office until full details of the proposed savings and all details of alteration to the standards of service to the public are made available to Parliament, and
  2. Initiate a joint Parliamentary inquiry into the Postmaster General’s Department, to assess the degree on which it should be run as a normal business undertaking and to what extent its unprofitable activities should be subsidised as a public service charged more correctly to national development.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Anthony, Mr Bunt, Mr Barnard, Mr Fitzpatrick and Mr Kelly.

Petitions severally received.

Education

To the honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully sheweth:

  1. That the Australian Education Council’s report on the needs of government education services has established serious deficiencies in education, the most important areas being a severe shortage of teachers, inadequate accommodation, and, as a result, oversized classes.
  2. That extra Federal finance is urgently required to save the government school system.
  3. That while the needs of the government schools are being neglected, large amounts of public money are being given, in various and numerous grants, to private schools.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate and the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will take immediate steps to make emergency Federal finance available to the States for State school education, and divert the large sums of public money being spent on private schools, to the government school system for which the government is truly responsible. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Anthony and Mr Les Johnson.

Petitions severally received.

Education

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully sheweth:

  1. That the Australian Education Council’s report on the needs of State education services has established serious deficiencies in education.
  2. That these can be summarised as lack of classroom accommodation, desperate teacher shortage, oversized classes and inadequate teaching aids.
  3. That the additional sum of one thousand million dollars is required over the next 5 years by the States for these needs.
  4. That without massive additional Federal finance the State school system will disintegrate.
  5. That the provisions of the Handicapped Children’s Assistance Act 1970 should be amended to include all the country’s physically and mentally handicapped children.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will take immediate steps to:

Ensure that emergency finance from the Commonwealth will be given to the States for their public education services which provide schooling for 78 per cent of Australia’s children.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Les Johnson.

Petition received.

Contraceptives

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth.

That the Sales Tax on all forms of Contraceptive Devices is27½ per cent (Sales Tax Exemptions and Classifications Act 1935-1967). Also that there is Customs Duty of up to47½ per cent on some Contraceptive Devices.

And that this is an unfair imposition on the human rights of all people who wish to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Andfuthermore that this imposition discriminates particularly against people on low incomes.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Sales Tax on all forms of Contraceptive Devices be removed, so as to bring these items into line with other necessitiessuch as food, upon which there is no Sales Tax. Also that Customs Duties be removed, and that all Contraceptive Devices be placed on the National Health Scheme Pharmaceutical Benefits List,

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Garrick.

Petition received.

Television

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned citizens of New South Wales respectfully showeth:

That the citizens of the Central Darling Shire request the extension of television coverage in their area. Television is a much needed amenity which would assist in reducing the isolation felt by persons in the area, be a major educational asset and assist in arresting the drift from the area. The provision of amenities similar to those found in more populated regions is deemed to be an essential factor in assisting decentralisation andup-grading the population of the area from that of second-class citizens.

This could also be a major factor in broadening the horizons and futhering the advancement of the large aboriginal population.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will take immediate steps to bring about the wishes expressed in our Petition.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr FitzPatrick.

Petition received.

page 2524

QUESTION

GREEK MARRIAGES

Mr BIRRELL:
PORT ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Attorney-General a question relating to the church division in the Greek community of Australia wherein some

Greek priests in this country are not recognised as priests under Greek law. Are marriages performed by these priests, involving Greeks or Australians born of Greek parents, legal marriages under Australian law and does the Australian law legalise registry office marriages between Greeks or Australians born of Greek parents? If so, what action, if any. can the Australian Government take to prevail upon the Greek Government to accept these marriages as legal under Greek law?

Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I have had quite a number of deputations on this subject, some from members of the Opposition. We deplore the fact that there is a division in the church but there is little that the Australian Government can do about this in Australia. One of the consequences of this division is that although the Greek Government recognises marriages performed only by that section of the church which it recognises as the established church, in Australia we recognise marriages performed by both sections when the celebrants are registered under our Marriage Act. It is true that when persons whose marriages were not performed by the section of the church recognised by the Greek Government return to Greece they find that their marriages are not recognised. The way in which the Greek Government administers its own law is. of course, an internal and domestic matter for that Government. On the other hand, following upon deputations to me I have taken steps to consult our ambasador in Athens for further advice on this matter. 1 will be considering what arises out of that consultation. At present no definitive action is proposed.

page 2525

QUESTION

HOUSING

Mr BONNETT:
HERBERT, QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister for Housing. Has the Minister seen statistics showing that bank lending for housing is at a record level? Can the Minister say whether he expects this trend to continue in the future?

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Lending by banks, in particular savings banks, for housing is at a record level, both for the last financial year and for this calendar year. The total lending for housing is well in excess of $550m a year. The Government hopes that this trend will continue for the simple reason that bank lending has always been a very traditional and important source of lending to those people who require homes of their own. It is part of the Government’s policy that the nature of the traditional banking system be retained. The Government has therefore felt some trepidation over a proposal which would force the Commonwealth Bank to lend money for housing at rates of a little over 3 per cent. This proposal would, if adopted, have 2 clear and very obvious repercussions immediately. It would immediately debar more than 11,000 young couples each year from obtaining their loans for housing from the Commonwealth Bank. Those people who have traditionally obtained their funds from this source would be debarred. The second result would be far more serious. The proposal would result in the immediate destruction of all the non-Commonwealth Savings Banks systems of making loans for housing and it would be a much more effective method of destroying the banking system than was ever contemplated under the proposal to nationalise banking. Let me say finally that this proposal is part of the banking proposals of the Australian Labor Party insofar as they relate to housing, and these are contained in section 9 and section 12 of that Party’s platform.

page 2525

QUESTION

POVERTY

Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Prime Minister a question. Has Cabinet approved the recommendation which the Minister for Social Services made after consultation with the Prime Minister for a public inquiry into poverty similar to the inquiries into the repatriation and health systems? If so. when does he expect to announce the terms of reference of the inquiry and the personnel to conduct it?

Mr McMAHON:
Prime Minister · LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The matter is now being considered by the Government and when a decision is made we will announce it to the House.

page 2525

QUESTION

MILK POWDER: EXPORTS TO ASIA

Mr BUCHANAN:
MCMILLAN, VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industry. Is the Minister aware of the threat by the Australian Dairy Produce Board that it will confiscate supplies of milk powder to bolster its ailing Asian dairy plants? The

Board says that it will pay only cut rates and that it will refuse export permits for contracts that have already been made at the high ruling rates which are current today unless factories agree to this sacrifice of existing customers. I ask: Will the Minister please stop this highway robbery and at least insist on the Board paying the going world prices?

Mr SINCLAIR:
Minister for Primary Industry · NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– I am not aware of any decision by the Australian Dairy Produce Board along the lines suggested by the honourable member. I am aware that Asian dairy factories have been a worthwhile effort at diversification by the Australian dairy industry at a time when the dairy industry realistically appreciated that its continued opportunity for sales in the United Kingdom was likely to be impaired and that it was necessary to find new and diversified outlets for dairy products. It is true that in the past 18 months because of a quite remarkable increase in the price of butter in particular but also in the price of dried milk, powdered milk, skim milk and all other processed and manufactured milk products overseas, the general circumstances of the sale of milk products have changed radically. However, it would still be futile for the dairy industry to think that these traditional markets on which it built up its exports and on which it has relied will always be available. Indeed, we are on notice that as from 1st January 1973 the British market will be substantially affected and this will apply particularly to dairy products exported from Australia. The Asian dairy industries represent a worthwhile effort by the Australian dairy industry to gain new outlets for its products and I should be loath to intervene with the Dairy Board’s worthwhile efforts in this regard. Nevertheless, I shall refer the honourable gentleman’s question to the Board which, I have no doubt, will take into account the comments he has made.

page 2526

QUESTION

NATURAL GAS

Mr JACOBI:
HAWKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister for National Development relating to the Woodside-Burmah consortium as to the north west shelf exploration programme. In view of the Government’s refusal to permit Parliament to pass effective laws to control territorial waters and the continental shelf, I ask the Minister: Is it a fact that, in recent arrangements reached relating to the 4 farm-out areas totalling some 21,000 square miles, of the 10 companies involved 9 are completely oversea controlled? Is it a fact that if commercial discoveries are made in these areas the effective Australian share in the total production will decline below the existing 25 per cent Australian equity in the consortium? Will the Minister assure the House that the Government will withhold ratification of these farm-out agreements to ensure maximum Australian participation and control over these irreplaceable and valuable natural gas deposits, valued at $16,500,000,000?

Mr SWARTZ:
Minister for National Development · DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I am pleased that the honourable member is showing some interest in this important matter which in the future will become even more important to our national economy. I should like to correct him at the outset in relation to one thing. The honourable member referred to matters concerning jurisdiction in a particular region. Perhaps he has overlooked the fact that this is covered by joint legislation enacted by this Parliament and the Parliament of Western Australia. The Western Australian Government issues permits for this sort of exploration and, as the honourable member would know, Western Australia has a Labor government. Of course, permits were issued in relation to the north west shelf by the previous government in Western Australia. Once a permit has been issued by the Western Australian Government the issue of the permit must be confirmed by the Commonwealth Department of National Development. The initial appoach for a permit is made to the Western Australian Government. In fact, the Designated Authority under the 2 Acts is the Minister in the Government of Western Australia. I think that that point should be clarified at this stage.

The second point relates to overseas investment. This does not directly come under my control but I think the honourable member will be pleased to learn that today the Treasurer will make a statement, and a White Paper in relation to this matter will be put down in this House so that all aspects of this matter may be open to study by all honourable members. In addition to that, there are the guidelines introduced by the former Prime Minister.

These guidelines are being adhered to substantially by the Government. One of the prime responsibilities in relation to this matter rests with the Government of Western Australia. But I can assure you, Mr Speaker, that the various matters which the honourable member has raised are very much in our mind, and certainly the aspects affecting the national well-being will be very carefully considered when future approaches are made for a farm-out arrangement.

The final point I make relates to the quoting of figures in relation to the gas, or perhaps oil deposits or condensate, that is on the north west shelf. At the present time I will not accept any figures until they are proven. We hope that it will be a very substantial field indeed, and the indications are that the suggested figures reflect the direction which the proven figures may ultimately take. At the present time 1 will not accept the figures that the honourable member has quoted, but we hope that the results ultimately will show a very substantial field which will be to the benefit of Australia as a whole.

page 2527

QUESTION

EUROPEAN COMMON MARKET

Mr LLOYD:
MURRAY, VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Trade and Industry. Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to recent articles in various Australian newspapers stating that the British Foreign Secretary, Sir Alec Douglas-Home, has written a letter to a Labor backbencher, Mr Leslie Huckfield. claiming that he has not received any representations from Canberra concerning the protection of Australia’s interests during the transitional period of Britain’s entry to the European Economic Community? Is the Minister aware that the way some of these articles are written suggests either that Sir Alec Douglas-Home was not aware of the criticism you had made of the apparent lack of British action to protect Australian interests or that you never made such criticism? Will you tell the House what actually happened?

Mr ANTHONY:
Deputy Prime Minister · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– There have been some minor newspaper reports on this matter. I just do not believe that Sir Alec DouglasHome was not aware of my criticism of the British Government about the transitional arrangements which were made for Australia, particularly in respect of those items which were under quota arrangements with the British Government. During the course of discussions whilst I was in Britain last year I had an opportunity of meeting Sir Alec Douglas-Home to talk about this matter, but the facts of this matter are that I stated my point very clearly also in a statement to this House. I said that we were disappointed with the result. The British Government replied that it now had a safeguard clause which could be introduced if there was disruption to certain agricultural commodities going to the European Economic Community. We have not received clarification of what this really means. I hope to get into discussions with the British Government, and I hope that it is in a position to amplify the safeguard clause more when I have these discussions. However the British Government faces the difficulty of having this safeguard clause defined more fully by the European members. So we are going through a period of trying to negotiate and confer so that we know where we will stand during the 5-year period. I do not think that any accusations that I have not been unequivocal or forthright in my comments about the British negotiations would hold water. In fact a lot of people felt that I went a little too far last year.

Mr Calwell:

– 1 rise to order, Mr Speaker. There is a growing practice in this House of disregarding the standing order which says that all questions shall be directed through the Chair. Members are addressing questions to Ministers by use of the personal pronoun; they are asking: ‘Will you explain?’ This creates a dialogue, whereas the Standing Orders provide - if I am not in error - that questions must always be directed through the Chair and that the terms must be impersonal and not personal.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The right honourable member is correct. There is a growing practice such as he suggests in this direction and I draw the attention of the House to the points made by him. I suggest that the Standing Orders be complied with.

page 2527

QUESTION

ELECTORAL EXPENSES

Mr COPE:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– 1 ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs who represents the Attorney-General in this House a question which is supplementary to one asked by the Leader of the Opposition on 2nd March. In answer to that question the Minister said he would look at the failure of himself and other lawyers who were then in the Ministry to complete the return of their expenses at the last House of Representatives election as required by the Commonwealth Electoral Act. Since he has not yet actually told the Leader of the Opposition, as he promised, and since he might soon have to sit in judgment on others who seem to have broken the law, I again ask him why he did not complete the return of his last election expenses.

Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– Following on the last question and my mention of the law to the honourable gentleman who asked the question, I had a preliminary look at this matter. I have not completed my inquiries, and when I do I will advise the Leader of the Opposition.

page 2528

QUESTION

COMPANIES: OVERSEAS OWNERSHIP

Mr GORTON:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Prime Minister and/ or the Treasurer. Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to the takeover bid for Rocla Pipes Ltd made by Concrete Industries (Monier) Ltd? ls Concrete Industries (Monier) Ltd owned as to 49.9 per cent by overseas interests? Should the takeover be successful will it not result in sufficient overseas ownership in the new corporation to be able to control it effectively? Will it not also result in the avoidance of the present competition between the 2 pipe making industries concerned? If these propositions are correct, does the Government consider this to be in the public interest? If not, (a) can the Government act to prevent this takeover, and (b) will it consider doing so?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– I cannot vouch for the accuracy of the figures that have just been made available by the right honourable gentleman. I have recently received through my office a statement which is somewhat contradictory to the figures given by the right honourable gentleman. It has been passed on to Treasury. I will ask that an analysis of the 2 sets of figures be given and I will let him know the answer. As to the last part of the right honourable gentleman’s question, I think he knows, or at least it has been stated in the House, that the Government is now considering the whole question of monopolies. When that is done and the Government’s decisions are known it will be seen that we will be acting in order to take a very deep interest in this very important facet of takeovers, whether domestic or international.

page 2528

QUESTION

HOUSING: TOWNSVILLE

Mr BARNARD:
BASS, TASMANIA

– I ask the Minister for the Army: Is there a housing shortage in Townsville due in part to the impact of last December’s cyclone? Has this shortage been accentuated by demands of army personnel for housing in the civilian sector of the city? If so, can anything be done to relieve these strains by providing more army housing in Townsville?

Mr KATTER:
Minister for the Army · KENNEDY, QUEENSLAND · CP

– I can appreciate the honourable member’s interest in this matter. As a matter of fact, it is one of the most dominating problems that the army has in most centres, but it is not quite as accentuated in Townsville. I do not have on hand the detailed information that he requires, but I will provide him with all the necessary information.

page 2528

QUESTION

NORTH VIETNAM: VISIT OF ANTI-WAR ACTIVISTS

Mr HAMER:
ISAACS, VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Is it a fact that the North Vietnamese have invited a delegation of Australian anti-war activists to visit North Vietnam next month? Has the Minister any information to indicate whether these anti-war activists will endeavour to induce the North Vietnamese to cease their blatant armed invasion of South Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos?

Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I have read a newspaper report which states that a Mr Ken McLeod of the Association for International Co-operation and Disarmament has received an invitation from North Vietnam to visit that country. It is perhaps not unexpected, seeing that the honourable member for Lalor has invited representatives from Hanoi to attend one of his demonstrations. In addition, of course, one sees the attitude to this war which was revealed in the bitter attack on America and American action contained in the speech of the Leader of the Opposition last Tuesday evening. This attack on behalf of the Australian Labor Party on the actions of the United States and that country’s attempt to defend its ally against this blatant invasion, might well suggest to the

Government of North Vietnam that it would have considerable support in Australia for its actions and might well lead Mr Ken McLeod to think that he too would have the support of the Australian Labor Party if he was able to make a visit in order to give that country aid and comfort.

There was one part of the question, I think, which referred to Mr McLeod perhaps endeavouring to persuade North Vietnam to desist from its invasion. Although I speak only from recollection from the time when 1 was Attorney-General, I should perhaps warn Mr McLeod that there was then a law in force in North Vietnam that propagandising in concert against the policy of the Government is punishable by death. Therefore, perhaps he ought to be careful in adopting any attitude while in North Vietnam in which he would be critical of the actions of that Government.

Finally, may I say at a more serious level that I think most Australian people believe that this is a blatant invasion from the north against which the South Vietnamese are defending themselves very courageously. There are still some Australians in that country. Again, I think that the majority of Australians would regard this proposed visit as disgraceful.

page 2529

QUESTION

FOREIGN SEAMEN: DESERTION OF SHIPS

Mr SCHOLES:
CORIO, VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Immigration. In view of the decision to allow a Russian deserter to obtain political asylum in Australia, has the Minister considered the position of a number of Greek seamen on whose behalf a number of honourable members have made representations? Is he aware that these seamen are being or may have been deported back to Greece to what I, would think is an equally repressive regime? Will his Department consider whether these seamen also should be given the benefit of political as’Iii m ? If not, will the Minister explain to the House in what way their position differs from that of the Russian seaman?

Dr FORBES:
Minister for Immigration · BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– All requests by deserting seamen to be permitted to remain in Australia for residence are considered carefully on their merits. This happened in the case of the Russian seaman about whom the hon ourable member spoke. If the honourable gentleman gives me the details and the names of any other seamen of which he is aware 1 would be perfectly happy to consider such cases on their merits as well.

page 2529

QUESTION

HOUSING OF NAVAL PERSONNEL

Mr HALLETT:
CANNING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for the Navy. Can the Minister indicate what developments are envisaged in relation to the housing of naval personnel who will be stationed at Garden island, Western Australia? Can the Minister also indicate what plans are being formulated concerning public facilities on the island?

Dr MACKAY:
Minister for the Navy · EVANS, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– Single personnel at the future facility on Garden Island will bc accommodated to a large degree on the island itself. At present investigations regarding married quarters are proceeding with the State housing authorities and others. There are several possibilities in regard to married quarters. The town of Kwinana, which is some 8 miles inland from Rockingham, and Safety Bay arc other suggestions which have been made as to the location of housing for personnel. I believe that during this week the authorities will be getting together to discuss this topic and I hope that a decision will be made very shortly. As to the public use of Garden Island, when the Prime Minister was in Western Australia recently he indicated that the Navy will not currently require the entire area of the island, which has traditionally been used as a place of recreation. It is anticipated that approximately 10 miles of the beach line of the island will be available for public use and something like-

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– 1 rise to order. Are the Minister, and indeed the Prime Minister, in order in making statements which have the effect of pre-empting the possible determinations of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, which could be embarrassed in respect of deliberations currently before it?

Mr SPEAKER:

– There is nothing to stop a Minister from stating information he has at his disposal irrespective of what any committee may be doing, provided that he does not state the exact information that has come from the committee.

Dr MACKAY:

– I will rephrase slightly what I have said to convey the same message. The Navy will not require the entire area of the island for some considerable time anyway, and could make available for recreation purposes some 10 miles of beach and 1,800 acres of hinterland. There is, of course, the additional problem of holiday homes that have been there for quite some time. Representations have been made to retain the right to this usage of the island. The Navy’s intention would be, in principle, to make as much of this land as is not immediately required for defence purposes, available for the wider use of the community on a daily visitation basis. The Government will look forward with interest to the findings of the Public Works Committee. When those findings are known I do not think the Navy will be found to bs in any way more demanding than I have just described.

page 2530

QUESTION

AIRCRAFT INDUSTRY

Mr McIVOR:
GELLIBRAND, VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister for Supply: Is August the deadline for rationalisation in the aircraft industry? Is it not a fact that a large number of dismissals will ensue if orders are not forthcoming by that date to the industry, particularly to the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation and the Government Aircraft Factories with special reference to the establishment at Fishermen’s Bend?

Mr GARLAND:
Minister for Supply · CURTIN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– There is no deadline for rationalising the aircraft industry as the honourable member has suggested . As I replied in an answer to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition only last week, the Government is examining a number of courses of action embracing the whole of the aircraft industry and also has before it for consideration a number of proposals regarding the work load in this industry. There is no question of a deadline or cutoff or any sudden changes taking place. Until the matter is clarified there is no more that I can add at this stage.

page 2530

QUESTION

EDUCATION

Mr IRWIN:
MITCHELL, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for Education and Science: In its recently announced proposals of financial assistance to Australian schools did the Commonwealth seek to weight grants in favour of independent schools? Is the criticism by some commentators over the week-end justified?

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

-The criticism from some quarters following the announcement by the Prime Minister of weighted Government support for education in favour of independent schools is not justified or accurate. Of the total capital funds that the Prime Minister announced of $2 15m, $167m will be going to Government schools and $48 m to independent schools and that division of the total sum is pretty much the same as the division of enrolments in government schools and independent schools. It is nonsense, therefore, to say that the grant is weighted in favour of independent schools. In addition honourable members should have noted that government schools in the States have access to the very substantial loan funds which the Commonwealth often supports and underwrites while for independent schools, apart from the science laboratories and libraries programmes, the provisions announced last week by the Prime Minister represent basically the only support they will have. I would find it hard to see how a policy under which 40 per cent of the cost of education in government schools is paid in respect of children in independent schools could be regarded as weighting payments in favour of independent schools. It is a payment equal to 40 per cent of the equivalent cost in government schools. I believe that kind of charge could come only from those who basically do not support independent schools as well as government schools. It could come only from those who would seek to establish one education system throughout Australia.

page 2530

QUESTION

DESERTING SEAMEN

Mr JAMES:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Minister for Immigration any idea of the number of deserters from foreign ships in Australian ports in the last 3 years and from which countries the deserters originated? Would the Minister tell me also whether it is not the normal practice for a captain of a foreign ship before sailing to report missing a crewman to the responsible Customs official who, in turn, reports the incident to the immigration authorities and State police, who endeavour to effect the arrest of the deserter by warrant with a view to his deportation? Would the Minister explain why the normal procedure was not adopted regarding a ship’s deserter from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics? Was it correctly reported that the Minister recently granted political asylum to a ship’s deserter from the Soviet Union because he did not want to return to his nagging wife? Does the Minister consider that his actions were in the best interests of diplomatic relations between this country and the Soviet Union?

Dr FORBES:
LP

– In relation to the first part of the honourable gentleman’s question, at the time of the debate on the estimates for the Department of Immigration last year 1 circulated to honourable members the complete details, if not for the last 3 years then certainly for the previous 12 months, of the number of deportations and the countries from which deportees came. If the honourable gentleman did not see that list 1 would be glad to make a copy of it available to him. In relation to the last part of his question, I have nothing to add to the reply that I gave to the honourable member for Corio.

page 2531

QUESTION

QUARANTINE

Mr TURNER:
BRADFIELD, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Health aware of the pitiable plight of a silky terrior who answers to the name of ‘Woofa’? Normally a resident of my electorate, he was the victim of mistaken identity and was sent from kennels in Sydney to England where he is temporarily accommodated, appropriately, in Berkshire. The Minister for Health in another place has indicated that he may, after a month at sea on the return voyage, have to spend another 2 months in quarantine. Is it not possible in a shorter time to determine whether he is suffering from foot rot, Newcastle disease or perhaps even rabies? I ask the Minister to confer with his colleague to see whether they can do better for this much loved, sad and lonely creature?

Dr FORBES:
LP

– I am aware of the pitiable plight of Woofa and I commend the interest taken by the honourable member in that pitiable plight. However, departmental advice in relation to this matter is that poor Woofa must spend the statutory 60 days in quarantine in order to ascertain whether any disease contracted in transit actually becomes manifest.

page 2531

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH SUPERIOR COURT

Mr WHITLAM:

– I ask the Minister representing the Attorney-General a question. The honourable and learned gentleman will not think me impatient if I ask him about the proposal for the Commonwealth Superior Court which Sir Garfield Barwick was authorised by Cabinet to design in December 1962, on which he himself in his first period as Attorney-General made a ministerial statement in May 1967, and for which he introduced a Bill in November 1968. When I asked him about it during his own second period as Attorney-General he said that it was under consideration by the Department but not yet by the Government - due, he thought, to the change in the Ministry. I now ask him whether the McMahon Ministry has considered the proposal and, if so, with what result, ls this 10-year-old proposal likely to be introduced during the lifetime of this Parliament?

Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– As the honourable and learned Leader of the Opposition has pointed out, although at one time I had some personal control over this matter, at present I do not have any responsibility for it and I will have to refer his question to my colleague in another place.

page 2531

QUESTION

EDUCATION

Mr GILES:
ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Will the Minister for Education and Science make plain why the Government’s decision of last week to bring in new financial assistance arrangements affecting all schools is effective from next year? Has the Minister noticed any reaction to this point from South Australia? If so, can he see merit in any of these comments?

Mr Beazley:

– I rise on a point of order. Is this a matter on the notice paper for debate because of the ministerial statement that was made about it, and is it therefore open to honourable members to ask questions about it?

Mr SPEAKER:

-The rule that is applied is that if a matter is on the notice paper for debate usually no questions are allowed to be asked about it. But as honourable members know, the practice of this House over many years has been that if a member requires some information from a Minister, for use in a debate the Minister has been at liberty to give it.

Dr Gun:

– Yes, but the question is not seeking information, is it?

Mr SPEAKER:

– The question is seeking information.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– 1 can understand the honourable gentleman’s desire to protect the Government of South Australia. The South Australian Minister for Education has objected to these capital proposals beginning to operate from July 1973 and in doing that, of course, he has ignored entirely the present capital funds which go only to government schools, which he will have for spending up until June 1973. The proposals announced by the Prime Minister are designed to take over from the interim measure announced by the Prime Minister before Christmas. One of the principal reasons for doing this was to give State departments the opportunity to plan ahead, to gear up for a greater rate of expenditure on school buildings in primary and secondary schools. So often when funds have been made available - and this includes South Australia as much as any State, if not more than most other States - they have not been spent in the time scale in which the Commonwealth was prepared to provide them, because the States have not been able to plan ahead, and this applied to South Australia. The States previously claimed that they did not have enough forward notice to gear up for the additional expenditure. We have now given them that additional notice and there cannot be that excuse for not committing them in the way in which they are designed to be used.

The criticism from South Australia rings particularly hollow because at the recent Premiers Conference additional funds were made available to all the States which they were entitled to spend for works and housing programmes. The 3 eastern States particularly - Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria - and Tasmania under its former government made large parts of those additional funds available for increased school construction. The Labor States of South Australia and Western Australia made virtually no additional funds available for school construction from the funds granted at the Premiers Conference. It would have been within their own prerogative to do so if the State Education Ministers had been able to persuade their own governments that the matters were of sufficient priority.

page 2532

QUESTION

EDUCATION: FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr KENNEDY:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA

– I call to the attention of the Minister for Education and Science the fact that the grants being paid to private schools include per capita grants by State governments also, according to his scheme. Is it a fact that under this scheme, allowing for an increase in the number of pupils attending independent schools and an increase in the costs, over the next 5 years, the extra amount that will be paid out to private schools will be $250m? This amount will be paid out by the Commonwealth and State governments in capital grants and in increased per capita grants. Is it a fact that if the State governments play their part, as requested by the Prime Minister, they will not have the $l67m in capital grants but rather a net increase of only $42m? Do these figures, therefore, show that the private schools over the next 5 years will get an extra $372 a head while government schools will, in fact, get an extra $17.50 a head? How does the Minister explain this inequality between the 2 systems?

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

-The honourable gentleman has an infinite capacity to mix up figures and in this sense he has mixed up capital and recurrent payments. The additional funds that the Government is making available to government and independent schools for capital purposes will stand as sums additional to what the States otherwise might have been expected to spend. The Prime Minister has made it plain that the Government’s purpose is that this should be a net addition to government school construction. It will be an addition of $167m. The grant of $48m also will be additional for school construction - a new programme of support for independent schools. This, for the Commonwealth purposes, is roughly on a per capita basis between government and independent schools. But for recurrent funds, for the life of me, 1 find it difficult to understand how the honourable gentleman can object to a proposal which would seek to give independent schools some degree of certainty in future planning for their recurrent expenditure.

On that basis what the Prime Minister has proposed would make available to independent schools 40 per cent of the cost of education in a government primary school or 40 per cent of the cost of education in a government secondary school. It is quite plain that the honourable member for Bendigo finds objection to that particular proposal. I can believe that people would have objection to it only if they felt that governments have not an obligation to all school children - those who have an education in government schools and also those who are educated in independent schools. The Government believes it has a responsibility to all Australian school schildren and for the first time in Australia’s history the Prime Minister has taken steps that will give effect to that belief in a realistic and fair manner.

page 2533

QUESTION

THE PARLIAMENT

Sir WINTON TURNBULL:
MALLEE, VICTORIA

– Mr Speaker, as certain Ministers and many honourable members of this House and the Press refer to the sittings which will follow the winter adjournment as the next session of this Parliament, and as this is causing confusion in and out of Parliament, will you, Mr Speaker, state whether the sittings following the winter adjournment will be the sixth period of the second and present session of this Parliament and not the next session? If this is not so, Mr Speaker, will you please clarify the position?

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honourable member is correct.

page 2533

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS

Mr WENTWORTH:
Minister for Social Services · Mackellar · LP

– I ask for leave to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Does the Minister claim to have been presented?

Mr WENTWORTH:

– Yes. Referring to some remarks I had made recently, the Sydney Morning Herald’ in an editorial yesterday stated:

Mr Wentworth seems rather surprised that the poor these days should have refrigerators - a symbol of affluence50 years ago.

Far from being surprised, I know this to be a fact. I initiated those remarks as a statement and, far from expressing any disapproval of this situation I quoted it with approval as an evidence of increasing standards. One does not resent one’s words being twisted a little but when they are made to show exactly the opposite of what one intended I think some kind of retraction is called for.

Dr PATTERSON:
Dawson

- Mr Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honourable member has spoken to me about this matter and he is entitled to make a personal explanation.

Dr PATTERSON:

– I refer to last Friday’s issue of the ‘Australian Financial Review’ which contained a vicious personal attack on me by a journalist who calls himself Maximilian Walsh. This attack was based on this man’s inside story, so called, of events which occurred at Labor’s parliamentary executive and caucus meetings last Wednesday in relation to the Softwood Forestry Agreements Bill. The article condemned and rubbished me on the grounds that because a recommendation I made to the executive was not successful I took my fight into a caucus in order to achieve my view and I was defeated, which in fact means that I defied the executive. This is a lie. He stated that I lined up the environmentalists against the development fundamentalists. This is utterly untrue. He then said that when the question was put the Patterson forces - presumably that includes me - were routed. This is utterly untrue.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! There is too much noise in the chamber. Surely the honourable member has a right to be able to explain where he has been misrepresented. This applies to honourable members on both sides of the House. 1 think that all honourable members should have this right on occasions like this because you never know when you might be misrepresented yourself and in those circumstances an honourable member should be able to give an explanation.

Dr PATTERSON:

– His allegation means, of course, that I was disloyal to the executive in that by taking the fight into the caucus I defied my executive. This is maliciously false. This Maximilian Walsh, as a result of these untruths regarding my alleged conduct in the executive and in the caucus, drew the conclusion:

At the personality level this debate marked another - and this time a very serious- setback to the political status of Rex Patterson. . . .

Now for the truth. The facts are the reverse of Walsh’s allegations. Although my recommendation to the executive was not accepted it was my responsibility to present the executive’s majority decision to the caucus and support it. This I did. I presented it and supported it, as every member of the caucus knows. 1 did not. as Walsh implies, fight the executive’s decision in the caucus. There was no confrontation as he alleged. Further, when my Leader and the Leader of the Labor Party in the Senate (Senator Murphy) moved a subsequent amendment 1 accepted and supported this amendment on the grounds that I believed it to be the majority decision of the executive. At all times I was loyal to my executive. Walsh’s entire story is full of untruths deliberately aimed at damaging my credibility. He also claims that a position document on this subject was circulated to executive members. This is untrue. There are further misrepresentations but I will not bore the House by referring to them. This Maximilian Walsh - they call him ‘The Spiv’ in departmental circles-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I do not think the honourable member is entitled to make any criticism of the author of this material. He is entitled to say where he has been misrepresented.

Dr PATTERSON:

– This Maximilian Walsh made no attempt whatsoever to check these damaging allegations with me before he rushed into print with his article. When I challenged him last Friday afternoon as to the source of these lies, he informed me that his story simply repeated details which had been given to him about what happened in the executive and the caucus, and he had no reason to doubt the correctness of the information given to him. I believe that all decent parliamentarians will treat with contempt this sort of journalism and this journalist and particularly the person or perhaps persons who gave him these untruths.

page 2534

AUSTRALIAN EGG BOARD

Mr SINCLAIR:
Minister for Primary Industry · New England · CP

– Pursuant to section 23 of the Egg Export Control Act 1947- 1966, I present the twenty-fourth annual report of the Australian Egg Board onthe operation of the Act for the year ended 30th June 1971, together with financial statements and the report of the AuditorGeneral on those statements. An interim report of the Board was presented to the House on 7th September 1971.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I shall not call upon Ministers to present papers to the House until silence is observed.

page 2534

STATES GRANTS (SECONDARY SCHOOLS LIBRARIES) ACT

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– Pursuant to section 5 of the States Grants (Secondary Schools Libraries) Act 1968, I present a statement describing the arrangements in accordance with which payments under this Act have been authorised in 1971.

page 2534

COMMONWEALTH TREASURY ECONOMIC PAPER No. 1

Ministerial Statement

Mr SNEDDEN:
Treasurer · Bruce · LP

– by leave - Over the past 18 months or so Australia has experienced an extraordinarily high rate of capital inflow. This development has attracted considerable interest, and indeed concern, in the community. In December of last year the Government requested the Treasury to put in band a detailed study of the matter. I now inform the House that this task has been completed and I lay on the table for consideration by the House the following paper:

Commonwealth Treasury Economic Paper No. 1,

Overseas Investment in Australia. May 1972.

As both the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) and I have previously indicated, this Treasury study should provide an appropriate vehicle for debate of the general question of overseas investment in Australia. Its purpose is to analyse, from the Australian viewpoint, the principal economic issues raised by overseas investment in this country.

These issues are essentially concerned with the growth and development of the domestic economy - for example, the allocation of available resources, the distribution of income, the degree of competition and other domestic economic management questions of that kind. Naturally, the inflow of foreign capital also has implications : or the balance of payments, but so long as the economy is reasonably well managed these will be less significant.

The terms of reference of the paper must be emphasised. It does not attempt to assess the non-economic aspects of overseas investment. Moreover, although it inevitably ranges over matters having a bearing on general policy in this field, it does not put forward policy proposals. The paper encompasses many statistics and facts as well as detailed economic argument, and honourable members will wish to give it close consideration and have time to digest it. It would not therefore be appropriate for me now to launch a general debate on the subject. I would however like to outline briefly the main themes which the paper raises. First however it is necessary to understand the international financial background against which the recent high level of capital inflow has occurred. The gradual breakdown of the international monetary system throughout the past decade culminated on 15th August last in the formal termination of convertibility of the United States dollar. Up to that time we had seen a mounting volume of international liquidity as United States dollars flowed outwards to the world as a result of the continuing deficit in the balance of payments of that country.

Because of these and other associated developments - notably the growth of the Euro-currency markets - many countries have seen large inflows of capital over recent years. Such inflows have taken many forms: direct investment in new industry; takeovers of existing enterprises; portfolio investment in equity shares or other existing financial assets; loans to business enterprises or individuals; and last, but by no means least, speculative movements of capital in one or other of these ways but with an eye chiefly to the possibility of exchange rate changes.

These developments are important, for 2 reasons: First, they have undoubtedly affected both the attitudes and the expectations which are nowadays brought to any appraisal of the costs and benefits of foreign investment. Secondly, and as part of that, the addition of a major new source of international capital obviously has some implications for any assessment of the ‘scarcity value’ of such capital. Capital inflow, in whatever form, provides the host country with claims on overseas resources. But these claims can only be made effective if they are actually used in the acquisition of such resources from abroad, currently or in the future. To do so, the current account deficit of the balance of payments must be increased. Pending that, these claims will take the form solely of additions to the country’s international reserves. As the Treasury paper says, this point is quite basic. If by means of capital inflow a country is to add to the real resources available to it for accelerating its development, it can do so only by incurring a deficit on the current account. Australia has for some time now sustained a sizeable level of capital inflow. Equally, it has sustained a current account balance of payments deficit which, taking one year with another, has been roughly similar in size. The inflow of capital to Australia has therefore been reflected in broadly equivalent additions of real resources to the economy.

More recently, this has greatly changed. On the one hand, capital inflow has risen considerably. On the other hand, the current account balance of payments deficit, so far from rising in line with that, has actually diminished appreciably, although this has been due partly to cyclical factors. In short, during the past 2 years or so the acceleration in capital inflow has not been matched by any similar rise in drawings on real resources from abroad. Instead, it has been matched by a rapid and continuing build-up in our international reserves. The recent growth in capital inflow largely reflects an increase in borrowings from abroad. This in turn stems from a conjuncture of circumstances. On the one hand, during the greater part of this period monetary policy within Australia has been ‘out of phase’ in varying degree with monetary conditions abroad. There have been good reasons, of a domestic economic management kind, for that. On the other hand, financial developments in Australia, particularly the establishment and growing activities of the merchant banks, have led to much greater interest in borrowing possibilities abroad. The particular timing of events has meant that these developments have not, over the period in question, represented a significant impediment to policy. None the less, there are potential dilemmas inherent in the situation. Essentially they concern the degree to which a government’s domestic monetary management can be influenced, or even determined, by external factors.

The degree of actual dilemma will vary over time. There will be situations when the effects of capital inflow will be fully consistent with the stance of monetary policy. There will be situations when the internal and external forces at work are finely balanced and when any conflict between the 2 will therefore be manageable. There will, however, be other situations in which capital movements will run directly counter to the stance of domestic monetary policy and may even necessitate its abandonment. It is these latter ‘conflict situations’ that raise the dilemma in its sharpest form. This is the first of the major economic questions which capital inflow poses for Australia today. It is, in essence, the problem of reconciling capital inflow with sensible and balanced management of the domestic economy. A second economic problem can arise from capital inflow for a country whose exchange rate is reckoned, rightly or wrongly, to be undervalued. In such circumstances funds will move into the country, motivated to a greater or less degree by hopes of profiting from exchange rate appreciation. Before long it will be being said that because the country is receiving large quantities of foreign capital and its reserves are consequently rising, it necessarily must follow that its exchange rate is undervalued. That is an over-simple view. True, problems associated with disruptive capital flows will be exacerbated if a country’s exchange rate does not reflect its fundamental external position. But it is equally clear that an appropriate exchange rate will not remove, though it will reduce, the potential for conflict situations to arise.

The third possible problem arising out of capital inflow is that of foreign ownership and control. In Australia, the proportionate foreign ownership of Australian companies has risen from around 20 per cent in 1948-49 to, probably, around 35 per cent in 1970-71. From a purely economic viewpoint, and always assuming that the general management of the economy remains, over the years, reasonably sound, such a rise in the ownership ratio need not pose any threat. For one thing, foreignowned companies are subject to the laws of the host country. Unlike the case of Canada, foreign control in Australia has not rested predominantly with a single country. Moreover, the foreign owner’s aspirations for his enterprise may coincide in important ways with the national economic interest. Even so, a high and rising degree of foreign control could conflict with national aspirations. One suggested solution to the foreign control question is insistence upon an increased, or a certain minimum level of, local equity participation in enterprises undertaken by foreign interests. However, while increased local equity may constrain the growth of overseas ownership, it may have little impact on overseas control. Whatever the other benefits of increased local equity may be, it is also fair to say that, for reasons which are set out in the Treasury paper, in the process of increasing local equity some of the benefits of overseas investment may be reduced. A particular form of the problem of ownership and control arises in the case of foreign takeovers. This is a complex question and I do not propose at this stage to offer any quick answers to the problems that it poses. One such problem of great importance is whether the takeover will result in the restriction of competition. That, of course, is an aspect common to all takeovers, whether initiated domestically or from abroad.

The problem of ownership and control is one principally related to the field of direct investment - and. in the matter of ownership, equity portfolio investment. This fact leads to certain other conclusions. Action of any general kind to restrain or reduce the growth of foreign ownership and control will carry implications in a number of fields - introduction of technical know-how, for example - which stem from the nature of direct investment. By the same token, such action is unlikely to have more than a modest bearing on the 2 other problems referred to earlier - domestic economic management and exchange rate speculation, should that exist. Equally, action to reduce the potential for domestic economic management conflict situations to arise might not, depending on its precise nature, have any effects upon foreign ownership and control. The truth is - and these illustrations underline it - that even in a strictly economic calculus, the subject of foreign investment does not readily lend itself to easy generalisations.

I recognise, of course, that the subject cannot be confined within an economic calculus. It is proper that a Treasury paper on it should be largely so confined. But the question of overseas investment engenders a great body of argument of a non-economic kind. The balance of economic benefits and costs must therefore be weighed against the balance of non-economic benefits and costs. Each can change over time, as can the weighting between them. In the economic field, for example, consider the contention that a net inflow of capital from abroad will usually enable one’s economy to grow faster, and one’s living standards to increase more rapidly, than they would otherwise. This contention is, I believe, broadly speaking valid. Yet its force clearly diminishes, at the margin, the larger one’s economy and the higher one’s living standards become. There may be other reasons for changes over time in the weighting to be given to economic and non-economic aspects of this matter. Changing values within a society, by virtue of the changes they may imply for the society’s broad objectives, can also play a part. Increasingly today it is being argued that a society achieving a high rate of economic growth as measured by the gross national product statistics is not necessarily a happier or even a materially richer society than one in which those statistics are rising less fast. Increasingly, emphasis is being laid on the social and other aspects of economic change and growth. To the extent that values change in these ways, so too does the basis for assessment of foreign investment also change in some degree.

Let me now turn to the issues for future consideration. There is no doubt in my own mind that the attitude of Australians towards the unrestricted inflow of foreign capital has, over the years, been undergoing some change. There is nothing surprising, or necessarily objectionable, about that. I have myself indicated on several previous occasions that, however tenable it may have been 10 years ago, what I call the ‘startled fawn’ approach to foreign capital is no longer appropriate. More and more, too, non-economic considerations of the kind I have mentioned earlier are coming to the fore, and the balance of the discussion is changing as a consequence. It is one thing to recognise these developments. It is another to prescribe for them.

In my remarks today I have sought only to identify the problems at this stage. They are: Firstly, the present level of inflow and the potential problem that creates for managing the domestic economy, as well as the financial costs to Australia which are involved; secondly, the suggestions of exchange rate speculation to which such inflows can give rise, and the possible consequences of that; and thirdly, the sheer fact of foreign ownership and control of important aspects of our economy. I have no intention today of addressing myself to what, if any, actions might be appropriate to deal with these problems, or with some of them. Whether we should seek to do so. and if so in what way, are matters for calm deliberation. Questions of this importance are not to be settled ‘off the cuff’. We have identified the policy issues. Over the period ahead my colleagues and I will be addressing ourselves to them. If decisions are to be taken, they should be taken after careful and informed discussion and in the light of the public debate which I hope this Treasury Economic Paper will now assist in generating.

Motion (by Mr Swartz) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper.

Mr CREAN:
Melbourne Ports

– Firstly I thank the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) for having sent me a copy of this magnum opus on Sunday evening. I must confess that since that time I have read nothing else. I say without offence that I found it to be a valuable handbook for students of economic affairs but not much of a guide for legislators, present or future. I would have thought that most of the information it contains would have been readily available to the Department of the Treasury already and therefore also to the Treasurer. One thing that does seem clear from the text - one would need to read it several times - is the need in Australia for something that the Joint Committee on Constitutional Review pointed to many years ago. That is the need in Australia to have an integrated economic policy. Reading between the lines it is evident that that is what Australia does not have at the moment. The other thing that is surprising is how deficient we still are in what should be regarded as fundamental information. Let me take as an example of that, chapter 4 on page 70 of the document entitled Overseas Investment in Australia’, which reads as follows:

Surveys conducted by the Commonwealth Statistician indicate that direct ownership and control al around one-quarter of Australian manufacturing industry rested overseas in 1966-67 while approximately one-half of the value of mining (excluding oil) production in 1968 was accounted for by overseas-owned and controlled establishments.

On page 5 of the document, Table I - Overseas Investment in Companies in Australia, by Form of Investment, 1947-48 to 1970-71 - shows quite clearly, as regards, both direct investment, in the form of undistributed income and all other investment, and portfolio investment and institutional loans, the significance of the increase in the aggregate over the years from 1966-67 to 1970-71. In those 5 years the undistributed income was $1,241 m out of a total of $2,75 lm, which is pretty close to half. The other income was $ 1,973m out of a total of $4.994tn. or 40 per cent. In the more significant and newer field of portfolio and institutional loans, the increase in those 5 years was Si, 796m out of a total of $2.5 19m. In aggregate in 1970-71 we had double the overseas interest in Australian companies that we had in 1966-67.

It seems to me to be astonishing that in a situation where we ought to be beginning to map what has actually occurred, no later statistics of much relevance appear in this document other than those going back to 1966-67 and 1967-68. If the degree were as significant then, how much more so is it in 1971-72? I suggest that that is what a lot of this discussion should be about.

The other matter to which I want to draw particular attention is a paragraph on page 110 of the document. In my view this document is in many respects a very subtle indictment of the conduct of the economy by this Government over the past 2 years in particular. The fourth paragraph on that page reads as follows:

Developments over the last 2 years-

Presumably this is going back to 1 970 - certainly indicate that, at least under some condition?, private capital flows have now acquired d a practical potential to nullify the effects of monetary policy on internal economic conditions. The particular circumstances of this ‘learning’ period have not been such that the flows in question have prevented domestic monetary policy achieving its major objectives. In other circumstances, this may not be the case.

I would submit that the paragraph is exceedingly kind about what has happened in the last 2 years, particularly bearing in mind what was pointed out in the last annual report of the Reserve Bank of Australia, tabled in this House as far back as August 1971. It indicated, to my mind without much doubt, that the monetary policy that rightly or wrongly - to use one of the phrases in this document - has been sought to be imposed by the sovereign government of this country had in effect been nullified by the large inflow of capital into this country and what were the practical or real effects of that action. Whereas the public works activity, particularly in building, had been stepped down, and private dwelling construction, in the name of controlling inflation, had been curtailed, one finds that as a result of private inflow what is described as building other than dwellings actually increased.

If ever there was an indication that the policy of this Government - the sovereign government supposedly - was being nullified, it was evident enough as far back as 1971. I would like to draw attention to what are virtually the latest statistics in this document. It does nol contain many recent ones, apart from certain aggregates which are difficult to analyse. I suppose that the ones to which 1 propose to refer are in the same category. A table entitled Increase in the Australian Money Supply: Formation, 1968-69 to 1971-72 ($m)’ appears on page 106 of the paper. This table gives the picture for the first 3 quarters of 1970-71 as against the same 3 quarters for 1971-72 and presumably takes the situation up to the end of March 1972, or near enough up to date. The significant item in the table is entitled ‘Including: net apparent private capital inflow’. This item was thought to have been high in the 3 quarters of 1970-71 when it. stood at $977m, but for the same 3 quarters of this year, or for the same 9 months of this financial year, it is $ 1,341m. I suggest that other tables demand a certain amount of close analysis. 1 tried to say something about this the other evening when one of the Supply Bills was before us, but because we discussed the measure late at night no-one took very much notice of what I had to say. It seems that what this report points out, and very kindly suggests, is that we might have been able to get by in this way in the past. But I would suggest that we have now reached the stage of what might be called ‘other circumstances’ when this may not be the case. Whilst I can appreciate that the paper presented was not a policy document, nevertheless its details reveal to everyone bow recreant this Government has been in the conduct of its economic policy. 1 refer particularly to what was contained in the Budget - not the Budget presented by the Treasurer (Mr Snedden), who is at the table - of 12 months before.

Surely this is a serious matter. It is not a matter that can be delayed for further palavers. If we have reached a stage where our overall economic development, including such questions as interest rates, exchange rates and the availability of credit, is thought to be vulnerable, can the Government delay any longer announcing some specific measures to show what it intends to do? One thing that was highlighted in the document was the sort of devices that are supposedly available, such as exchange control, taxation measures and so on, and how these devices can be frustrated - and this was particularly true in regard to the section on exchange control - by people who come here calling this a host country, but who in essence can become predators on our total economy by the way they choose to act, either in terms of the available exchange controls or the taxation laws. I suggest that apart from talking at international conferences about exchange rates and the effects that they have on developing and undeveloped countries and so on, what is necessary in the twentieth century - and we are now in the 1970s which is at the latter end of the twentieth century - is the need to consider these other matters.

This document makes references in some places to the influence of what, for want of a better term, are called multi-national countries which choose to shift profits - to use the term in the document - to suit themselves, according to where their various interests might be. They adopt devices such as delaying the payment for orders in Australia if credit restrictions are framed in a certain way, changing the interest rate or allowing goods to be marked al what are presumably false prices. It is said that section 36 of the income tax legislation supposedly gives some safeguards, but it certainly does not seem to be strong enough to carry the great weight that it ought to carry. There is a great deal of emerging literature about the conduct of multi-nationals. What is required is an international code of business behaviour. If this is not introduced, what is supposed to be the blessing of international and multi-national trade could well go sour in the faces of smaller countries as against the bigger ones. 1 suggest that these problems at least are implicit here.

There are not just 3 Treasury requirements in this field. The early stages of the report list 8 matters which require examination and which go to the totality of the whole economy. At least, to my mind, that is the one pleasing aspect of this report. Foreign investment cannot be considered in isolation. Foreign investment is one aspect only - a significant aspect but one aspect only - of the functioning of the total economy. Mostly what we do in this country, both by way of capital supplies and goods and services, is done by way of our own resources. We would have been a poorer country, a less diversified country and possibly a less efficient country if we had not had some of the advantages of foreign investment in the past. But. as the very need of this document suggests, we have reached the kind of state in the economy where there is a questioning as to whether it is all benefits and no kicks. It is time that we began to evaluate the benefits and the totality of the implications of this very significant matter in our economy. I hope that the report will stir the Government to greater action.

I submit that there was nothing in the document that the Treasurer, who is at the table, ought not to have known. In many respects 1 think I could have written it myself.

Mr Grassby:

– In less time, too.

Mr CREAN:

– Yes, perhaps this might save time in the future. But the proposition that this document is a pointer to what we should do in the future rests, as it must rest, in the hands of the sovereign government, and if we are not careful there will not be any sovereign government, according to some of the data lines of that report.

Debate (on motion by Mr Giles) adjourned.

page 2540

NAVAL SUPPORT FACILITY, COCKBURN SOUND, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Report of Public Works Committee

Mr KELLY:
Wakefield

– In accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, I present the report relating to the following proposed work:

Naval Support Facility(HMAS ‘Stirling’) at Cockburn Sound, Western Australia.

Ordered that the report be printed.

page 2540

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION BILL 1972

In Committee

Consideration resumed from 11 May (Vide page 2517).

Clause 13.

Mr WEBB:
Stirling

– I rise to address myself to clause 13 of the Bill. This clause contains 14 proposed new sections and covers 12 pages of the Bill. In fact, it is the most vital clause in the Bill. All the machinery placing conciliation and arbitration in 2 separate compartments is contained in this clause. Under this clause the Government’s wage freezing policy is actually implemented. The clause seeks to stop consent awards or agreements from being made without certification of the Full Bench. If we look at proposed new section 22 we see that it deals with powers with respect to conciliation to be exercised by the Conciliation Commissioners and powers in respect of arbitration to be exercised by presidential members and Arbitration Commissioners. This proposed new section has been inserted, we are assured, at the request of certain employers. It separates the principle of conciliation from the principle of arbitration. The flexibility that exists under the Act will disappear and the Act will become much more rigid as a result of this amendment. This Bill seeks to reverse what was an attempt to make conciliation the most important aim of the Act and I refer here, of course, to the 1969 amendments which laid stress on conciliation. At that point of time the Government had at long last accepted that the main objective of the Act should be to encourage conciliation with a view to amicable agreement. The system became much more flexible than it had been previously and the number of consent awards and agreements showed that it was working.

This Bill separates the processes. It breaks the line of communication. Under the existing Act an application is assigned to a commissioner or judge who proceeds to hold conferences or decides to begin a hearing. In many cases both processes are, combined. The judge or commissioner may take part in conferences if he considers this course desirable and he gets to know what are the real issues in dispute. The importance of this process lies in its flexibility. Under this amendment there will be no flexibility whatever. Once conciliation reaches a barrier that is the end of it. There is a cut off point. There is no going back to have another jump at the hurdle. It cuts off at that point and the matter goes to a commissioner or judge for arbitration. There is no further conference or thought of conciliation.

I refer honourable members to proposed new section 30. I do not want to quote all of it but it deals with conciliation and points out that: the Conciliation Commissioner shall report to the relevant Presidential Member as to the matters in dispute and the parties and the extent, if any, to which the dispute has been settled, but shall not disclose anything said or done in the conciliation proceedings concerning matters in dispute that remain unsettled.

What a stupid section to have in the Act. The arbitrator does not know how close the parties may have been to agreement on the points in dispute. Under the existing system he would know and could arbitrate more effectively having that knowledge. This Bill will mean that apart from the arbitrator not being able to know what has happened, the hearings will be lengthened. The aim of this amendment is clear. It is to stop the unions and employers from reaching agreement.

I refer now to proposed new section 31 which corresponds with section 33 of the Act. However, the proposed new section goes much further and means that matters such as hours of work, rates of pay where related to the national economy, minimum wage, equal pay, and annual or long service leave all have to be referred to the Full Bench. This is a backward step. It means that in these matters no longer will agreements or consent awards be accepted without intervention by the Full Bench. It is a step to try to prevent direct negotiation and will reduce the effectiveness of our arbitration system as we know it. Proposed new section 32 deals with bans clauses. Under this Bill the power to include or vary bans clauses in an award will be exercisable only by a presidential member. Under section 32 of the Act a commissioner could insert or refuse to insert a bans clause in an award. This was most important. It depended entirely on the merits of the case and the matters in dispute. If the Commissioner considered that the workers were wrong be inserted a bans clause. If he considered the employers were wrong he did not insert the bans clause. The new section gives exclusive power to presidential members and extends that power to the area of registered agreements. It means that a presidential member would have to insert a bans clause in an award. It is difficult to understand why jurisdiction over bans clauses, which are objectionable to the unions, should be the sole preserve of a presidential member. It appears clear that the rights and wrongs of a dispute will not be investigated now. Once a stopage of work takes place the emphasis will be on penalising the unions and the bans clause will be put into awards so that penalties may be imposed.

The 1969 amendment relating to the bans clause was to ensure that if a dispute occurred the merits of it were investigated before a fine was imposed. We on this side believe that the sanctions provisions should be repealed and I refer here, of course, to sections 109 and 111 which are the most offending sections in the Act. These sections have been responsible for creating more strikes than they have settled. Looking at this Bill one would think that the inflicting of penalties was an end in itself, but this ignores entirely the fact that the end is to settle industrial disputes as quickly as possible and not to extend them by inflicting severe penalties. What the Government is forgetting is that this is the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. ‘Conciliation’ comes first in the Act and ‘conciliation’ appearing before ‘arbitration’ in clearly significant. In his second reading speech the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch) said:

Ft the parties can reach agreement they will be able to make a memorandum of their agreement and request the Conciliation Commissioner to certify that memorandum as an award, or, alternatively, request him to make an award or order giving effect to their agreement. The Conciliation Commissioner will be required to satisfy himself that the agreement reached by the parties is in the public interest. The provision, therefore, continues a like provision to that in the existing section 31 of the Act.

The existing Act provides for conciliators and commissioners but it does not say that the whole of the process of conciliation should be done exclusively by them. Section 31 provides for the likelihood that the parties to an industrial dispute may themselves arrive at an agreement to govern their industrial relations. This section does not say anything about the way in which they should do it. I refer to the Qantas dispute some years ago which was settled by an outside mediator. As I said in the debate on the second reading of this Bill, the Minister will find that the unions will not register agreements if there is a danger of the agreements being disallowed by appeal or otherwise.

Proposed new sections 34, 35 and emphasise public interest. These provisions are a carry over from existing section 31 (3.) which states, inter alia, that the arbitration authority may refuse to certify if it in of the opinion that ‘it is not in the public interest that the agreement be certified’. Already today we have heard who is to define public interest. Time will not permit me to quote an interesting expression of opinion in a book called Better Employment Relations’ by Foenander but possibly at a later stage I will get the opportunity. It states briefly that the authorities make no attempt to state broadly what they mean by ‘public interest’.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock:
LYNE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– -Order The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I seek leave to raise a matter of procedure.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Has the honourable member the indulgence of the Committee?

Mr Lynch:

– Yes.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I will not take long because we are racing against the clock and I do not wish to waste time over procedure. We must get on with the debate. Would it be possible to take these proposed new sections separately or in groups. I am not asking for any other clauses to be dealt with in this way at this stage. If the Minister will agree to this I am sure that it will facilitate the debate and will make the debate much easier to follow. It will be a cleaner and neater way in which to do it and in the long run will be much quicker.

Mr Webb:

– It is a bit late now; I have already spoken.

Mr Lynch:

– As the honourable member for Stirling interjected, it could be a bit late now because he has spoken. I would have no objection to these proposed new sections being dealt with in this way, as long as the honourable member who raised the point understands the pressure under which we are operating in order to get this Bill through the House by the end of the evening. Consistent with that purpose, I would be happy to group together some of the sections in this clause. This would assist the House in dealing with clause 13 and certainly would meet the wishes of the honourable member for Moreton, who also has raised this matter with me. If we dealt with this on a flexible basis and if you, Mr Chairman, were to group together certain of the sections as the Committee proceeded, I think that would meet the wishes of the honourable gentleman and would assist clarification of the issues with which we will be dealing.

Mr Killen:

– If I could have the indulgence of the Committee for just one moment, I think that this course of action would facilitate the debate immensely. The clause encompasses approximately 5,000 words and I think that the Committee is put at a great disadvantage trying to consider such a congregation or gathering of proposals. I am quite sure that my friend, the honourable member for Hindmarsh, would help the Committee. For example, there are here a number of proposals in this clause on which there is no difference between Government and Opposition parties. I am quite sure that this course of action would speed up the debate.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock:

– I think that this could be of assistance to the Committee. There is of course the problem that, as the debate on clause 13 has already commenced, the honourable member for Stirling has spoken. However, as only the honourable members for Stirling and Hindmarsh have spoken, if it is the wish of the Committee that the debate should proceed along these lines I think that this will be acceptable to the Chair, provided that the honourable member for Hindmarsh and the Minister can give some indication of the exact divisions of clause 13.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I thank the Minister and you, Mr Chairman, for cooperating in this matter. The Opposition is not going to stonewall; I can assure the Committee of that. We want a proper, sensible and meaningful debate. We will not abuse the concession that has been made to us. With the concurrence of the Committee, the honourable member for Moreton and the Minister, I think that proposed new sections 18 to 21 inclusive should be dealt with together. There will be no division on those.

Mr Lynch:

– What about the earlier ones?

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Let us be clear about this. The Minister says: ‘What about the earlier ones?’ They have already been dealt with in clause 12. Proposed new sections 18 to 21 are the first 4 proposed new sections of clause 13. They are not contentious, so they can be put now and disposed of.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The question now is: “That proposed new sections 18 to 21 be agreed to’.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Proposed new section 22.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I think that proposed new section 22, which deals with the separation of conciliation from arbitration, should be taken separately. The honourable member for Stirling dealt mainly with that point in the speech he just made. At this stage, I have nothing more to add on proposed new section 22.

Mr KILLEN:
Moreton

– I note the point made by the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Webb) but I recapitulate the statement I made on Thursday evening. I think that if there were 2 parties to a dispute before a man who was both conciliator and arbitrator, there would be the risk of the parties holding back and refraining fom giving all their information to the man who wore the 2 hats. On the other hand, if he sat there as a conciliator simpliciter - nothing else - exercising no arbitral functions, I think there would be a complete revelation of all their difficulties.

As I pointed out to the House on Thursday evening, this was part of the amendment that the late Dr Evatt moved to the Bill in 1956 which amended the Act in those days.

Mr Webb:

– Would the honourable member express his view in regard to proposed new section 30?

Mr KILLEN:

– This is where the matter ultimately is referred to the arbitrator.

Mr Webb:

– The last 3 lines mess it up.

Mr KILLEN:

– We will examine the particular words in question when we come to that proposed new section. There have been many matters which have been adjudicated where the presiding officer, be he a judge or magistrate, has said: ‘Gentlemen, could you adjourn to my chambers?’ There they sit round and have a chat about the particular problem. If they failed to reach agreement in his chambers, they would return to court. There would be no suggestion of using in open court or commission anything which had been heard in quite privileged circumstances.

I hope i have convinced my honourable friend that 1 believe strongly in conciliation. I think that the emphasis in ail industrial activity should be placed upon conciliation and that the resort to arbitral functions should be attempted or resorted to only when things are grim. I regret that my honourable friends opposite do not agree, but I am persuaded that where 2 parties sit before a conciliator who enjoys the complete confidence of both parties and where they know that the conciliator is going out of his way to do his level best to ensure that there will be a meeting of the ways, one will see conciliation operate in a completely untrammelled sense. I believe that where he has imposed upon him the functions of an arbitrator, people will say: ‘I wonder whether we should tell all’. That is the fear I have about this matter and it is the only further observation I have on the particular proposed new section.

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

– In addressing myself to proposed new section 22 I will of course deal also with the separation of the functions of conciliation and arbitration. I think I could do no better than to read some extracts from an article written by Mr J. B. Sweeney, Q.C., which appeared in the ‘Sunday Australian’ of 30th April this year. Mr Sweeney prefaced his remarks - I think we would all share this belief - by saying:

Most of us know there is no universal panacea and no perfect solution for industrial unrest or the problems of wage fixation. We want a system of industrial regulation which will ensure better material standards for most people.

We prefer these better standards to be reached with as little dislocation, hardship and loss as possible. So one must judge Mr Lynch’s new arbitration proposals against this background. Will they make for better industrial relations, reduce strikes, increase productivity? I think not.

Later in the article, Mr Sweeney made the point that:

Probably most important and unfortunate are the proposals to separate conciliation and arbitration.

At present when an application come* before the commission it is assigned to a commissioner or judge who proceeds to hold conferences or may decide to begin a hearing. He may, and very often will, combine the two processes by suggesting conferences at an appropriate time, and by taking part in them himself if desirable. He may make suggestions or express tentative views. Tha system is flexible and is working, as is shown by the increasing number of consent award* .Hid agreements.

Under the bill, this will be changed. A claim will first go to a conciliation commissioner who will hold conferences.

When he is satisfied that conciliation can get no further, the case goes to an arbitration commissioner or judge for arbitration. His function is purely arbitration. He probably should not even use a conciliator)’ tone of voice.

This rigid division is contrary to common sense.

May I say that I completely agree that it seems quite ridiculous to have such a rigid division. Mr Sweeney continued:

The personality of the arbitrator plays an imporant part in the settlement of cases. At some point each party will ask: Will we do better it we fight the case? If the arbitrator is present, parties will be less ready to adopt unreasonable attitudes in negotiation.

The new system is less flexible and will lengthen hearings. It has no counterpart in modern arbitration systems, and has nothing to recommend it.

Allied with it is the task force system under which an industry or group of industries is to be assigned to a group consisting of a judge, .in arbitration commissioner and a conciliation commissioner. The presidential member (judge) is presumably to co-ordinate the work of the group. At present each commissioner is assigned an industry or group ot industries and a feature of the commission is the pride a good commissioner takes in the industrial record of his industry. I think this system should continue. It allows greater flexibility and differences of approach than the new.

I think it is important to note that Mr Sweeney has had some 20-odd years of experience in conciliation and arbitration matters. He understands the point of view at least of the unions and because of the number of times he has appeared against employers he probaby also understands the point of view of the employers and their representatives. It seems quite clear to me that the more formalistic or legalistic you make a system, or the more legal conditions or restraints you impose on the people, whether they be conciliation commissioners or arbitration commissioners, the worse it is from the point of view of the Act.

It may well be that there should be some way - and there is provision for it in the present Act - in which the President can decide that a particular case should be. dealt with by a different arbitrator, once conciliation has failed, because the conciliator has become too involved in that case. I can see no possible reason why, when it comes to the final stage at which somebody has to make a decision in a conciliation case, a person who has been involved in that case should be excluded from being able to make that decision, and the whole argument has to be gone over again.

As honourable members are no doubt aware, it is quite clear in this Act that any admissions, or whatever you like to call them, which have been made before the conciliation commissioner cannot be used during the arbitration proceedings. I think this is wrong, if for no other reason than that we are putting very strict legal constraints or restrictions on the people who we feel ought to be able to act as conciliators and arbitrators. If, during conciliation meetings, the unions feel that they have persuaded the conciliation commissioner on a point of some relevance that there is something to their case and that their members in fact will strike if they cannot get some particular concessions, it is ridiculous if none of this evidence can be put to the arbitration commissioner and if the arbitration commissioner who finally makes the decision is a completely different person from the conciliation commissioner who originally heard the matter. It seems self evident to me. I find it difficult to see why the Minister in fact has insisted on this separation of functions.

Dr SOLOMON:
Denison

of Mr Sweeney to us or in fact his interpretation of himself to the Committee. I suppose that underlines the essential problems of trying to get harmony over the particular matters contained in this lengthy Bill. I felt that the honourable member was arguing against himself. He talked about concentration upon judicial functions. Unless I interpret the matter wrongly, I would have thought that the stage of conciliation by definition, and perhaps even by practice, was one in which there was an attempt to bring people together in their somewhat diverse views on a particular matter, but that if, that having failed, further action were necessary, then somebody had to make an interpretation - preferably a judicial interpretation - of an issue. In the first place, we are trying to deal with parties perhaps in a fairly highly personal sense. Secondly, you have failed to achieve your object and you are then dealing with an issue, a decision which is unlikely to be welcomed equally by both parties. To me it is entirely logical that that should be so. If you can accept that, as I realise the honourable member for Prospect does not, but as the Government does, then it seems to me that what is provided for in this clause is entirely in line with that for the better execution of what is intended.

Dr KLUGMAN:
PROSPECT, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Are you arguing that the less the arbitrator knows about a case the better his judgment is likely to be?

Dr SOLOMON:

– If in fact you separate the conciliatory and arbitrary functions, then that is likely to be so. The arbitrator will come in at the arbitral stage and will not have puttered around trying to make friends of opposite views at an earlier position. This makes provision for that in the sense that the arbitral powers are given to the presidential member or the arbitration commissioner. In other words, as far as the presidential member is concerned, this means that the judicial function is being concentrated on the arbitral side. I would have thought that that was in line with what the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) was asking for last week in relation to earlier clauses of this Bill; that in fact if there is legal expertise relevant to this matter - and one can hardly deny that - then it might best be applied to the arbitral side because there, in effect, you are deciding on issues and legalities. The clause also provides that the presidential member is no longer confined to full bench matters. I interpret that to mean a greater flexibility of operation in these negotiations. I really think that is the nub of the matter. I believe that in any logic - and I would hope in practice - this would make for a better functioning of the dual functions of this particular body.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The honourable member for Denison (Dr Solomon) misunderstands the purpose of the section. The purpose of the section is not to make the task of the arbitration commissioner easier. The philosophy behind the section is that the aim of the Bill must be to make the job of the conciliation commissioner easier. It is argued that if the conciliation commissioner is able to conciliate in an atmosphere in which concessions are offered by the parties to each other in order to get agreement, if, the concessions having been made, the agreement still fails to eventuate, the parties are more likely to make those concessions if they are not made in the presence of the person who ultimately will arbitrate. The theory behind the matter is that the person who arbitrates could erase from his mind the knowledge that he has gleaned during conciliation proceedings. So it is not to assist the arbitrator. It will not work to practice, but the theory of the Bill is that everything must be done to assist the conciliatory processes and it would be an assistance to the conciliatory processes if concessions made in the course of a conference were kept from the man who ultimately would have to move in and arbitrate.

The honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) is quite right when he says that almost invariably it is because the conciliation commissioner hearing the matter or bringing the parties together in conference has the ultimate power to arbitrate the issue that the parties will come to agreement. 1 have sat in on arbitration proceedings and appeared before commissioners. What happens is that the commissioners will say: Look, you have no hope of getting from me 3 weeks sick leave a year. I cannot give it to you because it would be breaking new ground, so forget about that.’ On the other hand, he says to the employers: ‘If you expect to resist the unions’ claim for a 10 per cent shift allowance for night work, let me tell you now that I am going to grant it. I would have to, because we have always granted this as the standard in the normal course. Why do you not get together? What about the unions dropping their claim for 3 weeks sick leave and the employer facing up to the fact that if he does not give the 10 per cent allowance for the night shift, 1 will have no alternative but to award it?’ Those 2 examples over-simplify the matter because I am quoting cases where for years the full bench has laid down the normal standards for working conditions. But separate from these over-simple examples are some claims that are in the grey area, where there have been no Full Bench decisions by which a commissioner would feel bound. In these cases the commissioner, if he has arbitral powers to move in ultimately and settle the matter, can still rely upon his arbitral powers to bring about conciliation by saying: ‘The Full Bench has not decided this matter yet and unless my decision is set aside on appeal 1 am inclined, as at present advised, to do this with this particular matter. The union may prefer not to have what I will give >.nd take instead what the employer will give. [ suggest the parties get together. I will leave the room and I will come back when you want me to or I will resume the hearing tomorrow morning’. This is the judicial use of arbitral power which makes it so much easier for conciliation commissioners to do the job they now do. lt is a notorious fact that conciliators who have no arbitrary powers under the present Act find themselves with less machinery or with fewer weapons with which to do the job they are required to do, than has a conciliation commissioner. 1 tell the Government that I know of no demands by employers for this provision. 1 have talked with representatives of employers and they agree with members of the Opposition that this sort of thing just will not work. The Government will find that it will not work. The honourable member for Denison is astray in thinking that this is designed to help the arbitrator, lt is not.

Dr Solomon:

– Are you suggesting that it is proper or practical to conciliate by implied threat of arbitrary powers?

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-It is practical to conciliate with the threat of arbitration. Let us be realists about this matter. We know how hard it is in this place to keep what happens in the party room away from the opposing political party. The same thing will happen in respect of conciliation and arbitration. It would help the arbitrator to know what was said. Of course the Government recognises that what is said might not be said if the arbitrator knows, but the arbitrator is at a tremendous advantage. If 1 know how the system works I cannot imagine an arbitrator not talking to a conciliation commissioner who has the same social status and salary as he enjoys himself and who works in the same office. No-one will convince me otherwise no matter what is contained in the Bill about not confiding to the arbitrator things that were said during the negotiations. The arbitrator will find out. It would be unwise to say that a conciliation commissioner would defy the statute and give this information to the arbitrator, though I think he would. I think that in practice conciliation commissioners will tell the arbitration commissioners what happened because they will realise that the arbitration commissioners will be helped by knowing these things. However, let us assume that they will not tell and that conciliation commissioners will be loyal to the statute. We cannot say they will not unless we have proof, but the parties themselves will tell. A conciliation commissioner is not like a judge. For conciliation to succeed or for an arbitration commissioner to be successful he must build up a rapport with those who appear before him.

When I was involved in industrial matters, most settlements were achieved at the Earl of Zetland Hotel in Adelaide after a case was over. We settled more disputes in the saloon bar of the Earl of Zetland Hotel than we ever settled in the Australian Natives Association building in the formal presence of arbitration commissioners. The saloon was where we really got down to business. The parties had a few drinks and relaxed. The representatives of the employers would give a little and the representatives of the employees would do likewise. This is really the guts of arbitration and conciliation if one only understands it. 1 will never forget an occasion when I met with a group of brick manufacturers. 1 would not budge and their representative would not budge. He had a cold which made him worse. I took him over to the hotel and I said: ‘A marvellous thing for colds is Guiness’s stout and brandy’. He said: ‘I will try it’. I had to drink it myself so as to make the story sound good. In the end we reached agreement. He later felt that he had agreed to too much. I tried to get reimbursement from the union for the money I had spent on drinks but could not, so I did not feel very happy either. But, joking aside, it is in this informal atmosphere that can be created that one can dispense with the kind of technical, formal approach that I am afraid will be reinjected into proceedings under this proposed new section.

Mr LYNCH:
Minister for Labour and National Service · Flinders · LP

– I certainly pay tribute to the capacity of the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron) to solve disputes. Indeed, I suggest that that capacity will not go astray in the Opposition benches. He will, no doubt, have many disputes to settle from time to time to which he can turn his attention. I rise simply to draw to the attention of the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) sub-section (3.) of proposed new section 30. He will see from that that it is quite clear that there is no inhibition on the arbitrator in seeking to use his powers of conciliation during the arbitration process. I believe that the comments which he made in relation to that particular point were, in fact, a misconception of what is intended by this particular provision we are considering. I will not traverse the ground that has been covered by speakers from the Government side, particularly the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) and the honourable member for Denison (Dr Solomon), except to recognise that this is a bold step. It is a new departure. It is a fundamental proposition to separate the functions of conciliation from arbitration. The Government has received a number of representations towards this end and although the Committee should not see the proposal as being inserted simply because of any particular representation which has been received, I can assure the honourable member for Hindmarsh that this was one of the matters which was very strongly represented to the Government.

Mr Foster:

– Where did that representation come from?

Mr LYNCH:

– The honourable gentleman is very tiresome. I can assure the honourable member for Hindmarsh that this was one of the proposals that was strongly supported by all the major employer groups through the forum of the National Employers Policy Committee representing the top 30 employer groups throughout Australia. It certainly should not be seen to be included in the Bill simply because of those representations. I assure the honourable gentleman that those representations were made and they were made very strongly. The Government believes that the changes which are inherent in this fundamental proposal will make the processes of both conciliation and arbitration far more effective and will overcome the problems which have resulted in a number of cases from the blurring of the 2 functions under the existing procedures.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Before the question is put I indicate that the Opposition is opposing this provision. We have not time to call for a division on it. However, we will be dividing on one or two of the provisions but in respect of this provision we wish to place on record our opposition to it. Because of the timetable we do not want to take up time in a division.

Proposed new section 22 agreed to.

Proposed new sections 23 to 27 - by leave - taken together.

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

– 1 address my remarks to proposed new section 27, sub-section (5.) of which reads:

A person directed under sub-section (1.) of this section shall attend the conference and continue his attendance as directed by the person presiding over the conference.

Penalty: One thousand dollars.

Sub-section (1.) reads:

For the purposes of the performance of his functions in respect of an industrial dispute, a Conciliation Commissioner may, of his own motion or upon application made by a party to the industrial dispute, direct a person to attend, at a time and place specified in the direction, at a con ference presided over by himself or another Conciliation Commissioner or by such other person as the Conciliation Commissioner determines.

Speaking for myself I would say that it is probably reasonable enough that people representing both parties should attend such a meeting. At the same time if one side, for example the trade union side, felt that no good could be achieved by this, what is the point of attending the conference? What this proposed new section is really saying is that if a person just attends and does not open his mouth then it is all right. He may refuse to participate in the conference. But if he refuses to attend because the members of his union have said that there is no point in trying to achieve a compromise on a particular issue that person - the trade union secretary or a representative of the union - would immediately be penalised $1,000. To my mind this is a pointless exercise because a person can carry out his obligation by just attending the conference, sitting there and not doing anything. The provisions in this proposed new section amount to a threat against the unions as this Government likes to do on the question of arbitration, without any point whatsoever.

Mr KILLEN:
Moreton

– The charge which the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) makes is not well founded. I can understand the annoyance in the case of a person who is asked by a conciliation commissioner to attend a compulsory conference and it is not convenient for the person to attend. But I put it to the honourable member that there must be a reason in all things. If you accept the principle of having compulsory conferences and giving to a conciliation commissioner the power to call a compulsory conference, surely we must give the commissioner the right to say: ‘I want such and such an organisation here or the representative who has been intimately concerned with this matter and I want Mr So-and-so who is the president or the secretary of a particular union.’ It has not been my experience that a person would go before such a conference, sit there and be dumb. If that did happen it would be my view that reason itself had been deserted because after all, when 2 parties are in conflict and they want the matter settled it would seem to me to represent the high water mark of insolence and indeed uselessness for an individual to go along to a compulsory conference and sit there like a month old blancmange. I put it to the honourable member for Prospect that there is the assertion of reason.

I am wondering on this point whether I might invite the Minister to have a look at one aspect of this proposed new section, not necessarily in this chamber but perhaps in the Senate. Perhaps there could be added to paragraph (5.) of proposed new section 27 these words: ‘Where a prosecution is launched under this section it shall be a defence to the prosecution if the person is not available on reasonable grounds.’ I could think of a variety of factors. Let us assume that the person was in another court when the conciliation commissioner said ‘I want him here’. Let us assume that the man was ill. Some people may say that a conciliation commissioner would not call the man in those circumstances. I am looking at the proposed wording of the statute. I do not think the Bill would suffer in any shape or form if some omnibus provision dealing with a situation of this kind were included in the legislation to this effect ‘It shall be a defence to a prosecution under this section where the person requested to attend or required by the conciliation commissioner is not reasonably available.’

Mr LYNCH (Flinders- Minister for Labour and National Service! ‘<i 13) - I would be happy to have a look at the point which the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) has put forward. 1 am confident that the matters to which the honourable member has made reference would be taken into account by a court in imposing this penalty. If one looks back at the history of this provision - and I have already mentioned this to the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) - it will be seen that it is not a new provision, lt has been in the Act for many years and 1 know of no cases in which it has been necessary to invoke this penalty.

Mr Killen:

– That is good news.

Mr LYNCH:

– I think this puts the matter in perspective and would tend to disabuse the apprehension of the honourable member for Prospect. The penalty is a maximum of 31,000 and I would be confident that the matters to which the honourable member for Moreton has adverted would be well taken care of in terms of the good sense of a court. I should also state that so far as I can recall 1 have received no representation from the trade union movement in relation to this matter but I will have my officers check this matter and if my understanding is not accurate I will certainly correct that impression before the debate is concluded on the remaining clauses.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The Opposition supports the comments made by the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen). I understand that the Opposition in the Senate may move an amendment along the lines suggested by the honourable member to provide that it shall be a defence to a prosecution under this proposed new section if a person can show that he had just cause for not attending the conference. The person may be sick or he may be away for other reasons. There are all sorts of reasons for a person being away, lt is not unusual to include in a section which carries such a penalty as a $1,000 fine some indication that a citizen has a defence based upon just grounds. The fact that this penalty has never been imposed or that it has never been found necessary to impose it in the past does not convince me that a defence provision ought not be included because we cannot be certain that the kind of men we now have in control of these procedures will always be in control. We would need only to have a commissioner or a presidential member who decided to exercise his right to act this way and, because we felt too tired today or tomorrow to take this p recitation, the whole Bill could be brought into discredit simply because somebody was unjustly treated under this proposed new section. The Opposition opposes these proposed new sections but we will not call a division on them because of the time factor.

Mr FOSTER:
Sturt

– I also want to oppose proposed new section 27. I do so because of the way in which it is worded. I have risen in this debate lo agree with and support the remarks made by honourable members on this side. As the proposed new section is worded no excuse can be put forward by a person who is required to attend before any proceedings that are held and who does not attend. I oppose this proposed new section because I recall an occasion in 1965 or 1964 when there was a dispute in the vehicle building industry. Proceedings were held in a court in Adelaide and at that time one prominent trade union official from one of the metal unions was very ill. He did not live long after his appearance before the court. His appearance in court was one of the most disgraceful things I had ever seen. He was forced into the witness box and the learned gentleman on the bench put this unfortunate fellow through cross-examination in an attempt to get him to say that he was under a direction of his Federal body in the eastern States. I recall a particular person on the bench. He was from a western State and he kept sneering and saying ‘The wise men of the east’. I thought of the term ‘The mugs from the west’. Those honourable members who have been involved in industrial matters will get the meaning of what I have just said and why I used that term. I make no apology for using it. I have not mentioned the person’s name. You are not permitted to mention his name in this place. I have used that term and if anybody can identify the person in question, that is his prerogative.

There is no provision in this Bill for a person holding a position in an industrial organisation and who is sick to say ‘I want somebody to represent me on this occasion’ because the attitude adopted by the gentlemen on the bench is one of: ‘I want you here and this is the place to which you will come, and you will be cross-examined’. I ask the Minister to check out what 1 have had to say in regard to this case which involved the Vehicle Builders Union although it did not involve a Vehicle Builders Union official. The dispute involved an organisation whose members saw fit to support it. They supported it because many of their members were out of work as a result of the claim against the employers in the vehicle building industry. It was the most shameful thing I have ever experienced. How would the Minister like his friends to be forced to submit to this type of cross-examination with all the bitterness that at times prevails in industrial disputes that have gone on for some 2 weeks or 3 weeks.

I would also like the Minister to define much better the provisions of the proposed new section 27. I can understand these provisions where unions are directly involved or organisations are directly involved but for a penalty of this sort to be hanging over the heads of people who are more or less innocent bystanders in a dispute is more than the average person should be called upon to bear and is more than the average person in the community would tolerate if he knew the full facts of the case and the implications of the subject. I ask the Minister to give every consideration to re-writing paragraph (5.) of proposed new section 27 and also some of the other provisions referred to by honourable members on this side of the House.

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

– I should like quickly to reply to the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen). It strikes me that the Government and everyone else is arguing, and we are supporting, that in arbitration and conciliation there should be as much democracy as possible in relation to unions. Recently in an extended series of strikes and subsequent proceedings before the Commission in relation to the Atlantean bus dispute in Sydney, union officials were given strict instructions by union members that the members would not drive Atlantean buses on a one-man basis. I cannot see the point in forcing the secretary of that union to go to court merely to repeat that his members had instructed him not to conciliate on the matter. Yet that secretary will be required to do so and should he leave the court before the Commissioner gives him permission to do so he will be liable to a fine of $1,000. To me that seems completely pointless.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The question is: That proposed new sections 23 to 27 be agreed to’.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Proposed new sections 28 to 31 - by leave - taken together.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Proposed new section 28 is one of the most obnoxious sections in the clause and we will have to divide the Committee on it. This section prohibits the certification of an agreement or the making of a consent award where the agreement or the award includes provisions that effect standard hours, the minimum wage, female rates or any question of annual leave or long service leave with pay. This proposed section will put an end to all certified agreements. No union and few employers will bother to certify agreements or register agreements when they discover that before this can be done the whole agreement, having been hammered out by negotiation and conciliation between the parties, must go before the Full Bench of the Commission for approval. Under the Act as it now stands the Commonwealth will have the right as intervener to be represented by counsel at the hearing before the Full Bench to give reasons why an agreement ought not be certified, and the Commonwealth will do it. The Minister suggested in his second reading speech that the Government had given up the idea of giving itself the right of appeal against agreements and consent awards. The Government has done it in another way; a more subtle and more crafty device has been discovered to achieve the same end.

The proposed section provides that an agreement or consent award touching upon the minimum wage, the national wage, equal pay for the sexes or any question of annual leave or long service leave must be certified by the Full Bench. When the Full Bench proceeds to certify the proposed agreement or consent award the Commonwealth will move in as intervenor and use public funds to prevent the certification or registration of the agreement or the makins of the consent award. If there is anything better designed to throw a spanner into the works of industrial understanding I should like to know what it is. If one looks at the proposed new section 28 one sees in sub-section (2.) this mandatory provision:

A Conciliation Commissioner shall refuse to certify a memorandum or make an award or order in accordance with this section if he is of the opinion that -

the terms are not in settlement of an industrial dispute;

any of the terms is a term that the Commission does not have power to include in an award; or

it is not in the public interest that he should certify the memorandum or make the award or order.

I have taken the trouble to look up the ruling of the Industrial Court in the case Cameron v. AWU, reported in 1959 in the econd volume of the Federal Law Reports. From that judgment one sees clearly stated by the majority decision of Mr Justice

Dunphy and Mr Justice Morgan, with the Chief Justice dissenting, that a rule of the union that gives a union executive power to expel a member for misconduct, when the executive is merely of the opinion that the person is guilty of misconduct, is an invalid rule because it is too vague, imprecise and uncertain as to its meaning, and therefore must be struck down and removed from the union rule book. If that set of principles, deemed to be invalid for the purpose of union rule, is now to be enshrined as part of the statute, what a mockery that makes of the decision of the Industrial Court in Cameron v. AWU.

Let us look at paragraph (b) of subsection (2.) which reads:

Any of the terms is a term that the Commission does not have power to include in an award.

That is nonsense. 1 know all about the High Court ruling. The Government ought to recognise that some agreements might provide for things like seniority, absolute preference or preference for financial members of unions. procedures dealing with reinstatements, changes in techniques - all of them held by the High Court to be matters touching upon managerial prerogatives. I know all of this but one of the things we must learn in the 1970s is that the sacred thing called managerial prerogative cannot be treated as sacred any longer and notwithstanding the decisions of the High Court the time is coming when modern technology demands changes in techniques and alterations in procedures. No longer is it possible to leave all these decisions entirely to management. If the parties can reach agreement as to how they will operate, it is nonsense to say that it cannot be put into an agreement merely because it incorporates something which the Commission itself could not put there. The only body likely to object to an agreement of this nature is the Commonwealth Government and if the Government does seek to set aside an agreement which simply gives effect to an agreement reached between the parties as to techniques and operating procedures inside a factory, the Government ought to go out on its head. I can see no reason at all why these things should not be permitted in an agreement.

Another matter I should like to mention in relation to proposed ne.w section 28 (2.) is that it provides that a Commissioner shall refuse to certify a memorandum or to make an award. ‘Shall’ ought to be ‘may’. He should be given a discretion.

I turn to proposed new section 31, which is really the nitty gritty of the clause. This proposed new section enables the Government to bring about its wage freezing policy, because it provides that the power of the Commission to make an award or to certify an agreement for, or altering, the standard hours of work, minimum wages, female rates or annual leave is exercisable only by a full bench, during which proceedings the Commonwealth itself can intervene to put its case for wage freezing. The Commonwealth has made it clear that it is very sorry to know that the waterside workers and the stevedoring companies have been able to settle their differences instead of having a nation-wide stoppage. They settled their differences by the shipping companies giving increased wages, against which under this proposed new section the Government could have intervened. I do not know where the Government thinks it is going. It calls for increased productivity. When the waterside workers and the miners double their productivity and get an agreement from the employers which recognises that fact, this Government wants to step in and prevent the agreement being put into force. I say no more about the matter at this stage because I think the honourable member for Cunningham (Mr Connor) will deal with this at length, but I say that we oppose these provisions of the Bill and will divide the Committee.

Mr KILLEN:
Moreton

– 1 appreciate the views which the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron) has put to the Committee. I excuse myself from agreeing with the honourable gentleman. I respect his views, but the views he has put and the views which I put, 1 suppose, would indicate the philosophical differences which exist between the honourable gentleman and myself as far as the apparatus of arbitration is concerned. Might I take the last sentiments expressed by the honourable gentleman when he was referring to the agreement made between the Waterside Workers Federation and the shipping companies. That is a collective agreement made outside the Commission. I doubt whether there is one honourable member who would deny that there would be literally hundreds of thousands of people immediately affected by that agreement.

Mr Foster:

– Not according to the shipowners.

Mr KILLEN:

– That is the view of the shipowners. There is great virtue - I hope I have always tried to show it both here and elsewhere - in listening to the other man’s argument, no matter how much von may disagree with it. I am not in any way rebuking the honourable member for Sturt, but I am taking the case now of 2 people who say: ‘We are in agreement. Therefore the matter is settled, and other people who may be affected by it have no right to be heard’. There are hundreds of thousands of people with no opportunity of access to arbitral or wage fixing tribunals, yet in a very real sense they are affected. One only has to mention the hundreds of thousands of pensioners; one only has to mention the shopkeepers, those who run their own businesses, and so forth. They are all affected. Let me take the case .if the Waterside Workers Federation and the shipping companies. As a consequence of the agreement between these 2 parties freight rates, in my judgment, will ultimately be increased. Who will pay for mat increase? The whole community will pay for it. I think this matter comes back to the sentiment expressed by the metaphysical poet Donne when he said: ‘No man is an island entire unto himself. This is perfectly true.

Mr Jacobi:

– We agree.

Mr KILLEN:

– Just control yourself. The honourable member can give me the benefit of his views when I sit down. No matter what we may do in this Parliament, it will affect many hundreds of thousands of people outside, even though they are not immediately concerned. I have given the illustration of the agreement between the Waterside Workers Federation and the shipping companies. What I say is that in the whole of the apparatus and the procedures of arbitration today it is no longer possible to say: ‘Here there are 2 parties and no other party is involved’. The community in its corporate sense is involved, and somehow or other the body making the decision must listen to a view which comes before that body on behalf of the corporate community. 1 come to the point posed by the honourable gentleman for Hindmarsh in relation to proposed new section 28 dealing with public interest. I would agree with the honourable gentleman that this proposed new section and also perhaps proposed new section 31 are 2 of the most difficult proposed new sections in the entire BillTrie very term ‘public interest’, of course, is an elusive term. We have both subjective and objective forces to be impressed upon it in order to determine what is public interest. I suppose if we were to be asked today to express in a hundred words what is public interest in relation to a particular issue we would get 100 varying, quite different responses.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Is it in the public interest to have Mr McMahon as Prime Minister?

Mr KILLEN:

– I am afraid that I cannot deal in the fields to which the honourable gentleman is so tantalisingly attracted. I want to deal with public interest. Quite a number of cases have been gathered and are referred to in a very fine text book, which of course we all know, by Mills and Sorrell on federal industrial laws. It contains a whole collection of reports on cases in which the various arbitral bodies have decided whether or not public interest has been involved and whether or not it has been affected. My concern with the clause dealing with public interest, frankly, is that it is left to the conciliation and arbitration commissioner to decide whether or not an agreement is in the public interest. The conciliation commissioner is a layman. To the lawyer the term ‘public interest’ is a little more definitive than it is to the layman. I know that this may seem a rather strange proposition to put, but that is the case. May I cite very quickly the views given in the celebrated Nordenfelt case of 1894. It is good sense, as the Committee will see in a moment. In this case Lord Watson said of public interest:

The course of policy pursued by a country in relation to, and for promoting the interests of its commerce must, as time advances and as its commerce thrives, undergo change and development from various causes, which are altogether independent from the action of its Court. In England, at least, it is beyond the jurisdiction of her Tribunals to mould and stereotype national policy. Their function when a case like the present is brought before them is, in my opinion, not necessarily to accept what was held to have been the rule of policy a hundred and fifty years ago, but to ascertain what is the rule of policy for the then present time.

I am saying in 1972 that if a conciliation commissioner is called upon to determine public interest in 1975 he will be called upon to determine something, to find something, which may be completely and utterly different. Another collection of cases has been prepared by a very distinguished New South Wales judge, the late Chief Justice Jordan. In re Jacob Morris deceased he deals with public policy, a term that is interchangeable with ‘public interest’. He said:

Public policy is not, however, fixed and stable. From generation to generation ideas change as to what is necessary or injurious, so that ‘public policy is a variable thing. It must fluctuate with the circumstances of time’. . . . New heads of public policy come into being, and old heads undergo modification. Thus, in the early part of the nineteenth century, prevalent social doctrine favoured a minimum of government interference in economic relations and a maximum of freedom of contract. In the course of a century the pendulum has swung the other way, and there has been an increasing tendency to regard it as necessary in the public interest to protect the weak against the strong, and even against themselves.

This brings me to the central argument I put on this clause: To find the public interest is the difficulty before the conciliation commissioner. In relation to proposed section 31, I will press upon the Committee argument to show that in many circumstances it would be possible for the parties to a dispute and the conciliation commissioner to deal with public interest and, for that matter, not to be referable to the Full Bench of the Arbitration Commission. The point made by the honourable member for Hindmarsh, that the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth can in all cases intervene when public interest is involved, is in my view not well founded. If the matter has not been referred to the Full Bench of the Arbitration Commission the AttorneyGeneral cannot intervene. But it would be quite possible for a conciliation commissioner to have dealt with a matter that did involve the public interest but the parties agreed, there was no reference of the matter to the Full Bench and, as a consequence, it went unheeded.

For example, let me take the case cited in Mills and Sorrell dealing with the substitution of a 7-day shift system in the glass industry for a 6-day system. The conditions under which such substitution should be permitted are of sufficient public interest to justify an appeal. I would respectfully agree with that but I could not put that decision under any one of the heads to be found in proposed section 31 of the Act. There the public interest would be involved, yet there we have an illustration of the fact that the Full Bench of the Arbitration Commission could not in any way interfere with the adjudication that had been made. In the Committee debate on proposed section 31 I will deal with it and elaborate on what 1 have said.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Proposed section 28 (2) (c) matches it.

Mr KILLEN:

– No.

Mr CONNOR:
Cunningham

– I join issue with the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) on the question of labour productivity. For example, in 1950 the average output a man/shift in the coal mines of New South Wales was about 2.8 tons. It is now broadly on the average of 10 tons a man/shift a day. I can que te for the honourable member a case <n another field - in the field of marine transport - where a ship such as the ‘Idemitsu maru’ transporting 210,000 tons of oil operating with a crew of 28. In pre-war times a crew of 28 would have operated the average freighter of 2,500 tons to 3,000 tons. So much for the analogies that the honourable member chooses to use.

More seriously, my main objection to proposed section 31 is that it is literally a blueprint for a wage freeze without a price freeze. This is the nub of the whole Bill. If I might paraphrase the clauses under discussion, the Government’s thinking is this: We are browned off with the whole system of conciliation and arbitration. We have seen its vagaries and vicissitudes right through the years. We have seen it stait off with the concept of a needs basic wage. We have seen it switch over to the principle of what was the ability of the economy to pay. We have seen quarterly adjustments tried and dropped. In 1967 we went to the concept of a total wage, and now confusion seems to be worse con founded so we are coming in with a Draconian measure. We are going to use the big stick and the heavy hand, irrespective of what might be done. We note, says the Government in its own counsels, a marked tendency on the part of both unions and employers to keep outside a system of arbitration which they claim to be expensive, provocative and frustrating. We note that, but we intend at all costs that every section of industry today will be drawn into it just as effectively as when a man gets his hand caught in a chaff cutter. Every section is to be included ;n the ambit of some aspect of arbitration am’, of course, with Government intervention.

Notably, right through *he years the various sections of the arbitration system have been reluctant really to come to grips with economics. Of course, that is only to be expected in the case of lawyers, for a very obvious reason. Traditionally the Bench, in ordinary common law cases, acts merely on the evidence as put before it. The Government now proposes that it will come in as and when it suits it. irrespective of the merits of the case, and it will say: This is contrary to the public interest’, the arbiter of public interest in all cases being the Government itself. Throughout recent submissions - I speak of the period since 1967 in particular - the Government has not been able even to define its own objectives. We have had eminent QCs, briefed by the Crown Solicitor, appearing on behalf of the Government and saying: ‘We want a moderate increase.’ But when asked by the Bench ‘What is a moderate increase?’ they do not know. They cannot give a better definition than that. The fundamental problem with arbitration today is that we have no power to legislate. Proposed sections 31, 34 and 35 and also the proposed amendment in clause 16 together constitute an economic, industrial and legal straitjacket for the trade union movement. Let there be no mistake about that on the part of any honourable member in this Parliament or any person in Australia who is listening to this debate. It is an economic straitjacket.

Not satisfied with a miserable increase given in the national wage cas: that had no relevance at all to the increase in the cost of living, the Government now proposes to ensure that in the future wage justice will be denied. I say literally ‘wage justice’, because what is given in the future will depend on the whim and caprice of the Government. I want to refer to and commend an article by Mr T. Fitzgerald in Finance Week’ in which he pointed out that the Government has not confidence even in its own judiciary acting in the Arbitration Commission. It must intervene. It must dictate. The Government is not a party to these matters, and the original concept of arbitration, according to the founding fathers of Federation, was to do 2 things - to settle disputes quickly and to fix wages. The less intervention there is from the Government, the better for all concerned. You can go throughout the world today, Sir, and you will not find any parallel to the legal paradox that exists in Australia. The longer this system continues in its present form with blatant, unrestrained and barefaced Government intervention, the worse it will get.

These sections will be the death knell of the system of arbitration, mark my words. The system will be completely destroyed by them. When trade unionists - nien whose only commodity for sale is their labour - have to go into a court to put forward in good faith, as these amendments provide, a case based on economics and statistics, prepared at great expense and presented with great skill, and then the Government comes in and plays its legal joker - its trump: This is contrary to the public interest. It cannot be done. That precisely is the charter that is being spelt out at the present time. In addition I want to refer to proposed section 31 which says: (1.) The power of the Commission to make an award, or to certify, under section twentyeight of this Act, an agreement -

  1. making provision for or altering, a minimum wage that is to be payable to adult males without regard to the work performed -

Need I remind the Committee of the existence of tertiary industry today? This is an entirely new field of industry where productivity does not count. I make no reflection on it. Let us take the example of an increase being granted to members of the nursing profession. Are they able to deal with more patients? Are school teachers, who again are in the tertiary classification, able to teach more pupils? Is a locomotive driver able to haul a bigger load on our railway system.

Mr Scholes:

– He can but his wages were reduced for it.

Mr CONNOR:

– Exactly. Yet the Government chooses to try to spell this out. Let us put it another way: It is the considered opinion - not merely the considered opinion but the certain opinion - of the legal profession that the minute these proposed sections are challenged the High Court will knock them out. And a challenge there will be because under the Constitution as it stands at present this Government cannot impose conditions such as these. The Government will put in these proposed charges. It will put them in by sheer weight of numbers because it has the numbers to do so. The Government will ram this legislation through and the High Court will kill it for certain.

Or SOLOMON (Denison) (4.51)- I cannot hope to traverse the legalities of this matter and the legal evidence of what has happened in the past with the same dexterity as did the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen). I was happy to hear the honourable member for Cunningham (Mr Connor) because he made a clear argument concerning his reservations about this matter. I could understand perfectly well what he was talking about. In particular he said that this legislation is laying down a blueprint for a wage freeze without an equivalent in the price area. I can understand people having reservations about that. However, I believe I should say just a few words if only for the reason that my speaking does not leave it look as though there are only 2 supporters of the Government who believe that this is a justifiable clause.

The dangers which confront the implementation of this clause, as outlined by the honourable member for Cunningham, are indeed dangers to think twice about. Nevertheless I think again, if I can take this matter on the face of it and as it reads, that it is hardly proper in these days to consider an award or an agreement which only takes cognisance of 2 parties. My friend the honourable member for Moreton has taken this on board very well but I think it should be said again that one has only to consider instances, and some already have been given. Let us assume that there is an agreement between the managemnt of the Australian National Line and the seamen or stewards concerned in that operation, and there has been evidence of this before now. Let us assume that there is an award which is what we might describe as generous and let us exclude from any judgment on the rights or wrongs of the matter the people of Tasmania, for example. Where does that get us lt seems to me that the people of Tasmania at least have as vested an interest in that agreement as do the seamen or the stewards, or whoever else might be concerned, lt would be entirely unrealistic not to consider the public interest.

If such an agreement is entered into, as honourable members of the Opposition have pointed out who else but the Government is going to represent the public interest in most circumstances? After ill, that is what one would think it is there to do. In fact, the bane of any governments existence is to decide which public interest is more persuasive or more deserving than any other public interest because rarely is the whole public involved at any one time. I think the case which I took illustrates this point. If it were the public of Tasmania, of north Queensland or whoever else it might be, or for that matter the whole public, surely someone needs to represent them if the government or anyone else sees them as worthy of representation in the context of a particular agreement. For that reason 1 say a few words on this part of the clause. I ‘believe that the provisions contained in this part of the clause are justified. I hope that the dire industrial straits that are predicted as a result of the passing of this clause do not come to pass. But on the face of it I believe that what is proposed is a reasonable proposition as far as the people of Australia in general are concerned.

May I take up just one other point because 1 think that it was raised a good deal earlier in the debate by the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Webb). This matter concerns proposed new section 30. The honourable member was worried in regard to proposed new sub-section 30 (1 .) about the suggestion that conciliation and arbitration evidence and findings could not in any practicability be kept one from the other. I would like to point out that proposed new section 30(4.), as I understand it, gives a particular meaning to a couple of the words; that is to say proposed new sub-section (4.) provides that no evidence shall be given from one conciliator, for example, to a succeeding arbitrator. This means evidence as distinct from hearsay, as I understand it. Also, the proposed new sub-section states: ‘ … or statements made . . . ‘. Again, I believe that this refers to statements made to the Commission that are not to be transferred from one quarter to the other. Therefore, whatever the human weaknesses of the problem may be, these are specific matters which are not talked about in the Bill as though they were a popular chat; they are matters relating to evidence particularly and the statements made to the Commission, so that in a formal sense they are not transferable.

I draw the attention of honourable members - and I am sure that the lawyers here could do so better than I am able to do - to the fact that on many occasions juries are ordered by a judge to disregard a piece of evidence. No-one really believes that they totally cleanse their minds of that evidence. All they have to do is to do their best not to consider it as part of the total evidence they are receiving. I presume that legally trained people such as conciliators and arbitrators can do that equally as effectively as a jury drawn from the average population can. So 1 make that point in addition to the remarks I have made relating to the preceding proposed new section.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– I rise in this debate to support the proposals put forward by my colleagues the honourable members for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron) and Cunningham (Mr Connor). I was somewhat disturbed by the most learned arguments and case quoting that was indulged in by my very honourable and learned friend, the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen). However, it seems to me that this legalistic jargon of lawyers is what the whole business is all about. I am not persuaded away from the proposition that lawyers have a vested interest in provoking and prolonging disputes. There is no doubt that the Government will have clause 13 passed because it has the numbers to do so. However, 1 do not think that the claim by the Minister for Labour and National Servce (Mr Lynch) that the whole Bill is aimed at resolving industrial disputes is correct. I would think that the proposed new sections, particularly proposed new section 31, were introduced into the Bill because of a lack of understanding - an admission by the Government of its lack of understanding - of what the present economic crisis is all about.

Mr Chairman, every honourable member of this chamber has heard Government supporters, from the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) down, say that the economic difficulties that exist in this country are caused through high wages and wage increases. Honourable members opposite have said that they have been caused through savage attacks on employers by unions and unionists. In order to overcome this economic problem which it does not understand, the Government has resorted to union bashing. The minimum wage is about $54 a week. Anyone who calls that a magnificent wage should try to live on it. On the other hand, the average wage is about $100 a week. What does this all mean? It means that a lot of people in the community are receiving much more than the minimum wage. Further, it means that individual unions have been engaged in collective bargaining with individual employers to obtain better rates of pay and, in the case of the waterside workers and other unions as well, better working conditions. I mention the waterside workers because their union has reached agreement with their employers for a shorter working week. This has not pleased the Government at all. As a result it has introduced proposed new section 31 in which it will not be possible for individual unions to make individual gains from individual employers.

Perhaps we should look at the situation as to why unions are succeeding in their individual claims. They succeed not because they blackmail employers or because they do all of the things that are alleged against them. I would be of the opinion that the unions are successful because the employers agree to increases. They agree not under duress but on the basis of negotiation. The Government believes that something is wrong if it is possible for individual employers to agree to substantial increases in wages for their employees.

Somebody is getting too big a share of the national cake, and I am speaking here of the employers. Some employers are engaged much more profitably than others. Once again there is a division. There is no levelling out and no attempt by this Government to level out that sort of share of the national cake. If the working people in this country, through their recognised organisations, seek increases, this Government through measures like this makes sure that they are not able to get them. It hamstrings them and ties them. The honourable member for Denison (Dr Solomon) recognised some of these problems because he said he would think twice about the dangers. I think he should think five or six times about the dangers because they are inherent in this sort of legislation which sets about destroying the whole basis of conciliation. This Act is termed the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. Conciliation is not restricted only to the clinical confines of a court. As the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron) has explained - I also have been party to such negotiations but perhaps not in the same places as he has negotiated though in places of a similar kind - conciliation takes place between employer and employee representatives away from the clinical atmosphere of a court. This is also conciliation. Conciliation does not have to be carried out in the atmosphere of a court. Proposed new section 31 takes away entirely the right of employees to negotiate. It also takes away the right of employers to negotiate. That to my mind will not do anything to resolve the alleged - I use that word advisedly - unrest which exists in this country. If that was the reason why this Bill was brought in then it will not achieve it.

On the question of the shorter hours that have been negotiated by the Waterside Workers Federation, the arguments put forward by the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) against this agreement were not surprising. I forget the date but I remember reading of similar arguments made against the repeal of the corn laws in Great Britain, and that was more than 100 years ago. The same arguments were put forward when the. child labour laws were introduced in Great Britain and children were brought out of the mines and factories. The arguments then were that the economy could not stand it. The same is being said in 1972. I support the proposition that with mechanisation as we have it, particularly on the waterfront but generally in any industry, there can be no logical argument to sustain a case against individual employees and industries negotiating with their employers for a shorter working week in those industries. This concept is not new either. I remind this Committee that in the United States of America, the bastion of free enterprise, and in most other countries, people are working a much shorter week than we are in Australia. We speak about a 40-hour week as though it was something sacred. There is not a clerical officer employed by the Government that you support, Mr Chairman, who works a 40-hour week. These people work some peculiar time like 36i hours a week. Does anybody say that the country would benefit if they worked the extra 3i hours a week? Of course not. Why should they work longer hours? Probably they should work fewer hours than they are working now, and people in particular industries should be working fewer hours.

The country is beset with problems of inflation and unemployment, yet the Government still talks about there being no area of negotiation between individual employees and employers. There is little doubt in my mind that this provision will be agreed to, but it will hamstring employees and employers in this regard completely. Everybody will work a 40-hour week irrespective of the conditions that apply in their industries. Everybody will receive the same wage irrespective of the capacity of their employers to pay. Where does that leave us? It means that for those employers who have a greater capacity to pay - and this Government will not do anything about rectifying that position through the obvious means of taxation - the money will remain in their coffers and they will not be worried about overseas corporations taking over our chicken roll and dim sim factories. lt will go a lot further than that. I urge the Committee to disagree with the inclusion of this provision in the Bill and vote with the Opposition, the Party which is taking an intelligent approach to this matter, to take this provision out of this Bill altogether.

Mr STREET:
Assistant Minister assisting the Minister for Labour and National Service · Corangamite · LP

– The subjects raised by honourable members who have spoken on the proposed new sections contained in clause 13 are covered by 3 main headings - certification of agreements, matters reserved for full bench hearings, and the public interest. Dealing first with the certification of agreements, this was raised by the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron) and I would like to point out that there is no difference between the certification of agreements proposed under this Bill and provided for under the Act because the certification has to be undertaken by a presidential bench. This is laid down in the Act in section 33, so there is no difference in that respect. On the question that it is wrong not to be able to include matters in an agreement which cannot be included in an award, there is no change from the existing section 31 of the Act. I should point out that there is not much point in giving the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission the power to certify an agreement which contains matters that could not be included in an award because this is beyond its constitutional power. The aim of certifying an agreement is to give it the power of an award and if the agreement contains things which could not be included in an award constitutionally, the award obviously could not stand up to challenge. As to the matters to be referred to the full bench, there is not a great deal new in what is proposed here. The national wage cases are added to the list of matters that must be dealt with by the full bench. In recent years these cases have been heard by the full bench on reference and quite often by agreement.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Yes, but it is not bound by public interest.

Mr STREET:

– Public interest is the third heading I referred to and I will take it last. The national wage cases in the past have been dealt with by the full bench on reference, usually by agreement, and the new provisions in the Bill really formalise what is currently the de facto situation. The only equal pay case which has been heard by the full bench was heard on reference. On the question of annual leave, I think the honourable member for Hindmarsh and every honourable member would agree that annual leave is a major cost item in the economy. As long service leave has always been dealt with by a full bench it seems quite reasonable that annual leave should be in the same category.

The minimum wage, the last item added to the list, has always been dealt with by a full bench and I would draw the attention of the Committee to the definition of ‘basic wage* which is contained in section 33. (1.) (b). I ask the Committee to compare that definition with what is contained in proposed new section 31. (1.) (c). lt will be found that the definition of minimum wage”, which is now to be dealt with by a full bench, is very similar to the old definition of ‘basic wage’ which was always dealt with by a full bench when that principle applied. The Commonwealth has always had the right of intervention in Full Bench matters and this will not be changed under the new legislation.

I come to the final point which relates to the public interest. The honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) pointed out very cogently that this question doss extend beyond the parties to the immediate consultation or dispute which is in progress. I cannot put it better than the extract from Shonefield in his ‘Note of Reservation to the Donovan Report’ which I quoted in my speech last week during the debate on the second reading of this Bill. I think that this is so relevant that I should include it in the record of this debate. Shonefield said:

It is no longer possible to accept the traditional notion of the individual work place as a separate and largely automonous estate where employers and employees are able to conduct their quarrels with little or no regard to the effects of what they do on other work places.

I cannot put the concept of public interest in clearer words than that. The honourable member for Cunningham (Mr Connor) accused the Government of putting the system into an economic strait-jacket. I think that if we got down to trying to define ‘public interest’ in strict and specific terms, we might be doing exactly what the honourable member said because the public interest will change according to circumstances. There will be different degrees of importance depending on such factors as the nature of the matter at issue and the political climate of the day. This inevitably must affect public interest. Of course, a particular case may have the effect of influencing or affecting the whole of industry, quite apart from the industry which is under discussion or negotiation. Because of the implication? of a particular industry, it may not be in the best interests of the public to extend this effect into fields other than those which originally had been part of the discussion.

Another point which the honourable member for Moreton made and which is exemplified in the quotation I gave a moment ago is that, in certain circumstances, parties may reach an agreement which is highly satisfactory to them because the industry employer concerned may be in a position where he is able to pass on his costs without too must trouble. This clearly could be against the best interests of the economy as a whole. So, while I agree that it is impossible specifically to define the public interest, I think it is wise to leave it to the discretion of the commissioner and not end up, by defining it too strictly, with the sit….. ‘“n about which the honourable member for Cunningham expressed concern. The original concept of the public interest i” our conciliation and arbitration system was expounded by Mr Justice Isaacs in 1917. He made the point that the whole raison d’etre of the arbitration powers was not the mere decision between 2 contesting parties, although that of course was undoubtedly of importance because ‘h purpose of the legislation was to resolve industrial disputes; the object of the Commission must always be that the community be served uninterruptedly and not be compelled, when threatened with deprivation or perhaps the essentials of existence, to look on helplessly while those whose function it is to supply them stop their work to quarrel. I think that the words of Mr Justice Isaacs are just as true today as when they were originally said. So, in relation to those 3 matters which are the principal causes of debate on proposed new sections 28 to 31 - certification of agreements, matters reserved for the full bench and public interest - 1 maintain that the proposals of the Government are designed to improve the system and maintain the public interest of the community of Australia.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

– Like my colleagues, I am very concerned about the words ‘public interest’. I am concerned for 2 reasons. I do not see any coherent body anywhere in Australia which can define or represent the public interest. 1 think that applies more to the present Ministry than to any other group of people which may wish to present evidence in a court. I use as an example something which is current in Australia and which I think indicates the lack of clarity that there can be on any issue at any one time about what is the public interest. Someone, somewhere, will go into a court with the force of law and demand that what has been said at a particular time to be the public interest shall be complied with. There is on the bookstalls at the moment a publication called ‘The Little Red Schoolbook’. It is on the bookstall at the Canberra Airport.

Mr Cope:

– Do not stir that up.

Mr SCHOLES:

– Just a moment. On the front bench of the Government Parties is the Minister for Customs and Excise (Mr Chipp) who says that it is in the public interest that this book be distributed, there is the Minister for Housing (Mr Kevin Cairns) who says that this is a subjugation of the rule of law and the Minister for the Navy (Dr Mackay) who makes similar comments. I ask the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch) and the Assisting Minister assisting the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Street) - I do not use them as examples because this is a different matter - how they could define in circumstances such as this what in fact is the public interest. If they were to go into a court on an economic matter, they most likely would say: ‘Well, economic matters are a little more clear cut. If the workers want more wages, it is in the public interest that they should not get them’. That is what the Government has always said, lt has said that although the workers want lower working hours, it is in the public interest that they do not get them. 1 suppose that one could say that the public interest is clearly definable in this area.

There is conflict among Government Ministers on what is in the public interest in economic matters. For instance, the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) believed that the Australian dollar should be maintained at its parity with sterling. The Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Anthony) - the de facto Prime Minister - maintained that it should be devalued. So it was devalued. Who is to say that that decision was in the public interest? The decision was reached purely because of the brute forces of Party politics which operated within the coalition. The public interest had nothing whatsoever to do with the decision. Any decision which is reached by the present Cabinet and, in all probability, by successive cabinets on what should be done in wage cases will be arrived at on the basis of what is in the political interests of the government of the day. It will have nothing whatsoever to do with the public interest. Let us not be completely hypocritical about the situation.

How can anyone suggest that, even with the myriad of advisers which the Government has available to it and who, 1 hope, would disagree pretty violently not only with the Government but also with one another - if they were doing their job they would have to disagree - that the Government, on the basis of this advice, can arrive at a clear-cut decision on what is in the public interest? It is now only 8 months since the Government came into this Parliament and said that it was in the public interest to increase taxation in Australia and it is now about 1 month since it came into the Parliament and said that it was in the public interest that that mistake be corrected. If a mistake of this nature is made in the national wage case, the Government is not dealing with an increase of 20c a week for the person on $70 a week; it is dealing with his ability to maintain his standard of living. If the national wage case does not give to people that level of wages to which they are entitled, they have no other area from which to obtain them. This is especially so with those people who are in the weaker bargaining positions, such as employees of State governments.

Reference has been made to increases in productivity. By way of interjection railway drivers were mentioned. I make this point: A train crew of only 2 people can now drive any number of locomotives. The number of vehicles on trains has been considerably increased and the average tonnages which are drawn per man hour have considerably increased. But the relativity of the rates of pay of the engine drivers, who are responsible for this increased productivity, when compared with a fitter’s rate of pay, are now 25 per cent lower than they were 20 years ago. In fact, engine drivers have increased their productivity by more than 100 per cent but their relative pay rates have dropped. Where is the public interest in that? What is all this talk about people benefiting from increased productivity? What the court has said is that the employer has invested money in the industry and the employees are not entitled to the benefit of the results flowing from that investment. This is what has happened in the railways. When one asks people to increase productivity so that they will obtain increases in real wages one should remember that those people who have increased their productivity substantially over the years have in fact had their relative wages reduced. So let us not kid ourselves about what is in the public interest in that situation.

The crux of this matter is that the Government is writing into this legislation provisions for making a political judgment which could have been legally made had the Australian people supported the referendum on wages in 1946. They did not do so, and now what the Government is trying to do is to find semi-legal methods - because I doubt very much whether it is a constitutionally valid proposition - to get around the decision of the Australian people, because the Government knows that if this question were put to the Australian people again by way of referendum, it would be defeated.

The facts of the matter are that no matter what way one looks at this clause, it is not possible for any group of people sitting in a parliament, or in any other area, to define what in fact is in the public interest. A group of people can define what is in the economic interests of some of the employers, what is in the economic interests of some of the employees, or what is in the political interests of the party which happens to have power or those parties which happen to be able to exert the maximum political pressure- not necessarily those parties which govern. We are perpetuating this situation in this legislation, and what is going to be said in court will not necessarily be in the public interest. It may be what the Treasury thinks is in the public interest, which may be totally opposed by the Department of Trade and Industry, and this is not an unusual situation. It may be what is in the immediate political interest of some section of some political party. As I have said previously, there are sitting on the front bench at question time here 3 Ministers who, on another subject, quite publicly are expressing 3 different versions of what is in the public interest. Who is to say which version is right? The judgment day has not arrived yet. I do not believe that this is a valid point. I believe that this is a very dangerous process to put into a system in order to determine by a fairly unscientific manner what levels of wages and conditions should be provided within the community.

Mr COPE:
Sydney

– The honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes) mentioned public interest, and I intend to elaborate on that point a little further. It is inexplicable to me and to many other people just what is the interpretation of public interest’, which was mentioned by my friend and colleague the honourable member for Corio. I should like to know in what branch of industry stoppages have not occurred. I will mention a few of the people who are connected with services which are rendered in the public interest: pilots, first and second officers, flight engineers, flight stewards and hostesses of Qantas Airways Ltd, Trans-Australia Airlines, and Ansett Airlines of Australia; ships engineers, ferry and dock boat captains, private bank officers, newspaper journalists, members of Actors Equity, members of the musicians Union, white collar workers, prison warders - the prisoners offered to walk out in sympathy with warders - members of the Amalgamated Engineering Union, members of the Australasian Society of Engineers, ironworkers, sheet metal workers, waterside workers, transport workers, boiler makers, plumbers, ships painters and dockers, liquor trade employees, glass workers, milk industry employees, meat workers, jockeys, members of the Australian Workers Union, clerks, miscellaneous workers and many others. Who is left in the public outside those people whom I have mentioned? I do not think there would be many other people who render services in the public interest. The Assistant Minister assisting the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Street) made a statement about the economy and what we must do to protect it. I repeat what I said last week: This is strange when one considers the statement made by the Government in regard to the Kerr report on salaries for members of the Commonwealth Parliament. That report recommended a salary of $13,000 for a private member, but the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) wanted to reduce it to $12,000 because of the state of the economy at that time.In other words, he was going to make a big fellow of himself. This Bill provides for an increase, from $12,000 to $16,400, in the salaries of conciliation commissioners, retrospective to last November. Is that in the interests of the economy? Of course it is not. What a lot of rubbish.

The decision in regard to the ‘Little Red Schoolbook’ that was mentioned earlier by my friend was not a decision of the Minister for Customs and Excise (Mr Chipp); it was a decision of the Cabinet of which the Minister is a member. Was that done in the public interest, as explained by my friend? That was not the decisionof the Minister for Customs and Excise; it was the decision of Cabinet - the 12 ruling members. 1 should hope that in future my friend does not put the blame for that decision on the Minister for Customs and Excise when he was only one of the men who were responsible for making it. Was that decision in the public interest? These are the things which, as I have said, are inexplicable to many people in Australia. Just what is the public interest? We would like the Minister for Labour and National Service or the Assistant Minister assisting the Minister for Labour and National Service to give us. at the earliest possible opportunity, aninterpretation of what is in the public interest.

Mr JACOBI:
Hawker

– I want to address myself very briefly to the question of what is in public interest. I think that a lot of double standards and hypocrisy have been spoken by the Government in regard to this matter. I think that if ever a section of a Bill set out to epitomise this Government’s attitude on the question of restraint, this section does. What do we mean by public interest? I can well recall a test case in the South Australian jurisdiction, I think in 1930. following the Premiers’ Plan to implement throughout Australia, by the respective State governments and the Commonwealth Government, a 10 per cent reduction in salary across the board in the national or public interest. The police officers took the case to the full bench in South Australia, and the full bench rejected the State Government’s application on the grounds that in fact it was not in the public interest. This was a case where the lawyers on the bench acted contrary to legislative decisions.

What do we do in the position where public interest is relative? What happens in the cases where 5 or 6 States outflank the Commonwealth in certain areas? Let me take one example. The question of nurses was raised earlier. Psychiatric nurses in South Australia, from juniors to career and charge sisters were granted equal pay in 1967. In Queensland at that time it was decided that it was against public interest to grant equal pay to psychiatric nurses in Queensland; it was granted only to certificated nurses and sisters. In New South Wales in 1967 Judge Sweeney granted equal pay to psychiatric nurses across the board without any 5-year waiting period - again in the public interest, according to the judge. In Tasmania psychiatric nurses were granted equal pay on a restrictive basis - again, I assume, in the public interest. Psychiatric nurses in Western Australia were granted equal pay in a more restricted area - again, I assume, in the public interest. I ask the Minister, if unions and employers sat around the table and, on a balanced evaluation of the situation in the 6 States, found that something was in the national interest according to the States in direct opposition to the Commonwealth, an agreement could not be ratified on that basis because according to the Commonwealth Government it was against the public interest. Such an attitude in my view is totally illogical. In that case the agreement could not be ratified. It would have to go to the Full Bench.

A similar situation applies with respect to annual leave. As I understand it, in South Australia annual leave is applied in the Public Service on the basis of 4 weeks leave for day workers and 5 weeks leave for shift-workers. I understand this position applies likewise in New South Wales. Let us assume that this trickles and percolates through the other States. Is it unreasonable for unions and employers collectively to sit around the table and figure out that an industry can afford to make such provision in the State jurisdiction in which they are negotiating? We could have the ridiculous situation that despite all efforts at conciliation, a matter may be agreed by both parties but the agreement cannot be ratified. However, it can be opposed by the Commonwealth Government on appeal.

The recent Waterside Workers Federation agreement is another classic example. Do we assume that for peace on the waterfront this agreement which is applicable to waterside workers will remain in that restricted area? I doubt it very much. It is possible that other unions on the waterfront will press for conditions identically in line with those applicable to waterside workers. If there can be agreement between unions and employers why cannot that be ratified without the hammer and sickle being hung over their heads by the Commonwealth Government, on appeal? The Government makes a farce of all semblance of conciliation between organisations.

I turn to the question of double standards. The honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) rose and made a great play about the public interest. He quoted legal decisions. I do not dispute those decisions. Wages have a decisive impact on the community but the fact which cannot be got over to the Government is that what is wrong at this point of time is that extra weight is being put on one end of the scale and nothing on the other end. If there is a public interest on an increase in wages across the board nationally or by collective bargaining, what standard will the Government fix when prices rise, hire purchase rates rise and land prices rise? All one ever hears from the Government is this double standard. The private sector, in terms of prices and profits, is to be completely uninhibited. It will have complete freedom to contract and no Government controls will be imposed. Everyone read the statement of the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) last December dealing with general insurance provisions. There were 2 important factors in that statement as far as the Commonwealth Government was concerned. There are to be no restrictions on insurance companies in terms of investment - none at all. So, the private sector can have complete freedom of contract, complete freedom of negotiation, complete freedom of fixation of either prices or profits and, in fact, freedom from any restrictions, inhibitions and constrictions. But, certainly, it will not be involved in arbitration. The Government will confine this provision to the workers of Australia. In my view the Government will bind the workers by a section which is inoperative and which will cause untold damage in the field of conciliation and arbitration. In my view it will be completely inoperative.

Dr SOLOMON (Denison) 5.36)- Mr

Chairman-

Mr Foster:

– Mr Chairman-

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock:

– Order! I called the honourable member for Denison.

Mr Foster:

– The honourable member for Denison has spoken already.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I have called the honourable member for Denison.

Mr Foster:

– Oh, you will have an excuse.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honourable member for Sturt ought to know the procedures of the Committee. He has been in the House long enough.

Dr SOLOMON:

– I do not believe that the honourable members for Corio (Mr Scholes), Sydney (Mr Cope) and Hawker (Mr Jacobi) should be allowed to get away entirely with their arguments. In particular, my honourable friend from Corio put some of the worst arguments by analogy which it has been my misfortune to hear. At the same time I concede that a good deal of what the honourable member for Hawker in particular had to say was persuasive and even tenable because he was concerned about a situation where he can point to various groups in the community, particularly those on the higher levels of income who do not appear, on the face of it, to be subject to the test of public interest. He can say with justification perhaps that those at the lower end of the economic scale subject to decisions which affect the mass of workers are the ones who are being singled out for bringing in the question of public interest. That may appear to be so but it is not as much so as he thinks it is. The reason for it is this: In a great deal of legislation, in a great deal of adjudication and judgments made by public service boards or bodies other than the Commission about which we are talking here, there is an implied public interest to be considered. There is not only one public interest as can be readily seen. The public interest would not be well served if university teachers, for example, were paid a wage or salary which was not comparable with that which they could get overseas because if that situation applied we would very likely find the sort of migration which created the much talked about brain drain from the United Kingdom where people qualified to do a particular job were going somewhere else because they were offered competitive salaries on an international basis. So there are other checks and balances in other areas, particularly where they impinge on international situations, that one does not find at this level because of the lack of competitiveness.

I was nearly howled down last week, if I may say so, because I pointed out the simple fact that the sort of judgments we are talking about tonight usually affect hundreds of thousands of wage earners and, in that sense, are more important. These judgments, even though the per capita amount granted may be less than honourable members opposite would like to see - and members of this side would like to see - have an aggregate effect that is of considerable proportions. If we turn to some other area of the economy, to wage earners in occupations where a few hundred or a few thousand are involved, such as our arbitration commissioners, and give a substantial increase, the total effect on the economy is very small. Honourable members opposite were not prepared to accept that as realism last week, but this in fact is what dictates the situation. Competitive ability obviously is different at different levels and whether members opposite want that to be so or not with all their talk of equality in such areas as education the situation will not change for their saying so. It must be recognised on the question of public interest per se that this is so. I agree, and I would be stupid to do otherwise, that this is not an easy area to define. But the fact is that the honourable members opposite do not want to define anything they can possibly leave aside. We saw this last week in relation to clause 8 when members opposite were not prepared to recognise that some people would be in good community standing. They asked what that meant and sought examples. Members of the Opposition want to run away from this sort of thing. I submit that it is possible in a particular context, at a particular time and in a certain judgment to define what is the public interest. I have alluded, as have the Assistant Minister assisting the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Street) and the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) to judgments which could be made which would be contrary to the public interest. Even though it may be a little galling I admit this, because some other areas of operation apparently are not subject to public interest. Because the words are not written in, it does not mean that the public interest is not being taken into account.

I would agree that there is plenty of argument to say that public interest per se should be looked to in other matters but there is no need to get absolutely wild about the situation when the public interest is referred to specifically in this case. In fact if one thinks about any degree of distance from this area at all, a good deal of our social legislation, if not the whole lot, implies public interest. You are not allowed to knock people off in the street because it is contrary to the public interest. You are not allowed to have a violent demonstration insofar as people can control you because it is not in the public interest. The fact that the particular forms of legislation do not use the words ‘in the public interest’ does not mean that the public interest is not being served by the legislation. I believe that these things should be taken on board when in fact honourable members opposite find themselves as adamantly opposed to this form of words as they appear to bc in this debate now. I believe, in short, that the public interest can be judged in a particular context. It is true that there may be various judgments about it but surely this is what Government, arbitration and all these sorts of things are about - making judgments as to which particular interest should best be served at a particular time.

Mr ENDERBY:
Australian Capital Territory

– I have just a couple of questions I wish to put to the Minister. I am genuinely concerned and perhaps a little confused in regard to this matter. My questions arise out of proposed new section 28. Already a lot has been said about the expression ‘the public interest*. I share the cencern about the uncertainty of it. I ask the Minister whether he can assist honourable members in regard to this. When one looks at the expression ‘the public interest’ in the context in which it first occurs in proposed new section 28 (2.) it will be seen that it refers to the giving of power to a conciliation commissioner to refuse to certify a memorandum that has been reached by agreement between the parties where the parties have struck a bargain and are prepared to put the terms into a memorandum. This is what they want to do and they put it before the commissioner for certification. This provision will give power to a commissioner to refuse to certify the memorandum if he considers it is not in the public interest. So be it.

Turning to the proposed new section 35, which I appreciate is not under discussion but which is linked with proposed new section 28, the right of appeal is given to certain listed people. Proposed new section 35 sub-section (3.) reads:

An appeal does not lie under the last preceding sub-section unless, in the opinion of the Commission, the matter is of such importance that, in the public interest, an appeal should lie.

That contains the expression ‘the public interest’. Presumably there is to be a decision by a conciliation commissioner saying: 1 will not certify this agreement that you, the vitally interested people concerned, have reached. 1 will not certify it because it is not in the public interest’. Then the Bill gives the right of appeal to the Commission which says that it cannot hear that appeal unless it is in the public interest that it should hear the appeal. It seems to me to be a bizarre situation when a commissioner may say that in the public interest he will not do something and then to let someone say ‘I will appeal against that decision’ and then to give somebody else power to ask ‘well, is it sufficiently in the public interest that in the first place the public interest was or was not involved or that that interest was not sufficiently public or not of sufficient interest to the public that an appeal should lie? It appears that there are 2 different meanings given to the words ‘public interest’ in that sense. I am confused. I seek some assistance from the Minister on this matter.

The other question I put to the Minister relates to appeals. There may well be some other clause in this lengthy Bill which I have missed but as I have read the Bill and in particular proposed new section 35 which deals with appeals the Bill gives to the parties the right of appeal in respect of a decision by a commissioner who will not certify a memorandum because it is not in the public interest. Paragraph (b) (ii) of sub-section (4.) says that an appeal may be made by a party to the agreement in the case of an appeal under paragraph (b) of the sub-section, which is the paragraph which refers to a decision of a commissioner not to certify a memorandum because it is not in the public interest. Does it follow that where 2 representative interests - employer and employee - who have struck a bargain, who have reached an agreement and have had someone else, either a commissioner or some outside intervener, come along and say that it is not in the public interest that these people should be allowed to give expression to their agreement, the right of appeal should be restricted to one of the parties? Is that what this Government is seeking to achieve? If it is, that too is bizarre. Is this Government saying that in the case of people who have struck a bargain and who have been stopped from implementing it or stopped from giving effect to it because of a commissioner’s decision that it is not in the public interest, one °f the people who was a party to the agreement and who now has no dispute with the other shall appeal? Is that what the Minister is trying to say? 1 ask the Minister those 2 questions. There may be something in the Bill which I have missed but I have been looking at the Bill for some time and I cannot see an answer to my queries.

May 1 put this to the Minister? In his second reading speech the Minister said that the Bill was intended to overcome industrial unrest. How will it overcome the problem of industrial unrest to create machinery like this where people who have reached agreements find that the Minister allows someone else to intervene and say: “The agreement is not in the public interest; the parties shall remain in dispute; we do not care what happens; you will continue your dispute.’?

Mr FOSTER:
Sturt

– These proposed new sections now under discussion, irrespective of what Government supporters say, are nothing more than wage freeze provisions. The Minister is on record as having recently referred to women in the work force as being insignificant. He knows as well as his Government knows that there is going to be a greater percentage of females employed in future. He knows that if anybody wants to attain an acceptable standard of living and a decent quality of life, disregarding the monetary factor for the moment and the number of persons in a family who have become earners or working units, the only way in which young people in a community can afford to overcome the 1,000 per cent increase in the cost of land in many of our cities and suburbs throughout the nation is for both of them to contract to work.

Let us deal with the term ‘the public interest’. I have heard no cry from this Government nor has anybody else in the Parliament against the 22 per cent price increase by the Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd for its steel products in just 12 short months. If this Government wants to define the public interest’ so far as industrial disputes are concerned and so far as wages are concerned, if it wants a plain honest definition and not one from the group of eggheads to which the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) referred earlier, just assess the fact that wage and salary earners and their dependants in this country represent in excess of 90 per cent of the people. Is that not right? We heard the honourable member for Denison (Dr Solomon) say that you should not grant a wage increase to this sector, or to bring it down to a lesser number, the people employed in the automotive industry, numbering about 30,000 and those employed in support industries again numbering about 30,000, because overall they are getting too much. But when it comes to 57 tall poppies in the Public Service and they are given $250,000 to share, that is all right. That is in the public interest says the honourable member for Denison. He is evidently of the opinion that he will get knocked off at the next election, to use his own term, when he will want to go back as an employee of the University of Tasmania. He wants to protect his own personal interest. That is the way that a lot of people would look at it in their own areas. What is ‘the public interest’ in an exercise like this? No doubt it is some after-thought of the Government.

The proposed new sections under discussion constitute a direct wage freeze - they will limit wages and conditions of work. If we take the Commonwealth as being the protectors of the public interest, God help the public because in this Bill there is mention of annual leave and long service leave. The Commonwealth Government has not seen fit to increase annual leave for its employees - and I can see the honourable member for Moreton anticipating what I am going to say - since Federation or in 72 years. So if anybody considers that a member of the public can expect to get some benefit from this Government he had better think again.

I want to say something about the rights of people to negotiate and the rights of people to agree. I want to draw attention to statements made by the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) in regard to waterside workers’ agreement. I should like the honourable member to tell me where, as a result of wage increases, freight rates have increased. I should like him to relate those to the tremendous freight increases that have occurred when there has been no movement in the wage sector at all, either at sea or ashore, and little movement in costs for wharfage and so on. He might be able to convince me but I do not think he will. He will see that freight increases do not necessarily follow wage increases. If production is the key factor miners ought to be getting 5 times their present wages on the production figures given to us by the honourable member for Cunningham today. If there are only one-fifth the number of miners employed in coal mines today as compared with 15 or 20 years ago, and they are producing 10 times as much coal, assessing it on the basis of productivity why should they not receive more pay? The Government does not want that.

Government supporters, especially legal eagles, have never supported wage increases or improvements in conditions. They merely carry out their function by voting for the matter before the House to restrict those benefits. If the Minister were to cast his mind back to the system that operated in relation to the gigantic undertaking just south of the Australian Capital Territory, the Snowy Mountains hydro-electric scheme, he would recall that that scheme existed for the whole of its life on the basis of negotiation and not necessarily on the basis that the parties were directed to accept the decision of a panel of judges who are quite removed from the industrial scene and have no contact with it whatever.

I should like the Minister to tell us when the Pull Bench of the Commission took it upon itself to have a really close look at what is happening in industry today. I should like the Commission to look at the broad spectrum of industry and at the provision of the Bill that says it will have direct control over the remuneration of wage and salary earners in this country. Will the judges take into consideration reports such as we have seen in the past 48 hours from the University of Melbourne in regard to poverty in Australia as it affects wage earners in the community and people who live below the poverty line? Will the judges of this country inspect those conditions before arriving at a decision that might be fair and in the public interest? Of course not, and the Minister knows they will not. So, why is this legislation before the House? ls it to appease a minority party in the Senate? ls it to buy preference votes?

I might ask: Is it in the public interest for us to have the conflict we have seen in the past 48 hours between the coalition parties - the Country Party and the Liberal Party - before a particular report on the wool industry becomes available? ls this not merely petty party politics? Government supporters are concerned only that they should be re-elected every 3 years. They do not give a damn about proper and responsible government. Is it in the public interest that during the recess uranium deposits to our north will be signed away to foreign interests? Do Government supporters think that someone should ask these questions and be entitled to a proper answer? Of course not. It does not come within the Government’s realm of narrow, overshadowed party politics. Is it in the public interest that in the past 2 days 5 Ministers have attacked a decision of one of the members of the front bench? Is the Government concerned about that? Was it in the public interest that the Government squandered $500m on the Fill aeroplanes? Has anyone asked that question?

Is it in the public interest that young married men who have been forced into the Army must live in the fringe areas of various cities because adequate and proper housing is not provided for them? All the issues which the Government, with its narrow political point of view, believes to be in the public interest are contained, though hidden, in the clauses of this Bill which will give extremely wide powers to a group of people whom 1 consider have never been in touch with the public other than on the university campus in their younger days when they were studying law. I oppo.se the Bill on that basis. I do not think it is reasonable or necessary. If time would permit 1 would quote to the Minister many of the statements he has made to his own political party and coming from his own secretariat in the past few weeks and just prior to Christmas. It would not make any difference whether this Bill is carried or not. I have no doubt it will be because it will be merely a numbers game.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock:

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

Mr BENNETT:
Swan

– We have gone from the actual needs of the community to what industry can afford to pay. In this clause who will determine what is the public interest? What section of the public will take the dominant role in determining the sectional interest? It has been said that a functional point in public interest is to protect the weak against the strong, the strongest in this case being the employers and the Government. We are in this Bill establishing the basis of revolt against the arbitration system, for it establishes a system whereby wages will be frozen at governmental will, making the wages struggle even more the part of politics than it Ls now. But before the revolt occurs, out of sheer frustration at their inability to establish procedures satisfactory to the mass, a lot of workers’ money will have been spent in taking points of dispute to courts in an attempt to dissolve and to challenge the meaning and intent of clauses in this Bill. This will do nothing for industrial peace. But on the performance of the Government, if of course the public continues to tolerate it and leave it in power, this Government will again legislate to change the situation to suit that of the employers at any particular point of time.

Who are the employers which this legislation is aimed to assist? In the main they are overseas based companies, shipping and cargo handling companies and investment, companies whose profits have been enormous and will continue to increase in what will become a comparatively wage controlled area with no control on profit margins. This legislation should be establishing a basis of conciliation, not arbitral dictation, which it does. In fact, it brings about a situation in which, by a low wage structure based on ‘public interest’ objections, or lengthened hours in the ‘public interest” in industries such as the Public Service, public transport, hospitals and other essential service industries, this plea will be used to subsidise industry, to control the wage cost structure, to escape the cost to the Government or, as they would say, restrict the cost to the community, the taxpayer, but in so doing we create another section in the poverty area. Strangely enough to work in essential government or semigovernment services has always meant and still does mean a low wage structure. In fact the minimum wage with small margins is more the rule than the exception in that area. The over award payment is usually obtained from the high profit industries.

Sitting suspended from 6.1 to 8 p.m.

Mr BENNETT:

– Before the suspension of the sitting for dinner we were speaking about public interest and the effect of over award payments which had been given to those industries which could afford them, quite often for very good reasons such as lack of safety or uncomfortable or insecure working conditions. Because of this the Government has typically over-reacted in the matter and has become carried away by its own propaganda. But let us look at the public interest. I say that it might well be in the public interest to withdraw this legislation, if we are looking at it from one viewpoint of public interest. Let us look at the pastoral award, under which the wage for a worker is $42.50 a week. Yet if a pastoral worker who has a wife and 2 children stops work and goes on to unemployment benefits, he receives $43 a week, a gain of 50c.

If the Department were doing its job, the anomalies would be pointed out to the Minister, and no doubt he would rectify the situation. But how will this Bill be applied when this area comes under scrutiny and the pastoralists plead poverty stemming from the effects of Government mismanagement which is being felt by all pastoralists? Indeed they have said that. Now that they are losing the assistance of the low wage structure for Aboriginal workers, who should be paid an adequate pastoral award wage but who are not receiving one yet, what has the Minister done to enforce the award payments in this area? What prosecutions and enforcements have taken place? Will he say that it is not in the public interest to act? What happens when the Minister relinquishes his portfolio and another interpretation is placed on the meaning of the section by another Minister who may decide, for instance, that it is in the public interest to refuse all wage increases. That could well be the view of a future Minister. 1 say another Minister’ because this Minister is supporting an increase for commissioners of $4,000 a year, retrospective to when that increase was refused by the Parliament, so he is in part supporting increases for the upper levels but not for the actual productive worker.

The public interest is in effect a sectional interest decided on by who is in power. It is a sectional viewpoint that does not have the benefit of a majority decision by referendum or vote of any sort. It will be determined by the educational and financial background of the person deciding it. It does nothing for the individual worker or his dependants who are directly affected by the decision which is made against what may have been proven to be a just claim in every other way. On the evidence submitted a claim could be completely proven in every aspect, but the allowance of the concept of outside or public interest could then lead to the suppression of the claim. The Minister might say: ‘If these people are not satisfied in that employment, let them find some other avenue by which to earn a living or, in the extreme, go on unemployment benefits.’ We all know that the old concept of the Australian home with the wife always there to rear the family in dignity and comfort on the one adequate wage is a thing of the past. Today, to have any standard at all, both husband and wife must work. This has happened only during the last 23 years of Liberal Government rule. By wage freezing and hours freezing, which are the intent of this legislation, the situation will be perpetuated - so much so that until some governmental action is taken to make the family unit what it was, what people fought and died for in 2 world wars - the fundamental bastion of our society - the family will become embroiled in some of the most bitter industrial disputes just to obtain enough income to suffice in our modern community. Even in a man’s unemployment benefit the family unit is means tested on the earnings of the wife.

We urgently need new thinking and a new approach to wage fixing and fringe entitlements and costs borne by the worker on the lower income scale if we are to have industrial peace. Justice not only needs to be done but needs to be done in such a way that every man, and woman in the community at large understands what is being done. Where else in the field cf human relations can one find so much legislative mumbo-jumbo and impediment to human understanding and friendship as is placed in the hands of people who create a career out of what has become the industrial battlefield. This clause increases the legal ammunition which must be paid for by the community in disputes of a technical nature. I would be more impressed, as I feel the community would be, if no profit whatsoever were to be made in the taking of industrial cases by those who have a vested interest in causing the dispute and subsequent delay in payment of the wage increases. If the legislation lessened the possibility of litigation by making payments retrospective to the date of application, with an over-riding interest payment on the money withheld for that period, we would be able to say that some genuine attempt was being made to speed up finalisation of disputes and the avoidance of them. But to continue in the manner in which we are proceeding is a farce.

I appreciate that the Minister admits his inability to bring in adequate price control legislation. The Government says that it is beyond its ability to legislate in an adequate manner to control prices and profits, and I concede its failure. On the other hand, what gives the Government the temerity to imagine that it can be any more successful with industrial legislation which is in effect a price and production control. Of course, this legislation is doomed to failure. If the Government wants success in the field of industrial legislation, it will need to make imaginative new departures such as the setting up of an all party committee so that it can at least obtain some basic understanding of the problems and not rely entirely on its preconceived ideas to legislate. But any legislation which in itself allows outside intervention of a third party, after the 2 parties directly concerned have agreed, to change that decision in the interests of other people, sets dangerous precedents - precedents which other people will see and use at a later stage much to the discomfort of the existing government. It is not too late for rational thinking and the withdrawal of this legislation in the public interest to take place.

Mr CONNOR:
Cunningham

– I want to amplify the comments I made before dinner with regard to a number of matters. In particular, it is quite clear that the Government is systematically trying to unload onto the arbitration system as a sort of economic whipping boy the responsibilities for its own sins of economic commission and omission. The Government has shown a consistent incapacity to deal with inflation, but it has chosen in particular to try to off-load the full responsibility on to the wages system. The catchcry is raised - it is almost like some witch’s chorus - that in all cases it is a matter of wages being raised first and then prices following. The position is exactly the opposite.

Mr Buchanan:

– Hear, hear!

Mr CONNOR:

– The position is exactly the opposite - the interjection notwithstanding - because with the system of delays and frustrations that are inherent in the present over-legalised system of arbitration it follows that automatically it is not possible for wages to do other than follow prices. This myth has been sedulously cultivated and the Government in political terms stands or falls by it. Hence it is determined at all costs to assume complete control of the arbitration system and in so doing, as I said earlier, it will destroy it. On the question of the submissions that are made by the Government, I want to quote from an address given by Mr Hince, who is a senior lecturer in economics at the Melbourne University. His remarks have been published by the Committee for Economic Development of Australia. They are vital in considering the question of public interest. He said:

The Government intervenes in the ‘public interest’ and presents material and argument in a brief prepared within government departments and presented by legal counsel. The presentation of material in open court, with the publicity which surrounds national wage cases, has apparently caused some considerable concern for the Government in recent years. In the 1960 hearing the Commonwealth brief did state reasonably categorically, with detailed reasons that no wage increase should be granted. Subsequently, many commentators linked this categoric assertion of the Commonwealth view on wage increases to the near defeat of the Government in the following elections. Whether this view is correct or not, it is noticeable that the Government brief in subsequent national wage cases has been less assertive and limited, in the main, to presenting general information and statistical material relating to the state of the economy. The Commonwealth has refrained from making positive submissions about the quantum of wage increases which it considers the Commission should award.

The adoption of this position by the Commonwealth reached, in my opinion, the limits of absurdity in the 1966 hearing. In this case Mr Kerr, Q.C., appearing as Senior Counsel for the Commonwealth, indicated that they, the Commonwealth, favoured a moderate increase in wages, but declined to elaborate on what was meant by moderate wage increases. Mr Justice Wright, presiding at the hearing, made rather pointed comments about the adoption of this particular tactic by the Commonwealth. Mr Justice Wright suggested that this type of submission, in effect, placed the full onus on the Commission to fit in with Government economic policy with regard to prices, productivity and wages, without the Commission being privy to Government thinking about the desirable level of wage increases. In this judgment, which was part of the majority judgment, Mr Justice Wright said:

The Commonwealth shrank from the tasks of estimation, contenting itself with a suggestion for a ‘moderate’ increase but counselling against a ‘large’ increase; such suggestions are just meaningless to one who is under an obligation to reduce his reasoning to terms of currency.

However, the Commonwealth has continued to follow the pattern which emerged after the 1960 hearing. In the 1968 ‘National Wage Case’ hearing, the Commonwealth ignored the stricture of Mr Justice Wright and suggested that Government policy favoured a small but not a moderate or large increase.

This book was published in November 1969. That tactic has been continued and it will be intensified. We will have the spectacle of the Government striding into court - in much the same way as King Charles I, 3 centuries ago, strode into the House of Commons - saying: ‘This is what we want.’ The resentment that will be built up then will make an undoubted contribution to industrial hatred and turmoil for generations. In quite another field I want to refer to the impact of tertiary industry on industrial productivity. I quote from an article by Mr T. M. Fitzgerald published in the ‘Nation’ on 13th November 1971. He had this to say:

The disturbing elements in the last Consumer Price Index were not due to increases in manufacturing prices but in tertiary-sector items - in fact, Government charges, especially transport and hospitals . . . The tertiary sector is the growing one in our economy and with the decline of rural employment it is on the way towards absorbing two-thirds of the work force. (Within this sector, the split is roughly sixty private employment to forty government employment, so that the absolute numbers of privately employed in the tertiary sector is about SO per cent greater than the number of manufacturing employees.) . . . But it seems that our economic thinking and policy-making have failed to catch up with the realities of the new pattern of activity and to draw inferences from it. To quote a phrase of some economists, the tertiary services are by nature ‘unprogressive’, in the sense that their performance in productivity growth seems generally to be low by comparison with manufacturing (measurement is difficult).

That is the very thing the Government seizes on to speak in terms of a drop in productivity. That is the very principle that the Government chooses to enshrine in the proposed section 31. This Government is fundamentally dishonest in its whole approach to the matter of wage fixation. Irrespective of its future inability for the remainder of its term in office, it is determined at all costs not merely to freeze wages but also to keep wages lagging further behind than ever. Inflation is starting to gallop. This Government is prepared, between now and polling day, to attempt to buy its way with political offers of electoral largesse. In the process of so doing it will make a further contribution to the inflation which it is unable to control. The proposed section is dishonest. It is the major section. It is the most vital one and it is the most obnoxious one in the whole of this legislation. It is one that we will oppose here not only in this Parliament but also on the hustings.

Mr BUCHANAN:
McMillan

– I take grave exception to the insinuation that the Government’s intentions are dishonest. This is the sort of thing we have been hearing too often from the Opposition. The Government has approached this matter with an open mind, to try to review an Act that has been in existence for a very long time and to try to make it better. For a member of the Opposition to stand up and say that the intentions of the Government are dishonest is an extremely poor state of parliamentary debate. It does not mean anything.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– It is not new, either.

Mr BUCHANAN:

– lt is not new. The Opposition can be dishonest as the Government can be on the right occasion. In this case the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch) has put in months and months of hard slogging trying to present a restructuring of this very difficult situation. For the Opposition to accuse the Government of a dishonest approach leaves me without any words to describe what I really think of the Opposition. Honourable members opposite would not like to know my thoughts on it. The honourable member for Cunningham (Mr Connor) was talking about a wages policy and a prices policy. The clauses we are discussing have nothing to do with that. Surely the dishonesty is in the concept of the Opposition’s bringing up items under these clauses that have nothing to do with that. We are supposed to be debating a series of clauses Which have to do with the-

Mr Foster:

– What clause are you quoting from?

Mr BUCHANAN:

– I am talking about proposed sections 28 to 3 1 in clause 1 3. Is that right?

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– Are you quite sure about that?

Mr BUCHANAN:

– The honourable member is evidently not sure. I am talking about that and he does not seem to know what we are talking about.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock:

– Order! I think we might be assisted in the Committee if all interjections cease.

Mr BUCHANAN:

– Hear, hear! If Opposition members wish to bring into this debate some reference to a wages policy and a prices policy I will be very happy to accommodate them at the appropriate time by giving some views on the difference between what they call a minimum wage and what 1 call a maximum price. Any honourable member opposite who happens to have lived during the last war - not many of them would have done so - would have understood what the Labor government did to this country when it had price fixing. Price fixing meant either that something went under the counter or that the sheen was taken off it and people received very poor quality. I hope and pray that this will never happen in this country again. 1 know that the Opposition will not agree to this, but if we are going to have price fixing we will insist that we maintain ‘.he standards which Australian industry heeds to be able to compete with the rest of the world; we will maintain our standards of quality but the worker will put in a full day’s work occasionally and will see to it that we get the quality we need so that we can compete; and we will charge for that a reasonable amount to cover the profit of the people who are concerned in it. Nobody on this side of the chamber wants excessive profits for anybody. AH we want to do is maintain industry in a stable state so that it will give employment to people who Opposition members say they represent, although half the time they do not really represent them at all because they are encouraging them to go out of work and not receive wages. This is a completely ridiculous situation. I would like to adapt the words of the honourable member for Cunningham and say that this is a dishonest approach to the whole matter.

We on this side of the House believe in full employment for all of the people all of the time. The proposed new sections of the clause under discussion deal with whether conciliation commissioners are to refer to the Full Bench, if I might put it that way, matters concerning the public interest. Of course it is in the public interest to get the most that we possibly can out of industry. I have been spurred into entering this debate simply to correct the record and say that the honourable member for Cunningham is wrong in insinuating that the approach of this Government is dishonest. If anything, the position is the reverse.

Mr FOSTER:
Sturt

– Although I have spoken on this matter there is still one matter which concerns me and which I would like the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch) to spell out. Both last week and today we have covered a broad area of industrial relations as the Government sees them. In examining the proposed new sections now before the Committee one finds such references as the national economy and the public interest, with which 1 dealt to some extent before the suspension of the sitting. Mention also has been made of standard hours and conditions and these are subjects which appear in some of the proposed new sections under discussion. I would like to refer to the expressed desire of the Government to hand over to the Commission the agreements that are made between consenting parties on an industrial basis concerning unions and employers on the one hand or a group of unions and a group of employers on the other. The Minister no doubt would be aware of this because of his direct reference to it when answering questions in this House in the last 2 weeks. I refer to the agreement between certain waterfront unions and shipowners. I want to refer to provisions in that agreement such as retiring and pension benefits. I suppose that one can relate this to some other industrial organisations which have agreements in regard to pension schemes at both State and semigovernment levels.

As I read the proposed new sections under discussion there is nothing that does not indicate that the Government per medium of the Bench cannot have these conditions interfered with. I notice that the Minister is going through the document which I have been referring to for some considerable time and which I have told him before I could quote from. However, I will not take up the time of the House to do so. This legislation is limited now to some extent by the provisions of the Social Services Act. I want to know whether the Minister during the course of the passage of this Bill through the Committee stage can assure the House and industrial organisations, be they white collar or blue collar in character, at this point of time that there will be non-interference with certain conditions which have been arrived at by way of agreement and which deal with social matters. I refer to sick pay and in some certain areas medical benefits. It is not beyond the realm of possibility - in fact it has been mentioned before - that the trade unions will seek to have an agreement between themselves and a particular employer on medical benefits, travel concessions and, as I have already mentioned, retiring allowances. Mention has been made of including even educational benefits such as scholarships within the framework of industrial agreements. Already we have, of course, a wide variety of industrial organisations within the Commonwealth becoming increasingly concerned with credit. Perhaps I may just digress for a short time, Mr Chairman, if you will permit me; it is not very often I get any great latitude from the Chair, and I say that with all due respect. But the fact is that there is a danger in this Bill, as I see it, of all those things being interfered with. I think that a responsible Minister would rise and dispute what I am saying. He would say: That is not the intention of the Government’. If it is then not the intention of the Government, surely this Bill has to be more specific because one always has a suspicion that the Full Bench will endeavour to deal with matters perhaps beyond its ambit or its terms of reference, as it were. In addition, of course, there are other areas of concern. One that comes to mind is that this Government in a Bill which came before this House some 2 years ago saw fit to apply a different standard, if I may use that term, to credit unions than applied to other financial organisations. It did this in an attempt to protect the people whom honourable members opposite represent more than others. It was an attempt to protect that area which has been guarded and jealously looked after since 1951, if my memory serves me correctly, fringe banking institutions, which would have been endangered if credit unions had been included in that legislation.

I would also like to make some reference to the fact that once again on an election eve we have an industrial Bill before the House. I have a suspicion that this has been done by design, that this industrial legislation has been brought before the House on the eve of an election to meet the particular narrow thinking of the Government. I would like to go back to the question of public interest because a lot has been said about it. The thought occurred to me during the suspension of the sitting for dinner that we have a 13-man Cabinet in this place. However, if the Government is concerned about people being represented adequately and properly and is concerned about the public interest, why the devil does it not have representation in Cabinet for each of the States? The Minister for Labour and National Service can take interest now. As I understand it the Cabinet does not have any representative from Tasmania, Western Australia or South Australia. It is true that these States are represented in the Ministry. But clearly, those States do not have Cabinet representation, as distinct from Ministry representation. So we can say that Cabinet - and I notice that the Minister is shaking his head - cannot take into consideration the matter of public interest in the 3 States which I have mentioned.

In conclusion, the point I want to make is whether the Minister made his recommendations to the Cabinet or whether he made them to the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon). I want to know whether the Minister decided not to go along with this measure that is now before the House until he was over-persuaded by the Prime Minister in an attempt to stand over a number of Ministers and get the type of policy going that he thought would fit the occasion. Did the Minister pay any regard at all to what the Constitutional Review Committee had to say? The Committee covered a very wide area in 1959-61 at a cost to the taxpayer of possibly Sim. Much today has been said about the public interest I would have though that had the Minister or his ministerial colleauges given some real and proper thought and understanding they would at least have made some reference to the report of that Committee. I can see nothing in this Bill that deals with industrial relations or anything which comes anywhere near expressing any concern or providing protection for individual employees so far as automation is concerned. I draw the Minister’s attention to page 107, clauses 781 and 782 of the report of the Constitutional Review Committee of 1959.

What is in this Bill for industrial relations? Are we going to have a situation that is not covered by this Bill, other than by pains and penalty, similar to that which occurred in the La Trobe Valley earlier this year where people played petty politics in an industrial dispute? I can foresee grave industrial problems. To illustrate one, let me mention the automotive industry which employs 25,000 to 30,000 people and an equal number in support industries. If the automotive companies decided to shift their operations from Australia to the Philippines or completely to automate what would happen to about 200,000 people, taking into consideration wives and other dependants of their employees? The Government has no express plan. It says that it has a retraining plan but this is completely out of tune with this type of problem. There is nothing in this measure which would help. Here we are in 1972 with a Government saying that it has a plan for industrial relations which, if it does not completely ignore the problem, at least overlooks it. I cannot believe for the life of me that one can stand in the national Parliament of this country in 1972 and be told that this Government, after all the expert opinion it has sought from overseas, has not seen fit to mention one word about these facts that I have mentioned.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock:

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

Mr KILLEN:
Moreton

– I do not want to upset the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Foster) but I am bound to say that the only thing upon which I can congratulate him is the fact that he has alerted the Committee to the knowledge that this is 1972. Apart from that there was very little else that the honourable gentleman said that seemed to me to be in point. Since this Committee started to debate what I have described as a very technical and difficult measure I have sought to press upon the Committee one fact and that is that in consideration of the term ‘public interest’ we are dealing with one of the most elusive terms known to the law.

Mr Foster:

– I do not disagree with you on that point.

Mr KILLEN:

– I am delighted to have the honourable gentleman’s confirmation that he agrees with me but, having got it, I am bewildered as to why he has been so reluctant to agree with me openly. Public interest is not something which is susceptible to definition by way of political slogan. There is no shibboleth available to describe public interest. What I have tried to impress upon the Committee though regrettably, I admit, with some measure of failure on both sides, is that public interest is not something that lends itself to definition. That is why I have sought - I would hope with a tolerable measure of self effacement - to contend that it is the lawyer who at least has the discipline of training to reach out, grasp and say what are the elements today that make up public interest.

I can recall 8 years ago when the Trade Practices Act, or what passed for a Trade Practices Act, went through this Parliament. It referred to public interest and whenever there was some suggestion of an infringement of public interest some honourable members, the ‘hands up’ boys, were all in favour of protecting it. On that occasion I argued that public interest rests for its determination upon the body before which it is placed for adjudication. Here we are placed in what I have described as an intolerable situation. The Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch) is a man of immense goodwill and great indulgence in listening to argument on this point. Under proposed new section 28 there will be a layman, a conciliation commissioner, making the decision on what is public interest.

Mr Bennett:

– What is wrong with that?

Mr KILLEN:

– I say to the honourable member for Swan that public interest in terms of the layman’s approach can vary infinitely but in terms of the lawyer’s approach lends itself to the finding of some measure of agreement. This is the difference. I will not argue the matter any further but 1 want to say to the honourable member for Sturt, not with any sense of remorse or condemnation - I hope I did not put the dichotomy falsely this afternoon - .that this is the matter which divides us. The honourable member for

Burke (Mr Keith Johnson) - I must give him a commercial on these matters - took me back to the corn laws when dealing with this subject. I was not arguing this but I was arguing that there is a corporate responsibility in the community which must be acknowledged, heeded and taken into account whenever any decisions are made. I press the matter no further. I am much on the honourable member’s side in saying that whenever there is an opportunity for people’s wages and salaries to be increased in terms of the community’s capacity to pay he will hear no complaint from me.

I come now to this point of public interest to which I wish to direct the Minister’s attention in particular. Under proposed new section 28 if the conciliation commissioner takes the view that the public interest is involved, he says: ‘I will refer this matter to the full bench.’ It is a question of characterisation. If on the other hand the conciliation commissioner says: The consent order with which I am dealing does not involve public interest’, when in fact it does, who can take it before the full bench of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission? The Minister in his speech in December last year said:

The Government intends to provide that a full bench of the Commission must review a conciliated award or order it the Commonwealth refers an award or order on the issue of public interest.

I have heard the honourable member for Hindmarsh say repeatedly: “The AttorneyGeneral on behalf of the Commonwealth can intervene before the full bench’. This simply is not true. The Attorney-General, as I read section 36 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act and its proposed amendments, can intervene only when the matter is before the full bench. He cannot intervene otherwise. The only way in which the full bench of the Commission can deal with any matter is spelled out in proposed new section 31 of the Act. 1 ask the Minister: What if 2 parties agree to a consent award - take the case I cited this afternoon of the glass workers award - and both parties agree under whatever the circumstances may have been and the conciliation commissioners - and this is no reflection upon those who serve or will serve in that capacity - take the view that the public interest is not involved when in fact it is? The honourable member for Burke may say: ‘My understanding is that the public interest is involved. How does the Government get it before the full bench?’ In my view the Attorney-General can intervene only if the matter is before the full bench. I do not know whether that is a gap in the legislation. I do not take the slightest exception to hard argument. I have heard it whispered around the corridors by way of dull rumour that I indulge in it occasionally myself. If this is a deliberate decision by the Government to say: ‘We have abandoned the view that the the full Commission should have control over all matters’, so be it. I will not sit down and sob for a week; I have other things in mind. What I suggest to the Minister is that he can take these steps. The conciliation commissioner may make an award under section 28 and gives a certificate. I am sorry to spell it out with such staccato; perhaps might be granted a brief extension of time if I run out. The Commissioner certifies that he believes that the public interest is in no way involved, so the matter does not come before the Full Bench. Indeed, the Full Bench may never hear of it. The power under section 36 (1.) to intervene is available only when the matter is before the Full Bench. If the commissioner failed to refer or the Full Bench failed to apprehend and seize jurisdiction, the matter could go by without further action.

I suggest to the Minister that there should be in proposed section 35 a provision to this effect. The Full Bench shall have power to determine that a matter dealt with under section 28 of this Act is a matter exercisable by a Full Bench and not otherwise. I am sorry to have laboured the matter before the Committee, but I believe that this is a gap. Public interest is a matter which should be controllable in its broad sense by the Full Bench of the Arbitration Commission.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock:

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

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– I rise to take part in this debate again only because of the continued reference to me by my honourable and, I must add. learned friend, the esteemed honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen). It seems to me that all these clauses that we now are discussing come down to a matter of public interest. Twice today I have heard my very learned friend from Moreton endeavour to explain to this House how he justified the Government taking action in the public interest, yet he ‘has not done so. On 2 occasions he has risen to speak. He quoted case histories. By interjection he admitted that one cannot establish this rather vague public interest. Yet, he will support the Government and he will support the Minister in writing this principle into the Act.

Mr Webb:

– It is an act of God.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– As my colleague the honourable member for Stirling interjected, it is an act of God. Surely it is in the same category. It seems that anything that does not please the Government comes into the category of not being in the public interest. It seems to me to be as simple as that. I do not have the benefit of a degree at law. I have never been called to the Bar. I have never wore the silk. I remember the honourable member for Moreton saying that when it comes to a question of determining that which is in the public interest, only lawyers can do it properly.

Mr Birrell:

– Lawyers have a vested interest in a dispute. The longer it goes, the better.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– As I said earlier today, and I repeat the statement, I think that lawyers have a vested interest in starting disputes and a further vested interest in prolonging them. I think the public of Australia should reject the suggestion - the honourable member for Moreton went further than suggesting it - that only lawyers have some sort of prerogative in determining that which is in the public interest.

In the debate on this Bill last Thursday, I made the comment that there was no mystique about lawyers, other than the mystique that they created about themselves. Surely the question that we are considering is the question that confronts working people in this country - the problems between them and their employers. I think that this country has reached a pretty sorry state when a government of the political colour of the Government that sits opposite us in this House goes into the court, makes reference to matters that affect working people and those who employ them, and casts its political judgments upon something that surely is divorced from politics. Yet the honourable member for Moreton says that this is the way things should be. I apologise for repeating myself, but I do not think that the settlement of disputes takes place in the clinical atmosphere of a court.

The provisions that the Government intends to write into the Conciliation and Arbitration Act revolve around the notorious section 28 of the parent Act. That was never a good provision. Nobody from the trade union movement ever agreed that section 28 was of any value, yet the Government now. in a blatant attempt at union bashing, proposes to introduce to that bad section of the parent Act provisions which do not improve the Act at all but in fact make it worse. All this was raised earlier. 1 appreciate that the hour is getting late and 1 know that other honourable members have many things to say on this point. 1 compliment my colleagues on this side of the House who have made very valuable contributions to this debate. This matter is of importance to a large section of the community. We must be reminded that there are 4.5 million people in this country who work to produce the goods and provide the services that are required by the rest of the community.

Mr Cohen:

– The rest of them are lawyers.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– No. I do not think the rest of them are lawyers. Some of them are school teachers and others have all sorts of other jobs. But that 4.5 million people - I am speaking now of the male working population - have wives and children who are dependent upon them. Therefore, I would presume we are speaking of something like 9 million people out of a total population of 13 million people. It seems to me, and I have yet to be persuaded away from this argument, that anything that is in the best interests of those 9 million people surely is in the public interest. Is that not what we are talking about? Has the honourable member for Moreton not tried to persuade us that it should be a small minority - the 66 men of this great nation who sit on the other side of the House - that represents the public interest? The Government’s ideas of public interest are the interests of the Sir Frank Packers and companies such as Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd and other organisations which the Government represents. I can assure you, Mr Chairman, and every honourable member who sits on the other side of the chamber, that that is not my idea of public interest. My idea of public interest is that which affects the people who live in my electorate and in the electorates of other honourable members. As I have explained, these are the people who work and provide the goods and services for the rest of the community. That is the public interest. I support anything that is in their best interests.

I object to and will vote against these proposed amendments to the Act because, in my book, they are bad because they are not in the public interest. In my book, the public interest - I notice that the honourable member for Moreton is not interested enough in what I am saying to listen - is the Australian working community. I will support anything that I believe to be in their best interests and, as far as 1 am concerned, the Sir Frank Packers, the Sir Reginald Ansetts and those other mighty captains of industry of this country can go hang. That is what I consider them to be worth.

Mr JESS:
La Trobe

– I am sure that the electorate of Burke is impassioned by the speech which has just been delivered, but I think that the honourable member for Burke (Mr Keith Johnson) underestimates the intelligence of the members of his electorate. If he believes what he has just said, when he talked about the 9 million people and about the 4.5 million people he would realise that they are the public interest about which we are talking. The honourable members remarks sounded incredible to me. The honourable member made a lot of verbiage flow. He talked about Sir Frank Packer, the capitalists and everything else, but what else is the Government trying to protect except the 4.5 million workers, of whatever class they may be, and the 9 million people, of whatever class they may be. This debate has become a complete farce to listen to, because one hears a parrot cry from honourable members on the other side of the House, as if they had been wound up.

Honourable members opposite are not talking to the Parliament; they are talking to Joe and Bob at the Australian Council of Trade Unions. They are saying, in effect: ‘I am here Bob. I am putting it out. Look, the verbiage is flowing’.

However, let us refer back to the dispute which occurred recently in the Victorian State Electricity Commission. This has been referred to already. Was it regarded by the honourable member’s supporters in Burke as being in the public interest that, by the stupidity of one section of industry, they were put out of business and out of employment, and that they had their industries closed down because they could not operate. Was that considered to be in the public interest? I must admit that the honourable member’s voice was strangely silent at that time.

Is it considered to be in the public interest if some stupid arrangement is manipulated for the advantage of only one section of the community, with perhaps a selfish employer who is prepared to take advantage of the situation for his own good but to the detriment of the country and of other people in other industries? Is that in the public interest? Is that not what we are discussing now? Anyone who listened last night to what the honourable member for Lalor (Dr J. F. Cairns) said the Labor Party, if it ever gets into power, will do in the public interest, and considers that in association with what the Labor Party regards as being in the public interest, would say that it gives the public and the workers of this country room for a great deal of thought. It is fine for honourable members opposite to stand up in this chamber and whip off the verbiage. The honourable member for Cunningham (Mr Connor) talked about price freezing. We heard that lugubrious voice going forth to the workers who are throbbing in their homes listening to the great Labor leaders who have led them so gloriously over the last 20 years. Frankly, if the Labor Party does not know what is in the public interest it ought to sort itself out with those whom it claims to represent.

In conclusion, I agree with the point that the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) has just made. But before dealing with that point, let me say one other thing about the speech made by the honourable member for Burke. Nowhere is it provided in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act that the Government can walk into a court and demand or insist that a decision be made in the public interest. The court has to decide that. What the Opposition is saying is that the Government just tells the court that something is in the public interest or the Government decides that it shall be so. That is absolute rubbish. Recently we saw the Government make an appeal to the court which was rejected. If the court feels that a matter does not involve the public interest, it has a perfect right to say so.

The honourable member for Moreton said that a conciliation commissioner could decide, on what he is told by the 2 parties - the union and the employer - that a matter is not of any interest to the public, and other factors may not be considered. I agree with the honourable member that this matter should be examined. I will wait for the Minister to give an explanation concerning it. The matter may well have been covered; there may well be a point that we have not taken into account. But I trust that the Minister has an explanation which will be satisfactory to the honourable member for Moreton, because it appears to me that there is little occasion to waste an explanation on the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Foster) and the honourable member for Burke because so far they have not understood what one clause of the Bill means.

Mr BIRRELL:
Port Adelaide

– Until this evening I was under the impression that the prime objective of a Conciliation and Arbitration Act was to provide the best possible industrial relations between the work force and the employers of this country. This Bill, particularly in this clause, goes as far as is humanly possible in the opposite direction. I do not want to take up the time of the Committee, but I was intrigued by my friend the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Jess) who based his argument on the. recent dispute which involved the State Electricity Commission in Victoria. The fact is that if this Bill is passed in this form, it will set the scene for similar disputes. Anyone who is aware of what happened in the dispute involving the State Electricity Commission in Victoria knows full well that the dispute continued because the State Government refused to allow the Commission’s officers to negotiate a settlement of the dispute with the employers. That is the fact of the case. The dispute would have been concluded earlier but for the intervention of the Victorian Government which, like the Commonwealth Government, wants to stop negotiation. We cannot have a Conciliation and Arbitration Act that cuts off negotiation and passes the matter over to arbitration before proper discussions between the parties have been concluded.

Tonight we heard the honourble member for Moreton (Mr Killen) deal with the question of public interest. He is a learned gentleman; he is a lawyer. But I venture to suggest that no-one who heard him tonight had any better idea of what ‘public interest’ meant when he finished than when he started. He confused the issue right along the line. The fundamental basis of industrial relations is negotiation between the parties. They do not want anyone else there What happens if there is a dispute in a large industry? I will give an illustration. I refer to the time when the Victorian Government and, 1 think, the New South Wales Government passed legislation in respect of long service leave. A challenge was taken to the High Court and later to the Privy Council as to whether those governments had the power to pass the legislation. J belonged to an industry which was associated with employers who had part of their work force in New South Wales, part in Victoria and part in South Australia.

The situation was that Victoria and New South Wales has passed legislation in respect of long service leave, but anyone in those States who had spent many years in the industry and was getting near to the time when he was entitled to long service leave was promptly transferred to South Australia where the long service leave provisions did not apply. We negotiated with the companies concerned, and eventually agreed that if the Privy Council upheld the union’s case that the States’ legislation was valid, the companies concerned would apply the same terms and conditions to the people working under exactly the same award in South Australia, Victoria and New South Wales. What is wrong with that? But that could not be done under the sort of legislation we are considering tonight. We return to the old story that we are dealing with human beings on the employer side and on the union side. When all is said and done, most disputes in recent years have been caused by the intervention of the various governments, such as occurred in the dispute concerning the State Electricity Commission in Victoria. If we leave employers and unions to negotiate their troubles betwen them we will find that we will have better industrial relation concepts in Australia. On world standards industrial relations in Australia are pretty good. At least the Bank of New South Wales thinks that is the case because when it advertises overseas for migrants to come to Austeralia it refers to the great industrial relations set-up in Australia.

A lot has been said this afternoon and this evening about the question of public interest and the situation on the waterfront where the employers and the unions negotiated an agreement which resulted in reduced working hours and increased wages. My friend the honourable member for Moreton said that more people are involved than the 2 parties to the agreement. On his definition of public interest not only the Waterside Workers Federation and the employers are involved in that agreement; many other people in Australia are involved. He amplified that by saying that the agreement would result in increased freights which would rebound on the Australian public in the way of increased prices. 1 am prepared to say that that is possible. But the fact remains that in recent years, because of improved techniques, the output per waterside worker has increased out of sight. If the argument of the honourable member for Moreton is sound, freights should have decreased some years ago because of the reduced work force and increased productivity. But he is not interested in that; he says that public interest does not come into that. If the Government really wants to perfect an industrial relations concept in Australia, I suggest that it could write the Conciliation and Arbitration Act on the back of an envelope and trust to the goodwill and decency of both sides in the industrial field.

Mr HUGHES:
Berowra

– I have listened with great enthusiasm and interest to the debate that has taken place on this question of what is the public interest and to whom considerations of the public interest ought to be confided. Listening to the debate tonight I am reminded of some words rather wisely spoken by a judge of the 19th century - I think it was Mr Justice Byles - who said:

Public policy - which is the same as public interest - is a very unruly horse.

If there were an illustration-

Mr Foster:

– There would be more enlightened thinking since then.

Mr HUGHES:

– My thinking has advanced since then, yours has remained in the 15th century. If ever there was an illustration of the truth of the proposition spoken in the 19th century by Mr Justice Byles it has been proved in this House tonight because we have heard members on the other side of the House, and I fully respect their views, speaking about the public interest. 1 think of the honourable member for Burke (Mr Les Johnson) in this context. He said that the public interest is the interest of the people in his electorate, not the interest of the Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd or of some newspaper proprietor or of this person or that person. Other people might say that the public interest consists of the views of the people in the electorate of Berowra. I do not know. I have a possibly unhealthy, rather odd view that the public interest consists of something much more elusive than that which has sought to be denned tonight by the honourable member for Burke. The public interest in truth is something that basically is undefinable, even by my honourable friend from Grayndler (Mr Daly). Sometimes the definition of what is in the public interest has to be somewhat arbitrary. Sometimes this Parliament might be thought by a lot of people to be rather arbitrary in its definition, by majority view, of what is in the public interest. What I am trying to say is that the honourable member for Burke cannot have it all his own way. I do not have it all my own way because my views as to what the public interest might demand might appeal to me greatly but they might be totally wrong. They probably are wrong as views of other honourable members are wrong from time to time.

Unfortunately there are times when the decision as to what constitutes the public interest has to be committed to a body outside this Parliament, to a judicial body or to a conciliation commissioner - to someone who, whatever his human frailty, has cast upon him the responsibility of making a decision. I cannot see how, if human affairs are to be ordered in a responsible way, we can escape from that position. I think that we possibly do ourselves a disservice in talking too much, too widely, and too loosely about the public interest which must always remain one of the most elusive things that politicians, judges or people can ever talk about.

Mr WEBB:
Stirling

– We are discussing proposed new section 28. 1 quote sub-section (2.) of it to refresh the minds of honourable members. It states:

A Conciliation Commissioner shall refuse to certify a memorandum or make an award or order in accordance with this section if he is of the opinion that-

it is not in the public interest that he should certify the memorandum or make the award or order.

I draw attention to a point raised by the honourable member for the Australian Capital Territory (Mr Enderby) who challenged the Minister at the table to explain the conflict between that proposed new section and proposed new section 35 which states: (1.) In this section unless the contrary intention appears - (2.) An appeal lies to the Commissioner against - (3.) An appeal does not lie under the last prededing sub-section unless, in the opinion of the Commission, the matter is of such importance that, in the public interest, an appeal should lie.

I ask the Minister to reply to this point during the course of his remarks. I suggest to him that if he had replied earlier it might have shortened this debate considerably. I remember in the early days when I used to appear in court on behalf of the locomotive engine drivers’ union. If it was wanted to stop unions from getting something, public interest did not come into it. The employers would say that it was ‘an act of God’. For instance, if I asked for something for locomotive enginemen who were held up because of a washaway, the washaway was an act of God. If the char had caught alight and a truck or the train had been burned and delayed, the enginemen could not get their just entitlements because it was an act of God. The workers soon woke up to that and wanted to know whose side God was really on. Now we find there is reference mainly to public interest. I suggest to our friends opposite that public interest really depends on what government is in power and what judge or conciliation commissioner happens to be on the bench and what his leanings are. That is the extent to which public interest applies and I think that is what we have to consider on this occasion.

When I spoke in this debate earlier I started to quote from a very learned gentleman who, in his book ‘Better Employment Relations’ - because of the shortage of time I had the opportunity to say only a few words about him - mentioned public interest. He said:

Obviously the legislators were determined to have every regard for the public interest and, therefore, heed to the desirability of a coordination and consistency in respect of matters significant enough to affect the public interest. Accordingly they were of a mind to insist that the public interest should take precedence, where necessary, over the desire or need of a party for a prompt settlement of the dispute in which it or he is concerned. They make no attempt, however, to indicate even broadly what they mean or understand by ‘public interest’ or to supply criteria or guide material for its ascertainment. There is no denying that a definition of the expression ‘public interest’ is a task or requirement that involves considerable difficulty - a definition in absolute terms, it is safe to say, is impossible and even unwise, seeing that definition must always mean limitation. The term is relative and conditional conceptions of the public interest vary not only from person to person, but according to time and circumstance. Nevertheless the omission is calculated to introduce discrepancies in decisions that have to be taken before references and appeals can come before the Full Court for determination, and, on that account, to cause dissatisfaction. It is regrettable, therefore, that an objective standard of public interest was not in some measure at least made available.

That is the sole basis upon which this argument stands. It depends really on the people who are defining public interest and, to repeat what I said earlier, it depends on what government is in office, whether it makes submissions concerning what it thinks it is right for the court of conciliation and arbitration to do and what the judges of the court determine shall be done. So, in the final analysis, it all gets down to politics. 1 suggest that some definition, at least in the broadest sense if not in the narrowest sense, should have been attempted in this Act. I challenge the Minister now to answer the question that was raised by the honourable member for the Australian Capital Territory. This would, to a large extent, solve this matter.

Mr LYNCH:
Minister lor Labour and National Service · Flinders · LP

– I rise at this stage to refer to questions raised by the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) and the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Jess) who in their inimitable way have in a most forthright and vigorous fashion looked at .he question of giving the Commonwealth power to seek a review of conciliated awards. This, frankly, is the fundamental matter which both my colleagues have correctly identified as having been one of the initial proposals which was set down in a statement brought down in the House last December. The Government in seeking a response to the many representations which it had received was made very much aware of the strong opposition which existed to this proposal from all of the principal parties, as I recall it without exception.

The views put to the Government, which were views that the Government accepted, were views put on the proposition that such a proposal would in fact run counter to the objectives which we sought to serve; that it would induce the parties to conciliate outside the system, which of course was not the Government’s intention, and to that extent would be counter productive to the whole orientation and emphasis which in part is in the Bill now before us. What we would have seen, had the Commonwealth proceeded with that proposal, would have been parties negotiating fur more agreements outside the system without the Commonwealth having any power whatsoever to affect the matters which would be the subject of such agreements. The general philosophy has been this: We believe in seeking where possible to endeavour to encourage parties to conciliate their differences within the system and certainly in terms of that requirement which involves the public interest.

I will not deal with that question now for it has been properly identified by speakers on this side and 1 pay particular trfibute to the comments made by my colleague, the honourable member for Berowra (Mr Hughes), who drew attention to the dangers and the absurdity of seeking to define this term in any concrete sense. The Committee will be aware that part of the proposals in relation to the Bill includethe opportunities for parties who are respondents to the original award and who may not be involved in a wage negotiation which affects that award but who, because of their respondency to the original award to be affected, have the right to appeal to the Commission against that award and secondly on the question of public interest the Commission has power to certify that the matter is not contrary to the public interest.

So far as the final point queried by the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Webb) is concerned, I simply say this in brevity because of the time factor at this stage of the debate: There is no inconsistency in the provisions of the proposed new section 28, which relates to the certification of an agreement, and the proposed new section 35 which is concerned with whether an appeal should lie. In both cases the public interest is a factor that is taken into account but they are totally different circumstances.

May I, without any sense of offence to members on either side, remind honourable members on both sides that there was an agreement between the leaders of both parties that this Bill would be the subject of a final vote tonight by the hour of 12 o’clock. I say without offence that we have witnessed tonight - and I put this in the most pleasant possible way that I can - a series of speeches from honourable members who have been content to seek to repeat and restate what has been clearly and amply put before the Committee by other honourable members on their side. Frankly if this trend is to continue - and I put this on the basis that there has been agreement - the Government will have to consider applying the guillotine because the Government is determined that this matter will be the subject of a final vote before the House rises tonight.

Question put:

That the proposed new sections 28 to 31 be agreed to.

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

AYES: 58

NOES: 52

Majority 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Proposed new sections 32 to 35 - by leave - taken together.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The proposed new sections 32, 33, 34 and 35 give the Commission power to include in an award a bans clause or a clause relating to procedures for the settlement of disputes. They include also provision that in future it shall be mandatory upon a presidential member of the Commission to issue a prosecution certificate upon that certificate being applied for, except where the member is of the opinion that the dispute can be settled promptly without the issue of such a certificate. Of course, if a dispute is already in existence and men are on strike one might say that for all intents and purposes it will in future be mandatory for the prosecution certificate to be issued. When the prosecution certificate has been issued the employer need take only one more step in order to have a fine imposed upon the organisation concerned, as prescribed by section 119 of the Act.

In those awards which contain clauses providing that it shall be an offence upon each individual worker to cease work, the issue of a prosecution certificate will give to the Industrial Court power to impose upon individual workers a maximum penalty of $1,000. Where the provisions of an award treat each day of a dispute as a separate offence the court will have power to impose a maximum penalty of $500 a day upon each employee. The enormity of this is assessed fully when one reflects back to the 1964 General MotorsHolden’s Pty Ltd dispute which involved many thousands of workers and lasted for 15 days. The maximum amount which could have been imposed upon General Motors-Holden’s Pty Ltd on that occasion in the case of a lock-out was $7,500. However, the aggregate amount that could have been imposed upon the workers involved in a strike on that occasion was $2 12m. That is an indication of this Government’s conception of justice. Under these proposed sections the workers would have become liable to pay $2 12m but the employer, the rich overseas conglomerate of General Motors-Holden’s Pty Ltd would be liable to a total of only $7,500.

A feature of this Bill even worse than those to which I have referred has not yet been touched upon by the Minister. The proposed new sections we are now dealing with give the employer the right to seek a prosecution certificate from a judge of the Commission even though that employer has not bothered to notify the Commission of the existence of the dispute. This is something new and has absolutely no justification if one is intending to apply any degree of justice. 1 believe that the existing law made a previously bad law a little better, but it is still unacceptable to the trade union movement and ought to be unacceptable to anybody with any regard for the public interest. The former provisions allowed a presidential member of the Commission to grant a prosecution certificate which would attract to the persons the subject of the certificate the penalties to which I have referred but at least the judge had the right to have regard to the merits of the case. Under the proposed law the presidential member of the Commission will not be able to do that. As the law stands if the judge hearing an application for a prosecution certificate is of the opinion that the employer is at fault he may say that he believes the employer to be the one at fault and therefore has no right to ask for the issue of a certificate to prosecute the employees and for that reason he may refuse the application. However, under the proposed provisions he will not be able to do that.

I cannot, recall any case where the procedures for settlement of dispute clauses, which were thrashed out by the tripartite conference, have ever been put into an award other than by agreement, and it is right that that should be the position. Although these clauses have never been written into awards other than by agreement, still a large number have been written into awards and agreements. It was not generally realised by unions writing into their awards and agreements these procedures for settlement of disputes that the procedures were in fact a bans clause and that anybody in breach of the procedures for settlement of disputes were just as liable to penalties stipulated under section 119 of the Act as they would have been had they been working under an award containing a normal bans clause put into that award by the Commission itself. From now on it will be possible for the Commission not only to insert into awards normal bans clauses but also procedures for settlement of disputes which so far have been looked upon as merely voluntary provisions for award inclusion. We must get down to the fundamentals of the right to strike. The Government will say that there is nothing in the law to prohibit the right to strike. However, there is a catch. It becomes an offence for an employee’s representative or a union representative to incite people to strike or for him to advocate a strike, and is punishable under section 138 of the Act.

Once a bans clause is put into an award it becomes an offence for an organisation to support a strike. Moreover, it does not matter whether an organisation supports the strike.It becomes liable to a prosecution and a penalty even if the members of the organisation go on strike against the wishes of the management committee of the organisation concerned. So the Government is saying: ‘We cannot control strikes. The employer cannot prevent them. Now the union officials and the union have to carry the responsibility which we find we cannot carry. So unless you are able to prevent strikes you will be liable to the penalty stipulated in section 119’.

Nothing could be more unjust than that a union whose members are carrying on a strike against the union’s wishes, a strike which the management committee does not support, should be liable to prosecution and should be punished to the extent that proposed new section 119 entitles the court to impose punishment. This Bill is a most unjust Bill and a most unjust method of carrying out industrial relations. We will never cure industrial unrest by the measures which the Government proposes in this Bill. For 22 years the Government has demonstrated that it cannot control industrial unrest, and it will not do it this time. Until the Government gets down to the cause of industrial unrest we will always have industrial unrest.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock:

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

Mr KILLEN:
Moreton

– We are all in our various ways cast into strange roles on occasions but the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron) this evening is surely ill cast; not merely ill cast, but strangely cast. The strictures which the honourable gentleman has delivered against my colleague, the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch) and the Government in its corporate state regarding sanctions-

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I did not mention the Minister.

Mr KILLEN:

– Impliedly, you did. Even the dullest amongst us - I would be well to the forefront in the honourable member’s opinion - would agree with the view that the Minister was included. We could forget, who would try to forget, who would dare to forget the splendid occasion when the honourable member for Hindmarsh suggested that the one swift, sure, certain way in our miserable existence by which to cure all industrial unrest and disturbance was to fine every striking unionist $20 a day. I have a great deal of sympathy with my honourable friend. He pressed what seemed to me to be a desperately curious argument on that occasion. I went back to Brisbane and spoke to a trade union leader. I have told the Committee and the House that I enjoy - I hope command - the friendship and the acquaintance of many trade union leaders. I have said that I act for them professionally. I am delighted to count them amongst my friends. On this occasion I spoke to one whom, with a measure of utter uncertainty, I would hesitate to describe as being a close confidant of the honourable member for Hindmarsh. I am speaking now of Mr Edgar Williams of the Australian Workers Union. I have had a long association with the AWU, not merely sweeping the floor of a factory, let me assure the honourable member for Hindmarsh, but sweeping the board in a shearing shed, and indeed on some occasion bathing in the luxuriant waters of the Condamine.I said to Mr Williams - I am sure that Mr Williams would not regard this as being any infringement of personal conversation - ‘What do you think about all this?’ He said to me with what Kipling would have described as being a webbed and inward turning eye, when I mentioned the honourable member for Hindmarsh-

Mr Keogh:

– He is cross-eyed.

Mr KILLEN:

– No. On the contrary, he would pick you out in the dark. He said: Jimmy, go and have a look at the “Worker” of 29th November 1971’. 1 said: ‘Edgar, what do you think I will find there?’ He said: ‘Oh, you will find something that is quite interesting’. I went and got the ‘Worker’. I am bound to tell the honourable gentleman - I hope it does not embarrass the ‘Worker’, the AWU, those who produce the ‘Worker’ of those who send it out - that I get it each week under certified mail.

Dr Patterson:

– On the free list.

Mr KILLEN:

– No. On the contrary, 1 subscribe to it each week and, if I may say so, I am glad to subscribe to it, even on occasions to read some mildly derogatory things about myself. In this issue he referred to the splendid arrangement of the honourable member for Hindmarsh when he said: Twenty dollars a day, boys, if you are out on strike under the directions of the shop steward’. I try to be temperate in my views.

Mr Kelly:

– Charitable, too.

Mr KILLEN:

– I try to be charitable, too, and I am indebted to the honourable member for Wakefield for reminding me of what is one of my major deficiencies. I also try to be broad-minded, but when I read what was said of the honourable member for Hindmarsh I was embarrassed. Let me inform the Committee of what was said. I am bound to do this, because I cannot imagine the honourable member for Hindmarsh sitting up at night panting with excitement, reading the ‘Worker’. I want to quote what was said regarding sanctions. Mr Williams described an Australian Council of Trades Unions meeting in very robust terms. I am a great admirer of Mr Williams. He knows how to speak and you know where you stand with him, literally on everything. He said this:

At that meeting it was made clear by myself that it would be ludicrous on the one hand to advocate the removal of penalties from the Act and on the other hand agree to such or similar penalties being entered into by private agreement.

Who said that there should be penalties? The honourable member for Hindmarsh did. He said that a $20 penalty should be imposed. Who described it as ludicrous? One of the most distinguished members of the Labor movement in Australia, a person who has an association with the Labor movement stretching back over 40 or 50 years. I do not want to embarrass my friend, Mr Edgar Williams, but he went on to say this:

And if any union did this without the consent of their members they deserve to run into the chastisement that certain prominent politicians are running into today.

I do not know whether the honourable member for Hindmarsh ran into any chastisement on the matter. There are occasions when a few of us take the view that it would be a pity he did not run into a brick wall. I mention that not by way of indulging in any political acrimony, because

I withdraw from that, as the Committee knows; but I am just trying to point out to the honourable member for Hindmarsh that when it comes to the crunch, when he is placed in the position of assuming a measure of responsibility he is bound to acknowledge the fact that no matter what the merits of the law may be, in order to support it and defend it against infringement and destruction, he must be prepared to have a system of sanctions. I think it was in my speech on the second reading that I pressed upon the House that 1 acknowledged readily the fact that people resile from having a system of punishments. 1 also contended that whenever we have a system of punishments, whenever we have powers which are misused, men will ultimately say: ‘These are no longer to be dignified as powers. These are burdens and we will not be prepared to shoulder them.’ That is why I say to the Government unblushingly - and that is why, if I may, say to those who are called upon to administer this legislation: ‘You cannot abuse it, because the very moment that you abuse it you bring into being the prospect of its own destruction’.

May I remind the honourable member for Hindmarsh of what a Labor Government did in 1947 to the then Arbitration Court. It brought that Arbitration Court into existence as a court of superior record. For what purpose? To issue injunctions on any union official who appeared before it and treated with contempt its injunctions. What was the penalty? May I remind the honourable gentleman that memory is a rather imperfect vehicle. Happily, the records are not. On 12th March 1947 in this House the right honourable member for Barton, the late Dr Evatt, said:

The Bill retains all the methods provided for in the existing Act for securing the acceptance and the observance of awards. One extreme view, presented by a section only of employers, was that all the penalty clauses which were repealed by the Scullin Government in 1930 should now be restored. This view we have rejected, lt was not put forward by all employers, but by a section of them. Equally we have rejected suggestions that all existing disciplinary powers of the court itself should be eliminated. The existing provisions relating to the deregistration of organisations, the secret ballot under court orders, the cancellation and suspension of awards and the enforcement of sanctions inserted in awards are therefore retained.

Does the honourable member for Hindmarsh rise in this Committee tonight and say that the late Dr Evatt was ill informed in 1947 when he said in simple, straightforward language: You cannot have a system of law unless you are prepared to have the sanctions behind it to defend it and, if need be, to enforce it?

Mr JACOBI:
Hawker

– I want to ask the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch), following the rather erudite and verbose speech by the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen)-

Mr DONALD CAMERON:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Now!

Mr JACOBI:

– Well, that is what it was. The honourable member for Moreton swallowed Dickens for tea. Let us get down to the stomach of the Bill. I ask the Minister: Is it a fact that the employer has the right under the provisions of this clause of the Bil] to bring on a prosecution before the presidential bench without the presidential bench going into the merits of the case? Is that the position? That is the stomach of this clause. Can I have an acknowledgement from the Minister? Is this the factual position? Let me enlighten the honourable member for Moreton and give him a specific case. It is possibly hypothetical but it certainly could operate in the federal jurisdiction. A foreign owned dredging company in Australia brought out a bucket dredge from Great Britain. How it ever met Board of Trade requirements in the United Kingdom I will never know. A private agreement was struck between the company and the union. It reached the stage where it finished its area of operations and was due to go to a port in New South Wales tor tie up and survey. The men wanted extra money to take the vessel from point A to point B. The company refused point blank to negotiate with the employees concerned and insisted on union representation. The union officials found when they arrived on the ship that it was unseaworthy. In my view, it would never have complied with Commonwealth or State Marine Acts. Let us imagine that the men refused to take the vessel to sea. Am I to understand and assume that under the proposed section an employer could go straight to the presidential bench and ask for a prosecution against the employees, without any consideration of the merits of the facts leading up to the case? Is this the position?

Mr Killen:

– In my view, no.

Mr JACOBI:

– I am asking the Minister whether it is the case.

Mr KILLEN:
MORETON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I am sorry; I have not been elevated.

Mr JACOBI:

– Let me tell the honourable member for Moreton that the result of that case was that the ship went to sea and every man on board bar one lost his life. In my view, if this is what the Act provides, it is highly reprehensible and should not be tolerated. I want an assurance from the Minister that in cases of industrial disputes, if they go to a presidential member no injunction, no order and no prosecution will lie until such time as the factors leading up to the dispute have been thoroughly thrashed out.

Mr COPE:
Sydney

– I. think that the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) hurt the feelings of my colleague the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron) very much indeed. Of course, everybody has committed some indiscretion in the past, and 1 would like to refer to the fact that in 1961 the honourable member for Moreton was returned to this Parliament on Communist Party preferences. He was responsible for the Menzies Government being returned to power. We all recall that we had to wait about 3 weeks for the result and, while the then Prime Minister was pacing up and down bis study, the suspense was ‘kill in’. The facts are, of course, that in 1961 Mr Menzies was returned as Prime Minister of this country by the election of the honourable member for Moreton and by Communist Party preferences. At that stage the Prime Minister referred to the honourable member as the ‘Magnificent Killen’. He has never lost that sobriquet. Tonight I thought he was brilliant. As a matter of fact, I thought he would have beaten Peter Falk for the Academy Award in the United States of America any day of the week.

I agree with the point of view put by my colleague the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi). He put a case which I think is unanswerable. We do want an answer as to what this clause really means and as to whether people can be prosecuted by the owner of a vessel. These are the things we must learn. We must be told by the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch) what they really mean. If they are put into effect what would it mean to the trade union movement in this regard? I repeat that the honourable member for Moreton has hurt the feelings of my colleague the honourable member for Hindmarsh and I hope that it will not happen again during the course of this debate.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– The clause we are discussing deals with the notorious sections 109 and 111 of the parent Act. These are generally known as the penal provisions. I agree entirely with the comments of my colleague from South Australia the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi) who said that there is always a danger in arbitral actions that where men who have taken what honourable members opposite like to regard as industrial action the matter could well involve a question of safety. It is true that from the Government side there has been only one speech, and that was from the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen). J suppose he amused us with his quotations, as he generally amuses us, but in his usual inimitable fashion he did not say anything. He used a lot of words but said nothing. He did say on one occasion that he unblushingly said something or other. I would be delighted to hear of the situation in which the honourable member for Moreton would blush. It would probably make a wharf labourer blush. Towards the end of his speech he quoted comments made by the late and most revered Dr Evatt. He has decided to justify-

Mr Killen:

– I am sorry. I apologise for my apparent discourtesy.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– No, that is all right. He quoted from comments made by the late and most revered Dr Evatt. Indeed his conservative colleagues who sit around him invariably do refer to past events. The Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) also is sitting on the front bench at the moment. I have heard him quote in this chamber documents written in 1947 and 1949 and endeavour to convince us that the opinions expressed in them are applicable to contemporary society. I cannot be persuaded by that sort of argument. This is 1972. There are circumstances existing in 1972 that did not exist in 1947 or 1949, which I remind the Committee were about 25 years or a whole generation ago. As I have said, the circumstances that existed in those times are not applicable in 1972. So where is the validity in honourable members opposite taking themselves back into the past and dragging out these matters from their archives?

The Minister for Social Services quoted from a letter written in 1947 and tried to relate it to a recent industrial dispute in Victoria. For the life of me, I cannot be persuaded that there is any relevance in this. The platform of the Australian Labor Party, of which I am very proud to be a member, implacably says that there shall be no penal provisions. That is the chapter and verse; there is no equivocation.

Mr DONALD CAMERON:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– That is good enough for you.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– The honourable member who interjected may not be prepared to support the policy of his Party, in the odd places that it does have a policy, but I am quite prepared to support the policy of my Party all along the line.

Mr Giles:

– Does the honourable member ever think?

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– Perhaps that is more than the honourable member for Angas has ever done in the time he has been in this chamber. I believe that the penal provisions are bad. They are in the legislation for one reason and for one reason only, that is to make a particular section of the community - one may say a very large section - do things whether they wish to or not. Under these provisions they will be made to do these things. The Government and its supporters are displeased if they do not do these things. Why are the supporters of the Government disappointed and aggravated if the working people of this country do not do these things?

The Government will try to justify the inclusion of penal provisions by saying that the non-implementation of these provisions would have a deleterious effect on the economy of this country. I would suggest that this would have a more deleterious effect on the pockets of those who make a profit from every hour worked by the working people of this country. This is the reason why the penal provisions were introduced.

The legislation has been introduced to impose fines, not only on organisations but on individuals to ensure that they go to work, whatever that expression means, stay there for a set number of hours and during the course of a year enjoy only conditions that are given to them after a good deal of negotiation. If the working people choose to withdraw their services and refuse in effect to sell their commodity - that is their labour - this Government intends to come down by way of heavy handed legislation to impose fines to the tune of $1,000 a day on an individual and $500 a day on organisations to ensure that workers provide their commodity.

I have tried to draw the following analogy before in the House and I repeat it to this Committee. If any employer, manufacturer or any person who provides services in this community found that it was unprofitable to make these goods or provide these services and decided he no longer would remain in that sort of business no matter how much those goods and services were needed by the community, this Government would not take a stand anywhere at all to ensure that these goods or services were provided. The Government would say that if goods or services were unprofitable to provide it was part of the free enterprise or market system that one could make one’s own choice about whether to provide them. But what happens when a working man or group of working men take a free decision not to provide their commodity or services - that is their labour. They are driven to work with whips. They are dragged before the courts. They are fined and bludgeoned into providing the only service or commodity that they can sell - that is their ability to labour.

This Government and governments of the same colour across the world traditionally have done this to working people. The current legislation is bad. It is bad in the eyes of the trade union movement, the Labor Party and the people of this country. Now this Government intends to compound that which is bad by adding to it to make it worse. There is not a trade union official in this country who would not tell us how restrictive and how bludgeoning were sections 109 and 111 of the Con ciliation and Arbitration Act. Yet this Government has now introduced proposals not to improve the situation but to make it worse. It intends to leave working people in the position in which orders can be issued against them. Little inquiry is to be made into the circumstances surrounding each case. There is to be a de facto case that the working people are guilty. If that means anything to my honourable friend the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen), I am sure that he would agree with me that there is no inquiry in the first instance as to who is or is not guilty. An order is issued on the application of an employer and that order restricts working men in their actions. No inquiry is held at that stage to determine whether the order is good or bad or whether the circumstances are just or unjust. It is simply an order issued by the court on the application of an employer. The investigation takes place later, although the fines commence from the day that the order is issued. There is no investigation as to why that order ought or ought not to be issued.

I can well understand the look of amazement on the face of the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Donald Cameron) because I am quite sure that he is unaware of these provisions. He has not been involved and does not know that this is the situation that confronts working people in this country. The proposals are bad and they must be rejected by this Committee. The Committee must report to the House that it cannot agree with these proposals and they must be thrown out in their entirety.

Mr LYNCH:
Minister for Labour and National Service · Flinders · LP

– The honourable member for Burke (Mr Keith Johnson) has drawn a very long bow indeed in talking about this matter in impassioned terms. My colleague the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) at great pains and with great effect spoke earlier in this debate on the sanctions policy which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) and the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron) announced not so very long ago.

Mr Foster:

– Why does the Minister not answer the interjection that was just made by the honourable member for Hawker?

Mr LYNCH:

– I can understand why the honourable gentleman is very upset.

Mr Foster:

– I am not upset.

Mr LYNCH:

– One would like to tranquillise the honourable member but that would really be asking for too much. One understands how very upset the Opposition members must feel on this occasion when they are reminded of the metamorphosis which they have undergone on this issue during the course of recent months. As there has been discussion in this debate on the question of double standards and double thinking, let the Opposition recall that only some months ago its chief spokesman on industrial relations was prepared to bring down a policy which said that unionists would be subject to a $20 fine. This is not something that is consistent with the views pf this Government. Between then and this debate there has been a metamorphosis. Of course, that has been due entirely, as the honourable member for Burke is so very well aware - and let him not draw the long bow-

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– I want to know what that word means.

Mr LYNCH:

– I understand how upset the honourable gentleman becomes over these matters. I do not want to soothe him unduly but he should recall full well what was the policy stated by the Opposition at that time. It was repudiated because of logic and lt was repudiated because of representations. And if there were representations, and the honourable gentleman says that there were, they were pressures from the left wing of the industrial movement.

Within 48 hours of the policy being announced as a major plank of the Opposition’s approach to the fundamental questions of industrial relations, that policy was totally withdrawn. I know it was not at the behest of the Opposition’s chief spokesman on industrial matters, a man for whom I have very high regard. We know that he agrees with the policy of sanctions because he is a realist in the industrial jurisdiction. He and no doubt some other Opposition members are well aware that a system of industrial law without some form of sanctions is a system which is totally ineffective. That explains why when one looks back on the whole history of arbitration in this country, back to 1904, there has not been a period in which there was not some form of sanction in the Act. The government of which Dr Evatt was a member refused to withdraw them in 1947. They happened to be a feature of the Labor administration and I recall that a great Labor Premier of New South Wales, the honourable J. Cahill, a man for whom presumably the Opposition would exercise a note of high regard, was a man who believed fundamentally in the need for sanctions. When one looks at any of the industrial jurisdictions around the world, at the recent British legislation, at what happens in New Zealand, the United States of America and practically any other country that comes to mind, it is clear that sanctions are an integral form of industrial jurisdiction.

There were other questions raised in relation to the application of new sections. Proposed new section 32 continues the approach adopted by the 1970 Act, that is, that the seeking of a bans clause in awards is such an important process and places such firm obligations upon organisations if it is to be granted that it warrants consideration by a presidential member of the Commission and certainly no-one else. This illustrates the Government’s firm but restrained approach to this important question of the application of sanctions. The Government is wedded to the principle of sanctions in the Act but recognises that every opportunity should be given to settle disputes by the traditional processes of conciliation and arbitration. In other words, sanctions are a last resort and the Government has made this perfectly clear over a long period of time. When an application for a bans clause comes before a presidential member of the Commission the nature of the hearing is such that every opportunity will be given to the parties to resolve their differences and avoid the making of a bans clause if they are prepared to act with good will and in the best interests of their members. A bans clause is the first step in the application of sanctions provisions. It provides the opportunities to which I have made reference. If an organisation acts sensibly it need not be taken any further along the road to the imposition of a penalty under section 119.

But if the attitude of the offending organisation is such that the Commission has no alternative but to insert a bans clause, the steps towards the final phase of the imposition of a penalty quicken but not such as to make the question of punishment inevitable.

There is interposed before the imposition of penalty the process of proposed new section 33 to which the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi) made reference. This also maintains the concept of the 1970 amendments. Again every opportunity is given to an organisation to use the processes of conciliation and arbitration. The section recognises that only a presidential member of the Commission may deal with it and this is further recognised by the fact that the presidential member will have the powers of both conciliation and arbitration. This is a significant departure from the new scheme of the Act. But that it is such a departure once again establishes the Government’s firm yet restrained approach to this whole question. There is one significant change which is made in the proposed new section 33. Whilst it gives wide discretion to the presidential member as to how he will deal with applications under section 33, he is obliged to issue a certificate and so open up proceedings in the industrial court where conduct in the form of strikes or bans is taking place notwithstanding all his best efforts to bring about a cessation of that conduct.

In summary, what section 33 provides is as follows: Firstly, that no penalty action for a breach of a bans clause can be taken in the court unless the alleged breach is notified under section 33 and a certificate is issued by a presidential member; secondly, that when a notification is received, the presidential member is to inquire into the matters alleged in the notice, attempt to stop conduct occurring if it has commenced or is threatened, and issue a certificate as to such conduct unless he is satisfied that a prompt settlement will be effected or that the conduct is about to cease; thirdly, where conduct has ceased but a certificate is asked for, a presidential member is to inquire into the matters alleged in the notice and shall not issue a certificate if he thinks that to do so would be undesirable having regard to the circumstances in which it ceased or the terms of settlement that were arrived at. With specific reference to the question raised by the honourable member for Barker, I direct his attention-

Mr Killen:

– You mean the honourable member for Hawker. He is not the Minister for Immigration.

Mr LYNCH:

– I thank my colleague for the significance of his interjection. I direct the attention of the honourable member for Hawker to proposed new section 33 (3.) in which he will find that the merits of the case are certainly to be the subject of consideration. The sub-section states:

Where a notice has been duly given under the last preceding sub-section, a Presidential Member shall inquire into the matters alleged, in the notice and, if it appears to him that there was good ground for the notice. . . .

In inquiring into those matters of necessity the merits of the case would be considered. The Government regards this as a’ vital area of the legislation and certainly ‘ strongly supports the clauses which are before the Committee.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I want to correct something which my gallant and learned friend - learned anyhow - the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) said. He said that Dr Evatt put strike penalties into the Act or that he refused to take them out; it does not matter which. The history df this ma tter is as follows and I am drawing on a paper that I wrote some time ago after researching the matter thoroughly. From; 1930 till at least 1947 there were absolutely no penal clauses. Occasionally, but very occasionally, a provision was made in an award imposing obligations on organisations and in these cases the penalty then provided under the Act, namely a fine of £100,: could be imposed for a breach of the award. The offences would not be continuous offences, incurring daily penalties, as is now the case. The first occasion when penal powers reappeared was in 1947 as a result of the 40-hour week case. When the 40-hour week was introduced the arbitration court provided that reasonable overtime should be worked and that an organisation should not be concerned in any ban on overtime. This was said to be a temporary measure only. When one looks at volume 59 of the Commonwealth Arbitration Reports at page 609 one will see the specific reference and indications given by the court at that time. The breach of that provision could make an organisation liable to a penalty. But the penalty was £100.

In 1951, on the application of employers, the court introduced bans clauses which it then held were punishable in the event of a breach by use of the powers defined, namely, prison for contempt. It should be noted that the present President of the Commonwealth Commission, Sir Richard Kirby, was a dissenting member of the Bench which made that decision. Among the comments that he made was this:

I am not convinced that the Court should convert offences which are not in themselves in the nature of contempt into contempt for the purpose of obtaining a jurisdiction which it otherwise doss not possess.

So, one wlD see that even up until that stage - 1951 - the Court obtained its power to punish strikes through its contempt powers and not from any other specific powers. Mr Justice Kirby, in reference to another point made by the employers, said:

Nevertheless, to my, mind, it would be calamitous if their presence in awards-

That is. the bans clause in awards - were used as a means of imposing unlimited penalties,-

That is what contempt powers give a court, or did at that time give a court - in glaring contrast with the extremely limited scale laid down in the Act, on such Unions as commit and continue breaches of them.

Mr Justice Foster expressed part dissent, and the then Chief Justice, Sir Raymond Kelly and, of course, Mr Justice Dunphy approved the insertion of the bans provisions in the clause.

However, since that time, the extension of the clauses has been largely by the courts and not by the Parliament, with some belated legislative action subsequently taken to endeavour to patch up the, difficulties which were being created by the Courts’ insertion into awards things which the Court was not authorised by the Act to do. In the metal trades case which went to the High Court of Australia and which is reported in volume 82 of the Commonwealth Law Reports at page 208, the High Court, in considering bans clauses and the then state of the Act, considered an order that the union concerned should cause its members to work overtime, and in other judgments pointed out that this was far beyond any provision in the award or any Act at that time, and that the only requirement to be found in the award was that the organisation should not be a party to a ban. Subsequently, sections 29 (b) and (c), as they then stood, were amended to enable contempt proceedings to be taken for a breach of award, as well as of the Act. Later, as everyone knows, section 111 was added which gave the previous power to fine organisations $1,000 for failing to comply with an order of the Court. Quite plainly, Dr Evatt did not put into the Act the specific power of the Court to impose strike penalties. The imposition of strike penalties was secured by judicial act - by judge-made law. If you like, it was secured by stealth - not by a deliberate decision of this Parliament, as the honourable member for Moreton tries to imagine.

I refer in passing to what my honourable friend said about the question of enforceable industrial agreements.

Before I do mention that subject, as time may cut out on me, I categorically deny the assertion made by the Minister that I agree with the Government’s policy on strike sanctions. I never have agreed with it and I challenge the Minister to quote any statement that I have ever made anywhere at any time, saying that I agree with strike sanctions being applied to people who refuse to accept work in accordance with the immediate requirements of the award. What I did say, what I still say and what I always will say, is that where freely negotiated voluntary industrial agreements are reached between unions and the employers it is the duty of the unions and the employers to honour those agreements. Where the unions decide, with the consent of their members, to incorporate into the agreement enforcement provisions, it is proper that those enforcement provisions shall apply.

The Meat Industry Employees Union already has those kinds of enforcement provisions written into its agreements. They have worked and the. penalties imposed upon the employees for a breach of agreements are applied. The result is that the workers are .10 per cent better off than they could have been under the award. There are very few strikes now in this most turbulent of all industries because the unions officials are honouring their compact. Union officials are not people who repudiate freely negotiated voluntary agreements. It is an absolute lie and a distortion of the facts for anybody to say that union officials repudiate their agreements. Of course they do not. This would apply even to Mr Edgar Williams, whose organisation has signed agreements which attract from the Act the savage penalty incorporated within the Act - the $1,000 penalty contained in section 119. I do not think anybody could accuse Mr Williams of being a person who would break his word to the employers.

Mr Killen:

– No; nor to anybody.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– He would never break his word to the employers. Once he told the employers, ‘If you like to make this agreement with me., I will see that my members honour it’, Mr Williams would carry out his word, no matter what the agreement provided for. It would not matter whether the agreement was a good or a bad one; he would honour it and see that his members stuck by it. So, it is ridiculous to suggest that Mr Williams is against incorporating enforcement provisions into agreements. His union makes agreements of that kind every year and the honourable member for Moreton knows it.

The Australian Labor Party policy is not in shreds, as the honourable member said. The Australian Council of Trade Unions has stated quite clearly that where unions make agreements under its auspices, the ACTU will see that the agreement is carried out. The Townsville meeting of the Federal Executive of the Australian Labor Party supported my concept of industrial agreement, saying that where unions recommended to their members that agreements should contain enforcement provisions and the members agreed to those enforcement provisions, that was a matter for the. unions themselves to determine. It is their business and of course they are bound by whatever they agree. That is what I have said. I have said it all along. I say it now, and that will be the policy on which we will fight the election. It is a policy that will work, but the Government’s policy - this stupid policy that we are now debating - just will not work any better than it has over the last 22 years.

Motion (by Mr Lynch) put:

That the Question be now out.

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

AYES: 54

NOES: 48

Majority . . . . 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Proposed new sections 32 to 35 agreed to.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 14 and 15 - by leave - taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 16.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The Opposition opposes this clause which deals with public interest and the national economy. I can speak only for myself on this matter, but I do not intend to rehash the whole question of public interest and national economy. However, we will be calling for a division and voting against this clause.

Mr WEBB:
Stirling

– This clause seeks to amend section 39 of the Principal Act, which is a very important section, by adding the following new subsection: (2.) In proceedings before the Commission under section thirty-one, section thirty-four or section thirty-five of this Act, the Commission shall, in considering the public interest, have regard, in particular, to the state of the national economy and the likely effects on that economy of any award that might be made in the proceedings.

This is an unwarranted extension of the Government’s right to intervene in matters that it considers to be of public interest. It can only lead to the frustration of the processes of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. It will create delays and impose additional expense on employees and employee organisations. This Bill, in effect, envisages agreements and even minor awards being subjected to hearing by the full bench of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission at the behest of this Government. This fact, coupled with the Government’s policy of wage and salary freezing, and the unlimited right of manufacturers and retailers to increase prices, will place employees, particularly those represented by unions which adhere to the ordinary processes of conciliation and arbitration, in an impossible position. The proposed new sub-section is an extension of section 31 (3.) of the present Act which states, inter alia, that the arbitration authority may refuse to certify if it is of the opinion that it is not in the public interest that an agreement should be certified. I again refer to the question: Who is to define ‘public interest’? One would consider that to keep people at work at reasonable rates of pay and conditions of employment would be in the public interest.

I draw attention to what I said only a few minutes ago. Public interest has now become the important part of this Act. It is not easy to define what is the public interest. As I said before, at one time acts of God were used to stop workers from receiving their just rights. It used to be said that God was on the side of the biggest battalions; now he is on the side of those people who have the control and the authority in this Parliament and the judges of these courts. This is what the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch) had to say in his second reading speech in regard to the question of the Commission having to pay regard to economic consequences:

I have already emphasised the implications that decisions of the Commission can have for the national economy. Therefore, the Bill proposes an amendment of section 39 of the Act to ensure that, when the Commission is constituted to deal with appeals and references and with the reserved matters under the new section 31, it shall, in considering the public interest, have regard in particular to the state of the national economy and the likely effects on that economy of any award that it might make.

I say that the Government simply is passing the buck. Section 39 of the principal Act is to be amended by adding a new sub-section (2.) which, inter alia, states: . . the Commission shall, in considering the public interest, have regard, in particular, to the state of the national economy and the likely effects on that economy of any award that might be made in the proceedings.

This is an unwarranted extension of the Government’s right to intervene in matters that it considers to be of public interest. It will create delays and additional expense to the employee and employer organisations. The provision seeks to place the Commission in the position of giving undue weight to economic considerations, even when a just and reasonable case has been advanced for improvement in wages and salary standards or in working conditions. It places the Commission in the invidious position of having to assess the future of the economy, which is something that the Government could not do as was revealed by the last Budget and the shifting ground since then by the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) and the Treasurer (Mr Snedden). It will have a restrictive influence on the Commission in its efforts to come to a just and reasonable decision in accordance with the evidence before it. The Government is seeking to make the Commission assume responsibility for the overall economy - a responsibility that obviously is one that can be properly exercised only at government level. It is asking the Commission to do the Government’s dirty work.

The Commonwealth’s appearance in the national wage case was not in the public interest, as the Government claims, but in its own political interests. That is why it appeared before the Commission. It tries to shift the responsibility for economic control and unpopular measures away from itself to the Commission. The function of controlling the economy is surely the duty of the Government, not of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The primary role of the Commission is to settle industrial disputes, not to manage the economy. The Government has shirked its responsibility for controlling the economy. In 1959 the Joint Committee on Constitutional Review advocated a widening of the economic powers of the Commonwealth, but here again the Government failed to act. The Government shirked its responsibility by putting to one side that review of constitutional reform.

The Commission always states that it looks at the whole of the evidence placed before it on any matter on which it has to adjudicate and makes its decision in the light of that evidence. Without doubt, when the Government makes submissions to the Commission, as it did in the recent national wage case, the Commission gives weight to the economic evidence placed before it, but the degree of the weight depends upon the material presented as a whole, and I think undue weight was given to the submissions of the Commonwealth Government in this recent wage case. The Bill seeks to insert into the Act provisions to place the Commission in the position of giving undue weight to economic considerations, even when a just and reasonable case has been advanced for improvements in wages and salary standards or working conditions. Further, it places the Commission in the invidious position of having to assess the future of the economy, a most difficult task as the Government has found out. The last Budget and the results flowing from it show clearly that the Government, even with the expert advice that was available to it, was unable to read the future of the economy and this is amply demonstrated by the shifting ground of the Prime Minister and Treasurer in recent months.

The major effect of the proposed change is that it will have a restrictive influence on the Commission in its efforts to come to a just and reasonable decision in accordance with the evidence placed before it. The Government is seeking to make the Commission take responsibility for the overall economy of this country, a responsibility that obviously can be properly carried out only by the Government if it has the guts to do it.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– In line with other clauses included in this Bill clause 16 is a restrictive provision. It does nothing to move Australia to the position that the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Lynch) assured us was the aim of the Bill in his second reading speech, namely, of improving industrial relations in Australia by moving in a spirit of conciliation and of settling disputes, not aggravating them. Clause 16 states:

Section 39 of the principal Act is- amended by adding at the end thereof the, following sub-section: .-.

Perhaps I could digress at this stage and, for the benefit of the Committee, quote section 39 of the principal Act which states:

In relation to an industrial dispute, with which the Commission is dealing, the Commission shall, in such manner as it thinks fit, carefully and expeditiously hear, inquire into and -investigate the dispute and all matters affecting the merits of the dispute and the right settlement of the dispute.

I think that the last part of the last sentence is the crux of the whole matter, namely, ‘the right settlement of the dispute’. If we are speaking about conciliation, which seems to me to be what we are speaking about, we are speaking about getting the parties to a dispute- of course the word ‘conciliation’ presupposes that a dispute exists - together in order to arrive at some sort of settlement. I do not think that there would be any disagreement in the community with that proposition. My respected friend the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Webb) has already made this point but I would like to elaborate on it. Apart from being a conciliatory body, and being expected to resolve a dispute that exists between 2 people or 2 groups of people, the Commission, in considering that dispute and its settlement, is expected to take into account the very ethereal quality called the national economy, an expression that the honourable ‘ member for Moreton (Mr Killen), who is not here at the moment, would, I am sure, take issue on, as he does with the question of ihe public interest. It is a very difficult, almost impossible, expression to define. Yet these expressions are liberally - that is a small T - splattered throughout this whole Bill.

To talk about the national economy and to expect the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to have some expertise in this matter is an act of arrant nonsense, even blatant arrogance, on the part of the Government. It is a denial and a refusal by the Government to accept its rightful role in the community. I see the role of a national government as being to consider the national economy as it sees it from time to time and not to depute that right to another body, certainly a body such as the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission which, during its hearing of national wage cases over a period of years, has indicated clearly that its knowledge of what the national economy is all about is very limited. There have been so many contradictions in the decisions handed down from time to time by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission that it ceases to be humorous. On a number of occasions the court has said one thing in one national wage case decision, and the reverse in another. The latest and perhaps most glaring example of that is that some 2 or 3 years ago the court agreed with a submission by Mr Robinson, who was the employers representative at that time, that the national economy, which was being ostensibly considered then, would be better off with a national wage and that there should be no longer the structure which we knew and which seemed to serve the purpose so well of a basic wage and a margin for skill. So that was disposed of. The arguments put by the Australian Council of Trade Unions were disregarded. The body which made that decision is the body which is now expected to take into account the national economy. Some 2 or 3 years later the court now agrees that the national wage concept does not work.

It would be better if we had a way to determine the sum on which a man, his wife and his children could live, as Mr Justice Higgins introduced in the Harvester award in the first national basic wage decision, and then a margin for skill. There has been a complete reversal of form by the Commission. I am not quarrelling with the right of the Commission to be inconsistent because the inconsistencies are fundamental inconsistencies which clearly illustrate to me - and I do not hold myself out as a paragon of the community but I think I am a average member of the community and I believe that most members of the community share this view - that the Commission has demonstrated on more than one occasion that it is incapable of considering and not properly equipped to consider the questions of the economy which are placed before it.

We are now talking about the settlement of disputes. We are not talking about national wage cases. We are not talking about anything other than a settlement of an industrial dispute according to the provisions of section 39 of the principal Act. If the Government is seriously concerned about the number of man-days that are lost through disputes in this country it will have greater concern after this Bill is passed because there can be no question that a dispute which could be relatively and simply solved by the good offices of a conciliator will be dragged on and on as the Commission considers the national economy in the light of public interest. Already one honourable member on the Government side, a man learned in the law, has said to us how very very difficult it is even to define ‘the public interest’. He is not in the chamber at present to tell us how much easier or more difficult - and I would believe more difficult - it would be to define the national economy.

It is not a question of courts deciding. If it were a question of the courts deciding, let us dissolve this whole place, pay us all off and send us home so that we can enjoy the comfort, of our own homes instead of coming to this Parliament to put forward propositions that are going to be steamrolled by the Government on the basis of the strength of its numbers without any cognisance being taken of that which is said. It is not possible to resolve an industrial dispute if the commissioners who are appointed to resolve the dispute have to concern themselves with the national economy. That is the function of the people who sit on the other side of this chamber. After the end of this year when the first Whitlam ministry takes its place in this chamber there will be more of us with him on the other side than there are now on this side and there will be fewer members on this side of the chamber. When we sit on that side it will be our function to take into account all matters that affect the national economy and not to depute that function to somebody else. It will be our right and we will ensure that it will be carried out. We will not squib the issue as the Government is squibbing the issue in this proposed amendment to section 39 of the principal Act and I hope that the Committee will reject it.

Question put:

That clause 16 be agreed to.

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

AYES: 53

NOES: 47

Majority .. .. 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clauses 17 and 18 - by leave - taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 19.

Mr WEBB:
Stirling

– Clause 19 deals with sections 45 and 46 of the Principal Act, and the important matter with which at deals is secret ballots. I pose the question: How will secret ballots on strikes limit the duration of strikes? If a ballot is carried by the members of the unions the strike is on and the ballot has the effect of legalising the strike. There is no doubt about that. The strike cannot be called off until another secret ballot is held, so its effect would be to continue the strike instead of limiting it. Of course, most strikes nowadays are of limited duration. They may last a few hours or they may last one or two days, but if a ballot has to be taken before a strike can be ended it means that it could go on for a long time indeed. The strike in fact would be taken out of the hands of union officials.

I invite the attention of honourable members to some figures that I should like to quote. In 1929 a ballot on a strike was conducted under the control of the court and resulted in a vote of 5,318 against and 732 for the proposition that those affected be prepared to work under the existing award. On that occasion 9,000 ballot papers were burnt. The court can order a ballot under the existing law. That section has been in the Act for many years but has been used on only 3 occasions. This Bill does not leave any room for manoeuvre on the part of union officials. It could mean that once a ballot has been carried the full settlement of the original demand must be met or the strike goes on. A strike can blow up quite easilyand suddenly but once the first emotional step has been taken the heat goes off to some extent. Skilful negotiation by officials from both sides can limit a strike to a short duration. This Bill will harden the attitude to a strike once a vote has been carried.

All room to manoeuvre will be lost and conciliation and compromise will be impossible.

The strike weapon is not illegal in Great Britain, the United States of America or in Australia. The Conciliation and Arbitration Act does not prohibit strikes, though it did so until 1930 when the prohibition was removed. It is true, as we have heard tonight, that the Commission has power to include in its awards a ban on strikes. I emphasise to the Committee that we cannot expect a system of industrial arbitration to eliminate entirely strikes and other forms of direct action. Anyone who believes that is attributing to arbitration a function it cannot possibly fulfil. The laws of the land relating to the settlement of disputes are much more easily applied by the State to individuals than to powerful organisations such as trade unions. The State, in attempting to exercise compulsion over trade unions, is dealing with a powerful section of the community. A huge majority of people accept the fact that common law courts and criminal courts enforce a law with which they agree but in the field of industrial conflict their outlook is quite different. In this area there are no set principles of what is fair, reasonable or just. The arbitration system deals with questions on which the community as a whole is divided into 2 camps. Workers and employers have their own view of what is reasonable and what is just.

There is no doubt - and all members on this side of the House would agree with me - about the value and importance of our conciliation and arbitration system but it is ridiculous to think that it can usher in a reign of peace in industral relations. Noone would deny the value and importance of international law but conflicts arise between countries and those differences are sometimes so severe that all observance of law is swept away. We are all aware of an instance of this happening at present. Our arbitration courts successfully settle hundreds of issues brought before them but they cannot succeed in every matter. The system would be strengthened if this Government were to accept the reality of the situation which is that in our community there are issues and conflicts so acute that no court could hope to find an acceptable solution.

I want to draw attention to what happened in Britain, according to a recent review of this matter. The most direct overseas evidence unequivocally rejects such proposals for secret ballots on strikes. The British Royal Commission headed by Lord Donovan dealt specifically with this matter in these terms in its report which was handed down in 1968: 426. Compulsory Strike Ballots

A number of witnesses have suggested to us that a secret ballot should be required before a strike can lawfully take place. This proposal is based on the belief that workers are likely to be less militant than their leaders and that, given the opportunity of such a ballot, they would often be likely to vote against strike action. 427. It is clear that the scope of any legislation to this end, if it were to be effective, would have to be confined to major official strikes. A law forbidding strike action before the holding of a secret ballot could not be enforced in the case of small-scale unofficial stoppages, which make up the overwhelming majority of the total number of strikes. 428. There is little justification in the available evidence for the view that workers are less likely to vote for strike action than their leaders; and findings from our workshop relations survey, already cited, confirms this. Experience in the USA has been that strike ballots are overwhelmingly likely to go in favour of strike action. This is also the experience of Canada, where strike ballots are compulsory in the provinces of Alberta and British Columbia. Two instances of ballots held in recent years in this country where the vote went against strike action are sometimes quoted in support of the case for compulsory secret ballots. One was held in connection with an industry-wide wage claim in engineering in 1962, and one in connection with action to secure the reinstatement of certain employees dismissed by the Ford Motor Company in 1963. But these ballots were held on the initiative of the unions concerned. They do not provide reliable evidence of what the outcome would be if ballots were held in quite different circumstances and under the compulsion of the law. 429. There are other objections to such ballots. Once a vote has been taken and has gone in favour of strike action, the resulting stoppage may delay a settlement by restricting union leaders’ freedom of action. Moreover, how is the question on which the vote ls to be taken to be framed. If the vote is, for instance, about whether to accept the employers’ latest offer, its result can be stultified if the employer subsequently makes a slightly improved offer. 430. We do not recommend that it should be compulsory by law, either generally or in certain denned cases, to hold a ballot of the employees affected upon the question whether strike action should be taken. We think it preferable that trade union leaders should bear, and be seen to bear, the responsibility of deciding when to call a strike and when to call it off. Occasions may of course arise when union leaders would themselves wish to hold such a ballot or are required to do so by their rules. The decision on such a matter should continue to rest with the unions.

I suggest that those words used in the report of the British Royal Commission headed by Lord Donovan, handed down in 1968, are appropriate to the proposal of this Government for the question of strike action to be decided by secret ballot. I suggest to the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch) that the Government is making a mistake. Instead of reducing the period of a strike, when it unfortunately happens, the holding of a ballot will lengthen the period. Ballots will have to be taken to see whether the strikers will go back to work which will be a damned stupid situation.

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

– I should like to associate myself completely with the remarks made by the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Webb). I refer very quickly - I understand that we have to deal with this entire clause very quickly - te proposed new section 46. Honourable members will note that this deals with offences relating to ballots and provides for a penalty of $500 or imprisonment for 6 months for such offences. I should like to draw the Committee’s attention to proposed new sub-section (3.) of clause 46, which states, relevantly from my point of view, that a person shall not, in connection with a ballot ordered under section 45 of the Act, offer or suggest any loss or disadvantage for or on account of any support of, or opposition to, voting in a particular manner. I suggest that the whole point of voting revolves about this very point. It is suggested to people that they will benefit or be at a disadvantage depending on whether they vote yes or no, Liberal or Labor or for or against whatever the proposition is. Surely the whole point of having an intelligent vote is to have a discussion about what the advantages and disadvantages would be of voting for or against a proposition. It seems quite ridiculous to me that a penalty of $500 or imprisonment for 6 months should be incurred if a person puts, in connection with one of these ballots, the proposition that if, for example, the workers vote against the strike it means they will be at a disadvantage on account of opposing that strike, or vice versa. Surely this is not intended, and I should like to hear the Minister’s explanation.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I oppose this provision. This is another one of the proposals the Government has put forward that just will not work. The Government knows that it will not work. It is a good political gimmick. It sounds good at electioneering time. It is perhaps a means of obtaining donations to the campaign fund by foolish, naive employers who think that by having secret ballots on strikes we will stop strikes. What I want employers to know - and I am surprised that the Government did not tell them this - is that we have had this sort of provision in the Act now for many years. It has been in the Act for decades. The law, in section 45 of the Act, already allows this to be done. The Government has never implemented section 45. For 22 years this section has lain dormant in the Act. Not once has the Government ever resorted to it, and it had good reason not to use it. The only previous occasion on which it was ever actually implemented was during the timber workers strike of 1929, when a ballot was conducted and by an overwhelming majority the workers in the timber dispute decided to support the strike. This supports what we have always said: It is not the union officials who cause strikes; the union officials merely react to the demands that come from the people at the factory floor level for strike action when those people feel that so-called constitutional means have failed them.

Another feature of the provision - this shows the duplicity of the Government’s whole attitude - is that, when a strike ballot is taken and a strike is approved in cases where the award concerned contains a provision prohibiting individual employees from going on strike, it is still an offence and the individual employees who have had their strike ballot and voted in favour of the strike are still acting in contravention of the award, even after the strike ballot is held.

Dr Klugman:

– It is not binding on anybody.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-It is not binding on anybody at all. It is just a cheap political gimmick that will not work. The Government knows that it will not work. In fact I happen to know - I cannot reveal to the Minister my source of information, but it certainly was not one of hig officers - that the officers of his Department prepared a paper on the operation of section 45 and the whole question of strike ballots, and they told his predecessor that section 45 would not work and that it was unenforceable or unworkable. The officers of the Department who prepared that paper were absolutely correct. They knew what they were talking about. The Minister says: ‘I do not want good advice; I want political advice. I want something that will get us some votes. I want something that makes it sound as though I am fighting the unions and I am fighting against strikes. I want people to think that all of a sudden I have a secret weapon that will put an end to all strikes. We never had it before, it is something I have just discovered.’ Of course, it was not a recent discovery at all; it has been in the Act for donkey’s years. It has never worked and never will work.

Mr Joe Riordan, who cannot be said to be a raving, extreme left winger or a communist, says that the whole thing is preposterous. He says that once we pass this law we will pass the control of the trade union movement and policies on strikes over to the militant shop stewards and to other people who are closer to the ear of the rank and file than are the union officials. He says that it is quite calamitous to bring in such a proposal. On the employers side, Mr McPhee said that the Chamber of Manufactures had never asked for secret ballots to be introduced, although it would consider any proposals that the Government would make. He said that the Chamber would rather see legislation which confined the election of union officials to no more than 3 years. Then the rank and file could vote out union officials who made decisions with which they were dissatisfied. This is the whole crux of the matter.

If union officials, as the Minister seems to think, impose their will upon a reluctant rank and file and force them to go on strike when they do not want to go on strike the rank and file will most certainly throw them out. I have been a union official as have some other honourable members. We know that you cannot with utter and total abandon disregard the views of the rank and file. I shall quote from the leading article of the ‘Canberra Times’ of 8th September 1971. It dealt with the union opposition to secret ballots for strikes and the way that union officials see the position. The article also dealt with the New South Wales legislation; which is the legislation upon which the present proposal has been patterned to a large extent. The article states:

As they see it, the NSW legislation would make the unions the only pressure groups in that State compelled by law to consult their entire memberships before making decisions which they believe come within the ordinary scope of their administration. Other organisations are deemed capable of administering their affairs, and indeed of making decisions that affect the whole community, without having to take a poll of all their members - in the case of business undertakings, their shareholders, and in the case of Members of Parliament, their electors.

Let us have a look at the position which a union official holds. A union official is elected by his members to act for them for 3 years, the same as this Government was elected by the people to act for 3 years. Once elected, union officials have as much right as has the Government during that 3- year period to make judgments and decisions on behalf of the members they represent in the way they see representation to be properly applied. Does anybody suggest that every time the Government presents a Bill that it rush back and hold a referendum of the people to see whether they approve of it? Of course not. The Govern-, ment would laugh such a proposal right out of court, and rightly sp.’ The article continues: , ‘ ‘

The traditional apathy of big memberships poses the question also of ‘what percentage of returned ballots could be considered ‘ a Representative expression of opinion. And if a ballot gave a decision in favour of a strike would a second ballot be necessary to bring the strike to an end?

Obviously there would have to be. a second ballot to bring the strike to an end. Once the first ballot of the rank and file decided in favour of the strike, what right would the union officials have, according to the Government’s own argument and reasoning, to order them back to work once they had decided by secret ballot that they would not go to work. The article con- ,tinues

The legislators in NSW, who ,are expected to be followed by their counterparts in Queensland and Victoria, are suspected of basing their belief in the effectiveness of the secret ballot on one or more of a number of assumptions (hat’ are not proven: That compulsory ballots would lead to fewer strikes, that the union rank, and file is less militant than the leadership, and that union officials often try to lead their members up the garden path of politics or planned disruption.

Nothing could be more ridiculous. The honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr

Collard), the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Birrell), the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Webb), the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones), the honourable member for Grey (Mr Wallis), the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi) and I-

Mr Cope:

– Do not forget me.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The honourable member for Sydney (Mr Cope) lays claim also to the same fame that we have in our time been full time union officials. We know how absurd it is to suggest that members can be led up the garden path and forced to strike against their will. Then the article goes on to say:

It is clear that a ballot held in a situation of this kindwould strengthen and not weaken the unions’ stand.

Time and time again union officials find themselves compelled to advise their members to go back to work, against the wishes of the members. The article continues:

One alternative would be to make it a condition for the registration of a union that its constitution provide that certain strikes may not be undertaken without the consent of a committee of management that would include the executive of the union and representatives of defined districts or segments of the union.

Most union rules already provide that whenever the members want to have a plebiscite as to whether they will remain on strike or go on strike they may do so by following the normal, simple processes of the rules. That is the way it ought to operate. Union rules that do not contain these provisions should have them. Most of them do, but those that do not should have them.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Drury) - Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Minister for Social Services · Mackellar · LP

– I want to intervene briefly in this matter because it seems to be highlighted in the debate on this clause that the Opposition has quite misunderstood the main impact of this Bill and the main intentions behind it. I noticed this earlier in the debate in regard to the sanctions clause, but the same kind of thing is coming out now. Surely what we are trying to do is to protect the men against the tyranny of the union machine. One would have thought that the Opposition, if it had readily been on the side of the men, would have been very glad for this kind of provision to operate. The members of the unions are terrified by the use of the concerted union machinery to create anarchy in the community as a whole. They want the Government to provide them with some protection against trade union tyranny.

Dr Klugman:

– Why have you not used it until now?

Mr WENTWORTH:

– One would have thought that the Opposition would have been welcoming this clause, if the interjection of my honourable friend is to be taken at its face value. If the provision in the Act is good already one would have thought that the Opposition would have welcomed this clause which would make it better. But the Opposition does not do that. I am afraid that it is not really concerned with the interests of the men. It is concerned with the interests of the. union officials. It is concerned with maintaining the coherence of the trade union machine which can become - it is not always so - a tyranny over its members. The members of the unions are naturally looking to the Government to protect them against the tyranny of trade union officials, and that is what this Bill is all about.

Question put:

That clause 19 be agreed to.

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

AYES: 52

NOES: 46

Majority . . . . 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clauses 20 to 49 - by leave - taken together.

Mr LYNCH:
Minister for Labour and National Service · Flinders · LP

– I seek leave to move two amendments together. They refer to clauses 45 and 46 which read in part.

Clause 45.

Section 140 of the Principal Act is amended - (c) by adding at the end thereof the following sub-sections: - “(7.) Where-

  1. the Court makes a declaration under this section in relation to the rules of an organisation; and
  2. at the expiration of three months from the date of the declaration, the rules of the organisation have not been amended in a manner which, in the opinion of the Industrial Registrar, brings them into conformity with the requirements of sub-section (1.) of this section as regards the matters that gave rise to the declaration, the Industrial Registrar may, after inviting the organisation to consult with him on the matter, determine such alterations of the rules as will, in his opinion, bring them into conformity with those requirements as regards those matters.

Clause 46.

Section 141 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting sub-section (2.) and inserting in its stead the following sub-sections: - “(6.) An order shall not be made under this section that would have the effect of treating as invalid an election to an office in an organisation or branch of an organisation, other than an officially conducted ballot, that was completed before the institution of the proceedings under this section unless the proceedings under this section were instituted -

  1. before the commencement of this subsection; or
  2. within the period of six months commencing on -

  3. the date of commencement of this sub-section; or

    1. the date of completion of the election, whichever was the later.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Mr LYNCH:
LP

– I move:

  1. In clause 45, in proposed new sub-section (7.) of section 140, omit ‘may’, insert ‘shall’.

  2. In clause 46, in proposed new sub-section(6.) of section 141 omit paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert the following: - “(a) before the commencement of this subsection;

    1. within the period of twelve months commencing on -
    1. the date of commencement of this sub-section; or

    2. the date of completion of the elec tion, whichever was the later; or

    3. after the expiration of the period of twelve months that would be applicable under the last preceding paragraph but before the expiration of the period of office to which the election related, and the Court shall not proceed with the hearing of proceedings in which an order of the kind referred to in this sub-section is sought, being proceedings instituted in accordance with paragraph (c) of this sub-section, unless the Court is satisfied that the person instituting the proceedings did not have, within the period of twelve months referred to in paragraph (b) of this sub-section, and could not, by reasonable diligence, have acquired within that period, knowledge of, and the means of establishing, the matters that are alleged as a reason for the making of the order.”.

Amendment No. 1 amends clause 45 of the Bill by substituting the word ‘shall’ for may’. It relates to cases where the Court in an action under section 140 of the Act finds that an organisation’s rules are defective or that it does not have rules it is required to have. The Court orders the organisation to bring its rules into conformity with the Act and clause 45 provides the means for doing this. It provides that if the organisation does not do so within 3 months the Registrar may himself make the necessary amendments. It was considered that the requirement for the Registrar to do this should be mandatory rather than discretionary; otherwise the court’s direction might still not be given effect to. Thus the amendment proposes that the word may’ shall be replaced by the word ‘shall’.

The second amendment amends clause 46 of the Bill. Clause 46 amends section 141 of the Act to provide a limitation on the precise time in which challenges can be made to elections for office bearers conducted by the organisations themselves. The reasons were to give office bearers reasonable security of tenure in the event of innocent defects in their election being found after lengthy periods. Primarily it was to overcome the problems created by the Moore v. Doyle decision in which it was held that some members of a State union were not eligible to be members of the State branch of a federal union which was regarded as the same body. The Bill restricts such challenges to a period of 6 months after the elections. It has, however, been strongly put that in many cases it is difficult to ascertain the facts which will lead to action of this nature within a period of 6 months, perhaps because of some fraud en the part of the persons in control of the election.

The amendment proposes to extend from 6 months to 12 months the period in which an applicant may challenge under section 141 an election for office bearers conducted by the organisation itself. It is also designed to provide that where an applicant could not by reasonable diligence have obtained the necessary facts and evidence to take action within a period of 12 months, the court permits him to take such action. There h a further proviso that the court shall not allow the use of this let out clause after the period of office involved in the election. For example, if a person is elected for 4 years an action cannot be taken at all after that time.

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

– I should like quickly to ask the Minister or the Assistant Minister 2 questions. I would appreciate a reply. Firstly I wish to refer to proposed new section 72 which is contained in clause 26. Proposed new section 72 states:

The Commission ls empowered -

to prevent or settle industrial disputes by conciliation, or arbitration; and

to settle by conciliation, or to hear and determine, industrial matters in so far as those matters relate to -

trade and commerce with other countries or among the States;

trade and commerce between a State and a Territory of the Commonwealth; or

trade and commerce in a Territory of the Commonwealth,

The question I would like to ask is this: How did the question of the Sydney bus dispute ever come under federal arbitration jurisdiction? As I see it there is no question of an interstate dispute in relation to the Atlantean buses.

The second matter I want to raise refers to proposed new clause 141a (6.) which appears in clause 47 of the Bill and which states:

Nothing in this section authorises a payment in respect of fees of more than one counsel appearing for the applicant in proceedings unless two or more counsel appeared, or are to appear, for another parly to, or an intervener in, the proceedings.

I would appreciate it if I could get some explanation as to who would or could be an intervener. Can any person intervene in these proceedings? Does the person have to be a member of the union? I assume he does not, otherwise there would not be a reference to an intervener. It appears to me that if anybody can intervene in these proceedings, unions can be up for a lot of money because of outsiders intervening just for the purpose of breaking a particular union. The interveners could cause that union a lot of legal expense especially as their legal expenses are covered by the Commonwealth Government. I would like to find out, therefore, just who would or could be an intervener in these proceedings.

Mr STREET:
Assistant Minister Assisting the Minister for Labour and National Service · Corangamite · LP

– The Sydney Atlantean bus dispute could be dealt with by the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission because the drivers operating the buses came, under a federal award. Although the dispute was not interstate in character the drivers were covered by a federal award. This is where the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission can intervene, as it can in a dispute in a factory, for instance, if the people working in that factory are covered by a federal award.

Dr Klugman:

– Does that principle apply if they are not covered by a federal award and there is a dispute involving trade and commerce among the States? Can the Federal Government still intervene? Are these additional powers under section 72?

Mr STREET:

– Yes. The trade and commerce powers enable the Commonwealth to intervene, for instance, in matters involving maritime unions, in other than industrial disputes. The Commonwealth can involve itself in industrial matters under the trade and commerce powers whereas the arbitration and conciliation powers relate purely to industrial disputes.

Mr FOSTER:
Sturt

– This whole thing is nothing more than Government damned hypocrisy-

Motion (by Mr Giles) put:

That the question be now put.

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

AYES: 50

NOES: 44

Majority . . . . 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendments agreed to.

Clauses, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 50 and 51 - by leave - taken together.

Mr KILLEN:
Moreton

– I would like to think that the Government will be encouraged to abandon clause 50 and not to proceed with it in this Committee. If the Minister will give an indication that the Government will, have another look at the implications of this clause, I will not continue with my observations. But, in the absence of that undertaking, I indicate that I would speak in opposition to the proposal and I certainly would vote against it. Now, as I understand the Minister, he has indicated that he is prepared to listen to fresh argument that I may advance to him outside the Committee - in other words, clause 50 would not be passed by this Committee- and that it would go-

Dr Mackay:

– Oh!

Mr KILLEN:

– It is all very fine for the Minister for the Navy withasense of unctuousness to say ‘Oh!’ I am talking of matters that deal with fundamental Liberal principles. There is no gathering on the front bench of this Parliament - none - which will persuade me. to abandon the stand that I take- none at all. I will not be persuaded by any person who takes the view that this Committee should lightly embark on support for a fundamentally new principle. The Minister for Labour and National Service is in charge of this Bill. Happily, the Minister for the Navy is not. If the Minister for the Navy wants to move a censure motion here or anywhere else, I hope he can muster the quality of courage to do so. If the Minister for Labour and National Service will indicate to me that this provision-

Mr Bryant:

– Which clause is it?

Mr KILLEN:

– I am talking about clause 50 which requires every organisation to register with the Registrar where it does its banking. If the Minister for Labour and National Service were to say that he was prepared to listen to fresh submissions and argument on the matter, I would not continue. However, if the honourable gentleman were to say that we must have the argument out here and now, I would offer no complaint about that and I would continue with my views on the subject.

To me, this invites argument and I hope that the invitation will be accepted by every person, irrespective of his views on politics. In my view, this is the most extraordinary proposal I have ever seen in a statute. Yesterday, in the chambers of one of the most distinguished lawyers in this country, Mr Dan Casey, I pulled from the shelf at random a statute volume of the Queensland Parliament and I opened it at random. It dealt with the Rabbit Act Amendment Act and the penalty provided for was $200. Is it seriously to be suggested that, every time a penalty is provided for in an Act, those who may possibly infringe it should indicate where they do their banking? I will have no bar of this. I issue no threats. I am not like some wilful individuals whom I see around me who, irrespective of the issue, will walk across and say: ‘I will defeat a government’. I will indicate my views in this Committee and in this Parliament on the merits and I will defend my views in the Parliament and in the country. This to me is one of the most reprehensible proposals I have ever seen. I do not know who was the genius who thought of it. I only hope that he does not get a C.B.E. for it. If the Minister would say to me that he would have another look at the clause, that would be the end of it.

I want to illustrate very quickly to the Minister and to the Committee how easily this could be defeated. If individuals or organisations - an organisation is a trade union, an employers organisation such as the Metal Trades Industry Association Qf Australia or anything else - do not put before the Registrar where they bank, they are exposed to a penalty. I do not complain about that. But what are the provisions of the Bill? It provides that a ‘financial institution’ means:

  1. a bask; or
  2. any person carrying on ‘ business in the course of which -

  3. he receives money lent to him by way of deposit for a term or to the credit of a current account; or

    1. he provides safe deposits.

I will give the Minister for Labour and National Service one quick illustration as to how this could be circumvented by a person who would still be within the law. He could nominate a person to be a trustee and that would be the end of it. A trustee is not a financial institution. A trustee is not a bank. A trustee is not one who receives money lent to him by way of deposit. A trustee is not one who provides safe deposits. That is the answer to the provision in one simple practical explanation. The second one is this: Assume there is a dispute and union X is opposed by organisation A and the matter is before the court. It is obvious that there will be a row, so the president of the union says: AH right, here is a cheque, go over and clean out the bank account. Here is a biscuit tin. Put the money in that tin and bury it near the pawpaw tree in my back yard.’ Suddenly he is before the court after the court has issued an order garnisheeing the bank account or some order of attachment. When asked where the money is, he refuses to answer. This is precisely the case in which Mr O’Shea was involved. I am not canvassing that; I am talking of practical politics. I look back upon the Federal platform of the Liberal Party, which is something which I have had to do with in contra-distinction to some of the Johnnycomelatelys in this place. Section 92 refers to democratic control of their own organisation by unionists, assisted where appropriate by secret ballots and supervised where necessary by the industrial court. If any person tells me, with their cerebral processes normal, that this legislation gives democratic control of their own organisation by unionists, then I will be prepared to argue the point.

I turn now to ‘Broad Highways’, a Liberal Party publication put out some years ago. The chairman of the Party research group was the Rt Hon William McMahon. I do not want to embarrass him or the Committee, but I served on that Committee too. We came to this conclusion on the platform dealing with industrial matters:

The platform clearly sets out the industrial principles that should shape Liberal thinking- high wages, industrial organisation, conciliation and arbitration, profit sharing, the progressive increase of leisure and living standards, democratic control of unionists of their own affairs.

I say to the Chamber of Commerce and the Chamber of Manufactures and to every metal trades and employers organisation in Australia that if this proposal had been introduced by a Labor Government there would have been a hue and cry up and down the countryside.

I will have no part of this, none at all. Even though I stand alone, stand I will. I oppose this proposal. I oppose it here, I oppose it outside, and I will oppose it wherever the suggestion is made for needless intervention and forthe state to say You shall do as we say’. No person, no matter the quality of his divinity, will persuade me to depart from that.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! Before I call the Minister I put to the Committee clauses 50 and 51 together. It has been pointed out to me by the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde. Cameron), who is leading for the Opposition, that in the circumstances it would be of advantage to the Committee if clauses 50 and 51 were considered separately. In that case, therefore, the question now before the Committee is that clause. 50 be agreed to.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

– I want to raise a minor matter with the Minister. First, I ask how broad the definition of organisation is. Does it cover organisations such as the ACTU, State trades hall councils and similar bodies, or does it cover individual unions? If it covers individual unions, does it also cover individual employers who should be placed on the same basis? If the latter case applies, will the Minister inform me what the effect would be on the provisions of this Act if the employer is a bank.

Mr CONNOR:
Cunningham

– This clause, in rugby league parlance, is what is called a double tackle. It does not satisfy the viciousness of the Government to impose the penal clauses upon the trade union movement; the Government wants to make sure that it humiliates the trade unions to the utmost because for many years when it has come to the real crunch and the Government has gone to the point of imposing a penalty and seeking to collect it, there is generally some good fairy who comes to life and pays the money. In many cases the good fairy is very obviously some employer or some business interest who realises that as a matter of stark common sense it is better to pay the money into court than to suffer the disruption, dislocation and loss of business that would result from the ultimate collection of the penalty from the assets of the union involved.

But that is not sufficient; the Government does not want to be balked of its prey. The Government wants to carry this right through to the limit because it has a particular interest with the forthcoming election in provoking industrial disturbances for its own political survival. This clause is intended for exactly that purpose. Apart from that, there is the general question of the sanctity of banking. I quite agree with the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) that there is not merely one way; any competent lawyer could think of half a dozen ways to get around this Bill. Nevertheless this clause is put in the Bill by design for the purpose of political provocation of the most extreme, arrogant and reprehensible kind. I agree with the honourable member for Moreton that this is something of which the Government itself should be ashamed.

Question put:

That the clause be agreed to.

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

AYES: 48

NOES: 45

Majority . . 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause 51.

After Part VIII. of the Principal Act, the following Part is inserted: -

Part VIIIa. - Amalgamation of Organizations “158a. In this Part, unless the contrary intention appears- amalgamation’ means the carrying out of arrangements in relation to two or more organizations under which it is intended that-

Mr LYNCH:
Minister for Labour and National Service · Flinders · LP

– I seek leave at this stage to move together the amendments which have been circulated in my name.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock:

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

Mr LYNCH:

– I move:

  1. In paragraph (d) of the definition of ‘amalgamation’ in proposed new section 158a., omit the other organisations’, insert ‘that other organisation*.
  2. In proposed new section 158f.(1.) after amalgamation’ (first appearing) insert ‘, and the association, if any, referred to in the last preceding section,’.
  3. In proposed new section 158h (1.) after ‘a ground’, insert ‘that is consistent with the procedure provided by this Parliament and is a ground’.
  4. In proposed new section 158h.(2.) after made’, insert ‘to the Registrar’.
  5. In proposed new section 158j. omit proposed sub-section (4.), insert the following sub-section: - “(4.) Where the last preceding sub-section would otherwise apply, the Industrial Registrar may permit the organizations that have submitted the scheme of amalgamation to make such alterations of the scheme, or, if, under the scheme, an association is to be registered as an organization, permit that association to make such alterations of its rules, as he is satisfied will remove the ground of objection or otherwise bring the scheme or rules into conformity with this Act and the regulations, and, subject to the making of those alterations, give an approval under this section.”.

  6. In proposed section 158l. omit sub-section (3.) and insert the following sub-sections: - “(3.) If more than one such statement in opposition to the amalgamation is duly delivered to the Industrial Registrar -

    1. the Industrial Registrar shall inform the President accordingly;
    2. a Presidential Member designated by the President shall prepare, or cause to be prepared, in consultation, if practicable, with representatives of the persons who delivered each of the statements, a statement in writing of not more than two thousand words in opposition to the amalgamation based on both or all the statements and, as far as practicable, presenting fairly the substance of the arguments against the amalgamation contained in both or all the statements;
    3. the Presidential Member shall forward the statement so prepared certified by the Presidential Member to be approved by him, to the Industrial Registrar; and
    4. the statement so approved shall accompany each ballot paper as if it had been the sole statement delivered in accordance with paragraph (b) of the last preceding sub-section.
  7. The regulations may make provision for ensuring equitable presentation of argument for and against an amalgamation in periodical publications of the organization and of branches of the organization after a notice has been published in relation to a ballot in respect of the amalgamation under sub-section (lj of this section.”.
  8. After paragraph (a) of sub-section (3.) of proposed section 158o, insert the following paragraph: “(aa) the Industrial Registrar shall consent to, and record, any change of the name of an organization or alteration of the rules of an organization that is involved in the scheme for the amalgamation and the change or alteration shall thereupon have effect;”.

I mention to the Committee that amendments Nos 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 are technical drafting amendments. At this stage I shall not weary the Committee with an explanation of the application of those amendments to the provisions before it. But I turn to amendment No 6 which amends clause 51, which relates to the amalgamation of organisations. The existing clause, which inserts section 158l and relates to the provision of a statement in opposition to an amalgamation to go with ballot papers, could be regarded as defective in that it would be possible for a sufficiently large group of persons supporting the amalgamation to prepare a phoney case against that amalgamation and on the basis that it was the largest group that would be the case that would be submitted.

The amendment provides that where more than one case against amalgamation is received a presidential member shall consult with representatives of the groups putting cases in opposition to the amalgamation and prepare a statement which will take into account, as far as practicable, the main arguments in all the cases submitted and this shall be the case to go with the ballot papers. The amendment also proposes that the regulations may provide that the official union journals shall give equitable opportunity for the publication of views against the amalgamation. This is designed to ensure that one-sided publicity does not appear in the journals.

Mr WEBB:
Stirling

– Mr Chairman, I want to speak to clause 51. T did not hear all the amendments that the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch) moved because it was not easy to hear. He will correct me if what I say is contrary to any of those amendments. The provisions contained in clause 51 introduce a new version of the twist. In the period between his statement of intent of December 1971 and the introduction of this amending Bill a couple of weeks ago this happened. This new version should be called the ‘political twist’. The Democratic Labor Party played the, tune and the Minister danced to it. In. paragraph 95 of his statement of intent the Minister said:

We will amend … the Act … to prevent unions from enforcing compulsory unionism.

This did not suit the Democratic Labor Party which gets most of its trade union support from the Clerks Union, a union most difficult to organise and one which compulsory unionism strongly favours. So a quick shuffle backwards took place to the tune of the DLP. The proposition was dropped. At the same time, again in tune to the DLP, the Minister introduced something which previously he had strongly supported. He made it most difficult for union amalgamation to take place. This did not receive a mention in his statement of intent. His speech at the Central Industrial Secretariat dinner on 2nd March showed his attitude towards amalgamation. This was a dinner connected with the formal opening of the Central Industrial Secretariat for the purpose of amalgamating 2 employer bodies - the Employers Federation and the Chamber of Manufactures - to co-ordinate their industrial relations policies. He pointed out that the reason which had motivated them to form that body were no doubt those that the 3 metal trades unions would put forward in support of their plans to amalgamate. It is interesting to refer to some of the statements the Minister made at this dinner. He said:

The legislation provides certain criteria to be fulfilled by the organisations which seek to deregister. This criteria includes the holding of ballots of members in accordance with the rules of the organisations and that the de-registration should be approved by a majority of those voting.

Ballots were held by the Sheet Metal Workers and the Boilermakers and Blacksmiths and, indeed, although not required to do so by the legislation the AEU also held a ballot because its rules provided for this.

The results of the ballots showed that almost 86 per cent of those voting in the AEU ballot favoured amalgamation, 73 per cent in the Boilermakers and Blacksmiths Society and almost 70 per cent in the Sheet Metal Workers Union. The percentge of total membership of the union of those voting were 9 per cent AEU, 40 per cent Boilermakers and Blacksmiths and 36 per cent Sheet Metal Workers Union.

Later in that speech he said:

The normal voting percentages in ‘officially conducted’ ballots for office bearers ranges from 12 per cent to 75 per cent, and in the majority of such elections less than 50 per cent of eligible members have voted. In addition the percentage varies substantially as between different unions and from election to election in the same union. In the Australian Railways Union the figures vary from 20 per cent to 70 per cent. In the Federated Clerks Union 40 per cent to 75 per cent. In the Amalgamated Society of Carpenters and Joiners 14 per cent to 22 per cent

All these arguments that he advanced are against the arguments that have been put to him that he should do something about preventing the amalgamation of these 3 unions. He continued:

The 50 per cent plus proposition implies that a substantial majority of those who do not register a vote can be said to be opposed to the proposal for amalgamation. This is a doubtful thesis. It is more likely that most of those who strongly oppose the proposal will vote and that the majority of those who fail to vote are not sufficiently moved against the proposition - they merely acquiesce.

Even if it were accepted that of those not voting 50 per cent were in favour and 50 per cent against - a more reasonable assumption - then the amalgamation proposal could be said to have had the support of more than 50 per cent of total membership of each of the unions.

It is also pertinent to note that in Federal Parliamentary elections it is not required that a candidate must obtain the support of 50 per cent plus of all voters on the voting roll to be elected.

He went on to say:

The effective result of introducing a 50 per cent plus voting pattern would be to stop a number of amalgamations, including, of course, amalgamations of employer bodies.

The Minister wiped off the point that the amalgamation will provide a large communist dominated organisation by saying that there was a minority of communists on the federal council of the amalgamated union. At page 7 of his speech on 2nd March he went on to say:

For instance, there are some 300 unions in Australia. Most of them are very small. It could facilitate the functioning of the arbitration system and relations generally between employers and unions if this number of unions decreases. I know of situations in which employers have sat across the table with so fewer than 15 unions in relation to one issue. Government departments have bad this experience.

Despite that, the Minister went on to introduce this legislation. Having said all that, he bent the knee-to and kissed the hand, if not worse, of the Democratic Labor Party before doing another shuffle. Proposed section 158n provides that, in order to bring about an amalgamation, at least SO per cent of those on the role of voters must vote and more than 50 per cent of those who vote must vote in favour of an amalgamation. In his speech of 2nd March the Minister pointed out the difficulties of getting a high percentage of members voting. I have already quoted what he said on page -5 of his speech in regard to that matter. At the behest of the Democratic Labor Party he has made it much harder for unions to amalgamate, in spite of what he had to say about the representatives of 15 small unions having been present at a conference in relation to one issue and his statement that that had occurred on many occasions in regard to his Department itself.

The Minister has admitted that it would be better if there were fewer smaller unions and the smaller unions were to amalgamate. It would be better in regard to industrial relations and it would be better in the interests of the unions themselves because there are too many small unions at the present time. There is a tremendous waste of resources as a result of that. Each union has to have a secretary, typing facilities and an office. The administrative costs are excessive. If unions could amalgamate and there was a bigger body of unions of similar types they could have specialists, they could have an officer dealing with industrial matters and they could have a man dealing with compensation, apart from the administration of those matters which are very necessary. I believe that this amendment unduly interferes with the freedom of trade unions. It was prepared without any consultation with the trade unions. It is a sad case of the Democratic Labor Party tail wagging the Liberal Party dog.

Wednesday, 17 May 1972

Mr KILLEN:
Moreton

– I wish to make just a few very brief observations. I am puzzled as to why proposed section 158h refers to ‘regulations’. I think it is a pity that there is not some measure of definition. I am not aware of any reason why there cannot be some definition as far as this proposed section is concerned. Turning to proposed section 158l, I suggest to the Minister for Labour and National Service that sub-section (2.) of that proposed section should read ‘the organisations’; in other words, the plural should be used because it is obvious that 2 organisations are involved in an amalgamation. If the Committee turns back to proposed section 158k it will see that reference is made there to the fact that the Industrial Registrar shall arrange for the conduct in respect of each of the existing organisations concerned.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– To which proposed section did the honourable member refer first?

Mr KILLEN:

– Sub-section (2.) of proposed section 158l. I think that is the neatest way of describing it. Sub-section (2.) of proposed section 158l states that the organisation concerned may deliver to the Industrial Registrar a statement in writing of not more than 2,000 words in support of the amalgamation. Both organisations may want to deliver an argument in favour of the amalgamation and similarly there may be members of both organisations who want to deliver, arguments against it. This may be picked up somewhere else.

As I understand the remarks of the honourable member for Stirling and some of the other arguments relating to amalgamation which I have heard in. advance, there is objection to the proposed new section 158n, which requires that there shall be at least one-half of the members on the roll who shall vote and there shall be one-half of those members who shall be in favour of the amalgamation. I concede that there is substance in this point of view. The fact is that there is no compulsory voting as far as these provisions are concerned. I must confess that I have always taken the view that compulsory voting has its limitations. We have it in Australia but it would rather be a gesture in the nature or character of Don Quixote to imagine we could do anything about it. We have compulsory voting.

As far as trade union ballots are concerned and as far as these provisions are concerned there is no compulsory balloting and one apprehends that this could well be a weakness. What would happen if there were massive disinterest? What would hap pen if there were a union of say 8,000 members of whom 3,000 voted? They may have powerful views on the issue but the other 5,000 people could not care less. I am sure that this is the common expertence of us all in regard to an election of a member to a committee in large bodies, when people simply do not vote.

Mr Webb:

– The same applies in shire elections. . .

Mr KILLEN:

– This is so. I agree with the honourable , member, and also in respect of race clubs or any of the clubs to which we may belong. I would like to invite the .Minister to consider this matter.

Mr Foster:

– What about the NRMA?

Mr KILLEN:

– What is that?’

Mr Keating:

– The National Roads and. Motorists Association.

Mr KILLEN:

– I am sorry, “i do not: move in the .select circles in which my honourable friends move. I am sure that the Committee understands the point that I am making. If massive disinterest is shown by the 2 organisations, what happens if the episode is to be repeated? I- think there should be some provision > whereby an appeal may be made to some body. I am sorry that I do not spell this out with a greater sense of definition to the Minister and to the honourable gentlemen assisting him. I feel that the proposed new section 158n could in certain circumstances be very severe and I think there should be some provision so that if .apathy is shown regard will be had for that fact. Perhaps the Minister would be kind enough, if not in this chamber then elsewhere, to look at the proposed new section ‘ 158l. I do feel that the word ‘organisation’ should be in the plural. I feel also that there could be provision for the proposer and the prop*see, those who want to join’ and those who are to be joined. There may ‘.be views on both sides. In other words, there could be 4 points of view, so that in .certain circumstances there could be the occasion for the 4 points of view to be circulated.

Mr LYNCH:
Minister for Labour and National Service · Flinders · LP

– I would like to respond to the points which the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) has put before the House. As far as the proposed new section 158l sub-section (2.) is concerned, separate ballots are to be taken by each of the amalgamating organisations and therefore the term is correctly used in the singular. In fact the term in the plural would not be appropriate because of the separate nature of the ballots.

Mr Killen:

– I am speaking about statements.

Mr LYNCH:

– Yes, but the honourable member was saying that the word ‘organisation’ should be in the plural in section

158L (2.).

Mr KILLEN:
MORETON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Section 158l (2.) (a) should read: ‘the organisations concerned may deliver . . .

Mr LYNCH:

– Yes. Of course, that must mean the organisation because only one organisation is submitting a ‘yes’ case to the ballot. The other organisations which may be involved in the amalgamation would reach that stage either before or after taking the ballot. So the point I am making here is that there is a separate ballot for each organisation and, therefore, the term must be used in the singular. I apologise to the honourable gentleman; my attention was diverted when he was talking about the question of ballots, so I am not entirely certain which particular point he was querying.

Mr Killen:

-I will recapitulate quickly the point I made. How do you deal with the situation where the people involved show massive disinterest? If in a union of 8,000 members only 3,000 vote, what is to be done?

Mr LYNCH:

– If I understand the position which the honourable gentleman places before me, he is querying the situation where for a variety of reasons there may not be a SO per cent vote. The Government has looked at this matter in a most thorough way. It also has had the opportunity of looking at the results of court controlled ballots which show that approximately 50 per cent, as I recall the figure, returned a vote. So on that basis it would be clear that a 50 per cent vote cannot be regarded as an achievement of unusual dimension. I believe it ought to be borne in mind also that this is a vital vote, going as it does to the whole concept of the entity concerned. The Government believes it quite reason able to require a 50 per cent vote before that organisation in fact can be wound up. It ought to be borne in mind also that that 50 per cent is not 50 per cent of those voting in favour; it is simply a 50 per cent vote of the membership at that time, as defined in the provisions of the Bill. The honourable gentleman queried another matter.

Mr Killen:

– Section 158h deals with regulations. Why can we not have some measure of definition in the Act as to what they will be?

Mr LYNCH:

– I undertake to look at that matter. I understand from the Parliamentary Counsel that the reason why the phrase has been repeated is that this is the general form in which it appears at the present time in the Act. However, I shall look at the drafting aspect of this matter and discuss it with the honourable gentleman.

Motion (by Mr Giles) proposed:

That the question be now put.

Mr Webb:

– I rise to a point of order. How can the Minister reconcile the remarks he has made on this Bill with the remarks he made on 2nd March? Why has he not replied to those matters about which we asked him so long ago? I want to know that and the Minister ought to reply.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock:

– There is no substance in the point of order.

Mr Foster:

– I rise to a point of order. I understood the Minister to say here during the course of this debate, both last week and this week, that a certain time was set aside for this debate. He wanted to jam it through this House, guillotine it, or use any measure that he chose. Until that particular time-

Mr Lynch:

– That is not true. Why do you not tell the truth for a change.

Mr Foster - Why is the Minister interjecting about truth when he was just told by the honourable member for Stirling that he is not capable of remembering tonight what he said a few weeks ago?

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honourable member for Sturt-

Mr Foster:

– Tell the Minister not to interject, Mr Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I suggest that all interjections should cease, particularly at this hour. We are talking about what was the public choice. We might think about that point here. I call the honourable member for Sturt who was speaking on a point of order.

Mr Foster:

– The Minister has said a great deal in the course of chatter here tonight. He has said that we should stick to the agreement. I personally know of no agreement in this place in relation to how long a time has been set aside for the debate. My point of order is this: If the Government, the Leader of the House or the Minister at the table is to have the parrot at the back of the chamber move the gag, all I say is that we on this side will do our best to delay it. Why should we not do that? The measure before the House is an absolute disgrace to a national Parliament.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! I suggest that the honourable member for Sturt has made a fairly good speech out of his point of order.

Mr Foster:

– In the light of that I have another one.

Question put:

That the question be now put.

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

AYES: 48

NOES: 44

Majority . . 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendments agreed to.

Motion (by Mr Giles) put:

That the question be now put.

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

AYES: 48

NOES: 44

Majority .. ..4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

That clause 51, as amended, be agreed to.

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

AYES: 49

NOES: 44

Majority .. ..5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clauses 52 and 53 - by leave - taken together.

Clause 52.

Section 159 of the Principal Act is amended -

Amendments (by Mr Lynch) agreed to:

In proposed new sub-section (4.) of section 159 omit “before the election is completed or within six months after the completion of the election”, insert “if the application is made within the time that is applicable under the next succeeding subsection”.

After proposed sub-section (4.) of section 159 insert the following proposed sub-section: - “(4a.) An application in accordance with the last preceding sub-section may be made -

before the completion of the election;

within the period of six months commencing on the date of completion of the election; or

after the expiration of that period of six months but before the expiration of the period of office to which the election related. but the Court shall not proceed with the hearing of an inquiry upon an application made in accordance with paragraph (c) of this sub-section unless the Court is satisfied that the person making the application did not have, within the period of six months referred to in paragraph (b) of this sub-section, and could not, by reasonable diligence have acquired within that period, knowledge of, and the means of establishing, the matters that are alleged to constitute an irregularity.”.

In proposed new sub-section (5.) of section 159, omit ‘the last preceding sub-section,’ insert ‘subsection (4.) of this section’.

Clause 52, as amended, and clause 53 agreed to.

Clause 54 (Amendment in respect of Penalties)

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The Opposition will vote against clause 54. This is a clause which, by quite a simple device-

Mr Foster:

– I rise to order. Can you, Mr Chairman, ask these 2 Ministers who belong to your Party to keep quiet so that we can hear the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron). They are sitting here talking about what they will get up to tomorrow.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock:

– I suggest that if the Ministers want to conduct conversation they do not conduct it at a pitch which is audible within the chamber.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– This clause makes alterations to the penalties set out in 20 sections of the Act. The penalties in some cases are increased by 150 per cent. In other cases they are increased by 400 per cent. In one other case I can see there is an increase of 200 per cent; another case involves an increase of 500 per cent. In one case I notice r.hat the 500 per cent increase in the monetary penalty is accompanied by a new penalty of imprisonment for 6 months which previously was not there. My colleagues will be glad to know that this is a new penalty of imprisonment which will be imposed upon employers who fail to make their records available to inspectors. What I cannot understand is that the Government has seen fit to retain section 122 in its old form, a form that has remained the same for many years. It says that no person shall wilfully make default in compliance with any order or award. The penalty is $40. That is not the section of the Act that is used to prosecute employees or unions; it is the section of the Act that was incorporated originally to deal with employers who wilfully made default in compliance with an order or award. The penalty is still only $40. But to get a conviction you have to prove that the employer wilfully committed the offence. On the few occasions that the section has been used to prosecute employers, the prosecutions have usually failed because the prosecution was not able to prove wilful default.

But let us have a look at the way this Government considers it is proper to deal with unions which commit an offence against section 119 of the Act. The Government says it is quite all right to impose a penalty of $500 a day upon a union, no matter how much the union tries to prevent a strike. Even though the strike is taken against the directions of the union’s executive, that union - not wilful but, on the contrary, doing its best to try to prevent a strike - can be punished by a fine up to $500 a day or $1,000 where the bans clause treats the offence as a single offence. Yet here we have still in the Act this section, which does not refer to employers but which is the section which would have to be used. If the section is no longer of any use - I think that can be said of it - why has the Government not taken the opportunity that this debate now offers to take the section out of the Act altogether? It has not been used for a long time. In fact, with the section 119 already in the Act, whereby it is not necessary to show wilful disobedience, there is no need for it. I would like to hear the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch) explain why the section was left there in the present form. If it is not to be altered, why was it not deleted from the Act altogether seeing that section 119 now does the job? I do not have anything more to say about it but the Opposition objects to a procedure which increases the penalties by up to 500 per cent in 20 separate sections, in one clause by way of a schedule attached to the back of the Bill.

Question put:

That clause 54 be agreed to.

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

AYES: 49

NOES: 44

Majority .. .. 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clauses 55 and 56 - by leave - taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 57.

The rate of salary of a Commissioner to be fixed by section 16 of the Principal Act as amended by this Act shall be deemed to have taken effect on the fourth day of November, One thousand nine hundred and seventy-one.

Amendment (by Mr Lynch) agreed to:

In clause 57 add the following sub-clauses: “(2.) Notwithstanding sub-section (1.) of section 7c of the Public Service Arbitration Act 1920-1972, the rate of salary payable in respect of an office of

Deputy Public Service Arbitrator held by a person holding office also as a Commissioner is, and shall be deemed to have been on and from the date referred to in the last preceding sub-section, the rate of salary referred to in the last preceding sub-section. “(3.) The Consolidated Revenue Fund is appropriated to the extent necessary for the purposes of this section.”.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock:

– The question now is: That clause 57, as amended, be agreed to.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The Oppostion wishes to identify, for the purposes of the record, the meaning of the clause, which proposes to make the increase of $4,400 a year granted to conciliation commissioners under the Bill retrospective to November Jast year. We want it to be clearly recorded that we object to the retrospective payment of this amount to conciliation commissioners. We will divide the Committee on the clause.

Mr FOSTER:
Sturt

– I can think of few clauses in the Bill which deserve more than this one does the absolute and utmost condemnation of all fair minded and thinking members of the Committee. I include in that those on the Government side because they have the opportunity tonight to oppose this proposed section and vote with the Opposition. We have a situation continued in this Bill that makes retrospective payment to people in the community who do not deserve it, do not need it and ought not to get it. We have a situation in which every Minister has had questions directed to him over a long period of time in this Parliament in regard to the cost of living, the minimum wage and social services. In fact, you name it, and that question has been posed to Ministers who invariably have got to their feet and said that these problems have been caused by the wage spiral. They have intervened, however much they might say to the contrary, by way of Press statements and publications put out on behalf of the Liberal Party, such as the great rag called the ‘Australian Liberal’.

Mr DONALD CAMERON:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– What is wrong with it?

Mr FOSTER:

– The honourable member was silly enough to ask the question. He should read it and see. Here is a former industrial officer of the Association of Employers of Waterside Labour who has never stood in this place and advocated a wage rise other than for the kind of people who are being benefited by this clause before us tonight. The honourable member and his colleagues have condemned wage and salary increases. Whenever the necessity for such increases has been put to the Government honourable members opposite have opposed them. Answers to questions asked in this chamber regarding rising prices and so forth place the whole blame for rising prices on wage increases. These are blamed for all of the inflation today. Why does not one of the honourable members opposite get to his feet tonight and admit that measures such as this and previous measures that we have had from the Government - and the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles) is laughing his head off over there - have been responsible for benefiting the less deserving section of the community. As a result of one such measure a quarter of a million dollars was split up among 57 top public servants, but the Government does not give a damn about the Third Division public servants. It is doing the same sort of thing now with this measure. Why does not one of the honourable members opposite endeavour to convince us that a measure increasing a salary and making the increase retrospective will do something for the economy? Why should this fellow get retrospective payment? What good will he do with it? He is not going to spend it.

Mr Webb:

– This is for services rendered.

Mr FOSTER:

– The services rendered being what?

Mr Giles:

– I will give the honourable member services rendered. I move:

That the question be now put.

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

AYES: 49

NOES: 44

Majority ….. 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

That clause 57, as amended, be agreed to.

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

AYES: 49

NOES: 44

Majority . . . . 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Remainder of the Bill - by leave - taken as a whole.

Mr LYNCH:
Minister for Labour and National Service · Flinders · LP

– by leave - I have 2 amendments. They refer to clauses 61 and 68. These clauses, in part, read:

Clause 61. (1.) Where, immediately before the commencing day, conciliation proceedings in respect of an industrial dispute commenced before a Commissioner have not been completed -

  1. if that Commissioner becomes, onthe commencing day, a Conciliation Commissioner, the conciliation proceedings may, be continued before him as if the industrial dispute had been referred to him under the Principal Act as amended by this Act:
  2. if that Commissioner becomes, on the commencing day, an arbitration Commissioner, the conciliation proceedings may be continued before him as if he were a Conciliation Commissioner to whom the industrial dispute had been referred in accordance with the Principal Act as amended by this Act, but that Commissioner shall not exercise powers of arbitration in respect of the industrial dispute; and
  3. if a person has been directed by the Conciliation Commissioner to attend a conference that has not been commenced, or has not been completed, before the commencing day, the Principal Act as amended by this Act applies as if the direction had been given by a Conciliation Commissioner under the Principal Act, as so amended.

Clause 68.

Part VIIIa. of the Principal Act as amended by this Act does not apply in relation to an amalgamation in relation to which, before the date of commencement of this section -

  1. an application was made to the Registrar in accordance with section one hundred and thirty-nine of the Pricipal Act; or

  2. a request was made to the Registrar under sub-section (3g.) of section one handred and forty-three of the Principal Act.

    1. In clause 61, in paragraph (c) of sub-clause (1.) omit ‘Conciliation’.
    2. In clause 68 omit paragraph (b), insert - “(b) a request referred to in paragraph (c) of sub-section (3g.) of section one hundred and forty-three of the Principal Act has been made to the Registrar, being a request that complies with the requirements of that paragraph.”.
Mr Cope:

– I move:

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! I suggest that, as the Minister had resumed his seat, no necessity for the motion arose.

Mr WEBB:
Stirling

– I refer to clause 68. Its provisions seem clear enough but I think that I should place on record that it deals with the amalgamation of organisations, and it seems that nothing contained in this amending Bill affects the proposed amalgamation which is now in the process of being agreed to by the Boilermakers and Blacksmiths Society of Australia, the Sheet Metal Workers Union and the Amalgamated Engineering Union. Would the Minister confirm that view?

Mr LYNCH:
Minister for Labour and National Service · Flinders · LP

– This is not a matter of substance, as I understand it. It is a simple tidying up of the existing section of the Act.

Mr Webb:

– Does it affect these amalgamations?

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! I would suggest that the House might come to order. The honourable member for Stirling has asked the Minister a question. With conversation going on, it is extremely difficult for the honourable member for Stirling to hear the reply. I suggest again that the Committee come to order.

Mr Webb:

– Is the Minister going to reply or not? I have asked him a question. Does clause 68 protect the position of the 3 unions that are going through the process of amalgamation? Surely that is a simple enough question and the Committee is entitled to an answer.

Mr LYNCH:

– The honourable gentleman should be a little more patient. As I have the opportunity of answering a question, I would like to make a comment in relation to a matter which was raised by the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Foster). I reject categorically any suggestion that this Government has sought to put this measure through under undue pressure. The honourable member may not be aware-

Mr Foster:

– Why are we here at this hour?

Mr LYNCH:

– The honourable gentleman should keep his hair on for a moment.

Mr Foster:

– You have lost most of yours.

Mr LYNCH:

– Yes, I know. I make it clear to the honourable member for Sturt and certainly to any Press correspondents who may be present at this time that, apparently unknown to the honourable gentleman, who apparently is not privy to these matters, there was a clear understanding with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard), which understanding was also made known to the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron)-

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– It was made known.

Mr LYNCH:

– Perhaps it was not with the honourable member’s concurrence. It was made known that the final vote on this

Bill would be taken at 12 o’clock. If during the debate on latter clauses of this Bill there has been a sense of precipitous haste, I invite the honourable gentleman to consider his position because the reason why this Bill has been so hurried in the latter stages is simply that the original agreement was broken by a number of honourable members on the other side of the House. I make that perfectly clear.

Mr Foster:

– Mr Chairman, I raise a point of order. Have I that right?

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock:

– Order! The honourable member for Sturt will state his point of order.

Mr Foster:

- Mr Chairman, I think that it is a little rough when about 6 of your Country Party blokes shout out as they have done in this place tonight.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honourable member for Sturt will state his point of order.

Mr Foster:

– My point of order is that the Minister, in referring to what I said earlier in the debate, if one could call it that, said that an agreement was made without the knowledge of myself or of other members of the Opposition. In the next breath he blamed members of the Opposition for causing the debate to go beyond 12 o’clock. On the one hand, he accused us of not being privy to the agreement, which he said-

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! I would suggest that the honourable member for Sturt is now debating the subject.

Mr Foster - I am making a point. The Minister cannot have it both ways. Honourable members opposite who are interjecting will stay here as long as I will. If they do not like it, they could get out and go home to bed.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honourable member for Sturt will state his point of order and interjections will cease.

Mr Foster:

– That is it. It is no good stating a point of order in this place nowadays.

Mr Webb:

– Mr Chairman, I raise a point of order. I want my question answered and I have a right to receive an answer from the Minister.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! There is no substance to the point of order. The honourable member for Stirling will resume his seat.

Mr Webb:

– I asked the Minister a question and he went over to his departmental adviser to obtain an answer. I am entitled to have that answer.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honourable member for Stirling will resume his seat. The honourable member knows that there is no substance to the point of order. The Minister may choose to answer a question asked or he may decline to do so.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Mr Chairman, I think that when you see the point that the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Webb) was trying to get cleared up you and the Committee will understand why he is insisting upon an answer. Clause 68 of the Bill purports to exempt from the provisions of the Bill, relative to amalgamation procedures, any application for amalgamation that was made before this Bill was put through both Houses.

The honourable member for Stirling wants to know whether, in the event of the proceedings now before the Industrial Court going against the amalgamated unions and the Court holding that the application was not properly lodged, and that it therefore was a nullity, and that there was in fact no application legally before the Registrar, this clause will not help them. This clause prescribes that the Act does not apply in relation to an amalgamation in relation to which, before the date of commencement of this section, an application was made to the Registrar in accordance with section 139 of the principal Act. That is all the honourable member wants to clear up. I think that paragraph (c) ought to be inserted to the effect that an application for amalgamation between the Amalgamated Engineering Union, the Boilermakers and Blacksmiths Society of Australia and the Sheet Metal Workers Union shall be deemed to be an application made in accordance with the provisions of the principal Act. I am talking off the cuff, but I am sure the Parliamentary Counsel will understand from the Hansard report what I am seeking.

Unless the Government does this, the amalgamated unions run the risk, after long delays, of being told that this amalgamation, which really sparked off the whole controversy following an attempt by the Government to reach a compromise with the Democratic Labor Party, will not be allowed to proceed. They will be back where they started and they will have to commence their amalgamation procedures right from the beginning, going through the formalities stipulated in the new legislation for amalgamations. It will take 3 times as long to comply with those formalities as it takes to comply with the present requirements of the Act, and it has taken these unions more than 2 years to comply with them. After going through all that, if the Industrial Court holds that the application was not validly made, it will mean that the application itself was a nullity, that there was no application and that the protection which prima facie this provision gives to the amalgamation processes will come to nothing.

I think the Minister ought to indicate the position now. I know that already he has the amended Bill in that amended form printed and ready to go to the Senate in the morning. In the Senate he ought to indicate to the Committee that he is prepared to place the position regarding amalgamation beyond any doubt. It must be remembered that one of the judges sitting on the case is not well. He may take a long time to give his decision. There is no way of getting an order of mandamus against a judge of the Industrial Court, and until that judge writes his judgment the whole matter will be delayed and nothing will be brought to fruition. However, if the Government makes it clear that notwithstanding any decision taken by the Industrial Court in the proceedings now before it the amalgamation now under way will be completed, it will not matter how long the Industrial Court takes to deliver its judgment on the point now at issue. In those circumstances the amalgamation would be able to proceed.

Mr LYNCH:
Minister for Labour and National Service · Flinders · LP

– The Government certainly would not be prepared to extend that assurance to the honourable gentleman or indeed to the Opposition.

Mr Foster:

– Is that the reason? No wonder you wanted to gag us.

Mr Webb:

– It is all coming out now.

Mr LYNCH:

– If the Opposition wants the information which it has sought it will have to keep quiet, otherwise we will finish the debate here and now. Honourable members opposite can please themselves about it. The question of ballots, of course, is subject to challenge before the court at the present time. Therefore, I do not canvass the issues involved, and the extent to which that question will involve the current legislation obviously will be determined by the nature of the judgment which is handed down by the court. But I can say to the honourable gentleman who raised this matter that if the ballots are found to be defective, then it would be found that the requests for deregistration were nor properly made. It is the Government’s intention that those matters should then come within the provisions of the new Act. If that matter is not sufficiently clear-

Mr Foster:

– How dishonest can you get?

Mr LYNCH:

– There is nothing dishonest about that whatsoever. I suggest to the honourable member who raised this matter that if he had taken the time in this debate to study the. Bill a little more closely - he has had it for some time - he would be better informed than he is at the present time.

Mr FOSTER:
Sturt

- Mr Chairman-

Motion (by Mr Giles) put:

That the question be now put.

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

AYES: 49

NOES: 44

Majority .. .. 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendments agreed to.

Remainder of Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report- by leave - adopted.

Third Reading

Motion (by Mr Lynch)- by leave- put:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker- Mr J. Corbett)

AYES: 49

NOES: 44

Majority ..5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 2619

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

Motion (by Mr Lynch)- by leaveproposed:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent Orders of the Day Nos 2 and 3, Government Business, being called on.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– I do not care whether a cognate, oblate or any other sort of debate is involved; 1 believe that I should have an opportunity to say a word or two about the behaviour of the

Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch). The Minister, who has been in this Parliament for only a relatively short period, acted tonight as if he were the emperor of Ethiopia or somewhere else. He and nearly every honourable member on the other side of the House give scant consideration and courtesy to anything out themselves and their own party discipline. This evening the Government has been putting legislation through the Parliament with the leave of the Opposition when such leave is required, but at no point does the Government ever consider anybody but its supporters. When I was sitting in my room a few moments ago I heard the Minister say: ‘If the Opposition is going to speak like this, I will put the legislation through straight away’. What a wonderful power lies in his hands. It lies there not because he is so powerful but because not one honourable member opposite has one inch of grit, stomach, guts or self reliance. Honourable members opposite are the greatest bunch of party hacks this side of the black stump.

Mr LYNCH:
Minister for Labour and National Service · Flinders · LP

– in reply - I want to make it perfectly clear to the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant), as I have sought to do before-

Mr Bryant:

– Is the Minister closing the debate?

Mr LYNCH:

– I certainly am. I want to make it perfectly clear that the honourable member for Wills is labouring under a great misconception.

Mr Cope:

– I move:

Mr Bryant:

– I second the motion.

Mr Lynch:

– I have finished. I would not dignify it with any further comment.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Corbett:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND

– The Minister does not want to comment any further. The question is: That the motion be agreed to.

Mr Cope:

– Mr Deputy Speaker, I have moved a motion. The question has to be put.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The motion is: ‘That the Minister for Labour and

National Service be not further heard. The Minister having sat down, does the honourable member want to proceed with it?

Mr Cope:

– Yes, I want to proceed with it.

Mr Lynch:

– I have completed my speech.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The motion moved by the honourable member for Sydney is: ‘That the Minister for Labour and National Service be not further heard’. The Minister has sat down and will be not further heard; so the motion has been effectively resolved. The question now is: That the motion be agreed to.

Debate interrupted.

page 2620

OBJECTION TO RULING

Mr COPE:
Sydney

– I move:

The theruling be dissented from.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Sydney will have to put his motion in writing. (The honourable member for Sydney having submitted bis motion in writing) -

Mr COPE:

– The reason why I have moved dissent from your ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker, is quite obvious. The Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch) apparently does not want to be embarrassed by having to be sat down as members of the Opposition have been sat down on many occasions. The Minister did mention earlier that there was an agreement in regard to the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill. I did not know anything about an agreement. It seems strange to me that the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) spoke on this Bill more than did any other member of the House. Did the honourable member for Moreton know about the agreement? I do not think he did. Had he known about it, probably the gag would have been applied to him. However, the fact is - this is quite, obvious - that the Minister has shown a lot of bias. Of course, he has got that from the Assistant Government Whip, the honourable member for Angas (MrGiles), who has applied the gag to honourable members on this side consistently during the last 2 hours. Why did not he apply the gag to the honourable member for Moreton? Is this patronage? Is it favoritism? Did not the honourable member for Moreton know about this agreement? If he did, he did not keep it. I do not think anybody on this side of the chamber knew anything about the agreement.

Sir ALAN HULME:
PETRIE, QUEENSLAND · LP

– To what motion are you addressing yourself?

Mr COPE:

– It is a motion of dissent from the Deputy Speaker’s ruling. I am giving the reasons for moving this motion.

Sir ALAN HULME:
PETRIE, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Well, speak to it.

Mr COPE:

– Why do not you take a point of order in accordance with the Standing Orders? You know better than that. A Minister should not interject when an honourable member is on his feet. You never see me interjecting when you are speaking.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable gentleman should return to the motion he has moved and address his remarks to the Chair.

Mr COPE:

– I think I have made abundantly clear my reason for moving the motion of dissent.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order! Is the motion seconded?

Mr FOSTER:
Sturt

– I second the motion. I do so for reasons similar to those which have already been put. During the course of the debate this evening, honourable members on this side of the House have continually been subjected to what I would refer to as a vicious method of applying the gag by a party which has been in office for too long and which is in some kind of desperation. In addition, when the Opposition sought information on the second last clause of the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch) took up a lot of time and was reluctant to answer the queries of the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Webb) until he had had a chance to refer to officers of his Department. What reason or rhyme has the Government or the Minister had to carry on in the manner in which they have carried on tonight? Why is it-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Corbett:

– Order! The honourable member for Sturt should now be debating the motion of dissent from my ruling, which was that the question had been resolved. I think that the honourable member is getting wide of the mark and I ask him to confine his remarks to the motion now before the Chair.

Mr FOSTER:

– The reason I am on my feet as the seconder to a motion of dissent against your ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker, is quite obviously the fact that the ruling supports the very thing that the Government has been doing during the course of the debate tonight. That is a good and sufficient reason for seconding this motion. I will say this: You, Mr Deputy Speaker, do not occupy the chair for a great many hours in any particular parliamentary session and, with all due respect, although this Government has been in office for some 22 years, because of its calibre, as shown tonight, it is still slow to learn. Perhaps its supporters have not learnt the procedures of this House as quickly as others have learnt them. It may be that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, erred tonight in your decision because that you have been under some pressure from your colleagues-

Motion (by Mr Giles) put:

That the question be now put.

Question put:

That the question be now put.

The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker - Mr J. Corbett)

AYES: 49

NOES: 42

Majority . . . . 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Corbett)The question now is: That the ruling be dissented from’.

Question resolved in the negative.

page 2622

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

Consideration resumed.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2622

SEAT OF GOVERNMENT (ADMINISTRATION) BILL 1972

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 10 May (vide page 23 16), on motion by Mr Lynch:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– This Bill and the Northern Territory (Administration) Bill will extend to the Northern Territory and the Aus tralian Capital Territory something which cannot be extended to the States of the Commonwealth, the meaning of the word industry’ within the context of this legislation to cover fire fighters, nurses, police officers, teachers and similar persons who would be excluded from being covered in the States as a consequence of the High Court decision in the case of Pitfield v. Franki, commonly known as the ‘fire fighters case’. Members on this side of the House are glad that the Government has extended these provisions to the Commonwealth Territories but regret that similar extension cannot be made to the States. At any rate, it is better to do this than to do nothing and the Opposition will give both Bills a quick passage. They do something we have wanted to do for a long time.

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 Lynch) read a third time.

page 2622

NORTHERN TERRITORY (ADMINISTRATION) BILL 1972

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 10 May (vide page 2316), on motion by Mr Lynch:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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 Lynch) read a third time.

House adjourned at 1.43 a.m. (Wednesday)

page 2623

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Overseas Investment in Australia (Question No. 3465)

Mr Hayden:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. What was the amount of (a) direct overseas investment, classified as (i) undistributed income and (ii) outer and (b) portfolio investment, which Australia gained in each year from and including 1950.
  2. What proportion of total overseas investment was each of these amounts.
  3. What proportion of total investment was overseas investment in each of those years.
  4. What was the rate of growth in (a) total Investment, (b) local investment and (c) overseas investment (i) expressed as the figure for one year over the previous year, (ii) for the 10-yearly periods 1950-59 and 1960-69 and (iii) for the full period of 20 years.
  5. Can the figures supplied in answer to parts (1) to (4) be related to sectors of industry.
  6. What has been the proportion of overseas control of each sector of Australian industry for each of the years from 1950.
  7. What has been the gross profit rate, after tax, for (a) all industry and those sections which are (b) locally controlled and (c) overseas controlled.
  8. What percentage of gross profits after tax has been retained for (a) industry overall and also those sections which are (b) locally controlled and (c) overseas controlled.
  9. In relation to part (8) can details be given to show, in each case, the retained profits expressed as a percentage of new investment.
  10. In relation to parts (6) and (7) can he give the rates of growth (a) annually, (b) for the 10- yearly periods 1950-59 and 1960-69 and (c) overall
  11. What was the (a) amount and (b) rate of growth in return on overseas investment paid to overseas investors (i) annually, (ii) for the 10- yearly periods 1950-59 and 1960-69 and (iii) overall.
  12. What was the return on overseas investment paid to overseas investors expressed as a percentage of the inflow of new investment (a) annually, (b) for the 10-yearly periods 1950-59 and 1960-69 and (c) overall.
Mr Snedden:
LP

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

Statistics supplied in the attached tables are derived principally from surveys of overseas investment and overseas participation conducted by the Commonwealth Statistician and from information used to compile the Australian National Accounts. Descriptions of the statistics on overseas investment and overseas participation are given in the statistical bulletins: ‘Annual Bulletin of

Overseas Investment 1969-70’ (reference No. 5.20); Oversea Participation in Australian Mining Industry 1968’ (reference No. 10.42); ‘Overseas Participation in Australian Manufacturing Industry 1962-63 and 1966-67, Part I- Overseas Ownership and Part II - Overseas Control” (reference Nos 12.19 and 12.20, respectively). Descriptions of the statistics relating to total investment are set out in the bulletin ‘Australian National Accounts - National Income and Expenditure 1969-70’ (reference No. 7.1).

Answers to each of the twelve parts of the question are shown in the accompanying Tables A and B, the item numbers used corresponding where possible to the part numbers of the question, or by way of reference to Treasury Economic Paper No. 1, ‘Overseas Investment in Australia’, May 1972. Many of the questions relate to fields in which precise statistical information is not available. For this reason, it is necessary to apply some degree of judgment in making use of such statistics as are available. The following answers are provided subject to this general reservation. Brief explanatory notes are given below:

The annual inflows of (a) private direct overseas investment in companies in Australia, classified as (i) undistributed income and (ii) other direct investment, and of (b) private portfolio investment and institutional loans in companies in Australia for the period 1949-50 to 1970-71 are shown in table 1 on page 5 of Treasury Economic Paper No. 1 ‘Overseas Investment in Australia’.

The proportions of total private overseas investment in companies in Australia corresponding to the above three categories are shown in the same table.

It is not really appropriate to make a comparison between statistical series of overseas investment in Australia and total investment in Australia. The two series measure investment flows of differing natures. Overseas investment in companies in Australia is a measure of the net flow of private financial investment from overseas, which may take the form of acquisition of existing assets and financial claims in addition to the creation of new assets. It also excludes investment by overseas-owned companies from depreciation funds. The national accounting series of total gross investment in Australia, on the other hand, measures the value of physical investment in new real assets only. For what it is worth, however, the ratio of the statistical series of total private overseas investment in companies in Australia to the statistical series of total investment (defined as gross fixed capital expenditure plus the value of physical changes in stocks) is calculated in Item (3). Table A.

Item (4) of Table A shows the rates of growth of (a) total investment, as defined in (3), and (c) private overseas investment in companies in Australia, for one year over the previous year. Item (4) in Table B shows the percentage growth for the same two categories for the periods 1949-50 to 1959-60, 1959-60 to 1969-70 and 1949-50 to 1969-70. The Statistician does not compile statistics of ‘local investment’ and, for various statistical and conceptual reasons, including those given in (3) above, it is not valid to define and measure such a concept as the difference between gross capital expenditure and overseas investment.

The Statistician has compiled statistics on the industrial classification of direct overseas investment in companies in Australia for 1956-57 and subsequent years. An industrial classification of private overseas investment in the’ form of portfolio investment and institutional loans is, however, not compiled. There are no statistics of total investment (as defined in (3) above) classified by industry, but statistics of total gross private fixed capital expenditure in respect of individual sectors of industry are available. Item (5) of Table A shows (a) the major industrial classification of direct overseas investment in companies in Australia in the form of (i) undistributed income and (ii) other direct investment for the period 1956-57 to 1969-70 and (b) the annual rates of growth of (i) total direct overseas investment in companies in Australia classified by major industry groups for the period 1957-58 to 1969-70 and (ii) total gross private fixed capital expenditure classified by major industry groups for the period 1949-50 to 1967-68 (the latest year for which such statistics are available). Item (5) in Table B shows the percentage growth in (a) direct overseas investment in companies in Australia classified by major industry groups for the periods 1956-57 to 1959-60, 1959-60 to 1969-70 and 1956-57 to 1969-70, and (b): total gross private fixed capital expenditure classified by major industry groups for the periods 1949-50 to 1959-60, 1959-60 to 1967-68 and 1949-50 to 1967-68. Because statistics of overseas investment by industry relate only to direct overseas investment and exclude investment from depreciation funds, it is not possible to relate the information supplied in answer to questions (2) and (3) to sectors of industry.

Statistics of overseas control of Australian industry have been compiled only for the mining and manufacturing sectors and only for a limited number of years, namely calendar years 1963 to 1968 for mining and financial years 1962-63 and 1966-67 for manufacturing. Information on the proportion of overseas control, measured in terms of the value of production, is contained in Item (6) of Table B. The definition of overseas control’ used for statistical purposes and more detailed information on overseas participation in the mining and manufacturing industries, are given in the publications mentioned above.

(a) It is not possible to calculate gross profit rates, after tax, for all Australian industry because of the lack of data on the value of total assets employed in industry.

and (c) No statistics are compiled on gross profit rates, after tax, for those sectors of industry which are locally controlled and overseas-controlled. However, some approximation of the profitability of that section of industry which is overseascontrolled can be obtained by calculating the earning rates of companies which are directly overseas-owned (as defined for statistical purposes). In addition, some indication of the profitability of locally owned companies can be obtained from Reserve Bank sources. The estimates so obtained are deficient in several respects. Moreover, since they are derived from separate sources, they are not directly comparable. The available information is presented on pages 31-35 of Treasury Economic Paper No. 1,Overseas Investment in Australia’. (8)For the purpose of this question, gross profit after tax for industry overall is measured by total company income after tax as defined in the bulletin ‘Australian National Accounts - National Income and Expenditure 1969-70. No statistics are compiled on the gross profits after tax of those sections of industry which are locally and overseas controlled. However, an approximate indication of the gross profits after tax of those sections of industry which are locally and overseas-owned can be obtained by measuring gross profit after tax for overseasowned industry by total company incomeafter tax payable overseas and for locally owned companies by the difference between total company income after tax and total company income after tax payable overseas. Item (8) of . Table A shows the percentage of gross profits after tax retained for (a) all industry, (b) locally owned industry and (c) overseas-owned industry, calculated on the basis of income measurement outlined above. The estimates relating to (b) and (c) are subject to several qualifications.

Item (9), Table A, shows (a) undistributed income for all industry as a percentage of total investment, as defined in (3) and (b) retained profits of direct investment companies accruing overseas as a percentage of total overseas investment in companies in Australia. For reasons outlined above, corresponding statistics for ‘locally controlled’ industry cannot validly be derived from these other measures of retained profits.

Item (10 (a) in Table B shows, for the only periods available, annual rates of growth in the proportion of overseas control in the mining sector for each of the years 1964 to 1968 while the percentage rates of growth over the whole period 1963 to 1968 are shown in Item (10) (b). The percentage rate of growth over the period 1962-63 to 1966-67 in the proportion of overseas ownership of themanufacturing sector is shown in Item 10 (c).

Item (10) in Table a shows rates of growth in estimated earning rates on direct overseas investment in companies in Australia for one year over the previous year.

Investment income paid overseas to private investors in Australian companies as a percentage of the net inflow of new private overseas investment is shown in Item (12), Table A. The corresponding percentages for the periods 1949-50 to 1959-60, 1959-60 to 1969-70 and 1949-50 to 1969-70 are shown in Item (12) of Table B.

Item (6)

Mr Hurford:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for the

Interior, upon notice:

  1. On how many occasions in 1971 did public servants of (a) the Northern Territory Division of the Department of the Interior, Canberra and (b) other Commonwealth Departments in Canberra and the Northern Territory travel on duty first class by international airline between Darwin and Sydney.
  2. What were the main reasons for this travel by international airline instead of by internal airline.
  3. What was the aggregate additional expense incurred in fares because of this travel by international airline.

page 2628

OVERSEAS CONTROL - MINING SECTOR

Value of Production of Mining Establishments with Direct Overseas Investment as a Percentage of the Total Value of Production of Mining Establishments

page 2628

OVERSEAS CONTROL - MANUFACTURING SECTOR

Value of Production of Manufacturing Establishments with Direct Overseas Investment as a Percentage of the Total Value of Production of Manufacturing Establishments

item(10)

Item (11)

Item (12)

Public Service: Air Travel (Question No. 5138)

Mr Hunt:
Minister for the Interior · GWYDIR, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

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

  1. (a) On 7 occasions.

    1. This matter is the concern of the Ministers responsible for the Departments involved.

  2. Of the 7 flights, 3 were to accompany the Minister for briefing purposes en route.

On the remaining 4 occasions officers working in Sydney (3) and Darwin (1) were able to arrive at their destinations for further duty a day earlier than would have been the case had they used the next scheduled domestic aircraft.

  1. Additional air fares amounted to $390; the use of international airlines saved approximately $60 in travelling allowances; the additional cost was $330.

Persons of Aboriginal Descent: Legal Responsibilities (Question No. 5186)

Mr Hansen:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts, upon notice:

  1. Are persons of Aboriginal descent, who have received Commonwealth finance to establish commercial projects, subject to laws and regulations from which Aborigines in their native state are exempt.
  2. If not, are they exempt from laws governing the taking of fish or protected fauna.
Mr Howson:
Minister for Environment, Aborigines and the Arts · CASEY, VICTORIA · LP

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

Because of the limited information provided in the question, and the difficulty, recognised in Standing Orders, of answering questions which seek legal opinion, I regret I am unable to answer the question. If the honourable member would care to write to me providing more information I would be glad to have the problem examined.

Voting Age (Question No. 5233)

Mr Hunt:
CP

– In answer to Question No. 5233 by the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson) who asked, in part, which countries allow people under the age of 21 years to vote, I listed the respective countries and added that the following States of the United States of America also allow persons under 21 years of age to vote - Alaska, Georgia, Hawaii and Kentucky (see Hansard, 11th April 1972).

Later information has revealed that with the certification of the 26th Amendment to the United States of America Constitution on 6th July 1971, 18, 19 and 20 year old persons became eligible to vote in all County, State and Federal elections in the United States of America.

Public Service: Recruitment (Question No. 5261)

Mr Enderby:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Did the Public Service Board representative, Mr W. P. Butler, when giving evidence before the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory at its inquiry into employment opportunities say that the Public Service Board has registered for employment quite a number of school leavers, many of whom, at least, would have been employed by the Service had there not been a reduction in recruitment.
  2. Did Mr Butler also say that he was not sure how many of these, having been told that there was no available employment for them in the Commonwealth Service, have been able to find other jobs through the Commonwealth Employment Service or through their own initiative.
  3. Will he supply details of the number of persons referred to by Mr Butler as registered for employment in each of the last 5 years.
  4. If the records show the registration’ figures on a monthly, quarterly or other periodical basis, will he also supply those figures.
  5. How many persons were accepted for employment during each of the same periods.
  6. How many persons who have registered for employment have been advised that there is no employment available for them or that their request for employment has been declined during each of the same periods.
Mr McMahon:
LP

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

  1. and (2) I am informed that in response to a question by the Chairman of the joint Committee, Mr Butler said:

We do have registered for employment quite a number of school-leavers who, if there had not been the reduction in recruitment, would have been employed by the Service or many of them would have been. How many of these, having been told that there was no available employment for them in the Commonwealth Service, have been able to find other jobs through the Commonwealth Employment Service or through their own initiatives, I am not sure. Perhaps in somecases, even where they have found other jobs, they are still available to us when and if the employment opportunities are available. I couldnot really answer your question in a precise sort of way as to whether there are people who are just unemployed waiting on us to make an opportunity.’

  1. and (4) The Public Service Board has advised that summarised information on the numbers of aplicants registered for employment, in each of the last five years is not readily available and that extraction of this information would entail substantial administrative effort; and in any event, such information does not distinguish between school-leavers and others.
  2. The Public Service Board has provided the following table showing the total number of permanent appointments in the Australian Capital Territory (classified by age) in each of the last five years.’ School-leavers and others cannot be distinguished.
  1. I am informed that no reliable historical statistical information is available on the numbers of school-leavers registered for employment who have been advised that no employment is available or that their request for employment has been declined.

Immigration: Eligibility for Social Services (Question No. 5266)

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Immigration, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that immigrants cannot receive social service benefits until they have been resident in Australia for a number of years.
  2. Is it also a fact that special benefits are refused by the Department of Social Services if a guarantee has been signed on behalf of an immigrant.
  3. Can he say whether many guarantors repudiate their guarantees.
  4. If so, what action is taken to ensure that guarantees are honoured.
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. No. Some social service benefits are payable without any residential qualification whatever. Conditions which apply are as follows:

    1. Maternity allowance. This is paid to all mothers in respect of children born in Australia. No residential qualification applies. The allowance may also be paid in respect of children born on the journey to Australia providing that permanent residence is intended and no allowance is payable by another country.
    2. Child endowment This is paid to families who enter for permanent residence from the beginning of the first 4-weekly period after arrival in Australia. No residential qualifications are imposed.
    3. Unemployment and sickness benefits. These are payable without residential qualifications to males between 16 and 65 and females between 16 and 60 who have arrived in Australia for residence and whose employment has been interrupted by unemployment or sickness.
    4. Invalid pensions. Applicants whose incapacity occurred after arrival are required to have lived in Australia continuously for 5 years at any time. Those who were permanently incapacitated or blind on arrival are required to have 10 years continuous residence before they qualify for a pension. This period is reduced where a person has lived in Australia for periods totalling more than 10 years including a period of continuous residence of not less than 5 years.
    5. Widows pensions. No period of residence is required where a claimant and her husband were living permanently in Australia when she was widowed. In other cases 5 years continuous residence is required but this is waived in the case of a woman whose husband has died overseas if she herself had resided continuously here for 10 years at any time.
    6. Age pensions. A period of 10 years continuous residence in Australia at any time is necessary to qualify for an age pension. This period is reduced where a person has lived in Australia for periods totalling more than 10 years and a period of continuous residence of not less than 5 years.
  2. Special benefit may be granted to a migrant in respect of whom there is a maintenance guarantee in force if the guarantor is unable, because of a change in his financial circumstances, to honour his undertaking. In any such case the amount of benefit so paid automatically becomes a debt due and payable to the Commonwealth by the guarantor.
  3. Some cases have come to notice where a guarantor appears able but refuses to honour his guarantee.
  4. In such instances the action taken depends on the circumstances of the case concerned.

Constitution: Review (Question No. 5288)

Mr Enderby:

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that the State Attorneys-General have met to draw up guidelines for a convention of the States to review the Australian Constitution.
  2. If so, was the Commonwealth represented at the meeting; if not, why not
  3. Can the Attorney-General say whether there is unanimity amongst the State Governments regarding the need for substantial reform of the Constitution.
  4. Will the Attorney-General do everything in his power to ensure that the Commonwealth is represented at any future meetings and at any convention.
  5. Will the Attorney-General also inform the State Attorneys-General that the Commonwealth Government agrees that there is a need for constitutional reform.
  6. Is it possible for the Commonwealth to arrange an election of constitution convention delegates at the same time as the next General Elections for the House of Representatives so that non-Parliamentary delegates could then join with Parliamentary delegates at a convention and begin drafting reforms to the Constitution; if so, will the Attorney-General advise the Government to do this.
Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. Yes.
  2. No. The meeting was a meeting of State Attorneys-General called by the States.
  3. It would seem that the States are agreed that there is a need for Constitutional reform.
  4. , (5) and (6) As the Prime Minister announced on 7th May 1972, all Parties represented in the Commonwealth Parliament have agreed to participate in the proposed Convention. The nature of the representation will be the subject of later decision.

Aborigines: Employment Training Scheme (Question No. 5298)

Mr Kennedy:

asked the Minister for

Labour and National Service, upon notice:

  1. On what date was the employment training scheme for Aborigines introduced.
  2. What sum has been (a) allocated and (b) spent in (i) each year and (ii) all years of operation of the scheme and in what way has this money been spent.
  3. How many Aborigines in (a) each State and Territory and (b) the Commonwealth have (i) (A) applied for, (B) been approved for, (C) been rejected for, (D) commenced and (E) completed training and (ii) been placed in employment (A) after training and (B) without training.
  4. What assistance is made available (a) for training, (b) for employment after training and (c) in establishing a business.
  5. What are the terms of eligibility for assistance under the scheme.
  6. What are the general grounds on which applications for assistance have been rejected, and what (a) numbers and (b) percentages have been involved in each case.
  7. What are the names and locations of educational and training institutions at which Aborigines are being trained and for what kinds of employment does each prepare Aborigines benefiting from the scheme.
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. 12th July 1969.

(2)

These funds have been expended in providing the subsidies to employers and direct assistance to Aborigines in employment training mentioned in (3) below.

  1. to (7) In some respects, these parts of the question are inappropriate to the training provided under this Scheme, which is practical, on-the-job employment training and does not extend to institutional training or specific established courses. The Scheme provides for subsidies, for a maximum period of 12 months in resspect of each Aborigine, to employers who provide long-term work training (with a minimum period of 12 months) to Aborigines who have been assessed by the Commonwealth Employment Service as having no history of previous employment or inadequate previous employment. The subsidy payable to employers is a diminishing proportion of the award rate for the work in which the Aborigine is being trained (the Scheme applies only to employment in which an award or determination applies or for which there is an established ruling rate). The subsidy is as follows: first 3 months - 30 per cent of award, etc. rate; second three months - 25 per cent of award, etc. rate; third 3 months - 20 per cent of award, etc. rate; fourth 3 months - 10 per cent of award, etc. rate.

Commonwealth and State Departments and instrumentalities are not eligible for subsidy under the Scheme.

In addition, the Scheme provides for direct benefits to be paid to Aborigines placed in employment by the Commonwealth Employment Service. These benefits, which are not restricted to Aborigines placed in subsidised employment training, consist of payment of fares to take up employment and for junior Aborigines, living away-from-home allowances, payment of the first week’s accommodation costs for those required to live away from home, assistance with daily fares for those living away from home in metropolitan or major employment areas, a clothing grant for those under the age of 17 years entering their first employment and the payment of fares for those juniors living away from home to enable them to return to their families.

The Scheme has been gathering momentum, reflecting increasing acceptance by employers and Aborigines and the efforts of specialist staff to select and counsel trainees and employers.

The number of Aborigines placed in subsidised employment training during 1971 was 678, compared with 419 during 1970 and considerably more than double the number of juniors were receiving direct benefits at the end of 1971 (396) than at the end of 1970 (149).

Since the inception of the Scheme 1,426 Aborigines had been placed in subsidised employment training to end-February 1972, at which time 330 were still in training; 676 juniors had been granted living-away-from-home allowances; fares to take up employment had been paid for 456, both adults and juniors; 212 junior Aborigines had had their return fares paid to visit their families. Since December 1970, the first weeks accommodation costs had been paid for 318 juniors and the clothing grant paid to 212 juniors.

Through the Scheme the Department has been able to place in employment a substantial number of Aborigines who might not have found employment in the particular industries or occupations in which they were placed or who might not otherwise have found any regular, long-term employment. Certainly the provision of direct benefits to young Aborigines appears to have been a significant factor in encouraging them to enter regular employment, to acquire work skills and in making it possible for them to move voluntarily from areas of no employment potential to areas of industrial activity.

Placements under the subsidised employment provisions of the Scheme have been in a wide range of occupations and industries. Almost half (45 per cent) of all the placements were in semiskilled work as factory operatives, machinists, and building, metal and electrical workers. Less than one-fifth (19 per cent) of the placements were in unskilled work - and many of those so placed would progress to more skilled work. Well over one-fifth (23 per cent) of all junior males were placed as apprentices or trainees in skilled trades. Almost half (48 per cent) of the junior females were placed as office and sales workers and nursing assistants, while most of the remainder were placed as clothing machinists or other factory workers.

An analysis, by State and Territory, of the time spent with employers by trainees who terminated their training between 1st July 1970 and 30th June 1971 in the various States and the Northern Territory is set out in the table below.

From this table it will be evident that of those whose employment training terminated during 1970-71 half had remained 4 months or longer, including those who completed the full term of training. When it is considered that the Scheme is specifically directed to Aborigines with little or no previous experience of regular employment, the value of involving the 50 per cent who completed more than 4 months in a regular work situation should be stressed. A separate analysis of all those who commenced training in 1970 indicates that 25 per cent completed their 12 months training, which is even more encouraging.

Immigration: Ministerial Meetings (Question No. 5304)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for

Immigration, upon notice:

  1. Where and when have there been meetings of the Immigration. Ministers since 7th May 1971.
  2. What were the names and portfolios of the Ministers who attended each meeting.
  3. What requests or suggestions were made at each meeting for legislative or administrative action by (a) the Commonwealth, (b) the Territories and (c) the States.
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. One Conference of Commonwealth and State Ministers for Immigration has taken place since 7th May 1971. This was held in Canberra on 25th February 1972.
  2. The following State Ministers attended:

New South Wales- The Hon. E. A. Willis, M.L.A., Chief Secretary, Minister for Tourism and Minister for Sport,

Victoria - The Hon. Vance Dickie, M.L.C., Minister for Immigration,

Queensland - The Hon. F. A. Campbell, M.L.A., Minister for Industrial Development and Migration,

South Australia - The Hon. D. A. Dunstan, Q.C., M.H.A., Premier, Treasurer, Minister of Mines and Minister of Development,

Western Australia- The Hon. H. D. Evans, M.L.A., Minister for Lands, Agriculture and Immigration,

Tasmania- The Hon. D. F. Clark, M.H.A., Minister for Housing (representing the Minister for Immigration, The Hon. K. O. Lyons. M.H.A.)

  1. The following requests or suggestions were made for action by:

    1. The Commonwealth -

To ask the Committee of the Immigration Advisory Council now undertaking an Inquiry into the Departure Movement of Migrants to differentiate between assisted and unassisted migrantsin determining the size of this movement

To continue to tailor the size and content of the immigration programme to Australia’s needs and the nation’s ability to absorb migrants.

To increase, with the co-operation of the States, the minimum amounts of capital required by successful applicants for assisted passages from Britain.

  1. The Territories-

Nil

  1. The States-

To give consideration to the need for changes in State legislation to assist the Committee on Overseas Professional Qualifications in its attempts to achieve uniformity among States in the recognition of overseas professional qualifications.

After receiving, from the Commonwealth, comprehensive information about new English courses for migrants in industry, to support an approach to employers for their co-operation in this scheme.

Compulsory voting (Question No. 5329)

Mr Daly:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for the

Interior, upon notice:

Can he say in what countries and states voting is compulsory in Parliamentary elections.

Mr Hunt:
CP

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

Information furnished by the National Librarian indicates that voting is compulsory in the following countries - Australia; Argentina; Austria (in the federal provinces of Styxia, Tyrol and Vorarlberg); Belgium; Bolivia; Brazil (for all literate citizens); Chile; Costa Rica; Dominican Republic; Ecuador (voting, is a duty); El Salvador (voting is a legal right and a moral duty but is compulsory in only a few departments); Greece; Guatemala (forall literate citizens); Italy; Liechtenstein; Luxemburg; Mexico; Paraguay; Peru; Philippines; Rwanda; Singapore; Switzerland (in the cantons of Schaffhouse, Appenzell, Rhodes- Exterieures Argovie, Thurgovie, Saint-Gall and Tessin); United Arab Republic; and Venezuela.

Interstate Postings of Servicemen with Children at Secondary Schools (Question No. 5354)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for

Defence, upon notice:

When will the conversion of Army personnel records to EDP be sufficiently advanced to estimate, as has been estimated in the Royal Australian Navy and Royal Australian Air Force (Hansard, 11th November 1971, page 3439), how many servicemen with children at secondary schools are posted from one State to another in the course of any one year.

Mr Fairbairn:
Minister for Defence · FARRER, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

It is likely to be several years before Army personnel records are computerised to the extent necessary to provide the type of information already notified in respect of the other Services. This is due mainly to the greater size of the Army and the lengthy task involved in completing personnel records and transferring them to the EDP system.

At present, Army personnel are not obliged to notify the number or ages of their children.

Electoral: Campaign Expenses (Question No. 5405)

Mr Daly:

asked the Minister for the

Interior, upon notice:

Can he say whether the United States of America has recently, imposed a limit on expenditure by candidates and public organisations in campaigns for the election of presidents, senators and members; if so, can he supply full details of this legislation.

Mr Hunt:
CP

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

The United States of America ‘Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971’ limits the amount a candidate or his immediate family may contribute to his own campaign to $50,000 for President or Vice President, $35,000 for Senator and $25,000 for Representative.

The ‘Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971’ also limits the amount that may be spent by or on behalf of federal candidates for advertising in communications media (including radio, television, newspapers, magazines, billboards and automatic telephone equipment) to 10 cents per eligible voter, or $50,000, whichever is the greater. The limitation applies to all candidates for President and Vice President, Senator and Representative and will be determined annually for the geographical area of each election. Up to, 60 per cent of the over-all media limitation may be spent for broadcasting purposes.

Further details may be obtained from the ‘Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971’ a copy of which is available for perusal in the Parliamentary Library.

Googong Dam (Question No. 5408)

Mr Enderby:

asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

  1. Has a decision been made to construct the Googong Dam on the Queanbeyan River above the point where the Queanbeyan River flows into the Molonglo River and thence into Lake Burley Griffin?
  2. If so, when is it expected that (a) construction will commence? (b) construction will be completed? and (c) the Dam will commence to fill?
  3. What is the likely period, of time over which the Dam will fill?
  4. Does the Queanbeyan River at present dilute the pollution and toxic qualities of the Molonglo River, resulting from residual zinc deposits at Captains Flat, by a factor of about three?
  5. If . so, (a) will this dilution factor be removed during the time the Dam is under construction and filling and (b) will it also be diminished after the Dam is full as a result of loss of water by evaporation?
  6. Have any investigations or studies been undertaken into any of these matters?
  7. Will an increased amount of pollution result in Lake Burley Griffin because of the construction of the Dam; if so, what investigations or studies have been carried out on this problem?
  8. If investigations or studies have been carried out, what do they reveal in respect of (a) the likely percentage increase in zinc pollution in Lake Burley Griffin? (b) the likely destruction or percentage diminution of the fish population of the Lake and the likely time this destruction or diminution will remain? (c) the likely percentage increase in weed and sludge and other plant content of the Lake as a result of the destruction of the fish population of the Lake during the time when the Dam is filling? (d) the likely cost of eradicating the weed and removing the sludge and other excessive plant content of the Lake referred to in part (c)? (e) the likely cost of altering the shape and increasing the depth of the Lake in order to eradicate weed? (f) the necessary shortterm measures that will have to be taken to avoid or overcome these dangers to the Lake? (g) the necessary long-term measures which will have to be taken to overcome the basic problem which results from the condition at Captains Flat? and (h) the likely estimated cost of (i) the short-term and (ii) the long-term measures?
  9. If these matters have not been considered, will he ensure that they are considered?
  10. What is the estimated cost of construction of the Googong Dam?
  11. What is the estimated value of the land that will be lost to use when the Dam fills?
  12. What is the estimated cost of the alternative proposal that a pipeline bring water from the Tantangera Dam in the Snowy Mountains?
  13. What are the advantages and disadvantages of this alternative proposal?
  14. Has an inter-departmental working group been formed with officers of the relevant Commonwealth Departments, the National Capital Development Commission and the New South Wales Department of Mines?
  15. If so, has the group yet made a report?
  16. If a report has been made, will he make it available?
  17. If the group has reported and recommended that work be carried out at Captains Flat, (a) has the Commonwealth Government entered into any arrangements with the New South Wales Government for the work to be carried out? and (b) when is it expected that the work will commence?
Mr Hunt:
CP

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

  1. The Commonweatlh and the Slate of New South Wales have agreed in principle to the construction of a dam at Googong on the Queanbeyan River.
  2. No timetable has been adopted but it is expected that preliminary work will start next financial year.
  3. The filling of the Dam is contingent upon rainfall but it is expected to commence supplying water to Canberra by 1977.
  4. The waters of the Molonglo River are to some extent diluted by the Queanbeyan River.

However, the extent of dilution and the effect on toxicity in the Molonglo River is dependent upon rainfall and other conditions applying in the individual catchment areas.

  1. (a) Some reductionin the flow of the Queanbeyan River can be expected while the Dam is filling.

    1. Yes, in certain climatic conditions.
  2. Investigations are proceeding towards identifying the specific source or sources of pollution and the design of measures to reduce mineral pollution in the Molonglo River to an acceptable level. A solution to the problem is needed irrespective of the Googong scheme.
  3. No. See answer (6) above.
  4. and (9) Investigations are proceeding as outlined in (6) above.
  5. The estimated cost of the Googong Dam including all associated works is $30m.
  6. It is not the practice of the Government to disclose estimated values prior to commencement of action to acquire.
  7. and (13) There is no proposal to pipe water from Tantangera. Investigations have shown that there are advantages in proceeding with the Googong proposal.
  8. Representatives of several Departments or Authorities have had discussions with representatives of New South Wales State Departments about the Googong Dam proposal and associated matters.
  9. , (16) and (17) It is not the practice of the Government to make available any recommendations or reports of inter-departmental committees or meetings of this kind.

Australian Capital Territory: Lottery (Question No. 5409)

Mr Enderby:

asked the Minister for the

Interior, upon notice:

  1. Has he given approval for the Australian Capital Territory to have its first lottery conducted by a private company known as Foundation of Youth Ltd.
  2. If so, will he consider the needs of old people which might also be satisfied by such a lottery.
  3. If another company is formed for the purpose of managing a lottery to assist old people, will he give a similar approval to that given to Foundation of Youth Ltd; if so, what requirements would have to be met for this approval to be given.
  4. If lotteries are to be run in Canberra for these purposes, will the Government consider a government-operated lottery which is responsible to government as in the case of New South Wales.
  5. Has the Advisory Council of the A.C.T. requested a Government lottery for these purposes; if so, when was the request made.
  6. Why has the request not been acceded to.
Mr Hunt:
CP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. and (3) The objects towards which the proceeds from a lottery are applied are a matter for the applicant organisation. If a community body submitted an application to conduct a lottery in aid of aged persons it would be considered on its merits, as was done with the lottery referred to in (1).
  3. Not at this stage.
  4. Not for these purposes but the A.C.T. Advisory Council did recommend the establishment of a government lottery in September 1970.
  5. The Government not being prepared to underwrite the proposal, it was not considered expedient.

Commonwealth Records: Shedden Papers (Question No. 5411)

DrJ. F. Cairns asked the Minister for

Defence, upon notice:

Are those papers which are known as the Shedden papers retained in his Department.

Have liberalised rules recently been adopted for the release of Commonwealth records to research workers up to a date 30 years ago.

If so, is it a fact that no attempt has been made to release the Shedden papers up to that date.

If the papers have not been released, is it because it is considered that they reveal matters highly embarrassing about the lack of preparedness of Australian defence prior to World War II.

Have the Shedden papers always been retained in his Department, carefully supervised by departmental personnel, and when Sir Frederick Shedden himself worked on them did he do so mainly in the Department and with assistance from departmental personnel.

Is there any reason why the Shedden papers, up to the date 30 years ago, should not now be released for examination by researchers.

Mr Fairbairn:
LP

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

  1. The late Sir Frederick Shedden was carrying out research on Australian defence with a view to writing a book on that subject. Some facilities and assistance were made available to him at Victoria Barracks, Melbourne, but he was writing for himself and not for the Government. Although it is understood that one volume of the book was considered by Sir Frederick to be in publishable form, his work was not completed when he died. On his death, his working papers and the manuscripts of his book became the property of his family. As an act of courtesy they are at present held on behalf of Lady Shedden in secure storage by the Department of Defence on the clear understanding that there is to be no access to them either by departmental officers or by anyone else.
  2. Yes.
  3. See the answer to (1).
  4. No.
  5. See the answer to (1).
  6. See the answer to (1).

Commonwealth Records: Shedden Papers (Question No. 5412)

DrJ. F. Cairns asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

Will he ensure that the full set of records collected by Sir Frederick Shedden relating to Australian defence and outside the 30 year period, will be expeditiously transferred to the custody of the Commonwealth Archives Office for scrutiny by researchers.

Is it a fact that research work financed by public funds is being seriously delayed and hampered by the unavailability of the Shedden defence papers.

Mr Fairbairn:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is asfollows:

  1. As explained in the answer to Question No. 5411, the Shedden papers are at present held by Department of Defence in secure storage on behalf of Lady, Shedden. Official records of the Department of Defence are transferred to the custody of Commonwealth Archives Office in accordance with the standing arrangements for archival transfer of Commonwealth records and access to them is subject to the normal rules.
  2. The Shedden papers are not Commonwealth Records nor are they the property of the Commonwealth.

Pensioner Medical Cards (Question No. 5418)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Social Services, upon notice:

  1. Has the issue of pensioner medical cards been discontinued and heavy paper forms substituted for them.
  2. If so, (a) do these forms lack the durability of the cards previously issued and (b) will he examine the possibility of issuing pensioners with a plastic cover to protect these forms and increase their life.
Mr Wentworth:
LP

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

  1. and (2) As from 1st January 1972 the pensioner medical service entitlement card previously in use was replaced with a card which is renewed annually.

Although the durability of the new type of card should be adequate to withstand normal wear and tear, the use of plastic covers for added protection has been under consideration for some time. Samples are at present being examined within the Department to determine the most suitable type of cover which could be used for a general issue to eligible pensioners.

Meteorology: Geelong Station (Question No. 5442)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

Will he examine the possibility, of establishing a meteorology station in the vicinity of Geelong in order that comprehensive information can be provided in that area.

Mr Hunt:
CP

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

A meteorological reporting station requires a site suitable for obtaining temperature and rainfall figures representative of the Geelong area. Observations must be taken twice a day every day of the year.

The Bureau of Meteorology is looking for a suitable organisation preparedto take on the responsibility of maintaining a reporting station in the Geelong area.

Qantas Airways Ltd: Financial Directive (Question No. 5483)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice:

When’ does the Minister expect the new financial directive to the Board of Directors of Qantas Airways Limited to be completed and approved (Hansard, 9th December 1971, page 4589).

Mr Swartz:
LP

– The Minister for Civil Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

The review of the Financial Directive to the Board of Directors of Qantas Airways Limited is proceeding. The matter is quite complex and it is not possible to indicate at this stage when the task will be completed.

Diplomatic Relations: People’s Republic of China (Question No. 5515)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for ForeignAffairs, upon notice:

What countries have taken steps to extend diplomatic recognition to the People’s Republic of China since the answer on 18th February 1971 (Hansard, page 365) by the then Minister for Foreign Affairs.

Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

Since 18th February 1971, announcements (on the date shown below) have been made on the establishment of diplomatic relations between the following countries and the People’s Republic of China:

San Marin on 6th May 1971 announced recognition of the PRC and the establishment of relations at the consular level. Libya (12th June 1971) and Luxembourg (29th October 1971) announced unilateral recognition of the PRC. Togo on 10th September 1971 announced unilateral recognition of the PRC but maintains diplomatic relations with the Republic of China. Tunisia (September 1971) and Ghana (25th February 1972) . resumed diplomatic relations with the PRC. Burundi reestablished diplomatic relations with the PRC in September 1971.

Capital Punishment: Northern Territory (Question No. 5530)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for the

Interior, upon notice:

What were the names and status of members of the Northern Territory Legislative Council who voted (a) for and (b) against the last Bill for an Ordinance to abolish capital punishment?

Mr Hunt:
CP

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

Ayes 7

Mr T. A. Bell ; elected member for McMillan

Mr A. G. W. Greatorex; elected member for Stuart

Mr B. F. Kilgariff elected member for Alice Springs

Mrs A. D. Lawrie; elected member for Nightcliff

Mr E. L. Marks ; elected member for Barkly

Mr R. C. Ward ; elected member for Ludmilla

Mr R. J. Withnall; elected member for Port Darwin.

Noes 10

Mr W. J. Fisher ; elected member for Fannie Bay

Mr R. J. Kentish ; elected member for Arnhem

Mr G. A. Letts ; elected member for Victoria River

Mr J. L. S. MacFarlane; elected member for Elsey

*Mr M. R. Finger ; official member

*Mr H.C. Giese ; official member

*Mr H. T. Plant; official member

*Mr B. Hart; official member

*Mr P.Purich ; official member

*Mr C. J.O’SuIlivan ; official member.

Australian Institute of Marine Science (Question No. 5556)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for

Education and Science, upon notice:

Will he answer Question No. 5355, which I placed on the Notice Paper on 23rd March 1972, before the resumption of the debate on the Australian Institute of Marine Science Bill of which he moved the second reading on the same day.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

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

An answer to Question No. 5355 appeared in Hansard dated Tuesday, 18th April 1972 (See page 1767).

Post-Graduate Medical Education: Parramatta Hospital (Question No. 5569)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for

Education and Science, upon notice:

  1. Has the Australian Universities Commission received a request from Parramatta District Hospital for funds to help with capital expenditure required to provide facilities for post-graduate medical education.
  2. If so, when will the Commission announce its recommendation.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

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

  1. and (2) No such request is before the Australian Universities Commission.

Aboriginal Population: Northern Territory (Question No. 5570)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

  1. What is the total Aboriginal population aged over 21 years in the Northern Territory.
  2. How many of these are estimated to live more than 5 miles from the nearest polling booth.
Mr Hunt:
CP

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

  1. Information from the 1971 Census will not be available for some months. The Northern Territory Administration records provide an approximate figure of 11,000.
  2. On the best information available from Administration records approximately 4,500.

Commonwealth Land and Property: Bankstown Municipality (Question No, 5574)

Mr Keating:

asked the Minister for the

Interior, upon notice:

What is the location of Commonwealth land holdings and properties within the Municipality of Bankstown in New South Wales.

Mr Hunt:
CP

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

Commonwealth Property: Forrest Place, Perth (Question No. 5605) .

Mr Berinson:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for the

Interior, upon notice:

  1. What are the expiry dates of current leases of the Commonwealth property known as Padbury Buildings, Forrest Place, Perth.
  2. What is the estimated value of the site, and what use is proposed for it after current leases have expired.
  3. Has his attention been drawn to the announced intention of the Western Australian Government to sink or remove the Perth Central Railway Station, adjacent to Forrest Place, and develop a civic centre and/or public open space on the site.
  4. Has any approach been received from the Western Australian Government seeking a transfer of the Padbury Building site, on favourable terms, for incorporation into a proposed Perth Civic Square; if so, what has been the response of the Commonwealth.
  5. If no request has yet been received, will he nevertheless undertake to consider the possibility of such a Commonwealth contribution to the civic development of the central Perth City area.
Mr Hunt:
CP

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

  1. The lease of Padbury Building expires on 6th May 1975.
  2. Estimated value is about$1.1m. The property is held for the Postmaster-General’s Department and its future use in the first instance is primarily a matter for that Department.
  3. Yes.
  4. No.
  5. Any future approach by the Western Australian Government will receive due consideration, subject to the property becoming surplus to Commonwealth requirements.

Rural Reconstruction Scheme (Question No. 5610)

Mr Grassby:

asked the Minister for

Primary Industry, upon notice:

  1. Did he state to 300 farmers at Laidley, Queensland, in January 1972 that there is a serious defect in the rural reconstruction scheme.
  2. Is it a fact thatit is not possible under the scheme for sons to buy out their fathers when the time has come for the property to be handed over to young trained men and at the same time provide the fathers with funds for the start of retirement; if so, is this the defect to which he referred.
  3. Did he agree to examine this apparent anomaly.
  4. If so, has he done so and what are the results of the examination; if not, when will he do so.
Mr Sinclair:
CP

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

  1. No.
  2. Finance of a land transfer from father to son is generally outside the provisions of the Rural Reconstruction Scheme. However, assistance under the build-up provisions may be provided where the rural reconstruction authority is satisfied that the proposal meets the general conditions of eligibility and that the build-up would not otherwise take place. Where the father is in a position to finance the transfer himself or to arrange for finance from institutional lenders assistance would not be forthcoming.
  3. and (4) Questions were raised during the meeting as to the provision of funds to finance transfer of property from father to son. In addition to the assistance referred to in (2) above availability of credit for this purpose is seen as part of the total requirements for rural credit into which I have asked the Bureau of Agricultural Economics to undertake a thorough going inquiry. This is a matter of some complexity, but I hope to receive a report on the Bureau’s findings in the near future.

Primary Industry Exports: Value (Question No.5617)

Mr Duthie:
WILMOT, TASMANIA

asked the Minister for Trade and Industry, upon notice:

  1. What was the value of primary industry exports in 1960-61 and 1970-71.
  2. What was the percentage of these exports to total exports in each of those years.
  3. What was the value of mineral exports in 1960-61 and 1970-71.
  4. What was the percentage of these exports to total exports in each of those years.
Mr Anthony:
CP

– The answers to the honourable member’s questions are contained in the following table derived from figures supplied by the Commonwealth Statistician.

Trade Balance (Question No. 5625)

Mr Barnard:

asked the Minister for Trade and Industry, upon notice:

What was the overall balance of Australian trade with -

Asian countries excluding Japan;

African countries excluding South Africa and Rhodesia and

South American countries during the latest financial year for which figures are available, and for the financial years 5 and 10 years previously.

Mr Anthony:
CP

– The answers to the honourable member’s questions are set out in the following table derived from figures supplied by the Commonwealth Statistician.

Aged Persons Homes (Question No. 5683)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for

Social Services, upon notice:

What has been the total Commonwealth contribution (a) spent and (b) allotted but not yet spent under the Aged Persons Homes Act in each electoral division of the Commonwealth to date.

Mr Wentworth:
LP

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

Total Commonwealth expenditure under the Aged Persons Homes Act, from the introduction of the Act in 1954 to 30th April 1972, was $128,164,000. Grants approved but not drawn total $15,828,000 in respect of projects in course of construction and disbursement of this amount is being made in instalments upon lodgment of certified statements of expenditure by the organisations concerned. Treasury accounting procedure does not provide for the recording of expenditure by electoral divisions consequently the information sought in this regard is not readily available.

Television: Stage 7 (Question No. 5691)

Mr Collard:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Postmaster-General, upon notice:

  1. Did he state on 9th December 1971 that unless special procedures were adopted a delay of some 2 years could occur on the original completion dates in relation to stage 7 television stations.
  2. If so, did those special procedures include the urgent provision of additional engineering positions.
  3. If the position is as stated, when were those additional positions first provided and over what period have they continued.
  4. What other special procedures were necessary to meet the completion dates and when were they first adopted.
Sir Alan Hulme:
Postmaster-General · PETRIE, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. Three positions of Engineer were provided in Post Office Headquarters early in March1972 and will be retained at least until the completion of State 7 of the Television Extension Plan.
  4. A reallocation of priorities in planning work being undertaken by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board was effected late in 1971 to advance the finalisation of technical plans for the Stage 7 stations. In the case of a number of the stations proposed for Queensland, a decision was made that the work be contracted on a ‘turn-key’ basis and a Specification and Tender Schedule were produced accordingly as a matter of urgency. Tenders were left open for a period of only eight weeks, which is considerably less than the time normally afforded for tendering. The Tender Schedule was issued early in January 1972 and tender assessment is now nearing completion. For certain stations in South Australia and Western Australia requiring special technical solutions for which normal equipment is not available, it . was decided that Departmental staff would adapt commercial equipment to make it suitable rather than accept the long delays which could be expected if special equipment had to be developed by industry in the usual manner. Furthermore, financial authorisation was obtained as a special measure from the Treasury early in 1972 to enable’ ordering of equipment to proceed in advance of finalisation of the budgets for 1972-73 and 1973-74. This is expected to result in an improvement in the equipment delivery situation, particularly with supplies from overseas.

Social Services: Single Mother and Child (Question No. 5712)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Social Services, upon notice:

Without committing himself to any attitude, will he undertake to have the question of Commonwealth responsibility for the welfare of a single mother and her child included on the agenda for the forthcoming meeting of State and Commonwealth Ministers for Social Services and Welfare.

Mr Wentworth:
LP

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

The situationin this regard was explained in my Second Reading Speech on the States Grants (Deserted Wives) Act on 2nd May 1968 (see Hansard, page 1060).

Under arrangements with the States, provision is made for assistance up to the rate of widow’s pension to be given to a single mother caring for her child. However, the assistance granted in any particular case is a matter for determination by the State authorities. Along with other matters, this arrangement will be listed for discussion by Ministers at the meeting mentioned by the honourable member, ,

Decentralisation: Officials Committee Meetings (Question No. 5724)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. On what dates has the Commonwealth-State Officials Committee on Decentralisation met since 7th Februray 1969 (Hansard, 6th May 1971, pages 2866 and 2908 and 10th September 1971, page 1148).
  2. When does he expect to table the committee’s report.
Mr McMahon:
LP

– I have been informed that the answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. 12th October 1971 and 27th April 1972.
  2. The Committee’s deliberations on 27th April 1972 should enable it to finalise its report and present it to the Governments, of the Commonwealth and States in the near future. As I have stated in answer to previousparliamentary questions (e.g. Hansard of 10th ‘September 1971,. page 1148), the question of tabling the report in the Commonwealth Parliament will be decided after the Commonwealth and ‘State Governments have considered the report.

Public Hospitals: Finance (Question No. 4357)

Mr Kennedy:

asked the Minister repre senting the Minister for Health, upon notice:

What is the (a) average cost, of an attendance at an out-patient’s department of a public hospital and (b) average patient contribution to the cost in (i) Australia and (ii) each State and Territory.

Dr Forbes:
LP

– The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

The following table, based where applicable on information provided by State authorities, shows the average cost of an attendance at an outpatient’s department of a public hospital and the average patient contribution to the cost in each State and Territory for 1970-71. However I should point out to the honourable member that these are of limited value as there are differences between States in the manner of defining outpatients and defining and recording out-patient attendances. There are also differences in the methods of allocation of costs.

Contraceptives (Question No. 4744)

Mr Enderby:

asked the Minister repre senting the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. Is there any reason why contraceptives cannot be included in the Therapeutic Goods Act so that the Government can enforce appropriate standards of manufacture on contraceptives made in Australia.
  2. If not, will the Minister take steps to have locally made contraceptives included in the Act to enable these standards to be enforced.
Dr Forbes:
LP

– The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. Australian-made contraceptives are already subject to the provisions of the Therapeutic Goods Act.
  2. No standards have yet been determined for such goods, but action to do so will be taken in due course.

High Court Justices: Privy Council Sittings (Question No. 5303)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister repre senting the Attorney-General, upon notice:

On what occasions since 19th February 1963 have justices of the High Court of Australia sat as members of the Privy Council (a) in Australia and (b) elsewhere.

Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The AttorneyGeneral has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. Justices of the High Court have not sat in Australia as members of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
  2. Visits have been made to London by the following Justices of the High Court to sit on the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council:

Sir Garfield Barwick (June 1966, July 1967, July 1969);

Sir Douglas Menzies (June-July 1967);

Sir Alan Taylor (November-December 1967);

Sir Frank Kitto (April-July 1970).

In addition, Sir Edward McTiernan is now on his way to London for the purpose of sitting on the Judicial Committee.

Aborigines: Leprosy (Question No. 5365)

Mr Collard:

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

  1. When was the most recent survey carried out in the Northern Territory for the purpose of detecting the incidence of leprosy among the Aboriginal population.
  2. How many (a) adults and (b) minors were found to be suffering from the disease and how do these numbers compare with previous surveys.
  3. When is the next survey proposed.
Dr Forbes:
LP

– The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. Leprosy survey work is carried out continuously in the Northern Territory. It is conducted by staff from the East Arm hospital, the Rural Health section, and the Aerial Medical section, all of whom are trained in the early diagnosis of leprosy. (2)New cases detected during 1970 and 1971 are as follows:

The total number of new cases of leprosy in the Northern Territory for each year (ending 31st December) since 1963 is as follows:

  1. As indicated in (1) above, leprosy survey work in the Northern Territory is continuous.

Telephones: Installation Charges (Question No. 5366)

Mr Collard:

asked the Postmaster-General, upon notice:

  1. Is the charge for telephone installations $40 for each quarter mile beyond a15 mile radius of a telephone exchange.
  2. Is the charge the same for radio telephone installations.
  3. What is the cost of extending a radio telephone service beyond the15 mile radius compared with the cost of a normal cable or line service.
  4. What is the approximate difference in the costs of the two services over a distance of (a) 2, (b) 4, (c) 6, (d) 8 and (e) 10 miles.
  5. What are the advantages or disadvantages of a radio telephone against a cable or line connected telephone.
Sir Alan Hulme:
LP

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

  1. Yes, the fee is a ‘once-only’ charge and represents a contribution by the applicant towards the cost of providing service at premises located beyond15 miles radially of an exchange.
  2. Yes. A standard contribution is considered to be the most equitable arrangement because the choice of the type of connecting link provided in a particular case depends on factors beyond the applicant’s control.
  3. The cost of extending a radio telephone service beyond the15 miles radius depends on such factors as whether power is available, the type of country involved, the type of towers required, and the need or otherwise for repeater equipment. Generally, the cost of a radio circuit is constant up to a distance of15 miles but beyond15 miles costs can increase, with such increases ranging up to over $4,500. Similarly, the cost of physical line plant can be affected by the size and type of cable or aerial line plant utilised and the type of terrain over which it is provided. For extensions beyond the 15 miles radius cable costs could vary from about $210 to $1,300 per subscriber per mile.
  4. The following tables gives a comparison of cable costs and radio circuit costs over distances of 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10 miles:

As mentioned under (3) above, the cost per service can vary markedly from case to case.

  1. A satisfactory standard of service can be provided by either radio-telephone, cable or open wire construction. However, the use of cable is usually limited to a distance of about 20 miles. Radio-telephone and open wire construction can be utilised over longer distances. Where the area is suitable for the radio-telephone solution, it offers advantages from the standpoint of ease of provision. However, the subscribers are required to supply a suitable source of power for charging the battery associated with the radio-telephone service in their premises.

Advertising Agencies: Ownership (Question No. 5423)

Mr Grassby:

asked the Minister for the

Environment, Aborigines and the Arts, upon notice:

  1. Will he list the individual amounts received by each of the 46 advertising agencies categorised in the answer to question No. 5056 (Hansard, 21st March 1972, page 947) as substantially Australian owned and substantially foreign owned, out of the $6,473,753 paid by the Commonwealth during the year ended 30th June 1971.
  2. Is he now in a position to evaluate the policy guidelines of authorities of the United States of America and Canada on the placement of national advertising which he undertook to examine and report upon in answer to a previous question.
Mr Howson:
LP

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

  1. The amount of $6,473,753 represented, for the most part, payments to the media and material production firms. It included special fees paid to advertising agencies totalling less than $3,000. The main remuneration for advertising agencies engaged on Commonwealth work is obtained from commissions allowed them by the media and material production firms. The Commonwealth Advertising Council receives these commissions and allocates them to the agencies concerned according to a formula it has established.

The Council has informed me that it does not normally disclose details of its commission allocations to individual agencies which are regarded as confidential business information.

  1. The information sought has not yet been received.

National Trusts: Assistance (Question No. 5501)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for the

Environment, Aborigines and the Arts, upon notice:

Is he now in a better position than the former Prime Minister to give information on the value of assistance given by the Commonwealth to the National Trusts (Hansard, 23rd February 1971, page 548).

Mr Howson:
LP

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

page 2642

No

Multiphasic Health Screening Services Committee (Question No. 5565)

Dr Klugman:

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

  1. Has the Multiphasic Health Screening Services Committee of the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia completed its report.
  2. If so, when will it be released.
  3. If not, when is it expected to be completed.
Dr Forbes:
LP

-The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. Yes.
  2. and (3) The report is to be presented to the National Health and Medical Research Council at its 74th Session on 11-12 May 1972.

Australian Broadcasting Commission: Dr Germaine Greer Programme (Question No. 5577)

Mr Garrick:
BATMAN, VICTORIA

asked the Postmaster-

General, upon notice:

  1. Why was the Dr Germaine Greer debate withdrawn from television.
  2. As public money was expended on the programme, will it be made available to a commercial channel which requested it.
  3. Was Dr Greer’s part of the debate broadcast by,3AR inFact and Opinion’ and was question time advertised for the following week.
  4. Was the advertised programme cancelled but Dr Greer’s opponents called to the studio to refute her in her absence.
  5. If so, why was the question programme withdrawn after being advertised and at whose request.
Sir ALAN HULME:
PETRIE, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. The Chairman of the A.B.C., Sir Robert Madgwick, has informed me that the decision not to devote the entire ‘Four Corners’ programme of 18th and 19th March to an edited version of a meeting in the Sydney Town Hall at which one of the speakers was Dr Germaine Greer was properly made within the A.B.C. having regard to the many opportunities given to Dr Greer on A.B.C radio and television during her Australian visit to present her views on a wide variety of subjects.
  2. No.
  3. Dr Greer’s main address was broadcast throughout Australia in ‘Fact and Opinion’. The Question Time from the Town Hall was not advertised for the following week. In all A.B.C. announcements, it was made clear that the other speakers in the Town Hall debate would take part in a discussion of the issues raised during Question Time. Dr Greer was also invited to take part but could not do so as she was then leaving Australia, and Mrs Brigid Gilling, a Vice-President of the Abortion Law Reform Association took part in her stead.
  4. No.
  5. Not applicable.

Australian Shippers’ Council (Question No. 5579)

Mr Grassby:

asked the Minister for

Trade and Industry, upon notice:

  1. Under what authority has he established a shippers’ council.
  2. What are the functions of the council
  3. What is its membership.
  4. Who selected the members.
  5. What export commodities are covered.
  6. Are there any exports not covered by the council.
  7. What authority has the council to negotiate,
  8. Has it authority to enforce any policy or agreement in respect of any industry which may decide to opt out of council activities and arrangements.
  9. What role will this new council play in negotiating the freight rates for the current season’s wool clip in the light of the recent statement by Sir William Gunn, Chairman of the Australian Wool Board, that the Board will negotiate in London with buyers and shippers.
Mr Anthony:
CP

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

  1. The Australian Shippers’ Council is not yet established. Formation of the Council was the unanimous recommendation of a study group comprising producer, commodity and exporter interests which met during 1971 following representations by the Australian Chambers of Commerce Export Council to my predecessor.
  2. The function of the Council will be to undertake negotiations with regard to arrangements for, and the terms and conditions that are to be applicable to outwards cargo shipping in all trades. This will involve taking over the role of existing shipper bodies designated under the Restrictive Trade Practices Act (1971) as well as undertaking negotiations in those trades in which no shipper body has been designated.
  3. Membership is to be decided by the Council itself and will be drawn from exporter, commodity, shipper, producer, manufacturing groups and organisations.
  4. As for (3).
  5. It is expected that the Council’s membership will be representative of all export commodities which have formed the basis of existing shipper bodies.
  6. No.
  7. The shipping provisions of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1971, are to be amended to enable the Australian Shippers’ Council to undertake negotiations on shipping freight rates and arrangements with shipping companies carrying Australian exports in all trades.
  8. No.
  9. The Australian Shippers’ Council has not yet been designated under the Restrictive Trade Practices Act and cannot be until the Act is amended. Consequently, it has had no part in negotiations relating to the current season’s wool clip.

Radio Australia: Listeners in Indonesia (Question No. 5619)

Mr Morrison:
ST GEORGE, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Postmaster-

General, upon notice:

  1. What is the average number of letters received each month from listeners in Indonesia to Radio Australia.
  2. What percentage of the letters received require a written reply.
  3. How and when are the letters processed.
  4. What is the average time lag between the date of a listener’s tetter and (a) the date of the reply and (b) the estimated date of delivery.
  5. If the time lag appears excessive, what steps are being taken to reduce it.
Sir ALAN HULME:
PETRIE, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. The monthly average for 1972 so far is 9,225 letters.
  2. Virtually all letters require and are given some form of response. Fewer than 5 per cent require a fully written answer. Almost without exception, listeners ask that they be sent one or more items which Radio Australia makes available on request These include: Programme Guides, booklets showing how to erect a radio antenna for better reception, booklets for use in conjunction with the English language programmes broadcast by Radio Australia, fan card photos of Radio Australia staff, picture postcards of Australia and scripts of past programmes. If all items sought by the listener are available, they are sent by surface mail as soon as possible after receipt of the letter.
  3. Most listeners address their letters to a Radio Australia post office box in Djakarta. The mail is opened in the ABC’s Djakarta office, read, and coded to indicate specific requests. Once a week, the letters are air-freighted to Melbourne, where the process described in the reply to Question (2) begins. When all requests in the letters have been met, they are destroyed. Some letters are replied to in Indonesian language programmes. These include letters asking questions about Australia and on general topics, as well as letters requesting music to be played in the programme listeners’ Request’.
  4. A specific answer is difficult because of the process outlined in the reply to Question (2). Frequently, letters dated 3 months previously are received in Melbourne with letters 10 days old. The delays often seem to occur in the Indonesian postal system. The processing of letters begins within hours of their arrival in Radio Australia’s Melbourne office. Because surface mail is used in the main to send the replies, it could happen that from the time a listener writes until he receives a reply, up to 6 months could elapse.
  5. The time lag is not generally excessive. But to minimise the delay in forwarding replies, staff has been appointed in the ABC’s Djakarta office to handle as much mail as possible in Djakarta, and thus speed the answering process. Bulk supplies of items asked for by listeners have been and are being sent to Djakarta for this purpose. In addition, an outside contractor is being engaged in Djakarta to help with some aspects of the operation, particularly the distribution of English language lesson booklets.

Immigration: Case of Gioni Placintar (Question No. 5631)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for

Immigration, upon notice:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to the plight of a Romanian migrant couple, Mr and Mrs Placintar, who claim that their child has been refused permission to leave Romania.
  2. If so, can he confirm or deny their claim.
  3. If the claim is confirmed, will he ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs to use our new Ambassador to Romania to make urgent representations to release the child.
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. Yes. An application for the admission of Gioni Placintar was lodged by the child’s father with my Department on 7th May 1971.
  2. It is understood that some time elapsed between the date on which the child was approved for entry and the date on which he was given an exit permit and passport by the Romanian authorities.
  3. This is not necessary. The child arrived in Australia on 8th May 1972.

Immigration: Eurasian Arrivals (Question No. 5650)

Mr Calwell:

asked the Minister for

Immigration, upon notice:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to an article in the ‘Weekend News’ of Perth, Western Australia, dated 16th October 1971, in which it was announced that an Anglo-Burmese (Eurasian) family, consisting of a father and mother and 10 children, had arrived in Western Australia shortly before that date.
  2. If so, is this family one of a number of big families of homeless, jobless and almost penniless Eurasians who are arriving in Western Australia owing hundreds of dollars to airline companies that brought them here.
  3. Can he say whether these unassisted people, who are mostly Anglo-Burmese and Anglo-Indian Christians, refuse to help their native Christian brethren by remaining with them to help withstand the brunt of fanatical Buddhist hostility to Christianity.
  4. How many of these escapists have been admitted to Australia from Burma, India, Ceylon and other African and Asian countries since 1966.
  5. Is it a fact as stated in the article, that the new arrivals, despite some help from church welfare agencies or close relatives who are virtually new arrivals themselves, live by borrowing money, accepting low-paid jobs, paying lowstandard rentals and on handouts of food, clothes, furniture and hire purchase.
  6. Is it a fact that an Indian family of four, consisting of a father, mother and two adult daughters, arrived with only $7 each.
  7. Can he say whether the Rev. Father Nicholas Mcsweeney, Director of Catholic Immigration, has claimed that he has helped hundreds of Eurasians from Burma and India to come to Australia.
  8. Is it a fact that Western Australia has experienced the second biggest flood of Eurasians into Australia and that some authorities estimate the coloured flood at 5,000 a year.
  9. If there Is to be any reduction in our immigration intake, will he see that British, Irish and European people will be given precedence over people whose presence endangers, and will continue to endanger, the social, wage and housing conditions of Australians, whether bom here or naturalised.
  10. Will he urge the Catholic immigration authorities in every State and the World Council of Churches to concentrate their efforts on helping Australian Aborigines and part-Aborigines on the principle that charity begins at home.
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Whilst some mixed descent families may arrive in Western Australia with limited funds, available evidence indicates that they quickly acquire employment and accommodation, and those who have taken passage loans make regular repayments.
  3. and (4) I do not wish to comment on the implications of these questions. Arrivals in Australia as a whole of persons of mixed descent since 1966 are as follows:
  1. There is ample evidence that people of mixed descent are settling successfully with no greater difficulty than other migrants.
  2. I have no information about such a family.
  3. I understand that the Catholic Episcopal Migration and Welfare Association, Perth, in common with other organisations, assists migrants generally, including people of mixed descent.
  4. Western Australia is second among the States as the intended destination of migrants of mixed descent. The figure quoted is incorrect. The maximum number of persons of mixed, descent giving Western Australia as their intended State of settlement has been 2,075 within one calendar year.
  5. The Government will continue its policy of admitting migrants on the basis of what they have to offer Australia and their ability to integrate into the Australian community, with due ‘ regard to humanitarian factors, particularly family re-union.
  6. No. It would be inappropriate for me to do so.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 16 May 1972, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1972/19720516_reps_27_hor78/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant