Senate
25 February 1953

20th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 20th Parliament
  3. 1953

The President (Senator the Hon. Edward Mattner) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 212

QUESTION

MOTOR VEHICLES

SenatorCOURTICE. - I shall preface a question directed to the Minister for Trade and Customs by stating that my attention has been drawn to a statement that was made in another place by the honorable member for Mackellar (Mr. Wentworth) that the illegal importation into Australia about March, 1950, of a number of so-called gift cars of American origin was the after- math of a gigantic swindle involving the Chifley Government. As I was Minister for Trade and Customs in the Chifley

Government, I am naturally perturbed at the implication that is contained in the honorable member’s statement. During the period to which he has referred, the administration of the Department of Trade and Customs was my responsibility. Any imputation that is made by the honorable member for Mackellar in that connexion must necessarily involve me as Minister and the officers of the department at that time. I ask the Minister for Trade and Customs whether, after making any inquiries or examining files or documents that he may think necessary, he will assure the Senate that there is no truth in the allegations of the honorable member for Mackellar and no warrant for the imputation that he has made?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
Minister for Trade and Customs · QUEENSLAND · LP

– I have had an opportunity to read a report of the speech to which Senator Courtice has referred, but I have not yet been able to study it fully. My reading of the speech indicates to me that the question that has been asked by the honorable senator is not quite accurately worded. The speech contained no suggestion of a gigantic swindle and it did not state, directly at any rate, that the Chifley Government was involved. The speech, as it referred to certain other proceedings, referred to the tail end of a swindle that allegedly had been going on under the Labour Government for some years. I understand that that statement arose from a particular file to which the honorable senator has referred, and that reference was made to it on more than one occasion in another place. Although I have not seen that file for some time, I am familiar with its general contents and purport, and I say without any hesitation or reservation that there is no evidence in that file that casts any aspersion against or insinuates any irregularity or dereliction of duty on the part of Senator Courtice as Minister, or on the part of the Department of Trade and Customs. As the successor to Senator Courtice in the very responsible office of Minister for Trade and Customs, I am very happy to enjoy the respect of the department that the honorable senator himself enjoyed. When he was Minister for Trade and Customs he was a credit to the office and a monument of integrity of which not only his party and his government but also the Parliament may well be proud. I am happy to he able to say without reservation that there is not the slightest suggestion whatever of any irregularity on the part of the honorable senator when he was Minister or on the part of the department.

Senator SANDFORD:
VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -

  1. On what basis are (a) completed motor vehicles, and (b) chassis, imported into Australia at the present time?
  2. Is it a fact that large factories have been built in Australia for the assembly of imported panels, and, to a lesser degree, for the purpose of distributing complete imported vehicles, viz., Rootes, Nuffield, Standards and Regent Motors?
  3. Is it the intention of the Governmentto support and foster the production ofcomplete motor cars in Australia?
  4. If so, and in view of that section of the Ottawa Agreement which reads “ Imports on a. reasonably competitive basis “, what protection is afforded the millions of pounds invested in the motor industry in Australia?
  5. Has the overseas manufacturer the power to compel the importer of panels to accept other built-up materials necessaryfor the complete assembly?
  6. Is there any restriction on the export of Australian-built cars or bodies, except those cars used by tourists?
  7. What part is the motor industry likely to be called upon to play in the appropriation of defence expenditure?

Senator O’SULLIVAN.Thefollowing are the answers to the honorable senator’s questions : -

  1. Within the limits of the value of their import quotas and upon compliance with customs provisions relating to the payment of duties, &c.,itiscompetentforimportersto obtain motor vehicles from overseas in a completely assembled form or for them to import the components, e.g., chassis, panels, tyres, batteries, bumper bars, &c.,forassemblyin conjunction with locally made components into complete vehicles in Australia.
  2. It is a fact that large factories have been built in Australia for the assembly of imported panels and for the purpose of distributing motor vehicles imported in a complete form as well as those which are assembled from imported andlocally produced components.
  3. Yes, but see answer to 4.
  4. The Customs Tariff is the instrument upon which the Government relies to give effect to its policyof according reasonable and adequate protection to efficiently conducted Australian industries. In this connexion the Government is guided by the findings of the Tariff Board after a full public inquiry hasbeen held. Many of the components of motor car are subject to protective rates of duty and these duties apply irrespective of whether the components are imported separately or as part of a completely assembled ear. It is competent for any local manufacturer of motor vehicle components to state a case for a Tariff Board inquiry in the event that the sale of his products is being adversely affected by overseas competition. If a prima facie case is established the question of tariff protection will he referred to the TariffBoard.
  5. See 1.
  6. Yes. The covering approval of the Department of Shipping and Transport must be obtained before the exportation of motor vehicles either partly or wholly assembled is allowed.
  7. The value of the motor industry from the view point of defence is fully appreciated by the Government and any defence appropriation necessary could be considered in the light of circumstances obtaining.

page 214

ANIMAL PESTS

SenatorROBERTSON. - Having re gard to the alarming increase in the numbers of foxes, emus and rabbits - according to the latest reports furnished by the Commonwealth Scientific and IndustrialResearch Organization rabbits are becoming immune to myxomatosis - and as it is the aim of the Australian Government to increase food production, will the Minister representing the Treasurer consider the immediate release from sales tax of rifles and ammunition in order to enable pastoralists, farmers and sportsmen to give valuable assistance in the destruction of these pests?

SenatorSPOONER.- I shall direct the attention of the Treasurer to the question that the honorable senator has asked.

SenatorWORDSWORTH.- The Minister for External Affairs, as the Minister in charge of the Commonwealth Scientific and IndustrialResearch Organization, in a broadcast which he made last Sunday urged all primary producers to wage war on the rabbit. He pointed out that rabbits aregrowing immune to myxomatosis. In view of these facts, I ask the Minister representing the Treasurer whether the Government will make more dollars available to enable greater quantities of sodiumfluro acetate to be imported from the United States of America? Sodiumfluro acetate is a new poison that is being manufactured in that country. It is tasteless and odourless and is reported to be extremely effective in the eradication of rabbits.

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for National Development · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I am sure that the Treasurer will give the utmost attention to the request that the honorable senator has made. I suggest that in order to enable the Treasurer to give practical effect to it, the honorable senator might advise the Treasurer of the specific quantities of the poison which he suggests should be imported.

page 214

QUESTION

TAXATION

Senator SANDFORD:

– In view of the serious position that exists in the States with respect to education and housing, will the Government give consideration to the re-imposition of land tax which it abolished last year with a view to using the revenue from collections of that tax to enable the States to intensify their activities in the fields of education and housing ?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– I share with the honorable senator abhorrence of the way in which State Labour governments have neglected the two fundamental obligations of educating the children and housing the people within their respective boundaries. Neither of those matters comes within the jurisdiction of the Australian Government. Although through the years Australian Governments have made handsome grants to the States, some of those made since the Menzies Government assumed office being twice the amounts that were made available by the Chifley Government, the States have failed in their duty to educate the children and to house the people in their respective territories.

Senator VINCENT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -

What was the cost of salaries and other departmental expenses connected with the administration of the land tax section of the Taxation Branch, now abolished?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– The following information has been supplied by the Treasurer in reply to the honorable senator’s question: -

The cost of collection of land tax during the financial year 1951-52 was £242,882. That amount comprises both salaries and general expenses.

page 215

QUESTION

POSTALDEPARTMENT

Senator BENN:
QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Minister representing the Postmaster-General whether officers employed in the Postal Department to investigate missing property receive special training for their duties? Is there in existence a manual to show such officers how they should conduct their investigations? If so, will the Postmaster-General make one available to honorable senators for examination? For the purpose of removing disquieting rumours to the effect that some investigation officers in the Postal Department induce suspected officials to plead guilty to offences which they may not have committed, will he indicate where the duties of investigation officers end and where the work of the civil police commences ?

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · QUEENSLAND · CP

– I shall be pleased to bring the honorable senator’s question to the notice of the Postmaster-General and to obtain a considered reply toit.

SenatorHENDRICKSON.- I preface a question to the Minister for Trade and Customs by reading a letter that I have received from the Victorian branch of the Amalgamated Postal Workers’ Union of Australia, which is in the following terms : -

Some concern is being experienced by members of my Union in this State, at the shortage of staff existing at present in the Lines Section, which is apparently governed by the instruction of the Public Service Board to maintain an overall staff ceiling, which precludes the local authorities fromemploying staff.

This means that to cope with the demand for new telephone subscribers’ services, normal maintenance work is not being carried out, as staff is not available, the result being that when adverse weather conditions prevail the incidence of interrupted services is abnormally high, necessitating the transfer of staffs from new work to clear large numbers of faults which it is considered would not occur if normal maintenance work was being carried out.

This state of affairs is uneconomical from the Departmental point of view, in that heavy overtime payments have to be made, in circumstances brought about by the policy of restricting employment.

I am informed by responsible members of the Union that no normal maintenance work has been done for months, and that the efficiency of line plant is in a bad state.

We are concerned mainly with the employment position, and the Department has a lengthy waiting list of men wanting employment at present, but they are precluded from employing them.

I understand that there is no shortage of materials and although I can obtain no definite information, there are sufficient funds available to carry on until the end of the present financial year.

Will the Minister communicate with the Public Service Board and endeavour to effect a change of policy in order to ensure that where money and materials are available men are employed immediately to carry out important work on new postal installations and the maintenance of existing plant in the Postmaster-General’s Department ?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– The honorable senator did not state whether he had signed the letter or not.

SenatorHendrickson. - There is no need for the Minister for Trade and Customs to doubt the veracity of my statement. It is signed by A. E. Savage as secretary of the union.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– The honorable senator should not be so sensitive.I suggest to him that if he is as serious as he professes to be in trying to have this matter rectified, and if there is anything to be rectified, he should take it up directly with the department concerned or with the Public Service Board. They are readily available to members of the Parliament, particularly if there is a grievance to be investigated or rectified. In my experience they are always most approachable. It would be rather irregular for me to go directly to them on the complaint of the honorable senator. I am quite sure that the honorable senator can put the case very forcibly and I suggest that he do that. If he prefers not to do so, and will give me the particulars or write to me, I shall he happy to put the matter before the Public Service Board or any other authority.

page 216

QUESTION

HEALTH AND MEDICAL SERVICES

Senator PEARSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My attention has been drawn to the fact that superannuated’ Commonwealth and State public servants, who are not eligible for the age pension, are, as a consequence, ineligible for the free medical benefits that are available to age pensioners. Will the Minister representing the Minister for Health discuss with his colleague the possibility of extending the free medical benefits scheme to superannuitants, particularly those on the same income level as age pensioners ?

Senator COOPER:
CP

– I shall obtain a considered reply to the honorable senator’s question from the Minister for Health as soon as possible.

page 216

QUESTION

WAR NEUROSIS

Senator CRITCHLEY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Can the Minister for Repatriation say what progress has been made in the provision of suitable wards in military hospitals in the various States for ex-servicemen who are the victims of war neurosis? Is the Minister aware that, under the present system an ex-serviceman who, after receiving treatment for war neurosis at a civilian institution, suffers a relapse has no alternative but to go to a civilian mental asylum? Will the Minister have the work of providing wards for war neurosis sufferers at military hospitals expedited so that those institutions may assume full responsibility for the treatment of those unfortunate people ?

Senator COOPER:
CP

– I take this opportunity to answer certain questions that Senator Critchley asked on this subject towards the end of last year. The replies to those questions will cover, in some measure, the points that he has raised to-day.

On the 16th September last Senator Critchley asked the following question : -

Is the Minister for Repatriation able to give any information about the provision of institutions for the treatment of ex-servicemen suffering from war neurosis who are at present inmates of civilian mental institutions? How many ex-servicemen are at present inmates of civilian mental institutions, and is the number increasing or decreasing?

On the I6th October last he asked -

Will the Minister for Repatriation submit a report to the Senate before the end of the present sessional period concerning the progress made in the erection of hospitals and institutions throughout Australia for thetreatment of ex-servicemen suffering from war neurosis? I remind the honorable senator that some time ago he promised to obtain that information for me. Incidentally, I must say that the position in South Australia is quite satisfactory.

I am pleased to note that Senator Critchley has expressed satisfaction in relation to the housing and management of psychotic and neurotic ex-servicemen in South Australia. He is no doubt aware that during the past year a new out-patient department for psychiatric patients was opened at Keswick in South Australia.

In other States similar facilities are available. There is also, in New South Wales, a complete repatriation block for the accommodation and treatment of 350 mental patients, and in Victoria a separate institution for 270 patients. Queensland has a very modern self-contained institution of 100 beds. In Western Australia, one institution eaters for all ex-servicemen of World War I., and there is a separate block at another institution for exservicemen patients of World War II. In Tasmania, where the numbers are small, a separate block has not yet been provided.

I have previously referred, in reply to a question by the honorable senator, to the modern methods of treatment employed by the medical staff of the Repatriation Commission, and I am pleased to be able to state that the programme followed, which concentrated on treatment in repatriation out-patient departments and general hospitals, has been successful in keeping down the number of exservicemen who suffer war-caused mental illness, and for whom admission to a mental hospital has been unavoidable. Since this Government has taken office there has been only a slight increase in the number of ex-servicemen suffering from warcaused mental illness who are treated in mental hospitals. It is hoped that the continued success of modern treatment will prevent any large influx in the near future. The situation is being watched carefully, and plans and estimates have been prepared to meet present needs, which will be satisfied as soon as works priorities can be given to building projects. Consideration has also been given to future trends, and the Government will not allow the matter to get out of hand.

I think that Senator Critchley is aware that the Repatriation Act provides for the treatment by the Repatriation Department only of exservicemen who are suffering from accepted war-caused disabilities. Under the present provisions of the act, the department cannot treat ex-servicemen who are suffering from disabilities that have not been accepted as war-caused. Ex-servicemen suffering from mental illness whose disabilities have not been accepted as war-caused are at present treated in the mental asylums of the various States. The Commonwealth has no authority to certify a person to be insane and, as honorable senators are aware, a person must be certified before he can be admitted to a State mental hospital.

Separate wards have now been provided in hospitals and other institutions under the control of the Repatriation Department in which we are able to accommodate the majority of unfortunate exservice mental patients for whose treatment the department is responsible. I assure the honorable senator that I am as eager as he is to ensure that the Repatriation Department shall be provided with all the wards that it needs for the accommodation of patients who are suffering from mental illness.

page 217

QUESTION

PREFERENCE TO EX-SERVICEMEN

Senator AMOUR:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I desire to preface a question which I address to the Minister representing the Minister for Works by reminding him that the returned soldiers’ preference legislation provides that, all things being equal, the returned soldier shall receive a job in. preference to others. I ask the Minister whether that policy has been altered. Is it a fact that the Department of Works has displaced men who have been in employment for years and replaced them with returned soldiers ?

Is it a fact also that the department now refuses to pay employees for statutory public holidays ?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– I am sure that most honorable senators would agree that the Minister for Works would not in any way lessen the preference which is given to ex-servicemen. The other matters raised by the honorable senator involve details which I cannot be expected to have in my mind. I therefore ask that the question be placed on the notice-paper and I shall obtain the desired information.

page 217

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Senator CAMERON:
VICTORIA

– Last Thursday I directed a question to the AttorneyGeneral, who represents the Minister for Immigration in this chamber, dealing with the proposed deportation of the secretary of the Italo- Australia Club in Sydney. I then informed the Senate that on the 31st December last I had written a letter to the Minister for Immigration dealing with the matter and that I had not received an answer. The Attorney-General kindly agreed to inquire into the matter. I now ask him whether he is able to answer my original question. Since asking that question I have been informed by an outside source that the deportation proceedings have been dropped. Can the Attorney-General inform me whether it is the policy of the Minister for Immigration to ignore correspondence from members of the Senate?

Senator SPICER:
Attorney-General · VICTORIA · LP

– I answer the last part of the honorable senator’s question by assuring him that it is not the practice of the Minister for Immigration, or any other Minister, to ignore correspondence from members of the Senate. I have not been able to consult my colleague, the Minister for Immigration, in relation to the question which the honorable senator asked me last sitting day, because the Minister is not in Canberra this week. However, if I can obtain any information for the honorable senator before the Senate rises this week, I shall let him have it.

page 217

QUESTION

REPATRIATION

Senator TANGNEY:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Can the Minister for Repatriation say whether it is a fact that, during the recent State election campaign in Western Australia, one of the Liberal party candidates for the Nedlands electorate was allowed to address employees at the Hollywood Repatriation Hospital, whilst other candidates, including the Australian Labour party candidate, were not permitted to do so? If this is so, does it represent a change of policy in the administration of repatriation hospitals, and will the Minister ensure that, as in the past, a common policy is applied to candidates of all political parties at all times ?

Senator COOPER:
CP

– I am not aware of the occurrence that the honorable senator has mentioned, but I assure her that I shall make inquiries and ascertain what actually happened.

page 218

QUESTION

EMPLOYMENT

Senator ARMSTRONG:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-Willthe Minister representing the Minister for Supply state, (a) The number of employees at Hale-street, Botany, New South Wales workshops on the 1st December, 1949; (b) the greatest number of employees engaged at the Hale-street workshop and at what date they were employed; (c) the number that were employed there on the 16th February, 1953, the date that the Minister for Supply made a statement regarding dismissals from the workshops ?

Senator COOPER:
CP

– I shall be pleased to obtain that information for the honorable senator and will bring his question to the notice of the Minister for Supply.

page 218

QUESTION

SOCIAL SERVICES

Senator MORROW:
through Senator Critchley

asked the.Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that widows of persons, who have died from occupational diseases, are receiving but a small income in the form of compensation to assist them to maintain themselves and their families?
  2. Is it a fact that the amount received over the years is only about the equivalent to that received by aged pensioners?
  3. Is it a fact that many widows are unable to go to work to augment their incomes on account of family responsibilities and other reasons?
  4. If so, and since no provisions are made to grant free hospital services to these people, and in view of the poor circumstances in which many of these widows are placed, will the Minister review the Hospital Benefits Act for the purpose of making provisions therein that such widows and members of their families shall receive free hospital service?
Senator COOPER:
CP

– The Minister for Health has furnished the following reply to the honorable senator’s question: -

The provision of free hospital services for this or any other group of persons, is primarily a matter for State governments. If, however, a widow is also in receipt of a widow’s pension, an age, invalid or service pension, or a tuberculosis allowance, and has enrolled in the pensioner medical service, the Commonwealth provides a specialbenefit of 12s. for each day on which the widow or her dependent child is a qualified patient in a public hospital. This Commonwealth benefit is paid to the State under a hospital benefits agreement, on condition that the benefit is passed on to the patient.

page 218

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE

Senator CAMERON:

asked the Min ister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that the Treasurer met a deputation from unions and associations covering Commonwealth public servants on the 4th June last in connexion with their salaries and the way in which they were lagging behind the salaries of other workers?
  2. Is it a fact that he advised the deputation that the Government’s policy was that they should submit their claims for determination by the Public Service Arbitrator?
  3. Is it a fact that about 30 of the organizations took his advice, lodged claims for hearing, and appeared before the Public Service Arbitrator in statutory conference on 13th October?
  4. Is it a fact that the Public Service Board, representing the Prime Minister and other Ministers, has now departed1 from the advice tendered the organizations by the Treasurer, and later by the Government, and has made an application to have all claims referred out of the hands of the Public Service Arbitrator and into the Full Court?
  5. Is it a fact that it is about three years since Commonwealth public servants had some general adjustment of their salaries, and that this reference of their claims to the Full Court is likely to delay determination for several years ?
  6. Is the Prime Minister prepared to take up the complaints of the public servants with his Cabinet and direct the Public Service Board to withdraw its application to refer all claims out of the hands of the Public Service Arbitrator and, instead, assist in expediting thehearing of all claims, some of which have been lodged for more than two years?
Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– The following reply to the honorable senator’s questions has been furnished by the Prime Minister : -

  1. Yes. Sir Arthur Fadden, while acting as Prime Minister, met a deputation on the 4th June, 1952.
  2. The Acting Prime Minister informed the deputation that, in his view, matters of this nature should be determined by the proper industrial tribunal - in this case the Public Service Arbitrator. He told the deputation, however, that he would submit their views for consideration by Cabinet and representatives of the unions and associations were subsequently informed that Cabinet agreed with the view advised to the deputation by the Acting Prime Minister.
  3. Yes.
  4. No. The reply to question6 deals further with the point raised in question 4.
  5. A general adjustment of Public Service salarieswas granted by the Arbitrator in June, 1950, the increases dating back to the 29th December, 1949. Since that date the basic wage for adult males has increased by £254 as a result of cost of living increases and the Full Court’s variation of the basic wage, operative from the 14th December, 1950.
  6. The Public Service Board has not taken any action which is outside the machinery provided by Parliament for determination of salaries of public servants. Working within this machinery, the board made application to the Arbitrator under section 15a of the Public Service Act seeking reference to the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration of the following matter which arose out of the various claims and applications, namely - “ . . . to what extent should the marginal rates (provided in various determinations listed in the board’s application for reference) be altered having regard to grounds other than those of changes of skill or responsibility. On the 14th November, 1952, the Public Service Arbitrator issued his decision that, subject to the concurrence of the Chief Judge, the application should be granted. The Arbitrator, in announcing his decision, stated that he thought the need for an authoritative pronouncement in relation to the question is vital not only to the Commonwealth Public Service, but also to industry in general and that in the public interest the matter should be dealt with by the Full Court.

page 219

TARIFF BOARD

Reports on Items.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– I lay on the table reports of the Tariff Board on the following subjects : -

Garden shears.

Timber

Copies of the reports are not yet available for circulation to honorable senators.

Ordered to be printed.

page 219

KOREA

Senator SPICER:
AttorneyGeneral · Victoria · LP

– by leave - read a copy of the statement made in the House of Representatives by the Minister for External Affairs (Mr. Casey) (vide page 160), and moved -

That the paper be printed.

Debate (on motion by Senator Armstrong) adjourned.

page 219

PATENTS, TRADE MARKS, DESIGNS AND COPYRIGHT BILL 1953

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 19th February (vide page 92), on motion by Senator Spicer -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator ARMSTRONG:
New South Wales

.- This bill amends the Patents, Trade Marks, Designs and Copyright (War Powers) Act 1939-1946. It is mainly a machinery measure, which the Opposition does not oppose. Some of the provisions of the act have application to non-war-time dealings, but normally those provisions would have expired six months after the issue of a proclamation under the Trading with the Enemy Act that war no longer exists. That proclamation was published on the 2nd October, 1952, and consequently those provisions should have expired on the 1st April next. However, many things have not been brought to completion because of administrative difficulties and other problems.

In the first place, this bill sets out to extend the operation of the provisions of section 15 from the 2nd. April, 1953, until a date to be fixed by proclamation. That section makes effective existing international arrangements concerning patents, trade marks and designs. Secondly, the bill amends section 15 of altering certain references in that section to United Kingdom legislation. This is necessary because some of the acts to which the existing section refers have been superseded, since the 1st January, 1950, by new legislation in the United Kingdom. Consequently retrospective operation has been given to the amendment.

Clause 5 provides -

Section nine of the Principal Act is amended -

by inserting in sub-section (1.), after the word “ existence”,thewords “(whether at the time of the exercise of the power or at an earlier time)”;

I should like the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer) to explain the meaning of this provision. I have wondered whether it is an application of the old story of the draftsmen adding unnecessary words to confuse the situation. The Minister explained the meaning of section 9 in his second-reading speech, but he did not explain the effect of the amendment. Will the amendment leave the section unaltered, or is there some purpose for the amendment that has not so far been explained? This bill is merely a machinery measure, which will simplify the situation. Although the act comprises nine or ten pages, after the repealed sections have been deleted only two or three sections will remain, until permanent legislation in relation to patents is brought down.

Senator SPICER:
AttorneyGeneral · Victoria · LP

– in reply - It might be convenient for me to dispose now of the query that Senator Armstrong has raised in regard to clause 5 of the bill. Under section 9 of the original act power was given to the Commissioner of Patents and the Registrar of Trade Marks to extend the time for doing certain acts that are necessary to be done under the patents and trade marks legislation. Those authorities are authorized to extend the time if it appears to them to be necessary or expedient so to do by reason of circumstances arising from the existence of a state of war. It was considered that that provision was open to the construction that the authorities referred to could exercise the power only during the existence of a state of war. As a state of war no longer exists it seems desirable clearly to indicate that this power can still be exercised by the appropriate authorities. However, they will exercise that power only if they are satisfied that, owing to the previously existing state of war, circumstances arose which made it impossible to comply with that act in the appropriate time.

Senator Armstrong:

– That is what the section means. But why have these particular words been chosen to express that meaning ?

Senator SPICER:

– The clause has been worded in this way because of the wording of the existing section. That section provides that the authorities to which I have referred may exercise the power if it appears to them necessary or expedient so to do by reason of circumstances arising from the existence of a state of war. It is now considered desirable to state specifically that these authorities may still exercise their power in relation to a state of affairs which was brought about by a state of war even though that state of war has now ceased to exist.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 220

APPLE AND PEAR ORGANIZATION BILL 1953

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 19th February (vide page 93), on motion by Senator McLeay -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator ARMSTRONG:
New South Wales

– This bill has as its main purpose the amendment of the procedure for determining the terms and conditions of employment of the staff of the Australian Apple and Pear Board. Under existing circumstances regulations have to be promulgated whenever an alteration is made in the wages or conditions of the staff. This bill will bring the staff of the board under the control of the Public Service Board, a provision to which the Opposition does not object. We consider that this proposal is good in principle. Under the bill the salaries, fees and expenses payable to members of the board will be payable without regulations having been promulgated provided that they have been authorized by the Minister. The object of the bill is to make the administration of the Australian Apple and Pear Board uniform with that of other overseas marketing boards. As this is almost a machinery measure the Opposition does not oppose the passing of the bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second, time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 221

CANNED FRUITS EXPORT CONTROL BILL 1953

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 19th February (vide page 94), on motion by Senator McLeay -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator ARMSTRONG:
New South Wales

-This bill is almost identical in its provisions with that to which the Senate has just agreed. It will achieve the same purpose in general terms. It will bring the employees of the Canned Fruits Export Control Board under the control of the Public Service Board and their rates and conditions will not have to be promulgated by regulation. The Opposition does not oppose the bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 221

DRIED FRUITS EXPORT CONTROL BILL 1953

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 19th February (vide page 95), on motion by Senator McLeay -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator ARMSTRONG:
New South Wales

– As with the Apple and Pear Organization Bill 1953 and the Canned Fruits Export Control Bill 1953, with which the Senate has just dealt, this bill is designed to amend the procedure for determining the terms and conditions of employment of the staff of the Dried Fruits Control Board. The Opposition does not oppose the passage of the bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 221

WINE OVERSEAS MARKETING BILL 1953

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 19th February (vide page 96), on motion by Senator McLeay -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator ARMSTRONG:
New South Wales

.- This bill, the fourth of its kind, is designed mainly to bring under the control of the Public Service Board the staff of the Australian Wine Board, which is concerned with the marketing of wine. The Opposition has no objection to the passage of the bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 221

SEAMEN’S COMPENSATION BILL 1953

Second. Reading.

Debate resumed from the 19th February (vide page 98), on motion by Senator McLeay -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator ARMSTRONG:
New South Wales

.- Whilst the Opposition will not vote against the amendments proposed by this bill, there are many aspects of the measure which honorable senators on this side of the chamber would like to see examined. In short, this bill aims at bringing seamen’s compensation rights up to the same level as those conferred by the Commonwealth Employees’ Compensation Act. This, in itself, will mean substantial increases in compensation benefits. For instance, the death benefit will increase from £1,000 to £1,500, dependant’s benefit from £50 to £75, incapacity benefit from £4 to £6 a week, allowance for loss of limbs from £1,250 to £1,750, funeral expenses from £25 to £50, regardless of the number oi dependants, and medical expenses from £100 to £150, bringing the compensation rights of seamen into line with those provided under the Commonwealth Employees’ Compensation Act.

The first thing that strikes one on reading this bill is the fact that the Commonwealth Employees’ Compensation Act was amended in November, 1951. During the time that has elapsed between then and now, seamen have been entitled to lower rates of compensation than have Commonwealth employees which, fundamentally, is unjust. I suggest that the Senate now has an opportunity to right that injustice. If certain rates of compensation were considered reasonable for other workers in November, 1951, surely those rates should also have applied to seamen. The solution of this matter is one for the Government, but I suggest that it should consider the possibility of retrospective application of this bill. Such a course might involve difficulties, but I believe that the Minister in charge of the bill will be the first to admit that an injustice has been done to seamen because of the delay in bringing their compensation rights up to the level of those enjoyed by Commonwealth employees.

The second point that naturally arises is that the very rapid increases of the cost of living, even since the Commonwealth Employees’ Compensation Act was amended in 1951, mean that there is already a lag in the effective value of the sums paid by way of compensation to Commonwealth employees. Because of the falling value of money and the rising basic wage, which is the best barometer of money value, it seems to me that the Government should have introduced two bills instead of one. It should have introduced a bill to amend the Commonwealth Employees’ Compensation Act in order to bring ‘ the benefits conferred thereby in line with the rising cost of living and the present basic wage, and at the same time, introduced another bill to tie the compensation benefits of seamen to those of Commonwealth employees. In that way the injustice to both classes of employees would have been eliminated.

It is interesting to consider the basic wage in relation to compensation. I have here a small table which shows that in 1912, in the earliest days of workmen’s compensation, the basic wage was £2 13s. a week and the amount of compensation payable to a man, his wife and one child was £2 a week. In 1930, when the basic wage had risen to £4 6s. a week, the amount of money which went into the home by way of compensation in respect of a man with a wife and one child was £3 17s. 6d. a week. In 1944, when the basic wage was £4 16s. a week, £4 8s. 6d. a week went into the home. That sum is made up of a payment of £1 a week for the wife, 8s. 6d. for the child and £3 for the man. In 1943, when the basic wage was £5 19s. a week, the amount of money which went into the home was £5 15s. a week. In other words, an incapacitated worker with a wife and one child received compensation amounting to almost as much as the basic wage. In 1951, by which time the basic wage had risen to £10 a week, £8 10s. went into the home. The basic wage in New South “Wales at the present time is £11 18s. a week, and I believe that the overall weighted average basic wage of the capital cities is £11 lis., which is an increase of £1 lis. a week since the amendment of the Commonwealth Employees’ Compensation Act in 1951. At the present time, the difference between the average basic wage and the amount of compensation payable to a man with a wife and one child is £3 ls. a week, whereas in 194S it was only 4s. a week. The margin appears to be increasing rapidly. That is not fair to the employee who has the misfortune to come under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. I do not believe that a man should get more for not working than he receives for working, but men are entitled to get enough money to keep them in some comfort and security when, because of some circumstance over which they have no control, they suffer an injury during employment. The difference between the compensation that is paid to a worker and the basic wage has risen from 4s. in 1948 to 61s. in 1953, and the Government might well study the Commonwealth Employees’ Compensation Act and bring it up to date. Having clone that, it should review seamen’s pensions so that they will get justice. They have been lagging behind in the* payments that they should have received since November, 1951.

Another matter has been worrying honorable senators on the Opposition side. Section five of the Seamen’s Compensation Act 1911-1949 states -

Any payment to an injured seaman made under an insurance policy privately effected by the seaman or made by a friendly society, by way of compensation or medical or disablement benefits, shall not be deemed to be compensation or payment in respect of the injury within the meaning of sub-section (2.) of this section.

That means that if a worker insures himself privately and pays premiums, and then has a claim, he receives that insurance irrespective of the worker’s compensation that is payable to him. That section has been deleted and there are two points of view upon this matter. Does the deletion of that section remove the safeguard, or is the worker safeguarded because the act is now to become silent on that point of the deletion as the result.

Senator McLeay:

– There is no alteration of substance in the legislation. The Parliamentary Draftsman has tidied the wording of the legislation to bring it into line with other legislation, but it is not altered in substance.

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– If that provision were deleted with a view to removing that safeguard, it would, indeed, be unfortunate. I believe that Senator O’flaherty was one of those who helped to ensure that this provision was inserted in the original act in 1947 because it gave a necessary protection. I have consulted eminent legal counsel on this section and their view coincides with that of the Minister that in substance the law is not altered. I hope that the Minister for (Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay) will inform the Senate on that matter so that it can be recorded in Hansard as a statement of the Government’s policy. That would make the Opposition happier about that matter. Although the Opposition is not completely happy about some aspects of the bill that I ha vo described, we will not oppose the measure because it provides for a substantial increase of the rates that will be enjoyed by seamen for compensation, and will bring them to the same status as that enjoyed by Commonwealth employees under the Commonwealth Employees’ Compensation Act 1951.

Senator O’FLAHERTY:
South Australia

– Naturally honorable senators generally will not refuse an increase of benefits for the working people. Honorable senators on this side of the chamber can only point out that the proposed benefits are not commen surate with present-day wages. I am concerned about section 3 of the amending bill because the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay) mentioned all the increases in his secondreading speech but did not refer at all to any of the omissions from the original act. However, there are omissions, and honorable senators are entitled to know why they are proposed. I have vivid recollections of compensation cases in the past. When an employee received money that could be claimed as an offset against the payment of compensation by the employer, that was done ruthlessly. In 1947 the clause that is now to be deleted was inserted. Clause 3 states -

Section five of the Principal Act is amended by omitting sub-section (5.).

Sections (5.) of the Seamen’s Compensation Act 1911-1949 reads -

Any payment to an injured seaman made under an insurance policy privately effected by the seaman or made by a friendly society, by way of compensation or medical or disablement benefits, shall not bc deemed to be compensation or payment in respect of the injury within the meaning of sub-section (2.) of this section.

Sub-section (2.) deals with an injury to a seaman as a result of which he would be entitled to compensation. It is clear from sub-section (5.) that any money that is received from a lodge, an insurance company or by way of hospital benefits cannot be used as an offset against the payment of compensation by the employer. The Government proposes to provide for an increase of medical benefits in this amending bill, but at the same time provision is made in other legislation for certain amounts of money to be paid to hospitals to take care of anybody who happens to be admitted. Before I am prepared to agree to the* omission of the sub-section I have quoted, I should like to know from the Minister whether any of the money that is paid from any other source can be used to offset the compensation that an employer has to pay to the claimant. I do not believe that it is right that we should take away from an employee his benefits from private insurance, lodges or hospital insurance by reducing the payment by an employer of compensation for which he is liable under the act.

Senator Vincent:

– Why should the worker be paid twice?

Senator O’FLAHERTY:

– That is the kind of interjection that convinces me that this sub-section is being omitted deliberately so that something that the employees have enjoyed since 1947 will be removed.

Senator Vincent:

– If it is provided that hospital benefits shall be paid and there is some other provision also for their payment, why should a worker be paid twice?

Senator O’FLAHERTY:

– I understand that Senator Vincent is more concerned about the employers. I am concerned about the employees. The statement that has been made by him indicates clearly that the omission of subsection (5.) is deliberate. If a man insures himself in a private concern and pays his premiums, why should the employer be relieved from paying him compensation in the event of an accident ? If a man pays subscriptions to a lodge and receives a weekly payment from the lodge because of an accident while he is working, why should the employer be relieved of the payment? I know very well that expenses rise during an illness.

Senator Vincent:

– Would Senator O’Flaherty agree if a man were insured for ten times the amount?

Senator O’FLAHERTY:

– If a man paid the premiums, certainly he’ would be entitled to the benefits. The transaction in that case would be a private one and it should not enter into the question of workers’ compensation. If an employee is hurt while on a job and some party other than the employer has caused the accident or is partly responsible for it, the employer can ask the employee to take action against the third party for damages. In such a case, damages might be assessed by a court at an amount greater than that provided under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Let us suppose that a man is entitled to £1,000 compensation under that legislation, and he sues a third party and receives damages totalling £2,000. The law provides that £1,000 of that amount’ should go to the employer by way of reimbursement for the money that he has paid for compensation

Senator Vincent:

– Does not Senator O’Flaherty agree with that?

Senator O’FLAHERTY:

– That is an entirely different matter. I am pointing out that an employee who receives damages in such circumstances may- have to pay back to the employer £1,000 that has been paid under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. In that instance, the employee would receive compensation to an amount of £1,000 in addition to compensation for which he would qualify under this legislation. He would receive total compensation of £2,000. There is nothing wrong in principle with that position; but I cannot understand why the Government ‘proposes under this measure to deprive an employee of compensation which he may be entitled to receive under a privately effected insurance policy or in the form of benefits as a subscriber to a lodge or to a hospital benefit fund. The two cases are fundamentally different. The Government now proposes to abolish a right which injured workers have enjoyed since 1947 by offsetting compensation payable under a privately effected insurance policy, or an arrangement of the kind I have indicated, against compensation payable under this measure. If the Minister in charge of the bill cannot offer a more convincing reason for this alteration than that which Senator Vincent has implied by way of interjection, I shall vote against the relevant clause at the committee stage.

Senator SHEEHAN:
Victoria

– I agree with the contentions that Senator Armstrong and Senator O’Flaherty have put forward, that the Senate should make every effort to ensure that any measure that deals with the subject of workers’ compensation shall conform to present-day requirements and practices. In 1938, just after I was first elected to the Senate, a measure dealing with seamen’s compensation was fully discussed in this chamber. On that occasion, a good deal of controversy raged around two important provisions of that measure ; and then, as now, the Labour Opposition strove to improve the bill. It moved several amendments and, eventually, with the support of some honorable members on the ministerial side of the chamber, the Senate agreed to them, and the bill, as amended, was returned to the House of Representatives. However, the government of the day refused to accept the amendments and the bill was again returned to this chamber. I am pleased to be able to relate that supporters of the Government in this chamber insisted with the Opposition that those amendments be made. One of the senators in the ministerial party who supported the Opposition on that occasion is now a member of the present Government. Consequently, I trust that as a result of this debate the Minister in charge of this measure will accept the suggestions that have been made by my colleagues.

Under this measure the Government proposes to increase the amounts of compensation that shall be payable to seamen and to their dependants in respect of injury; but the increases proposed are inadequate when one has regard to the degree to which the cost of living has risen compared with the cost of living at the time when the original amounts were determined. This is not a money bill in the strict sense, but as the amendment which the Opposition would desire to effect would involve .an increase of the premiums payable by the shipping companies, it is, perhaps, doubtful whether the Senate has power to make such an amendment. I should like the Minister in charge of the bill, when he is replying to the debate, to clarify that point.

Senator O’Flaherty raised a very important point. I do not know what Senator Vincent had in mind when he suggested, by way of interjection, that a worker should not be paid compensation twice in respect of an injury. I trust that that honorable senator or any other honorable senator is not satisfied that the amount of medical expenses allowable under this legislation or the amount of benefits payable under the notorious Page medical benefits scheme is adequate to compensate a worker who may be incapacitated through injury. Many workers insure themselves privately or contribute to a friendly society in order to supplement the compensation and benefits to which they are entitled under legislation of this kind in the event of illness or incapacity due to injury.

As this Government believes that private individuals should be obliged to subscribe for hospital and medical benefits, I cannot understand why, under this measure, it seeks to discourage workers, who are sufficiently prudent to do so, from subscribing privately for benefits with various organizations in order to supplement the compensation to which they are entitled under legislation of this kind. The Government is now seeking to penalize workers who subscribe to insurance funds privately for the purpose of helping themselves and family in that way. Payment of benefits or compensation to which they become entitled from such funds does not place any additional burden upon their employers. Yet the Government proposes to omit from the principal act the provision that compensation from a privately effected insurance policy or from a friendly society shall not debar a seaman from receiving compensation under the principal act. I cannot understand the Government’s attitude in that respect and I trust that the Minister in charge of the bill, when be is replying to this debate, will enlighten the .Senate further on that point. Perhaps he will contend that in a case of an injured seaman who is awarded compensation at common law against a third party, his employer also should not be liable to provide compensation to him. However, recognition of an employer’s liability to pay compensation in such instances is a feature of measures of this kind. Perhaps a seaman, while he is proceeding to or from his place of employment, or to or from a mercantile office, may be injured in an accident in which a third party may be involved and against whom the injured man may proceed and recover damages at common law. In such cases, the employee’s right to receive the full amount of compensation prescribed under legislation of this kind should be preserved. I trust that as a result of this debate, the Senate, as it did in 1938, will agree to an amendment to retain the relevant provision which it is proposed to omit under this measure. In other respects the bill ‘ conforms to other measures of this kind, except, as I said earlier, that the proposed increases of the amounts of compensation are inadequate having regard to the present purchasing power of the Menzies £1.

Senator McLEAY:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · South Australia · LP

– in reply - I shall direct the attention of the Treasurer (Sir Arthur Fadden) to the points that Senator Armstrong raised with respect to retrospectivity of payments of compensation. Clause 3 omits sub-section (5.) of section 5 which provides that compensation from a privately effected insurance policy of from a friendly society shall not debar a seaman from receiving compensation under the act. I am advised by the Parliamentary Draftsman that the need for. that sub-section disappeared in 1949 when the provision that compensation was not payable both independently of and also under the act was omitted. Section 10a, which was inserted in the principal act in 1949, covers the position that was formerly covered by section 5 (2.) (b). I am informed that what the Labour Government had in mind was that an employer should not be called upon to pay compensation twice ; but this did not affect the seaman who had obtained cover privately from other sources. “We are simply deleting from the bill something that should have been deleted when section 10a was inserted in 1949. Therefore, in substance, there will be no alteration of the provisions that the Labour Government incorporated in the act.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 (Compensation for personal injuries to seamen).

Senator O’FLAHERTY:
South Australia

– I am not satisfied with the explanation given by the Minister in his reply to the second-reading debate. The honorable gentleman claimed that this Government was now doing something which the Labour Government should have done in 1949. He mentioned section 10a, which provides, in subsection (l.) - (1.) Except as provided by this Act, a seaman shall not be entitled, in respect of personal injury by accident arising out of or in tho course of his employment, to receive com pensation for any payment by way of compensation from the employer both independently of and also under this Act.

I emphasize the opening words of that section -

Except as provided by this Act . . .

Sub-section (5.) of section 5 provides -

Any payment to an injured seaman made under an insurance policy privately effected by the seaman or made by a friendly society, by way of compensation or medical or disablement benefits, shall not be deemed to be compensation or payment in respect of the injury within the meaning of sub-section (2.) of this section.

That, I submit, is one of the exceptions provided for in the opening words of section 10a. The Minister claimed that, although section 5 (5.) and part of section 10a are to be deleted, the substance of the provision would remain. That is not so. Seamen will be deprived of their right to private insurance payments and benefits provided by friendly societies. I suggest also that they will be deprived of their right to benefits under the hospital benefits scheme. Provision has been made in certain other legislation to allow payments by friendly societies to be accepted by persons who are in receipt of social services benefits. The limit on such payments is £2 a week, nevertheless the right of a private individual to accept financial assistance for which he has contributed in his private capacity is recognized. Why then should seamen be deprived of that right by empowering employers to offset private insurance payments against compensation payable in respect of injuries? The proposal is unjust and I object to it. The Minister’s explanation was inadequate.

Senator COOKE:
Western Australia

– I agree with Senator O’Flaherty that the Government must have some other motive for this proposal. The payment of compensation to an injured worker is a distinct liability on an employer, and any provision that an employee may make privately for the protection of himself and his family should not prejudice his compensation claim. Sub-section (5.) of section 5 was deliberately inserted in the act so that workers who were prepared to make special provision for themselves and their dependants in the event of injury, would not have to depend solely upon the compensation payments provided for in the act. The Government now proposes to remove safeguards in which the workers themselves and we, on this side of the chamber, have great confidence. Possibly the Government’s motive is to relieve either employers or insurance companies of liabilities which hitherto have been borne by them. I remind honorable senators that a strange turn has been taken in our social services programme. In place of the free medicine and free hospitalization schemes introduced by the Chifley Government, we now have a hotch-potch scheme which lumps lodge payments and social services payments together. Under the Seamen’s Compensation Act as it now stands, the Government has no right to take into consideration, in determining compensation payments, hospital or medical benefits to which an injured seaman is entitled by reason of his private contributions to an insurance scheme, and to assume responsibility only for the. difference between such benefits and the amount specified in the compensation schedule. The first amendment of section 5a of the principal act proposed in clause 5 will mean an increase of only £50 in the liability of an employer for the payment of medical, surgical and hospital treatment and ambulance services. The second amendment will delete the words “medical, surgical and hospital treatment “ and substitute in their stead the words “medical treatment “. I should like an assurance from the Government that seamen will be entitled to compensation payments in full and that on no occasion will the Government permit the. off-setting of social services or lodge payments against the cost of hospital or medical treatment, or ambulance services provided under this act. In other words, the Government should make it clear that all hospital, medical and ambulance services now available to seamen under the act, will still be available after this legislation has been passed.

Senator SHEEHAN:
Victoria

– I hope that the Minister for Shipping and Fuel (Senator MeLeay), who is in charge of this bill will see the difference between the present section 5(5.) and the other sections of the act to which reference has been made. The passage of this legislation will relieve employers of certain liabilities. Senator Vincent, by way of interjection, directed attention to this matter. The Minister, in his reply to the’ second-reading debate, claimed that there was nothing very wrong with the elimination of section 5 (5.) and said that this action should have been taken by the Labour Government when it had section 10a under consideration. As honorable senators on this side of the chamber have already pointed out, section 10a has nothing whatever to do with the provision that the Government now proposes to amend. Section 10a (1.) provides -

Except as provided by this Act, a seaman shall not be entitled, in respect of personal injury by accident arising out of or in the course of his employment, to receive compensation or any payment by way of compensation from the employer or both independently of and also under this Act.

As I understand the act, an injured person has two alternatives. He may elect to accept the payment provided for under the act, or he may decide to proceed against an employer in the courts. Possibly there has been some neglect on the part of the employer, or the employee’s injuries are so serious that he considers the payment provided in the act to be inadequate. Section 10a is virtually aD escape clause. It prevents an employer from being liable to pay damages awarded by a court and also the compensation payment prescribed in the act. That is entirely different from the clause that the Opposition wants to see retained in the act. Section 5 (5.) provides, in effect, that an employee may, of his own initiative, and at his own expense, contribute to an insurance fund which will guarantee to him some additional payment in the event of injury. Before becoming a member of this chamber I was associated with the Victorian railways. Many of the societies that were then operating for the benefit of railway employees are still in existence. They have been brought under the control of the Victorian Government. Some of them were called sick and funeral societies. The employees made weekly contributions to those societies. Under the regulations governing the operation of the Victorian railways, if a worker became entitled to compensation as a result of being injured on the job, no deduction was made from such compensation because of any amount that he received from a society. The arrangements whereby an employee contributed to a society in order to qualify for the payment of a benefit to him at a time of adversity, was regarded as a private contract. Why, then, should such a worker now b’3 deprived of any benefit that would become payable to him by a society? It is entirely unfair.

During recent years many appeals have been made to the workers of this country to make provision to receive assistance during times of adversity. Supporters of the Government have repeatedly drawn attention to the huge cost of providing social services, and statements have also been made about the necessity to introduce a national insurance scheme. Yet the clause under consideration will remove from at least one section of the community, the seamen, the incentive to make provision for themselves.

Senator McLeay:

– That is nonsense.

Senator SHEEHAN:

– Obviously, the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay) has not come into contact with workers during their periods of sickness or other adversity. In the light of my experience of the plight of the workers at such times, it is cruel for the Government to remove the present incentive.

Senator Spicer:

– We are not doing what you say.

Senator SHEEHAN:

– No supporter of the Government has yet refuted the contention of the Opposition that by this clause, the Government is taking away from the men something that is in their best interests, and which they themselves are providing. I hope that the Government will not persist with the clause.

Senator SPICER:
AttorneyGeneral · Victoria · LP

– I should like to assure Senator Sheehan that he has raised a difficulty which does not really exist at all. I shall demonstrate, by referring to the history of this legislation, that the fears that the honorable senator has expressed are not justified. Section 5 (2) (b) of the Seamen’s Compensation Act 1911 provided -

A seaman shall not be entitled to recover compensation both independently of and also under this Act;

I could well imagine it being argued that under that provision a seaman could not recover compensation under the act and also claim payment under a policy for compensation which he had taken out on his own account. At some stage - I think in 1947 - that position was recognized. I emphasize that that section still remained in the act at that time. Consequently, in order to avoid the kind of situation to which Senator Sheehan has referred, and which arose because of the presence of section 5 (2.) (&), the act was amended in 1947 by adding the following subsection to section 5 - (a.) Any payment to an injured’ seaman made under an insurance policy privately effected by the seaman or made by a friendly society, by way of compensation or medical or disablement benefits, shall not be deemed to bo compensation or payment in respect of the injury within the meaning of sub-section (2.) of this section.

It will be noticed that that provision itself is tied up with the express provision in sub-section (2.) of section 5. Then the whole situation was altered by the fact, as I understand the matter, that in 1949 subsection (2.) (b) was removed from the act. There was no longer a wide provision as section 5 (2.) (b) had enacted, that “ a seaman shall not be entitled to recover compensation both independently of and also under this act “. That being removed from the act, there was no longer any possible room for the argument that the seaman could not recover compensation under the act and also recover compensation under a policy which he had taken out himself. I challenge any member of the Opposition to point to any provision of the act, as it now stands, which would prevent a seaman from recovering compensation under’ the act and also under a policy taken out by himself. If there is no prohibition in the act, there is no reason- any longer for the express provision which was formerly contained in sub-section (2.) (fe) of section 5.

Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; QLP from 1957; DLP from 1968

– Section 5 (2.) (e) of the act provides - . . if it appears that the claimant has a claim for compensation for the injury under any law of the United Kingdom or of any other part of the King’s ^Dominions . . . compensation under this Act shall only be allowed upon the claimant undertaking not to claim compensation for the injury under any such law.

Could that provision be- construed as relating to a claim under a policy, which would make the prohibition of the section still necessary %

Senator SPICER:

– With great respect, I should have- thought not. I should have thought that that is directed to a claim which directly arose under some law passed by the United Kingdom, not a claim which arises from contract. The claim that he would have under a policy taken out by himself with a friendly society would be a claim arising under contract.. I suggest in those circumstances there is no room for the argument that that kind of case could possibly come within section 5 (2.) (b). I assure honorable senators that this action has been taken by the draftsman to clarify the act by eliminating something that is no longer necessary. Nothing is being taken away from the rights- which the men at present enjoy:

Senator O’FLAHERTY:
South Australia

– Although I bow to the superior knowledge of the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Spicer), he has not convinced me of the necessity for the proposed omission of sub-section (5.) of section 5 of the act. If the sub-section has no effect, as he has stated, why not leave it in the act ? I point out that it is valued by employees who, at some period of their lives, have suffered from accidents. It provides- for the payment of compensation to an injured employee by an insurance company or friendly society. We- fear that such a payment may be offset against the payment of compensation under the Seamen’s Compensation Act. The Attorney-General has stated that the repeal of sub-section (2.) (6) of section 5 removed a provision that made it possible for the employers to prevent seamen from obtaining damages as well as compensation. I point out that the former Labour Government repealed sub-section (2.) (6) of section 5 only because it was then afraid that insurance payments, and payments by friendly societies would be offset against payments under the act. I cannot see any necessity for the proposed alteration. The position at present is- that section 5 (5.)’ of the act permits a seaman to receive income other- than compensation in the event of an accident. If sub-section (5.)’ is repealed, he will n-ot-be able- to gainthat income. If, as the- Minister says, the removal of the sub-section will have noeffect, then surely it would have no effect if it were allowed to remain in the act. At least that would satisfy my mind that the Government is not deliberately taking something away from a seaman who is injured at his work.

Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; QLP from 1957; DLP from 1968

– (Queensland) >.29). - We are indebted to the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Spicer) for his explanation of the proposal to take sub-section (5.) of section 5 out of the act. However, I should like to direct his attention to- the fact that sub-section (5.) does not refer specifically to sub-section (2.) (Z>) of section 5.

Senator Spicer:

– I agree with that.

Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; QLP from 1957; DLP from 1968

– In other words, it would appear that sub-section (5.) refers to the whole of sub-section (2.), including paragraph (e). It appears to me that paragraph (e) may not have the particular interpretation which the AttorneyGeneral has applied to it in relation to claims arising out of contracts. Because there appears to be genuine concern on this side of the chamber and considerable doubt on both sides and as the position would be clarified by allowing section 5, sub-section (5.) of the act to remain I see no reason why it should be deemed necessary to exclude it. In view of the uncertainty of the meaning of paragraph (e) there is every reason for leaving section 5 of the act as it is. Unless some important principle is involved I think that the Attorney-General might accept the suggestion of the Opposition.

Senator ARMSTRONG:
New South Wales

.- I followed the explana.tion of the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer) and I appreciate that the bill is silent on the subject of whether private insurance may be accepted by an injured worker in addition to workers’ compensation. The position as he has stated it might be true or it might not be true-. But section 5 of the Seamen’s Compensation Act is very sure and certain. It puts the position beyond any possible shadow of doubt. It lays down the right of the worker to accept his private insurance. It has been said that law is the accumulated common sense of generations. It is not common sense to eliminate a provision which makes a position absolutely clear.

Senator McLeay:

– Does the honorable senator propose that the legislation should be framed by bush lawyers instead of a trained legal draftsman?

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– No. But a draftsman drafted certain legislation for the Labour Government in 1947 and omitted the very provision that the Government wanted to retain.

Senator Spicer:

– The draftsmen are sometimes rushed.

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– The 1947 legislation was not rushed. It is possible that the same draftsman suggested the deletion of the clause under discussion. Some matters which may seem unimportant to the Government concern high principles so far as the Opposition is concerned. For many years an injured worker who received money in respect of his injury apart from workers’ compensation had a corresponding amount deducted from his compensation. A battle was fought and won in connexion with that matter and the victory is represented in sub-section (5.) of section 5 of the principal act. The Attorney-General said that the paragraph is unnecessary. That is arguable. “What is the value of tidying the legislation as the Attorney-General has advocated? A lot of other legislation requires tidying more than this and much of it could well be eliminated. I do not agree that it is important to tidy this legislation. I consider that the Government’s proposal will confuse the issue. It is rarely that one finds in legislation a provision such as this which puts the position beyond doubt and which is a pleasure for a non-legal man such as myself to read. I do not think that a provision of that clarity should be eliminated especially as it represents the result of a struggle that has taken place over many years. It might not be absolutely necessary for the sub-section to remain but its retention would do no harm and would allow the position to remain clear.

Senator SPICER:
AttorneyGeneral · Victoria · LP

.- If I had the slightest doubt about this matter I would agree to leave subjection (5.) of section 5 in the act, but I have no doubt whatever concerning it. I think it is bad to have untidy legislation. It is dangerous to retain legislation which has become archaic. When he looks for the interpretation of a new act the lawyer asks why each provision in it is present. In a case such as this he would see that the need for subsection (5.) had been clear when another provision had been contained in the legislation. But after the elimination of the provision relating to the claiming of compensation from other sources the reason for this provision could not be found. There would be a great temptation in such circumstances for an . ingenious lawyer to find in some other part of the legislation some reason for the provision. In my view, this sub-section is quite unnecessary. If it is left in the legislation it might be used in the interpretation of some other provision to which it was not intended to relate. There is no reason for the provision and it is desirable that we should have a clear and tidy piece of legislation.

Senator O’FLAHERTY:
South Australia

– I ask the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Spicer) to suppose that private insurance amounting to £50 is due to a man in respect of an accident. If sub-section (5.) of section 5 is deleted from the act would it be possible for that man’s claim for worker’s compensation to be reduced by the sum of £50? By leaving section 5 as it is it would be abundantly clear that any private insurance or friendly society benefit or hospital benefit could be accepted by a man in addition to the full amount of his worker’s compensation. I still consider that this section should remain intact. I ask the Attorney-General to report progress and examine this provision with a view to ascertaining whether he can concede that the section would be best left as it is. If he will not do that I shall have to vote against’ the clause.

Senator SHEEHAN:
Victoria

– The Attorney-General (Senator Spicer) mentioned that an astute lawyer might endeavour to find some loophole in this legislation. It is for that’ very reason that I should like section 5 of the act to remain as it is. The arguments which can be brought forward in regard to compensation claims are remarkable.I should like it to be made abundantly clear that whatever additional insurance cover a worker may arrange should not be taken into consideration if he happens to be maimed during his employment and is entitled to compensation. I appreciate the argument that has been advanced by the Attorney-General, but I am not convinced by it.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 4 (Injury while travelling to or from work).

Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; QLP from 1957; DLP from 1968

– This clause provides that section 5 a a of the Seamen’s Compensation Act shall be repealed and that a section which is set out in the bill shall be inserted in its stead. In recent years a new principle has been introduced into workers’ compensation legislation which protects employees when they are at any place where they generally obtain work. Certain groups of employees, for example, may attend union offices where employers seek employees. I do not know how labour is engaged in the marine industry. I do not know, for instance, whether at certain times the seamen resort to the mercantile offices for employment. But if that is the case does the Government contemplate that employees who are seeking work at a recognized place of employment or who are injured in travelling to or from such places shall he covered by workers’ compensation? That is a principle which has now found common acceptance in workers’ compensation legislation in many States. The principle operates in some industries in Victoria and the Queensland. Government recently introduced it in Queensland. I see no reason why the Commonwealth should be backward in that respect. Many employees have to travel considerable distances in order to obtain work and that is why this principle has been accepted. I ask the Attorney-General what action is contemplated by the Government in this respect. If the Government had not intended to adopt the principle that I have mentioned, will it consider its embodiment in this bill or in future amendments to workers’ compensation legislationso that the principle might apply to federal employment as it does in State spheres?

Sitting suspended from5.45 to8 p.m.

Senator VINCENT:
Western Australia

– I note that sub-section (a) of proposed new section 5aa refers to personal injury by accident caused to a seaman while he is travelling to or from his employment. The corresponding provision in the original act reads somewhat differently, and refers to personal injury by accident caused to a seaman while he is travelling to or from his place of employment. Can the Minister inform me whether any alteration in the application of this provision is proposed by reason of the omission of the phrase “ place of “ ?

Progress reported.

page 231

ROYAL STYLE AND TITLES BILL 1953

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator O’Sullivan ) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QueenslandMinister for Trade and Customs · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

This is a bill for an act relating to the Royal style and titles. It has become necessary to introduce a measure of this kind because, in modern times, there have been changes in the constitutional structure of the British Commonwealth. Those changes, which were, first of all, dealt with in terms of form in more recent times in the preamble to the Statute of Westminster, have now called for fresh consideration, because since the enactment of the Statute of Westminster India has become a republic, the title “ Head of the Commonwealth “ has been devised, and there have been additions to the number of nations which form, in total, the Commonwealth of Nations. The bill is quite short. The Parliament is invited to approve that the Royal style and titles in Australia, in respect of the reign of Her present Majesty, should be, “ Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the

United Kingdom, Australia and of her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith “.

If honorable senators will look at the bill they will see that it recites in fairly full terms the decisions that were taken by the conference of Prime Ministers in London in December last. If honorable senators look at the recitals they will see the substance of what was then done. Perhaps it will be convenient if I run through the preamble in that sense. It begins with the statement that it was recited in the preamble of the Statute of Westminster in . 1931 that it would be in accord with the established constitutional position of all the members of the British Commonwealth of Nations, in relation to one another, that any alteration in the law touching the Royal style and titles should, after the enactment of that act, “ require the assent as well of the Parliaments of all dominions as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom “. The preamble goes on to refer to a proclamation that was made by His late Majesty, King George V., just before the enactment of the Statute of Westminster- Then it recites that at the conference in London in December representatives of Her Majesty’s Governments in the United Kingdom, Australia and all the countries there represented, agreed that the changes should be made. The following paragraph of the preamble indicates the real substance of the agreement. It states -

And whereas it was concluded by the Prime Ministers and other representatives that, in the present stage of development of the British Commonwealth relationship, it would he in accord with the established constitutional position that each member country should use for its own purposes a form of the Royal Style and Titles which suits its own particular circumstances but retains a substantial element which is common to all.

That conference represented a real attempt to satisfy both of those conditions. The Commonwealth Prime Ministers met, realizing that accommodation had to be granted to particular points of view but that, as far as possible, certain common elements, which would serve to remind everybody that the Crown still remains the great symbol of unity to the whole family of nations, should be retained. In the result, the titles that will be used in the variouscountries of the British Commonwealth may seem, on thesurface, to be quite varied.

I believe that the United Kingdom Parliament has already introduced legislation to provide for the new title. In the case of the United Kingdom, the title will be, “Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith “. In the case of Canada, the title will be, “ Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith “. In the case of Australia, as I have just indicated, the title will be the same as that for Canada, except that “ Australia”will be substituted for “Canada”, the United Kingdom having been first referred to. The same applies to New Zealand, in which case “ New England “ will appear after “ United Kingdom “. In the case of South Africa, where there are certain problems which one recognizes very willingly and which distinguish the circumstances of that country from those of other countries of the British Commonwealth, the title will be, “Elizabeth the Second, Queen of South Africa and of Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth “. In the case of Pakistan, the title will he, “Elizabeth the Second, Queen of the United Kingdom and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth”.Inthe case of Ceylon, the title will be, “Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Ceylon and of Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth “.

At first blush, that may seem a great variety of titles, but it is necessary to point out that the British Commonwealth represents a very great variety of peoples. One of the things that have characterized it in the course of its history is that it has recognized diversity but has always produced unity. Therefore, these variations are not to be taken as exhibiting some oddity on the partof anybody. We are in one tradition. We are also in the religious tradition, whereas other countries are not. They have their own religious faiths to which they adhere most strongly, and properly so. We recognize that there’ are certain things which may not apply to other nations within the British Commonwealth. It is inspiring to reflect that ever since William Rufus was crowned, there has been a reference in the title of the monarch to “ the grace, of God because, ever since that coronation, it has been recognized that the coronation is a Christian ceremony. Therefore, this reference runs through the history of the Crown. We stand in the direct line of that tradition. The preamble goes on to recite that -

And whereas it was further agreed by the Prime Ministers and other representatives that the procedure of prior consultation between all governments of the British Commonwealth should be followed in future if occasion arose to propose a change in the form of the Royal Style and Titles used in any country of the British Commonwealth: “

This may, perhaps, appear to be rather tedious and technical, but in the preamble to the Statute of Westminster the condition was set up as a constitutional convention, to which I have referred and which is set out in the first paragraph of the preamble to this bill, that all should agree to the changes made by all. Representatives of all Commonwealth countries met in London and discussed this matter. Having arrived at agreement, the question then came up, “ Are we in future, if there is to be some change, once more to consult with each other ? “ It was agreed that such a course should be followed. In the drafting of this bill it has been thought proper merely to put the question beyond doubt and to proceed as if the convention established by the Statute of Westminster still’ operates. Therefore, provision is made in clause 5 of the bill that the assent of this Parliament is to be given to the titles which will, be advised to Her Majesty on the part of each of the other countries in the British Commonwealth. If it is necessary to follow the convention of the Statute of Westminster, we have therefore followed it.

It will be observed that in the title in the schedule to the bill the summary form “ the United Kingdom “ is used. It is possible to use the long form, “ the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland “. Statutes in the United Kingdom provide- that one- means the other.

As a result of the discussions in London, it was considered that the title should not be long and cumbersome. Therefore, the expression “ the United Kingdom. “ is used. In clause 3 of the bill, “United” Kingdom “ is defined to mean “ the.- United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”, so that the whole matter is put beyond ambiguity. The short, title has been used in the schedule and defined in the bill-

Clause 4 refers to the issue by Her Majesty of a royal proclamation. I refer to it only to say that it provides for the issue by Her Majesty of a Royal proclamation under such seal as Her Majesty by warrant appoints. For that purpose Her Majesty, as I confidently expect, will appoint a seal which will contain, in appropriate form, the style and title to be used in Australia in accordance with the provisions of this bill.

At the conference in London to which I have referred there were two outstanding considerations. One was that we should secure, if we could, the greatest measure of common ground in the definition of Her Majesty. That, of course, is tremendously important. I urge upon the. Senate, as I should lite also to urge upon the country, that we must not allow the Crown to cease to be a real symbol of unity. We must not divide it up artificially. Rather should we, as far as possible, maintain our view of the Crown as the symbol of unity among countries which are otherwise entirely, or in some respects, diverse one from the other. Therefore, significance in terms of unity was something to which the conference directed its attention. It was felt by some that a territorial reference in the real title should be solely a reference to the particular territory represented; that is. that Her Majesty should be described in the case of Australia, for instance-, as, “ Queen of Australia and of Her other Realms and Territories “, and in the case of Canada as “ the Queen of Canada and of Her other Realms and Territories “. It is essential that we should retain this unity. Therefore, the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) strongly advocated that we -ought to begin in the territorial reference by referring to the United Kingdom and then to our own land.

That was accepted by four of the countries concerned. Honorable senators may be disposed to ask why we should do that. After ail, the phrase “ and all Her other Realms and Territories “ is a comprehensive expression. Why refer to the United Kingdom first ? In the first place, I believe that juristically speaking it would be fantastic to eliminate a reference to the United Kingdom because the plain truth is that Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second sits on the Throne, not because of some law of Australia, but because of the law of the United Kingdom. She sits there by virtue of two acts of Parliament. The first is the Act of Settlement 1701. The second is the Abdication Act 1936, which signalized the departure of Edward the Eighth from the Throne and the installation of His late Majesty King George the Sixth in 1936. Therefore in the literal, legal sense the Queen is Queen of Canada and South Africa and New Zealand and so on because she is Queen of the United Kingdom. We have no Act of Succession. Therefore, in direct terms of law Her Majesty is our Queen because, under the Act of Succession of the United Kingdom as modified by the Abdication Act 1936, she is Queen of the United Kingdom.

The second aspect of this matter is that this is not a barren question of constitutional law. It is a question of great historical significance. If we have a parliament here, as we have, and it is a free parliament, we derived it from Westminster. If there is a parliament in India, as there is, and it is a free parliament of the rule of law, those things were derived from those who sat in the Parliament of Westminster or had moved around outside the Courts of Common Law at Westminster in the Middle Ages. Those are great historical truths of which we all ought to be and are, indeed, proud. Even if the Act of Succession had not had to be taken into consideration, I should still have said that to deny the first mention to the country which is the cradle of our sovereignty, the cradle of our system of parliamentary government and the cradle of our legal system would be to deny our own history. It seemed clear that to preserve this magnificent nexus that exists between Great Britain and ourselves and between Groat Britain and all those outlying countries, it was of the first importance that in describing the style and titles of Her Majesty, we should begin by saying, “ Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom and then of our country, whatever it may be, and then “ of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith “.

That is a proud title. I hope that it is a title that will be worn by Her Majesty for many years. I hope that whatever changes may come in the future, because we do not know what the future holds, people who come after us down the centuries will still be able to stand upon appropriate occasions and still feel that behind the Crown there is the Grace of God, that the Crown is a symbol of freedom and. justice, and that they may still feel that all of our nations and of ourselves, in particular, she is the enduring Monarch, the Monarch who dies as an individual, but who passes on a Crown that will always be the sign and proof that wherever we may be in the world, we are one people.

Senator ARMSTRONG (New South Wales) ‘S.20].- The Opposition has considered this bill and will give it full support. The measure is evidence of extraordinary development in the life of the world and particularly that part of the world which is singularly our own. All members of this great British Commonwealth of Nations met together in London only last December and each of them decided on the particular title and style that they would wish their Monarch to be given in their own country. Having decided that, each of those Prime Ministers returned to his own country and under the Statute of Westminster, each parliament in the British Commonwealth then has to agree to the title that would be used for Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth the Second. I listened to the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’Sullivan) with great interest. He referred to the fact that since the coronation of Rufus, the reference to God has been a part of the coronation ceremony. I think thai that has given tremendous strength to the tradition of the British Crown. It has been strengthened substantially even in the days of my lifetime, by- those who

Lave held the British Crown in trust for the people of the Commonwealth. Today in this Parliament we, the representatives of the people of Australia, agree that “ Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Australia and Her other Realms and Territories, Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith”, is to be the title and style of the Queen of the Commonwealth as our Queen.

When we consider such a matter as this our pleasure is tinged with some sorrow. It is the sorrow of realizing the tremendous responsibilities that Queen Elizabeth the Second has accepted. She is young and she has been trained from her earliest years to accept this great responsibility. If 3 be fails, her failure will be followed by reverberations throughout the Dominions. Tennyson in describing the power of prayer said that the world was held by golden chains around the feet of God. The devotion of the Queen to her responsibility has been one of the strongest single factors in holding together the great Commonwealth. Now her realms have reached a new point in their history because each component part of the British Commonwealth of Nations can present to its own people the style and title by which they would like the Queen to be known in their own land.

This is a tremendous diplomatic development because all the component parts of the British Commonwealth of Nations have many different problems and many different forms of government, but all of them have agreed that they are an integral part of the Commonwealth. That means much to the world. That is why we look to the Queen and pray that she and her Consort, the Duke of Edinburgh, will have strength in the tremendous task that they have accepted, that the Queen will long continue in her high place and that those who follow her will carry on in the tradition that she and her father and grandfather have set.

Senator McCALLUM (New South Wales) [8.25” . - It would be a pity to allow this measure to pass as one that did not concern private members of the Parliament because the bill deals with the oldest institution that we have in the British Commonwealth. Changes have been made in this bill from the old style and titles to which we have been accustomed. The first point upon which we should congratulate ourselves is that’ certain changes were made to allow India, Pakistan and Ceylon, three new Asian nations, to remain in the British Commonwealth of Nations. At the time some of us were hesitant and doubtful about some of the changes that were proposed, but we have seen what has happened in India and how strong that government has proved to be. Pakistan and Ceylon are self-governing nations with generous feeling towards us so that much of the old bitterness that troubled our relations for so many years has died. It is evident that the concessions that were made to India, Pakistan and Ceylon were worth making. A further slight concession was made to South Africa. One can understand it only if one knows the history of South Africa, but for some obscure reason that country rejected the title, “ Defender of the Faith “. I am happy that nobody in this country wishes to reject that title because it is a curious instance of how a title that was given in certain circumstances may survive in others. The title, “ Defender of the Faith “ was given before the Reformation and, therefore, it should not incite any disunity among any who belong to a branch of the Christian faith. It has been retained since the Reformation with the full consent of the great majority of Her Majesty’s subjects.

Some honorable senators have mentioned the coronation oath and its relation to King Rufus, but that is not by any means the full extent of the antiquity of the British monarchy. The Queen is the direct descendant of Egbert, King of Wessex. Therefore, the British monarchy precedes the King of England. Egbert was King of Wessex about the year 809 and later became Overlord of England. There has been some public discussion as to the Queen being a direct descendant of the old Kings of Scotland. The Queen is the direct descendant of King Duncan, who is known to us from Shakespeare’s Macbeth who bore “his faculties so meek “, and was “ so clear in his great office.” I am not sure that the Scottish descent could not be traced even further back to Malcolm Canmore, but it is beyond dispute that it is a Scottish and

English monarchy. As to the styling of Her Majesty, Elizabeth the Second, most of us will accept that heartily. That title is peculiar to the United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is not a title for the whole of the United Kingdom or for Australia, if it comes to that, hut since England is in fact one of the component parts of the United Kingdom, I do not think that anybody will quarrel with that. I had the good fortune to hear not only the speeches made by the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’Sullivan) and Senator Armstrongon this measure, but also the speeches of the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) and the Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Evatt) when it was introduced in another place. Those right honorable members fully expressed the feelings of all of us. We welcome this new f orm of the Royal style and title because in it, for the first time, the Queen is specifically mentioned as Queen of Australia without omitting the old title which makes it clear that we are also united under the Crown with the United Kingdom and with the Queen’s other realms. It is because the Crown is the great and perfect symbol of that unity that we welcome this bill. All of us hope that Her Majesty, who is the first to receive this title, may reign over us happily for as long a period as we may humanly entertain such a hope.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 236

TAXATION ADMINISTRATION BILL 1953

BillreceivedfromtheHouseofRepresentatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for National Development · New South Wales · LP

.- I move-

That the bill he now read a second time.

I should like to point out that subsequent to making my second-reading speech on this measure I shall introduce the Land Tax Abolition Bill 1953. As these are cognatemeasures, I suggest, Mr. Deputy President, that the convenience of the Senate will best be served if we debate both measures together though, of course, each will be voted upon separately and dealt with separately at the committee stage.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator George Rankin). - That will be in order.

Senator SPOONER:

– The purpose of this bill is to provide for the continuance of the general taxation administration which has its origin in the Land Tax Assessment Act. Honorable senators will recall that the Land Tax Abolition Bill 1952was agreed to during the last sessional period. That bill provided that land tax should not be levied for the financial year 1952-53 or for any subsequent financial year. It also relieved land-owners of the liability to lodge land tax returns for the financial year mentioned and subsequent financial years. I explained, when introducing that bill in the Senate, that the complete removal of land tax legislation from the statutebook would require the introduction of a measure to reconstitute the general taxation administration which has its statutory origin in the Land Tax Assessment Act. Following the introduction of thisbill, I will introduce a separate bill, the object of which is to remove completely from the statute-book the 25 land tax acts which have been enacted since 1910.

Since these acts provide for the offices oftheCommissioner and Second Commissioner of Taxation and the taxation valuation boards, whose duties cover a much wider field than land tax, it has become necessary to provide statutory authority for their continuance. It is desirable to do this in a separate act rather than in an act which deals with a particular subject of taxation.

The bill, therefore, provides for the offices of Commissioner and Second Commissioner of Taxation and prescribes their tenure of office, the salaries to be paid to them, and the method of removal of an occupant from an office by the Governor-General on the advice of Parliament. With the exception of certain drafting improvements which bring the actual wording of the clauses and subclauses into line with modern drafting practice, these provisions are similar to tho.se at present appearing in the Land lax Assessment Act. The original provisions were drafted in 1910. One improvement is to provide in this bill for delegations of his powers by the Commissioner of Taxation instead of leaving this power of delegation in the separate acts which are administered by him. The principle of delegation is not new. It is an obvious requirement of the taxing laws because it would be impracticable for any one person to decide personally all the matters that arise for determination. Because of this, all taxing laws contain provisions for the delegation of the powers vested in the Commissioner. The words used in this bill are identical with the words used separately in the actual taxing acts. The words are so designed that the delegation instrument may cover any matter or class of matter or delegate powers or functions in respect of a State or a part of the Commonwealth. Uniformity of administration is maintained because the Commissioner at head office determines questions of policy and principle at Canberra and directs that the officers to whom powers are delegated should exercise those powers having regard to his rulings and directions on matters of policy and principle. The chief purpose of including the clause in the Tax Administration Bill is to enable an omnibus delegation to be given should that be desired, or, conversely, to make the instruments of delegation much simpler.

The present occupants of the offices of Commissioner of Taxation and Second Commissioner of Taxation were appointed by the Governor-General for terms of seven years under the powers granted by the Land Tax Assessment Act. As these terms have not yet expired, the bill provides that the Commissioner and Second Commissioner holding office immediately before ‘the commencement of the Taxation Administration Act shall be deemed to have been appointed as Commissioner of Taxation .and Second Commissioner of Taxation under that act and shall hold office thereunder for the ‘remainder of their respective .terms. The bill also provides for .the offices of Deputy Commissioners of Taxation.which, .at present, are provided for in the separate taxation’ acts administered by the Commissioner of Taxation.

The bill also covers the position of valuation boards. Originally, these boards were set up as appeals tribunals for the settlement of disputes regarding the value of land for land tax purposes. Since the imposition of estate duty an3 gift duty, the boards have been required to settle disputes on real estate values, share values and the like for the purposes of those acts. For some years, the chairman has also heard all cases involving sums in excess of £500 as required by section 265 of the Income Tax and Social Services Contribution Assessment Act in lieu of the chairman of the Income Tax Board of Review. These are cases in which the taxpayer claims that the payment of tax would create undue hardship.

The chairman of the boards is the only full-time member thereof and his time is fully occupied in his board duties, together with the other duties mentioned. The other members of the boards are engaged part-time only and are solely concerned with valuation appeals. They are paid at a, daily rate for the actual days on which they are so engaged. Although land tax is now abolished, there are many assessments not yet finalized. Consequently, these boards will be occupied for some time in hearing land tax appeals in respect of valuations of land as at the 30th June, 1951, the last year to which land tax applied. It is thus necessary to provide for the continuation of the valuation boards in the manner set forth in this bill. Provision is also made under this bill for the continuance in office of the persons who were appointed to these boards under the Land Tax Assessment Act and whose periods have not expired. The removal of the powers of delegation of the Commissioner from the separate taxation acts to this act and the provision of the offices of Deputy Commissioner of Taxation under this act require the .consequential amendment of a number <s£ other -acts. These .acts are listed in the first column -of the First Schedule to the bill -and the amendments proposed ‘to be made are set k>u.t in the second column. Tlo amendments of. these acts will, o”f course, necessitate the provision of new citations therefor. This is provided for in the Second Schedule to the bill.

Debate (on motion by Senator Armstrong) adjourned.

page 238

LAND TAX ABOLITION BILL 1953

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for National Development · New South Wales · LP

.- I move-

That the bill be now read a second time.

Honorable senators will recall that when the Land Tax Abolition Bill 1952 was introduced in the last sessional period, it was stated that the Government’s intention was to remove all land tax legislation from the statute-book, but that it was not possible, in the time then available, to prepare the necessary legislation. The bill now before the Senate gives effect to that intention. It will repeal the Land Tax Assessment Acts and the acts imposing the rates of tax, which are detailed in the first Schedule to the bill. As I explained when introducing the Taxation Administration Bill 1953 that measure provides for the continuation of the taxation administration. This bill provides for the repeal of the tax itself. The repeal of the land tax legislation will necessitate certain consequential amendments to a number of other acts. These are set out in the Second Schedule to the bill.

The abolition of land tax is intended to apply in respect of all financial years subsequent to the financial year 1951-52 but, of course, is not intended to have any effect in respect of the financial year 1951-52 and prior years. To ensure that these intentions are given proper legislative authority, it is necessary to provide for the continuation of the repealed legislation for all purposes relating to land tax for the financial year 1951-52 and all prior years. This is done by subclause (3.) of clause 2 of the bill. The officers occupying the statutory offices constituted under the Taxation Administra tion Bill, which I have just introduced, will continue the administration of the Land Tax Assessment Act in respect of all outstanding matters for the financial year 1951-52 and prior years. It is therefore necessary to provide that these officers shall have power to finalize assessments which are outstanding after the new legislation becomes operative. This is done by sub-clause (4.) of clause 2 of the bill.

I gave a full explanation of the Government’s reasons for abolishing land tax when I introduced the Land Tax Abolition Bill 1952 in the last sessional period. It was originally enacted to break up larger rural estates. It did not achieve that purpose. It became a tax which produced revenue of approximately £7,000,000 per annum which cost about £240,000 to collect. Its day is now past, and taxpayers have been relieved of the tax and the need to lodge land tax returns after the 30th June, 1951. I commend the bill to honorable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Armstrong) adjourned.

page 238

FISHERIES BILL 1953

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator McLEAY (South Australia-

Minister for Shipping and Transport) [8.50].- I move-

That the bill be now read a second time.

This bill contains two short amendments of the Fisheries Act which was passed last year. The amendments are either procedural or are intended to remove doubts about the scope of existing provisions. The act operates in waters outside territorial limits. However, there has been some doubt whether the act, as framed, is in sufficiently wide terms to cover waters outside the territorial limits of any of the external territories such as Papua, New Guinea and Norfolk Island. Paragraph (c) of the proposed amended definition of “ Australian waters”is designed to remove the doubt on this point. Accordingly, the act, when amended, will clearly operate in waters outside the territorial limits of the external territories, as well as of the Australian continent. This was the original intention.

A further short amendment is concerned with the hearing of charges for offences. The act at present provides for summary jurisdiction to be exercised by certain specified classes of judicial officers. These do not include a resident magistrate, who, in certain Western Australian coastal towns, is the only judicial officer readily available. To expedite the hearing of charges in these somewhat remote areas it has, therefore, been deemed desirable to provide for summary jurisdiction to be exercised by resident magistrates.

Debate (on motion by Senator Armstrong) adjourned.

page 239

PEARL FISHERIES BILL 1953

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator McLEAY:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · South Australia · LP

. - I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

This bill contains a number of short amendments of the Pearl Fisheries Act which was passed last year. As in the case of the Fisheries Bill 1953, the amendments are either procedural or are intended to remove doubts about the scope of existing provisions. The Pearl Fisheries Act, like the Fisheries Act, operates in waters outside territorial limits. Again, some doubt has been felt whether the act, as framed, is in sufficiently wide terms to cover waters outside the territorial limits of any of the external territories. The proposed amendment of the definition of “ Australian Waters “ is in identical terms with the amendment proposed in the Fisheries Bill 1953. Accordingly, the Pearl Fisheries Act, when amended, will clearly operate in waters outside the territorial limits of the external territories, as well as of the Australian continent.

To avoid difficulties and delays in Western Australian coastal towns, the bill proposes, as does the Fisheries Bill 1953, that resident magistrates shall be included amongst the judicial officers who may hear charges for offences. The measure contains two further brief amendments. The substitution of the word “ licensed “ for the word “ registered “ in section 14 (e) of the act is a procedural amendment that is necessary to conform with the other provisions of the act relating to the licensing of divers. The other proposed amendment is necessary to clarify the law covering the licensing of divers. It was not intended that swim divers operating fortrochus, bêche-de-mer, &c.,inshallow waters should have to be licensed. The new sub-section 14 (2.) will make that point clear.

Debate (on motion by Senator Armstrong) adjourned.

page 239

WAR PENSIONS APPROPRIATION BILL 1953

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for National Development · New South Wales · LP

.- I move-

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of the bill now before the Senate is to provide £37,000,000 out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the payment of war pensions. This measure is similar to that submitted to Parliament from time to time for the purpose of appropriating from revenue an amount for payment into a trust account to enable pensions to be paid in accordance with such rates as are approved by Parliament. The following table indicates the continued increase in expenditure oh war

The amount of £37,000,000 now requested will cover approximately a year’s expenditure at present rates. The bill has no relation whatsoever to the rates or conditions under which pensions are paid.It merely authorizes the provision of funds for the trust account from which war pensions are paid.

Debate (on motion by Senator Armstrong) adjourned.

page 240

SEAMEN’S COMPENSATION BILL 1953

In committee: Consideration resumed (vide page 231).

Clause 4 agreed to.

Clauses 5 to 11 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Motion (by Senator Byrne) agreed to.

That the bill be recommitted for the reconsideration of clause 4.

In committee (Recommittal) :

Clause 4 (Injury while travelling to or from work).

Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; QLP from 1957; DLP from 1968

.- During the debate on the motion for the second reading of the bill I drew attention to the development in many legislatures of the principle of the protection of workers proceeding to and from their place of employment. Section 5aa of the principal act provides - (1.) Where personal injury by accident is caused to a. seaman while he is travelling to or from work, the employer shall, subject to this act, be liable to pay to the seaman or his dependants compensation in accordance with thisActasiftheaccidentwereanaccident arising out of and in the course of his employment. (2.) In this section “travelling to or from work “ means, in relation to a seaman -

  1. Travelling between the seamen’s place of abode and the place of his employment;or
  2. ) travelling between the seaman’s place of abode or place of employment and a Mercantile Marine Office, but does not include . . .

The clause proposes to repeal that section and insert the following new section in its stead - 5aa. - (1.) Where personal injury by accident is caused to a seaman -

  1. while he is travelling to or from his employment; (b)……

There has been a significant variation of language. I submit that the newly developed principle should be embodied in Commonwealth legislation wherever possible. I refer particularly to the principle that has been developed in Victoria, and to a greater degree in Queensland. Although I did not have precise information before me during the second-reading debate, I now have before me a copy of the Workers’ Compensation Acts Amendment Act of 1952, which was introduced into the Queensland Parliament in March of last year, and subsequently received the Royal Assent and became law. The substance of the principle to which I have referred is contained in section 3 (ii.) of that act, which reads -

  1. Any person who, for the purpose of being selected for employment attends at any place which, in respect of that person and that attendance, is a place of pick-up shall be deemed -

    1. While so in attendance before being so selected; or
    2. While on his journey thereto from his place of residence; or
    3. If he is not so selected or if his engagement for employment in terms of his selection takes effect from a later day, while on his journey therefrom to his place of residence, to be working under a contract of service with an employer.

During the second-reading debate the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay) said, by interjection, that the difficulty in trying to cover people in this category was to establish a contract of employment. The Queensland legislature has established a notional contract of _ employment by saying, “ This man shall be deemed to be employed “. That is the way in which the difficulty that presented itself to the Minister has been overcome in that State. Obviously, therefore, it is not an insuperable difficulty. Section 3 (i) of the Queensland measure contains the following definition of “ pick-up “ : - (1.)In this sub-section the term “place of pick-up “ means -

  1. (In respect of any person who is ordinarily engaged in any employment in connexion with which persons customarily attend certain prearranged places at which employers select and engage persons for employment) any such pre-arranged place;

That is the most comprehensive interpretation available.

Senator McLeay:

– Who pays the compensation in that case?

Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; QLP from 1957; DLP from 1968

– It is paid from the Workers CompensationFund, which is a general fund in Queensland, controlled by the State Government Insurance Office. It is an extremely buoyant fund. That office has consistently reduced premium rates and increased benefits. It was established by the employers.

Senator McLeay:

– It would not be comparable with the scheme that now exists in the Seamen’s Union.

Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; QLP from 1957; DLP from 1968

– I am merely pointing out that, in certain circumstances, it has been found possible to make payments from a fund to people in this category, which demonstrates that the machinery difficulties that have been advanced by the Minister are not insuperable. There must he a way in which to incorporate these modern developments in our legislation.

Senator Vincent:

– Who, in Queensland, is the respondent in a claim arising out of an accident the honorable senator is envisaging.

Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; QLP from 1957; DLP from 1968

– The claim is made against the Insurance Commissioner.

Senator McLeay:

– Are all unemployed persons covered ?

Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; QLP from 1957; DLP from 1968

-I do not know. I am merely endeavouring to show that it has been possible in Queensland to overcome this difficulty. The Queensland Government has a very broad conception of the value of workers’ compensation. It was very early in the field, and over the years benefits have been extended by the embodiment of the new principle in Queensland legislation. It has been found possible in that State to cover men while travelling to and from a place where men customarily go for employment, even when ultimately no firm contract of employment or labour has been entered into.

I was dealing with the difficulties of a place such as a pick-up centre, to show how wide is the Queensland provision. The first factor was an agreed principle in relation to the place of pick-up.It could be a trade union office or other place that workers in certain industries attend for selection for employment. The definition of “ place of pick-up “ in section 3 of the Queensland act continues -

  1. (In respect of any person who in answer to a notification, by advertisement or otherwise, stating that at a specified time persons will be selected and engaged for any employment at a State Employment Exchange constituted under “ The Labour and Industry Act of 1946 “ attends for the purpose of being selected for that employment at the time so specified at that State Employment Exchange) that State Employment Exchange;

Then the exchange is recognized as the place of pick-up. It goes on -

  1. (Where an award or industrial agreement provides that any persons employed thereunder shall be selected and engaged for that employment by employers at certain pre-arranged places, then in respect of any person who, for the purpose of being selected for that employment’ attends at such a place at or during atime fixed pursuant to the award or industrial agreement in question ) that last-mentioned place;
Senator Kendall:

– Then that lastmentioned place is the place of pick-up?

Senator Vincent:

– In the case of a seaman, who is the employer?

Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; QLP from 1957; DLP from 1968

– I do not know. Reference has been made to the Mercantile Marine Office. Proposednew section 5aa reads - (1.) Where personal injury by accident is caused to a seaman - (a)….. (b)…..

  1. while he is travelling to or from a place where it is necessary for him to attend for the purpose of obtaining a medical certificate in respect of a previous injury in respect of which compensation is payable under this Act, or for the purpose of receiving, in respect of such an injury, medical treatment or compensation, his employer shall . . .

That contemplates the same kind of thing, and I see no reason why the principle should not be extended. When a man is required by the exigencies of his work and the nature of his employment in an industry to go to a certain place to be selected for labour, it should be the responsibility of a compensation fund and the employer to compensate him for injuries received while he is so engaged.

Senator Vincent:

– But there is no employer mentioned in sub-section (1.) (a) of proposed new section 5aa.

Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; QLP from 1957; DLP from 1968

– There is no employer in terms of the Queensland legislation, because Queensland did not contemplate, necessarily, the conclusion of a firm contract of employment, but a man is covered for injuries sustained whether or not ultimately his journey results in a contract of employment. This Parliament should not be the last legislature to accept and incorporate the modern principles that are developing around us. This provision has not imposed a tremendous strain on the Queensland fund.

Senator Vincent:

– We do not necessarily want to incorporate Queensland provisions in our legislation.

Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; QLP from 1957; DLP from 1968

– Perhaps that is why the Liberal party is so unpopular in Queensland. The Workers’ Compensation Act, which has been improved over the years in Queensland, is one of the glories of the Labour Government in that State. Every day it goes on improving both in quantum and in extent. I am not altogether surprised at encountering opposition from supporters of the Government to my suggestion that the broadening of principle should be accepted in this chamber. I press strongly for the recommittal of this measure, so that this principle can be investigated. If it is practicable to incorporate it in this legislation, I suggest that steps be taken to do so. I consider that we should incorporate in our legislation the most modern social principles and developments that are taking place around us.

Senator McLEAY:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · South Australia · LP

– The Government is not prepared to accept the suggestion of the honorable senator. This bill brings compensation in this connexion into line with the Commonwealth Employees’ Compensation Act. It is quite obvious that if a seaman went to a pick-up place and refused to go aboard a ship, under the principle that Senator Byrne has mentioned, he would not be covered for compensation purposes. The same position would apply if a seaman were absent without leave.

Senator Brown:

– Nonsense !

Senator McLEAY:

– I have no objection to Senator Brown giving expression to what is in his head. I repeat that the Government is not prepared to accept the suggestion.

Senator CRITCHLEY:
South Australia

– I consider that the suggestion that has been made by Senator Byrne should be favorably considered by the Government. I remind honorable senators that it was agreed that progress should be reported after a certain aspect of the matter had been raised by Senator Vincent. Since the debate was resumed I have waited patiently for the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay) to deal with the point that was raised by the honorable senator, but so far he has not mentioned it. It is beyond my comprehension why the various provisions of the bill stress the necessity for the worker to travel by the shortest practicable route. Honorable senators will recall that during the previous sessional period there was a very heated and earnest debate in this chamber on certain clauses of an insurance bill. I point out that if an accident occurs an employee is entirely at the mercy of his employer in this connexion. There are many occasions in the course of a man’s employment when the performance of an act of courtesy or consideration causes him to leave the shortest convenient route to his place of employment. Some years ago an employee of the railway workshops in South Australia, at the request of a senior officer, went a considerable distance out of his usual way home and met with an accident. When the question of compensation had to be decided it was doubtful whether he would receive any payment although he had been obliging the department and saving it the expense of a messenger when he met with the accident. This clause is far too lengthy and there are too many loopholes in it. I hope that the Government will report progress as Senator Byrne has requested and ascertain whether it can make the clause tighter.

Senator VINCENT:
Western Australia

– Paragraph (b) of the proposed new section 5aa refers to the “ Mercantile Marine Office “. Will the Minister for

Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay) inform the Senate whether that is the only place at which seamen are employed and dismissed?

Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; QLP from 1957; DLP from 1968

– Would the Minister also inform the Senate what meaning is to be given to the words -

Whilst he is travelling to or from the Mercantile Marine Office for a reason connected with his employment.

Will the fact that a man is presenting himself for engagement be a reason connected with his employment? If that is so, in general terms, the principle to which I have referred might be said tobe included in the bill, but if that is the intention of the bill there is no reason why it should not be specified as it is in Queensland legislation.

Senator McLEAY:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · South Australia · LP

– I have been advised by my legal officers that travelling to and from the Mercantile Marine Office in order to obtain employment would be a reason connected with a seaman’s employment provided that he is engaged. The man would then have an employer. If he were not engaged he would not have an employer. In reply to Senator Vincent I inform the Senate that the marine office is the only place where seamen are engaged. They can be discharged, of course, from their ship.

Senator CORMACK:
Victoria

– If a ship calls at an outport which has no recognized mercantile marine office and requires a seaman in order to replace one who has been injured, I presume that the replacement is signed on when he boards the ship. If that man is injured whilst on his way to the ship what is his position ?

Senator McLEAY:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · South Australia · LP

– In all isolated ports somebody is employed to act for the mercantile marine superintendent and that person would attend to the matter. In foreign ports it would be attended to by the Australian Consul.

Senator SHEEHAN:
Victoria

– Could the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay) state how the Navigation Act affects the principle under discussion ? If I remember rightly, that act provided that after a seaman had received an engagement he had to be accepted by the port superintendent and some time might elapse before an appeal was heard if a superintendent refused to allow the seaman to follow his vocation. I ask the Minister to assume that a seaman has attended a mercantile marine office and that a representative of a shipping company has stated that the company is prepared to give him a job. The superintendent objects and an appeal is made. What happens during the intervening period if the seaman has met with an accident whilst proceeding from the marine office to his home or from his home to the marine office? I should like to know whether that situation would be covered by this clause?

The Minister for Shipping and Transport has informed the Senate that a man becomes entitled to compensation in respect of an injury when he is employed. What is the meaning of the following words in the proposed new section 5aa : -

  1. while he is travelling to or from his employment ;
  2. while he is travelling to or from a mercantile marine office for a reason connected with his employment; or
  3. while he is travelling to or from a place where it is necessary for him to attend for the purpose of obtaining a medical certificate in respect of a previous injury in respect of which compensation is payable under this act, or for the purpose of receiving, in respect of such an injury, medical treatment or compensation.

I presume that if a seaman is temporarily without a ship and attends the mercantile office for the purpose of securing a berth he is covered by paragraph (b).

Senator McLeay:

– That is not so.

Senator SHEEHAN:

– As the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Spicer) has said, astute lawyers can find loopholes in legislation, and it would appear that this bill has been framed, not for the purpose of liberalizing workers’ compensation for seamen, but in order to deprive seamen of their just rights. I agree that it is difficult to decide when a seaman may be going to his employment, but I should like the Minister further to explain that point.

Senator McLEAY:
South AustraliaMinister for Shipping and Transport · LP

. - A seaman who offers for employment, but who is not employed, will not be covered by this legislation. A seaman who is absent without leave from his ship will not be covered either.

Senator Sheehan:

– That is another matter.

Senator McLEAY:

– The intention of the clause is clearly expressed. If Senator Sheehan chooses to place the opposite interpretation on the words of the clause, surely he does not expect me to try to convince him that he is wrong. If he had made a closer study of the bill he would not have asked such a silly question. 1 gave the honorable senator an opportunity to have the bill recommitted when he spoke to me about it prior to the suspension of the sitting. The honorable senator was wrong in assuming that the committee reported progress in order to study the significance of this clause. It only reported progress in order to avoid delaying four or five other important bills. This bill has been designed principally to increase pension rates .and bring the legislation into line with the Commonwealth Public Service employees’ compensation legislation, due regard having been paid to some of the difficulties associated with the calling of seamen. This bill represents a genuine attempt to give seamen reasonable protection while travelling to and from their employment, but the Government has nol: attempted to provide for the payment of compensation to men who are not employed or who are absent without leave. The ‘Government is not prepared to extend the provisions of the bill.

Senator SHEEHAN:
Victoria

– I am not satisfied with the explanation of the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay) in regard to this important matter. It may be true that this bill was introduced for the purpose of increasing the amount that can be paid to injured seamen. If the Government had made that provision and no other the position would have been clear, but it has proposed the amendment of certain provisions of the original act, the omission of certain sections and the insertion of others, and I think that the Senate has a right to be informed of the exact effect of this legislation. I can see no difference in ihe vocation of a seaman and that of a wharf labourer so far as workers’ compensation is concerned. The “wharf labourer attends a place of employment every morning, although there is no guarantee that he will receive employment. It is true that appearance money is now paid to all in the waterside industry who report for duty.

Senator McLeay:

– Is not that a very great difference between the employment of waterside workers and the employment of seamen?

Senator SHEEHAN:

– Appearance money is an inducement for the wharf labourer to offer for employment. Previously, a wharf labourer, thinking that there may be no employment available to him, might not have presented himself for engagement. A number ‘of ships may arrive in port, and his services may be required. To obviate that position, an inducement known as attendance money is offered to waterside workers to attend at a place where they may be employed - not a place where they are sure of employment. A mercantile marine office is the only place where a seaman is able to secure employment. Surely, if a seaman who attends at such an office meets with an accident on the way to the office or on his way home, he should be covered by the provisions of this legislation! I was amazed to hear the Minister for Shipping and Transport state that a seaman is not entitled to compensation until he actually obtains a berth -on a particular ship. I think that that contention will lead to argument and, possibly, to the engagement of the astute lawyers to whom the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer) referred this afternoon.

Clause agreed to.

Senator Cooke:

– I wish to move for the recommittal of clause 5. I do so on the ground that two honorable senators expressed their desire to discuss that clause and were endeavouring to be heard when discussion of clause 4 began.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Senator Reid).- Clause 5 has been dealt with and agreed to. I cannot accept the motion at this stage. It could have been put when we were considering clause 5, and again when clause 4 was recommitted.

Senator Cooke:

– I submit that I could not move for recommittal at that time.

The DEPUTYCHAIRMAN. - I have ruled that the clause cannot be recommitted at this stage.

Bill reported without amendment; report adapted.

ThirdReading.

Motion (by Senator McLeay) pro posed -

That the bill be now tread a third time.

Senator COOKE:
Western Australia

– Itake this opportunityto register a protest at the manner in which the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay) hashandled the passage of this bill. He either acted in ignorance or wasbeingdeliberately discourteous to honorable senators on this side of the chamber. In relation to clause 4, honorable senators on both sides of the Senate wished to make submissions. However, the Deputy Chairman of Committees did not permit them to do so. Honorable senators will remember that he declined to accept a motion from me for recommittal of clause 5. In the circumstances, it seems to me that the committee’s report, although validaccording tothe vote of the Senate, on which I make no reflection, has beenmadeafter very poor consideration of the bill. Clause 5 represents a distinct deterioration in industrial legislation. Although I am not at liberty to makeconstructive submissions to the Government concerning the bill, I take this opportunityto register a protest.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 245

ADJOURNMENT

theparliament

Motion (by Senator McLeay) proposed -

That the Senate donow adjourn.

SenatorGRITCHLEY(SouthAustralia) [9.36]. -Irise to voice my disapproval of the way in which the Opposition is being treated by the Government on the first day ofthe secondweek of this sessional period. There has been undue haste in dealing with the Seamen’s Compensation Bill. I am amazed that the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay) continues to persist, in such tactics. I sincerely trust that he will give an assurance that, during the remainder of the sessional period, honorable senators on this side of the chamber will be given an opportunity to discuss, at both the second-reading and committee stages, every aspect of legislation. Although Senator Cooke may have been a little alow in rising to his feet,nevertheless heplaced his name on the list of speakers on the Seamen’s Compensation Bill. However,even in committee, he was not able to catch the eye of the Deputy Chairman of Committees. In my opinion the importance of the legislation to which I have referred, and of other legislationwhich will come before’ the Senate, should ensure a better deal for members of the Opposition than that which the Minister forShippingand Transport has given them on this occasion.

Senator McLEAY:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · South Australia · LP

– in reply - I cannot remember an occasion on which I have been sogenerous. I allowed clause 4 to be recommitted. The recommittal or otherwise of clause 5 was a matter for the Deputy Chairman of Committees. I assure Senator Critchley that on all occasions I shall see that honorable senators opposite are given ample opportunity to say whatever they wish to say, but I strongly recommend that beforetheyrisetocriticizeabillthey spend a little time in concentrating on the real meaning of the clauses it contains.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 245

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

United Nations - General Assembly - Seventh Session (FirstPart), New York, October to December,1952- Summary Report of Australian Delegation.

PublicService Act -Twenty-eighth Report on the Commonwealth PublicServiceby thePublicServiceBoard,foryear1951-52.

Ordered to be printed.

Australian National University Act - Statutes -

No. 5 - Enrolment, Courses ofResearch and Degrees.

No. 6 - Constitution of the Council (Period of Office).

No. 7 - Common Seal.

No. 8 - Chancellorship.

No. 9 - Board of Graduate Studies

Amendment No. 1.

Broadcasting Act - Twentieth Annual Report and Financial Statements of the Australian Broadcasting Commission, for year 1951-52.

Defence (Transitional Provisions) Act - National Security (Industrial Property) Regulations - Orders - Inventions and designs (5).

Lands Acquisition Act - Land acquired for -

Defence purposes -

Dutson, Victoria.

East Sale, Victoria.

Liverpool, New South Wales.

Postal purposes - Bentleigh East, Victoria.

Parliamentary Proceedings Broadcasting Act - Regulations - Statutory Rules 1953, No. 11.

Public Service Act - Appointments - Department -

Postmaster-General’s - D. I. Anderson, P. D.Barnes, J. Brown, M. H. R. Buckley, P. C. Burder, A. R. Gillett, G. Morris, P. M. Murton, D. G. Rodoni.

Supply - B. Toner.

Treasury - R. Shilkin.

Seat of Government Acceptance Act and

Seat of Government (Administration) Act - Ordinance - 1953 - No. 3 - Australian National University (Lands).

Senate adjourned at 9.39 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 25 February 1953, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1953/19530225_senate_20_221/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant