Senate
1 May 1958

22nd Parliament · 3rd Session

  1. Senate
  2. 22nd Parliament
  3. 1958

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMuIlin) took the chair at 1 1 a.m., and read prayers.

page 715

BANKRUPTCY BILL 1958

Motion (by Senator O’sullivan) agreed to -

That leave be given to introduce a bill for an act to amend the Bankruptcy Act 1924-1955, and for other purposes.

page 715

BILLS OF EXCHANGE BILL 1958

Motion (by Senator O’sullivan) agreed to -

That leave be given to introduce- a bill for air act to amend the Bills of Exchange Act 1924-1955, and for other purposes.

page 715

QUESTION

TELEPHONE SERVICES

Senator AYLETT:
TASMANIA

– I address a question to’ the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral. Is it a fact, as stated by a high official of the Postmaster-General’s Department, that it will take several, years to overtake the lag in applications for trunk-line and other telephone services? Is it also a fact that the delay in overtaking the lag is due to the scarcity of resources being made available to the department? Is it correct that the Postmaster-General’s Department each year has to pick out what it considers to be the most urgent of the outstanding applications? If the lag is due to a shortage of materials, will the Government consider stepping up the production of such materials, by either private enterprise or government enterprise, and at the same time, provide employment for some of the people who are unemployed at present? Finally, can the Minister give the Senate an idea of when he expects that the department will be able to overtake the lag in the proVision of services which was brought about by World War II., in the early 1940’s?

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · QUEENSLAND · CP

– The honorable senator has asked rather a long question, which I cannot answer fully now. I can say, however, that the lag in the provision of telephone services during the nine years that this Government has been in office has been considerably reduced. There is still a lag, the reason being, to a great degree, the prosperity of the country. There are now far more people wanting telephone services than there were previously. If the honorable senator will place his question on the notice-paper, I shall obtain a detailed reply for him.

page 715

QUESTION

LEAD

Senator ROBERTSON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Has the Minister for National Development noticed a press announcement to the effect that the Protheroe full-production lead mine, near Geraldton, in Western Australia, closed down on Tuesday last, thereby causing considerable, unemployment, as well as loss of production of lead? Is- it a fact that lack of financial support by way of Commonwealth subsidy was the; cause of the closure? Will, the- Minister: investigate the circumstances of the closure and give whatever aid it is possible to- give so that this 60-year- old- venture, may be: brought back into muchneeded lead production again?

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

-1 am sorry to say that I. did not see. the newspaper report and I do not know anything of the circumstances of the mine to which the honorable senator refers. It is common knowledge that lead mining, zinc mining, copper mining, and base metals are going through a difficult period indeed. The Barrier mines at Broken Hill, which are reputedly the world’s cheapest and most efficient lead and zinc producers, have had to reduce working time and they announced recently, I think from memory, that they were working at a loss. I do not. know the position that exists at the mine mentioned by the honorable senator. It would be a very important decision indeed for the Commonwealth to talk in terms of subsidizing lead production. The whole history of mining has been one ot ups and downs, and of big profits offset by very difficult trading periods. I shall make some inquiries into the circumstances mentioned by Senator Robertson, because I am one of those who are very concerned about the situation of mining ventures in difficulties. It is not easy to see what can be done.

page 715

QUESTION

BLANKETS FOR PENSIONERS

Senator BROWN:
QUEENSLAND

– I should like to ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate a few questions. I do not want to be personal, but I should like to ask him whether he slept well last night. Was he warm, cosy and comfortable?

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The honorable senator may not proceed on those lines. He will frame his question properly.

Senator BROWN:

– Very well, Sir, 1 recognize that I should not have asked that personal question. I slept well, anyway, and 1 was warm, cosy and comfortable. Does the Minister realize that many aged pensioners will soon be suffering from cold, because of the lack of warm blankets? Does he recollect that last year I brought to his notice the matter of supplying needy pensioners with blankets from army stocks? Will not the Brisbane “ Courier-Mail “, possibly the Melbourne “ Herald “ and other newspapers be shortly opening their columns to advertise the need for charitable people to subscribe to a fund for the purchase of blankets for the pensioners? Will the Minister prevail upon the Government to take steps to supply redundant army blankets to aged pensioners who, like himself, myself and other honorable senators, enjoy being cosy and warm at night?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
Attorney-General · QUEENSLAND · LP

– I assure the honorable senator that this Government is no less mindful of the needs of the poor than has been any other government in the history of the country, and I am quite sure that whatever hardships there will be - unfortunately there will be some, for which we all feel sorry - the pensioners will be no less comfortable this winter than they have been before.

page 716

QUESTION

RATES PAID BY AUSTRALIAN AIRLINES

Senator LAUGHT:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Can the Minister for Shipping and Transport indicate whether certain government corporations under his control, namely, Australian National Airlines Commission and the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission, pay annual municipal rates appropriate for the properties they occupy? Is the payment made ex gratia, or pursuant to statute or regulation? Is the amount fixed by local government authority assessments made in the usual way?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– My recollection is that both Trans-Australia Airlines and the Australian National Line pay municipal rates as assessed by the various local authorities. Speaking from memory, I think the matter of the payment by the shipping line is not provided by statute, that it is an ex gratia payment. I think the same applies in connexion with T.A.A., but T should like to have a look at that.

page 716

QUESTION

FLAX

Senator HENDRICKSON:
VICTORIA

– I preface a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry by explaining that at the outbreak of the second world war there was a grave shortage of flax in the Commonwealth of Australia. Many primary producers came to the aid of the Government and of the people of Australia by undertaking flax growing, which was in some cases very expensive. This most important industry is dying out, and I direct my question to the Minister for urgent consideration. In view of the oft repeated ejaculations of the Government that it favours decentralization, and its exhibitionist attitude towards the man on the land, will the Minister take some action, even at this late stage, to save the Australian flax industry from extinction, having regard to the splendid part played by the farmers in providing Australia with this much needed commodity during many difficult years? In view of Australia’s unfavorable trade balances, surely it is a wise policy to support the flax industry in this country in case overseas supplies are cut off. Many hundreds of acres of land in the north-eastern and western districts of Victoria, particularly in the vicinity of Myrtleford and Colac, are unplanted because of the incomprehensible attitude of the Government. Will the Minister ensure that the flax mills in Victoria and South Australia are kept in production, and thus obviate additions to the already large number of unemployed in Australia?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– I reject entirely and emphatically the suggestion made by Senator Hendrickson that the attitude of this Government to primary producers is exhibitionist. The Government has extended a system of encouragement to primary producers that has resulted in a remarkable growth of almost all primary industries, a remarkable development of the country areas, and an equally remarkable prosperity of those engaged in primary industries. As to the particular question of the flax industry and its present position, I shall be pleased to ask my colleague, the Minister for Primary Industry, to supply me with information that I may pass on to the honorable senator. I am sure the Minister’s reply will show that the Government’s policy on this, and other, primary industries is one of complete realism and equity.

page 717

QUESTION

MALAYAN TIMBER

Senator WORDSWORTH:
TASMANIA

– 1 direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade. Has the Minister seen a report in the press of a statement made by Mr. Swartz, leader of the trade delegation to Malaya, to the effect that more Malayan timber will be imported into Australia? Is this statement correct? As the importation of a greater amount of Malayan timber will directly affect the Tasmanian timber industry, which is already in an unhealthy condition, will the Minister state whether, before any action is taken, further consideration will be given to the effect the importation of such timber will have on the Tasmanian industry? In any case, will the position remain unchanged until the publication of the report of the Tariff Board which is at present inquiring into this question? It is understood that the report will be published in the very near future.

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– One of my colleagues from Tasmania drew my attention this morning to the newspaper report, and I made some inquiries from the Department of Trade about the matter. The result of my inquiries is not a statement of Government policy. I merely telephoned an officer for information in order to be in a position to answer any questions on this matter if I received them. The Tariff Board has conducted an inquiry and completed its report, I think, within the last few days, but the report has not yet been dealt with by the Minister and, therefore, not by the Government. The only information to hand about the alleged increased importation of Malayan timber into Australia is the newspaper report of Mr. Swartz’s statement. The exportation of timber is of very great significance to Malaya and ranks about third or fourth in its total exports. Until recently, Malaya was a British colony and, as such, received the benefit of the British preferential tariff which meant that imports into Australia carried a lower rate than imports from countries outside the British Commonwealth. I take it that the statement made in Malaya by Mr. Swartz relates to competition between Malayan timber and timber that we are importing from other parts of the world. As I say, that is not a statement of policy or of fact made by me. It is just a statement of the inference that I draw from Mr. Swartz’s remarks, which, I suggest, should be considered against the background of the competition between various kinds of timber for which overseas countries are seeking markets in Australia, lt should not be taken to suggest that Malayan timber will compete with Tasmanian timber. The Tasmanian timber industry only will be the subject of the Tariff Board report.

page 717

QUESTION

SNOWY MOUNTAINS SCHEME

Senator McMANUS:
VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister for National Development: Is there any truth in a report in to-day’s “ Sydney Morning Herald “ that the Government has now reached a compromise agreement with Sir Thomas Playford, the Premier of South Australia, about the Snowy Mountains Hydroelectric scheme?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– I inform the Senate that, for the time being, I will treat all questions about the Snowy Mountains Hydroelectric scheme as being on notice.

page 717

QUESTION

MEAT

Senator WARDLAW:
TASMANIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister who represents the Minister for Trade. I direct the Minister’s attention to a statement made by Dr. Hammond, Professor of Animal Husbandry at Cambridge University, who is at present visiting Australia. Dr. Hammond, who is a world authority on animal husbandry and physiology, when addressing a meeting of producers at the Wagga Agricultural College, stressed the importance of modern techniques in increasing the production of herds and flocks, and voiced the opinion that the production of beef and lamb in Australia could be increased ten times “ in spite of … droughts “. He said, further, that Argentine meat reached the British market once a week, but Australian meat reached it only once a month. 1 ask the

Minister: “Will *he inquire into ‘the correctness of this statement? ‘Will he advise the Senate whether the Department of Trade is fully aware of the importance of increasing the frequency of deliveries of Australian meat to the British market? What is being done to remedy the situation?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– I am not quite certain whether the fifteen-year meat agreement, as we colloquially term it, is administered by the Department of Primary Industry or by the Department of Trade. That agreement is the foundation of our meat transactions with the United Kingdom. 1 have not the slightest doubt that whatever can be done to increase our trade in meat with the United Kingdom is being done. In view of the importance of the matter that the honorable senator has raised. I think that it would be better if he put his question on notice in order that I may give him a factual reply.

page 718

QUESTION

MINING

Senator WILLESEE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister for National Development in that capacity and also as Minister representing the Treasurer. The Minister will recall, I am sure, that, on 19th March last. I asked a question relating to tax concessions accorded to mining ventures by the Canadian Government, and to tax concessions allowed to the mining industry in Australia. I asked the Minister to make a comparison of the concessions allowed in the two countries. In reply, he said that, a year or so ago, the Department of National Development had investigated the matter. Concluding, he said -

I shall consider whether I am prepared to make available the result of the investigation conducted a couple of years ago, and I shall inform the honorable senator later.

I ask the Minister now whether he has had an opportunity to consider the report of the investigation made by the department, and whether he is prepared to make any information available to either the Senate or myself.

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– I have considered the honorable senator’s request, and I apologize to him for not having advised him earlier. [ find that the matter raises extraordinary technical issues in relation to the real meaning of provisions in the Canadian law in comparison with the provisions in our own law, and. in some matters, there are differences of opinion. ‘Some departments do -not agree with the views that have been expressed by Other departments. ‘In those “circumstances it would be unwise to make this information available. After .all, it is not ‘for a particular department to express an opinion upon “the real meaning, or construction, of a provision in the taxation law. Such an opinion often emerges as a result of a bitter experience between the taxpayer and the department.

page 718

QUESTION

HUNGARIAN REFUGEES

Senator WRIGHT:
TASMANIA

– My question of the Leader of the Government relates to the considerable apprehension felt by members of the Hungarian community lest political refugees ‘from Europe may have extradition laws applied to them under the pretext of a breach df criminal law. Can the Minister assure .honorable senators that such persons will have the security of a judicial inquiry? If not, will the Government consider amending the law to provide that extradition .may not take place unless a judicial inquiry is first conducted?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– I am happy to triform the honorable senator that this matter is receiving attention at ‘the moment. In the ‘meantime, the Minister for ‘External Affairs has made it abundantly clear that every precaution will be taken to see that no person who has come here from Hungary or any other country will be handed over just as a formality upon request. Every precaution will be taken to ensure, first, that extradition is not being sought for the purpose of political recriminations and, secondly, that the person concerned will have, in the land to which he is being repatriated, a just trial according to our own standards. Those are the lines along which this matter is developing.

page 718

QUESTION

REPATRIATION

Senator SANDFORD:
VICTORIA

– Will the Minister for Repatriation supply me with the following information: How many repatriation appeals were lodged by ex-servicemen in 1957? How many of these were heard? How many heard were successful? What is the average time lag between the lodging of an appeal and the hearing?

Senator COOPER:
CP

– I shall be only too pleased to obtain the information that the honorable senator seeks.

page 719

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN WAR MEMORIAL PUBLICATIONS

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA · LP

– By way of preface to my question, which is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior, 1 would mention that on the eve of Anzac Day the Minister announced that a five-volume, permanent pictorial record of Australia’s contribution to the Allied cause in World War II. had been compiled by the staff of the Australian War Memorial and was now available for purchase by visitors to the memorial. The Minister also indicated that profits from the sale of this publication would benefit the funds of the memorial. Could copies of this pictorial record be sold to the public - in every Australian city, at least? Many thousands of Australians who are unable to visit the memorial would be anxious to obtain such a fine publication, which would also be of educational value to children who have had little chance of learning of Australia’s part in World War II.

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Customs and Excise · TASMANIA · LP

– I shall have pleasure in conveying the honorable senator’s remarks to the Minister for the Interior. I noticed that on the occasion in question the Minister indicated that the proceeds from the sale of the many distinguished publications issued by the Australian War Memorial staff were helping to pay for such outstanding projects as the recently completed mosaic work and statuary in the Hall of Memory. I agree with the honorable senator that if these publications were more widely distributed the profits would undoubtedly be greater, and that these could be used to undertake similar work.

page 719

QUESTION

PARAPLEGICS

Senator TOOHEY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Will the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services ask the Government to consider meeting the cos! of converting motor cars to hand control for use by paraplegics? At present, the department buys wheel chairs costing up to £70, but refuses to pay the £120 necessary to convert motor cars to hand control. The rehabilitation centre in Adelaide - St. Margaret’s at Payneham - has some of these unfortunate people. Due to the centre’s representation, some firms have agreed to employ them, but they need cars in which to travel to and from their places of employment. The amount involved per person would be only £50 more than the cost of a wheelchair, and I sincerely hope that the Government will agree to pay that amount so that these people can be placed in useful employment.

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– I am sorry to say that I have not any detailed knowledge of the circumstances of the matter that the honorable senator has raised, but I do know the Department of Social Services fairly well. I would suggest that it would be well to hesitate before concluding that the present arrangements are unsatisfactory. As a result of past experience, I know that generally there is a good reason for what is being done in these rehabilitation centres. The department takes a great interest in them and is very proud of the way in which they are run. My own feeling is that if the honorable senator will place his question on the notice-paper, he will get an answer that will completely satisfy him that what is being done is the best that can be done.

page 719

QUESTION

SNOWY MOUNTAINS SCHEME

Senator ASHLEY:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I preface my question to the Minister for National Development by congratulating the honorable senator and those responsible for the model of the Snowy Mountains project that is now on display in King’s Hall. It is certainly a tribute to the artistic and engineering skill of those engaged in the concern. I have noticed that on the model there are numerous tickets and indicators, but that a very important ticket is missing. Will the Minister give consideration to having placed on the model a notice with the following wording: - “ This great national undertaking was initiated by a Labour government and subsequently was sabotaged at its opening by the Liberal party and the Australian Country party “?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– If we stated that the project was initiated by a Labour government, would the honorable senator agree to our going on to say that every penny piece of the £115,000,000 that has been spent on it has been found by a Liberal government? If he was prepared to allow us to do that, and if he was prepared also to give a little credit to the professional officers who advised the Labour government, we might be able to arrive at a satisfactory compromise.

page 720

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT

Senator HANNAN:
VICTORIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice -

Having regard to the frequent allegations made by members of the Senate Opposition, particularly those from Labour-governed States, of the existence of a large pool of unemployed, will the Minister advise: - (a) What qualifies a person for unemployment benefit? (b) What form of test or assessment of suitability for a position is made by the Commonwealth Employment Service? (c) Whether an applicant for relief is entitled to refuse a job which he regards as unsuitable or inconvenient, and, if so, who is the final arbiter of suitability? (d) In what circumstances, if any, a person is permitted to refuse a job which is offered and still receive unemployment benefit?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– The Minister for Labour and National Service has supplied me with the following answer: -

  1. Division 1 of Part VII. of the Social Services Act sets out the qualifications for unemployment benefit. In general terms, this division provides that persons will be qualified to receive unemployment benefit if they are over sixteen years of age and under 65 in the cases of males or under 60 in the cases of females; have resided in Australia for at least a year or satisfy the DirectorGeneral of Social Services that they intend to remain permanently in Australia; are unemployed, not being direct participants in a strike; are capable of undertaking and willing to undertake suitable work; and have taken reasonable steps to obtain such work. Payment of benefit is subject to a means test as to income but not as to property. Aboriginal natives of Australia are not eligible to receive unemployment benefit unless by reason of their character and standard of intelligence and social development it is desirable that they should do so.
  2. Persons claiming unemployment benefit must register with the Commonwealth Employment Service where they are interviewed and details of their employment experience and qualifications, age, physical fitness, marital status, locality of residence and other factors relating to their ability to undertake employment, are obtained and recorded. In assessing their suitability for referral to vacancies all these factors are compared with the requirements of known vacancies.
  3. and (d) Persons claiming unemployment benefit are given the opportunity of stating their reasons for refusing any employment offered to them and their reasons are given careful consideration before decisions ‘ regarding the suitability of employment offered are made by officers of the Commonwealth Employment Service and the Department of Social Services. If these reasons are acceptable claimants are not required to take up the jobs offered as an alternative to being disqualified from receiving unemployment benefit. A person claiming unemployment benefit is not required to accept employment which would involve living away from home if under the age of nineteen years in the case of males, and 21 years in the case of females, or if the person is residing with dependent children, has a pregnant wife, or is pregnant, unless the person has been accustomed to undertaking employment which involves living away from home notwithstanding personal or family circumstances. Section 15 of Part II. of the Social Services Act provides that persons affected by a determination, direction or approval of an officer under that act may appeal to the Director-General of Social Services who is the final authority in this regard.

page 720

QUESTION

SHIPOWNERS AND MARITIME UNIONS

Senator McMANUS:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice -

  1. Has the ship “ Abel Tasman “, which was recently brought to Australia by a non-Australian crew, been denied an Australian crew by the Australian Seamen’s Union, and as a result is the ship now held up in Sydney?
  2. Has this action been taken because no indemnity payments have been made to the Australian maritime unions?
  3. Has the Government yet made any decision on action to outlaw this type of industrial blackmail?
Senator SPOONER:
LP

– My colleague, the Minister for Labour and National Service, has furnished the following reply -

  1. The owners of the “ Abel Tasman “ have called for a crew in Sydney on several occasions but, although the required number of stewards and cooks and some seamen have now been secured, the vessel is still seven seamen short of her complement.
  2. No, so far as the Government is aware, indemnity payments have been sought only in connexion with vessels sold off the Australian coast. There have been a number of disputes, such as the present one affecting the “ Abel Tasman “, involving ships acquired overseas for the Australian trade and brought to Australia by non-Australian crews. The maritime unions claim that these vessels on their delivery voyages should be manned by Australian crews. Early in 1956 Mr. Justice Foster indicated that in his view, where vessels were bought overseas for use in Australia, the owners should engage, as the crew, members of Australian unions. His Honour indicated that some owners followed this practice. However the High Court ruled that he had no jurisdiction to make an order to this effect. It is understood that in this case, H.C.S. Coasters Limited have obtained from the Commonwealth Industrial Court an order nisi under section 109 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act calling on the seamen’s union to show cause why an order requiring compliance with the award should not be made. The matter has been set down for hearing on 29th April.
  3. See answer to 2.

page 721

QUESTION

TRADING HOURS IN CANBERRA

Report of Australian Capital Territory Committee

Senator McCALLUM:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– On behalf of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory,I bring up the committee’s report relating to the question of trading hours in Canberra, which was referred to the committee by the Minister for the Interior on 26th September last. Certain members of the committee differed from the majority on the question of Saturday morning trading and their views in this matter are embodied in a dissent attached to the main report. I also bring up the minutes of evidence taken by the committee in connexion with this report. I move -

That the report only be printed. and ask for leave to continue my remarks at a later date.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 721

GOVERNMENT BUSINESS

Precedence

Motion (by Senator O’Sullivan) agreed to -

That Government business take precedence of general business after 8 p.m. this sitting.

page 721

NAVIGATION BILL 1958

In committee: Consideration resumed from 30th April (vide page 713).

Clause 33 -

Sections forty-six, forty-six a, forty-seven, fortyseven a, forty-eight and forty-nine of the Principal Act are repealed and the following sections inserted in their stead: -

“46. (1.) . . .

(2.) An agreement under this section between the master of a ship and a seaman -

shall be prepared, in duplicate, by or under the supervision of a superintendent; “ (3.) A superintendent may refuse to attest an agreement under this section between a seaman and the master of a ship which is not exempt from Division 5 of Part IV. unless - “ (5.) A superintendent who attests an agreement entered into under this section shall retain one part of the agreement and deliver the other part to the master of the ship. “ 48. Where, after the commencement of this section, a seaman is engaged at a port outside Australia to serve on a ship registered in Australia, the master of the ship shall not take the ship to sea with that seaman as a member of the crew of the ship unless -

except in a case where it is not practicable so to do, the agreement is signed by or on behalf of the master and by the seaman in the presence of a proper authority at the port and attested by the proper authority.

To which Senator McKenna had moved by way of amendment -

In proposed section 46 (3.) leave out “ may “ insert “shall”.

Senator McKENNA (Tasmania - Leader of the Opposition [11.39]. - The matter now before the committee was adequately debated, I think, when the committee was last in session. The purpose of the Opposition amendment is to make it mandatory, instead of discretionary, for the superintendent to call for the production, onthe making of an agreement between the crew and the master, of the Load Line Convention certificate. It has been made plain, by those who have had practical experience in the field, that there would be considerable inconvenience in producing the certificate on each occasion that a crew was engaged. I can understand that that would be so.I think that the proper course for the Government to have taken when it abolished the mandatory requirement that it be produced on each occasion of the engagement of a crew, would have been to impose some obligation, such as to produce the certificate at least once, to lodge a copy, and to notify any change. I can well understand that the amendment that we have proposed, with the purpose of making the production of the certificate mandatory, may present difficulties, but I do not think that the answer to the problem is to make the production discretionary. In a matter as important as this, the Opposition thinks that the certificate should be produced once, that a copy should be supplied, and that there should be no further obligation upon the master thereafter, unless a change occurs.

I shall not press the amendment, in the circumstances, because I think it would be unreasonable to do so, but I invite the Minister to consider that something better than merely leaving the matter at large is required. I also invite him to consider the suggestion I have made: That an obligation on the master of a ship to produce the certificate once, to lodge a copy and to notify any change that might take place, would meet the situation. Will the Minister consider that suggestion before the matter goes through the Parliament?

Senator McKENNA:
TASMANIA

– They go into the agreement?

Senator Kendall:

– Yes.

Senator McKENNA:

– That is recognized.I thought that the honorable senator was saying that such particulars were recorded in the agreement between the master and the crew. They are in fact written in.I am not proposing that that position should be disturbed. It is covered by sub-section (3.) (b) of proposed section 46. It seems to me that the only thing that is required is a provision that the certificate be produced once formally, that a copy be lodged, and that an obligation be imposed on the master to notify any change. It is unlikely that there would be any change in standards once the matter was settled.

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Shipping and Transport and Minister for Civil Aviation · Western Australia · LP

– I am pleased that the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) does not propose to press his amendment in the form presented. However, the fact that he has raised the matter has, as he might well assume, brought to my notice the necessity for an arrangement rather better than that which we have now. The honorable senator has asked that I consider his suggestion before this measure passes through the Parliament. I shall do that, but I do not give him any assurance that I can reach finality and actually introduce a provision. I think he will remember that, during my second-reading speech, I said that it would be the intention in the future to keep this legislation continually under review, particularly with a view to taking up technical matters such as this. If it is not possible to include an amendment in the current measure, then I assure him that the matter will be examined in the light of incorporating a provision in the next measure introduced to further amend the act.

Amendment - by leave - withdrawn.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I move -

In proposed section 48, leave out paragraph (b). insert the following paragraph -

except in cases where it is not practicable so to do, the agreement is completed in accordance with the provisions of sub-sections (2.), (4.) and (5.) of section 46, with the substitution of the words proper authority ‘ for the word superintendent ‘ in those subsections.”.

Proposed section 48 provides that, where a seaman is engaged at a port outside Australia to serve on a ship registered in Australia, the master is not to take the ship to sea with that seaman aboard unless two conditions have been fulfilled. The first is that the master has entered into an agreement with the seaman with respect to the employment of the seaman on the ship; and the second, except in a case where it is not practicable to do so, the agreement is signed by or on behalf of the master and by the seaman in the presence of a proper authority at the port and attested by the proper authority.

My amendment is concerned wholly with the second requirement. Proposed section 48 (b) requires that there shall be an agreement. Despite the fact that an agreement is referred to at great length in proposed section 46, it is not sufficiently clear that in the case of an agreement relating to the engagement of a seaman abroad all the provisions set out in proposed section 46 have to be complied with. There are only two conditions mentioned - that the agreement shall be signed by master and seaman in the presence of a proper authority at the port and attested by the proper authority.

The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that when the proper authority abroad is attending to the matter he acts as though he were the superintendent at an Australian port. Paragraphs (a) to (f) of proposed section 46 (2.) must be complied with, and the provisions of subsections (4.) and (5.) must be applied to an agreement that is entered into abroad. There is no requirement upon the proper authority and it seems to me that it is more important to bind him in particulars than it is to bind the superintendent who is immediate available in Australia. Accordingly, I have followed the wording of proposed section 48 (b) to a large extent, but I am pointing specifically to the requirement of sub-sections (4.) and (5.) of proposed section 46.

I would imagine it would be the intention of the Government that all these conditions be complied with. The provision that we are now considering might have been drafted either on the assumption that those elements were imported into the situation that would exist before the proper authority, or the matter might have been considered in haste. Those responsible might have thought that not many of these situations would arise. I would not think there could be any objection to making it completely clear that the requirements of sub-sections (2.), (4.) and (5.) of proposed section 46 should apply in the case of an agreement executed abroad.

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Shipping and Transport and Minister for. Civil Aviation · Western Australia · LP

– I shall defer consideration of the amendment until this afternoon. In doing so, I point out that my consideration to date indicates that the amendment does involve an impingement upon the British Commonwealth Merchant Shipping Agreement. I want to examine the implications of the amendment on that agreement, and other matters. I move -

That further consideration of clause 33 be postponed.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Clause 48 - (1.) Section seventy of the Principal Act is repealed and the following section inserted in its stead: -

“70.- (1.)…..

” (3.) A stipulation under this section is of no force unless -

an allotment note in the prescribed form is prepared and signed by the master and the seaman; and

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I move -

In sub-section (3.) of proposed section 70, after the word “ master “ insert “ or the superintendent;” .

Proposed section 70 (3.) deals with the question of the allotment of seamen’s wages. A seaman is authorized’ to make an allotment of portion of his wages by means of an allotment note on a prescribed form. Paragraph (a) of this sub-section provides that a stipulation under the section is of no force unless an allotment note in the prescribed form is prepared and signedby the master and the seaman. The maritime unions are concerned to have the superintendent made one of the attesting witnesses to the agreement as an alternative to the master. This is not a major alteration. It is a matter of wish and preference on the part of the six maritime unions concerned. I cannot put it at any stronger level than that.

When all is said and done, the contract between the master and the seaman is that the master shall pay wages. A seaman may make an allotment of a portion of his pay. It is not essential that the master be consulted about the allotment that is made, but he must have notification of it because he is the paying authority. There seems to be no reason why the superintendent - the official - could not deal, directly with the man in the matter of how much he wants to allot and then be an attesting witness. There is not an enormous amount in the proposal; it is a matter of desire and preference on the part of the six unions concerned I put it on that ground. There can surely be no objection to adding the superintendent as one of the attesting witnesses to an allotment of wages.

Senator Kendall:

– The superintendent always initials it.

Senator McKENNA:

– If he does it in practice, I think the honorable senator would agree that there could be no exception taken, if it is the wish of the union, to the addition of the two words.

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Shipping and Transport and Minister for Civil Aviation · Western Australia · LP

– I am not disposed to accept the amendment. It seems to be only a minor matter.

Senator McKenna:

– It is.

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– But it is one which I do not quite follow. Through an arrangement of this nature, it is the normal and. usual practice for the person paying the wages and the person receiving the wages to enter into an agreement such as this and for each to sign. The matter has, in effect, nothing at all to do with any third party.

Senator Kendall:

– Quite so.

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– I am informed that the prescribed form that is used makes provision for the superintendent to sign it as a witness, so that the superintendent - if this is the desire of the amendment - is already informed, or can be informed. Now, there seems to me to be a practical consideration why this amendment should not be accepted. If the agreement is signed by the seaman and by the superintendent it may well be that the master is unaware of the agreement, yet it is he who has to allot or to make arrangements. In broad principle, because it is my belief that an arrangement of this nature should be restricted to the principal parties, I am not prepared to accept the amendment.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I do not press the amendment in view of the attitude taken by the Minister. I put it at no higher level than that it was the desire of the union, which wanted authority for the superintendent to sign on the prescribed form. However, as the Minister objects, and as the matter is of little consequence, I shall not press the amendment.

Amendment - by leave - withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 49 -

Section seventy-four of the Principal Act is repealed.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– Clause 49 of the bill proposes to repeal section 74 of the principal act, which reads -

The sums received by a bank on an allotment note shall be paid out only on application made, through a superintendent, by the seaman himself, and in the case of his death by some person to whom his property, if under One hundred pounds in value, may be paid under this act.

I am indebted to the Minister for the explanation he gave in committee on 29th April regarding this matter, when he said -

Section 74 of the principal act, which the clause seeks to repeal, provides that sums received by a bank on an allotment note shall be paid out only on application, through a superintendent, by the seaman himself… This section is out of date. No reason now exists why a superintendent should intervene between a bank and one of its clients merely because the client happens to be a seaman.

I agree with the Minister’s statement. There is certainly no need for intervention by a superintendent. But I am putting to the Minister that the proposal goes further than that. If the words “through a superintendent “ are omitted, something of real substance remains. I completely agree with the Minister in his statement that interven tion by a superintendent is unnecessary, and if those words are omitted from section 74 the provision will read -

The sums received by a bank on an allotment note shall be paid out only on application made by the seaman himself…

If the section were amended by omitting the words “ through a superintendent “, it would mean that money in the bank could not be garnisheed under legal process. I invite the Minister to consider section 74 as part of a pattern of protection that has been afforded seamen. If he refers to section 90 of the principal act, he will notice the four protections provided for seamen. Section 90 is in these terms - (1.) As to wages due or accruing to a seaman or apprentice -

  1. they shall not be subject to attachment or arrestment from any Court;
  2. an assignment or sale thereof made prior to the accruing thereof shall not bind the person making it;
  3. a power of attorney or authority for the receipt thereof shall not be irrevocable; and
  4. a payment of wages to the seaman or apprentice shall be valid in law, notwithstanding any previous sale or assignment of those wages, or any attachment, encumbrance, or arrestment thereof.

That section contains the most complete pattern of protection afforded men engaged in this industry, and I should imagine such protection arose from the fact that, in the old days, voyages were long and seamen were away from home for lengthy periods, unable to attendto their affairs or look after their families, and they did not want the worry of their families being left destitute.

The section the Opposition seeksto amend is part of that overall protection, and if the Minister accepts the amendment it will mean that money paid into the bank on allotment by a seaman cannot be garnisheed. That is a point not referred to by the Minister in his explanation,but it is a matter of substantive right. The section ought not to be repealed lightly.

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Shipping and Transport and Minister for Civil Aviation · Western Australia · LP

– As section 74 now stands, it contemplates that the seaman’s wages have already been paid into the bank. The repeal of that section will put the seaman and the bank in the same position as any other client and his bank. I cannot see why the Opposition should raise any objection to that.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– The repeal of section 74 would put the seaman in exactly the same position as any other client and his bank, but the pointI made at the outset is that the seaman, in relation to his affairs, has been put in an extraordinarily separate position. His wages are made completely inalienable by the terms of section 90 which state, in effect, that when wages are paid pursuant to an allotment to a bank, they are protected against garnishee. That puts the seaman in a very different position from all other clients of the bank. That was done deliberately. Another section which we shall debate presently, which provides that a seaman cannot be sued for a debt contracted after his engagement until the engagement is terminated, is also peculiar to the seafaring industry.

I think the Minister’s purpose, with which I agree entirely, would be met if the superintendent were prevented from drawing on the seaman’s account by striking out the words “through a superintendent” in section 74, and allowing the section to otherwise stand. The Minister, in seeking to eliminate the superintendent, is performing a service in that he is saving trouble for the superintendent, extra bother for the bank and protecting the seaman. If that is the purpose he seeks to achieve, would the position not be met by merely striking out the words “ through a superintendent “ and not disturb the existing section 74 which, according to the advice I have received, affords a special protection to seamen? I repeat to the Minister, for his consideration, that his purposes could well be achieved if clause 49 of the bill were amended to read -

Section 74 of the principal act is amended by omitting the words “ through a superintendent “.

That would not open up the other issues involved in section 74 of the principal act. The Minister’s purpose would be achieved, and the section would continue to afford the protection that it has afforded in the past.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

.- I take leave to question the interpretation of the operation of section 74 of the principal act that has been advanced by Senator McKenna. Section 90 makes specific provision in these terms - (1.) As to wages due or accruing to a seaman or apprentice -

  1. they shall not be subject to attachment or arrestment from any Court;
  2. an assignment or sale thereof made prior to the accruing thereof shall not bind the person making it;
  3. a power of attorney or authority for the receipt thereof shall not be irrevocable; and
  4. a payment of wages to the seaman or apprentice shall be valid in law, notwithstanding any previous sale or assignment of those wages, or any attachment, encumbrance, or arrestment thereof. (2.) Nothing inthis section shall affect the provisions of this Act with respect to allotment notes.

So, when the legislature desired to protect seamen’s wages from attachment, it knew how to express itself, and it made the elaborate provisions that I have taken the trouble to read in their entirety. But I suggest that when wages have been allotted to a seaman’s bank account they cease to have immunity against attachment. I am speaking entirely without the benefit of knowing whether any judicial interpretation has been given in this matter.

Senator McKenna:

– There is no argument between us on that point. I read section 90. I think that Senator Wright was absent at the time.

Senator WRIGHT:

– No. I heard the Leader of the Opposition read section 90 in part.

Senator McKenna:

– I read it in its entirety, except for sub-section (2.), in support of my argument that wages were inalienable. I did not claim that section 74 dealt with moneys that were construed as wages. So the honorable senator need not try to demolish such an argument.

Senator WRIGHT:

– Sub-section (2.) provides that section 90 shall not affect the provisions of the act with respect to allotment notes, and allotment notes are dealt with in Division 10, sections 69 to 74 inclusive. We are considering at the moment a clause that provides for the repeal of section 74. In relation to that section, the most material part of section 90 is subsection (2.), which provides that nothing in section 90 shall affect the provisions of the act with respect to allotment notes. It is only a step in the chain of reasoning that commends itself to me to say that it is quite clear that moneys, once having been allotted to a seaman’s bank account, lose their character as wages, and are as freely applicable at the instance of the seaman for any purpose that he desires as are the funds in his ordinary bank account. If there is any judicial interpretation to the contrary, I should like to be informed of it.

It seems to me to be a very far-fetched application of section 74 to suggest that it prevents the attachment or assignment of a bank account. If I have in my bank account to-day a credit of £100, and I owe a judgment creditor money, he is at liberty to obtain a garnishee order attaching the amount due to htm. It does not seem to me, having regard to the legislature’s aptitude in expressing its intention by appropriate language in section 90, that the language of section 74 is in any way directed to protecting a seaman’s bank account from attachment. I suggest that the elimination of section 74 so as to make the relationship of banker and customer applicable to the modern seaman without this paternal protection of the superintendent extending beyond his wages to moneys that have reached his bank account, is well advised.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I should like to repeat briefly the argument that I originally addressed to the committee. I adverted to section 90 of the principal act to indicate the general pattern of the protection extended to seamen. That section protects wages, as I indicated clearly. Section 74, which is really the subject of the clause that we are now considering, protects against attachment a seaman’s allotment moneys, which are intended primarily for the use of his family while he is at sea. That is the main purpose of the section. But there is a third provision in this pattern of protection which prevents a seaman from being sued for debt. All these provisions are part of the one pattern of protection that protects the seaman from being sued for debt contracted after he has entered into an engagement and before the engagement is terminated. The provision that he may not be sued during that period is made in another section.

Section 74 falls into place in this debate as part of the protection that the legislature has seen fit to extend to seamen. At the second-reading stage, the Minister, speaking in reply, said that section 74 was to be repealed in order that the superintendent should not be bothered. I agree with the Minister completely in that. I agree to the repeal of any part of section 74 that involves the superintendent. I think it was stupid ever to interpolate into that section a reference to him. However, I object to the repeal in its entirety of a section that is part of the pattern of protection against attachment. Therefore, in order to dispose of the matter, I formally move -

Leave out “ repealed “. insert “ amended by omitting the words ‘ , through a superintendent,’ “.

If the amendment is agreed to, the net result will be that the words “through a superintendent “ will be omitted from section 74. That would achieve the purpose that the Minister enunciated in his explanation at the second-reading stage, and it would not destroy the protection against the garnishee of allotment moneys afforded by the section. It is a protection that the various unions concerned claim is extended to seamen under that section, and I think it was never the Minister’s intention to cut down in that way any protection that may have been afforded.

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Shipping and Transport and Minister for Civil Aviation · Western Australia · LP

– The committee’s consideration of this matter has gone beyond my original contemplation of it. It is a fact that section 74 of the principal act affords protection against the attachment of a seaman’s bank account, but it does not protect his wages. The Leader of the Opposition has implied that an allotment made to a bank account is necessarily an allotment made for transmission to a seaman’s -wife err family.

Senator McKenna:

– It is not .necessarily so.

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– No, but that was the implication. A seaman allots money to a bank account in much the same way as any other person allots money to a bank account. That being the case I cannot see why, in this modern context, he should be entitled to any special protection against the attachment of his bank account. There may have been justification for such protection in the historical setting, when a seaman was away at sea for very lengthy periods, but I suggest that it does not exist to-day. I reject the amendment.

Question put: -

That the word proposed to be left out (Senator McKenna’s amendment) be left out.

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Senator the Hon. A. D. Reid.)

AYES: 27

NOES: 28

Majority…… 1

AYES

NOES

Question, so resolved in the negative.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 52 -

Sections seventy-seven and seventy-eight of the Principal Act are repealed and the following sections inserted in their stead: -

“77.- (1.)…..

” (6.) In this section - bank ‘ does not include a savings bank; wages ‘, in relation to a seaman, does not include a payment or allowance for the working of overtime or any other payment or allowance not included in the ordinary wages of the seaman. “ 78. If a seaman’s wages are not paid in accordance with section seventy-five of this Act before or at the time he is given his discharge from a ship, the seaman’s wages shall continue to run and to be payable until the time of the final settlement of his wages unless the delay is due to the seaman’s act or default, to a reasonable dispute as to liability for the wages or to any other cause not attributable to the wrongful act or default of the owner or master of the ship.”.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I move -

In proposed section 77, sub-section (6.), leave out “ ‘ wages ‘, in relation to a seaman, does not include a payment or allowance for the working of overtime or any other payment or allowance not included in the ordinary wages of the seaman.”.

The effect of these proposed sections is that wages shall be paid twice a month - at the middle and the end - but not overtime: It shall not be necessary for the shipowner or master to pay overtime as it falls due, at the end of the fortnightly period. The amendment makes it obligatory that overtime be paid at the same time as ordinary wages. When a man receives his wages he should receive all moneys owing to him up to that point. Why should payment be deferred, and statutory provision not made for the settlement of all outstanding moneys? I should not think there would be any grave difficulty in the calculation of outstanding overtime.

Senator Vincent:

– Would it not be covered by the award?

Senator McKENNA:

– The award cannot override the act.

Senator Vincent:

– The act is silent in relation to it.

Senator McKENNA:

– If Senator Vincent will refer to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act he will find that the industrial tribunal is permitted to vary an act, by way of award, in the matter of accommodation only. Therefore, if this legislation lays down a procedure regarding wages it will not be competent for the arbitral authority to vary it.

Senator Vincent:

– I agree, but the act does not seek to vary it.

Senator McKENNA:

– The act is saying. “ Men shall be paid twice a month, but that shall not apply to overtime or anything other than ordinary wages “. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure settlement twice a month of overtime and other moneys outstanding. The issue is quite simple.

Senator Vincent:

– Is not the point that the act is silent in relation to overtime and, therefore, the award provision shall prevail?

Senator McKENNA:

– I would say not. I thought I had disposed of the contention that the Arbitration Court can interfere in a matter of wages, but if the honorable senator would like to pursue the matter, I refer him to a section of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. Section 16bl provides -

An award under this Division may be made inconsistent with Division 15 of Part II. of the Navigation Act 1912-1956.

If he will look at Division 15 of Part II. of the Navigation Act, he will find that that applies only to matters of accommodation for the crew.

Senator KENDALL:
Queensland

– May I point out the practical reason why overtime is not paid when the fortnightly payment is made? The amount of money earned in actual wages is constant and is paid regularly at the end of each fortnight, or when the ship pays off, but the amount of overtime paid is inconstant; it differs every fortnight. A man may work overtime for two hours or twenty hours, depending entirely on the running of the ship. Suppose that at the end of a fortnightly pay period a ship came into port at 2 a.m., or 4 a.m., and a man was called upon to work overtime. He would receive his fortnight’s pay, automatically, on the due date, but the overtime sheets showing the two or three hours he had worked during the small hours of the morning would have to be sent to the office of the company for checking and for the drawing of the money. The office would not know how much money to draw until it had received those sheets. The master of a ship cannot pay overtime money until the overtime sheets have been checked by the accountant in the head office and the money has been drawn. There may be only one day’s delay in paying for overtime. It is very seldom more than three days.

Take another case. Suppose that the fortnightly pay period runs from the 1st to the 15th of a month, and that a ship arrives in port on the 12th and sails on the 13th. Quite frequently, the master of the ship, with the concurrence of the company, will pay the seamen on the 13th or 14th of the month the amount that would be due to them on the 15th, but he cannot pay for overtime for the whole fortnight because he does not know then what overtime will have been worked by the men. He does not know how much to pay. Consequently, the overtime payment will be made in the next port, after the amount has been determined. It would be almost impossible to pay overtime money for a fortnight at the end of the fortnight. You might as well suggest that the seamen should be paid for their home-port days every fortnight when they get their regular wages. That would be quite impossible. They do not know how many days off they are going to have in the second part of the month, for example.

There is a very real reason for not paying this money at the end of the fortnight. It is a practical reason. It has nothing to do with the law. Frequently the money has not been earned at the time the fortnightly payments are made.

Senator McKenna:

– Would the honorable senator mind if I asked him two questions so that I can clarify my mind?

Senator KENDALL:

– No.

Senator McKenna:

– Does not overtime accrue day by day over the whole of the half month?

Senator KENDALL:

– It does accrue day by day.

Senator McKenna:

– The only difficulty that might arise in the way of a settlement at mid-month would be in respect of payment for work done on the last days of the period?

Senator KENDALL:

– Yes.

Senator McKenna:

– Is not it also a fact that very often the pay will fall due when it is not possible to have access to a land office of the owner?

Senator KENDALL:

– On the Australian coast the time-sheets are always mailed through to the head office.

Senator McKenna:

– There is always an office at ports where they call?

Senator KENDALL:

– Not as far as overtime is concerned. That matter usually is dealt with by the head office. Take the Brisbane-Sydney-Melbourne run. If overtime was worked in Sydney, the overtime sheets would be sent to Melbourne. By the time the ship reached Melbourne, the money would be there, ready to be paid.

Senator McKenna:

– What is the normal delay in the payment of overtime for ships on the Australian coast?

Senator KENDALL:

– On the Australian coast, it is not more than three days. I would say that that would be the limit. In some cases, it is almost impossible to pay overtime immediately.

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Shipping and Transport and Minister for Civil Aviation · Western Australia · LP

– I am unable to accept the amendment for the practical reasons which have been advanced by Senator Kendall. There is a real difficulty in making up time-sheets, remitting those time-sheets to the head office of the shipping company, computing the overtime and paying out the money. As a matter of fact, the award itself recognizes that. Senator Kendall has told us quite factually that the payment of overtime can be made, and sometimes is made, within a matter of days of the payment falling due, when payment can be conveniently arranged, but the award, recognizing the practical difficulties, has made allowance for deferment up to fourteen days.

Senator McKenna:

– Can the Minister refer readily to the particular clause of the award?

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– It is clause 21a on page nine of the award. It reads as follows: -

Where a ship is engaged in voyaging between places within the Commonwealth of Australia, the amount due for ordinary wages to the employee, and, where he is landed because of sickness or accident, the meal and bed allowance, shall be paid not later than the first and sixteenth of each month, and for overtime, not later than the first and sixteenth of each month next following the payment of ordinary wages.

Amendment negatived.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I move -

In proposed section 78, after the word “ payable “, insert “ at double rates “.

The proposed section deals with what happens in relation to pay when a seaman has been discharged. It states -

If a seaman’s wages are not paid in accordance with section seventy-five of this Act before or at the time he is given his discharge from a ship, the seaman’s wages shall continue to run and to be payable until the time of the final settlement of his wages unless the delay is due to the seaman’s act or default, to a reasonable dispute as to liability for the wages or to any other cause not attributable to the wrongful act or default of the owner or master of the ship.

I point out that in the award to which the Minister has made reference - I think in clause 63 - the penalty specified is two days. The bill proposes, in effect, to cut down the operation of the award by cutting down by one day the penalty imposed on an owner for not paying a man at the time of discharge. Does the Minister want to achieve that purpose, or is he prepared to accept the amendment I have moved.

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Shipping and Transport and Minister for Civil Aviation · Western Australia · LP

– I concede that this matter is dealt with by the award. I should like further consideration of the clause to be deferred until after lunch, as there are one or two inquiries I wish to make, so I move -

That further consideration of the clause be postponed.

Senator VINCENT:
Western Australia

– Do I take it that the Opposition is endeavouring to insert in this measure a provision in relation to rates of pay?

Senator McKenna:

– I am seeking to prevent a provision being inserted in the act that will cut down the operation of the award.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

.- The word “ award “ should not bear any inhibitions for any of us. It might be timely now to prune the award provision in this and many other instances.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Clause 70 - (1.) Section one hundred and fifteen of the Principal Act is repealed and the following section inserted in its stead: - “115. - (1.) The master of a ship to which this section applies shall not enter into an agreement with a seaman under section forty-six of this Act unless the agreement includes a provision in such form as is prescribed that, if the seaman commits a breach of discipline specified in that prescribed form, that breach shall be a breach of the agreement and the master shall impose on the seaman a fine of the amount specified in that prescribed form in relation to that breach of discipline.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– In my circulated list of amendments I have foreshadowed two amendments to clause 70. The two amendments are bracketed together but no doubt they will have to be put to the committee separately. The side note to proposed section 115, which clause 70 of the bill seeks to insert in the act in lieu of the existing section 115, is “Punishment of breaches of discipline by master “. I move -

In sub-section (I.) o£ proposed section 115, leave out “ shall “, third occurring, insert “ may “. 1 propose to move the following further amendment, too -

In sub-section (1.) of proposed section 115, after the word “ amount “ insert “ not exceeding that “.

If the amendments are agreed to, the relevant pant of proposed section 115 (1.) will read - that breach shall be a breach of the agreement and the master may impose on the seaman a fine of the amount not exceeding that specified in that prescribed form

The thought I have in the matter is that it is an extraordinary situation that a seaman should be compelled to write into his agreement a list of offences that will constitute breaches of the agreement and that fixed penalties should be set down for those offences. I suppose one would not find that kind of thing in any other agreement.

What I object to is that all discretion in the master in relation to an offence is taken away. Offences vary in degree, and punishment should have regard to the mitigating circumstances that may arise. However the provisions of the proposed section make it obligatory upon the master, after he has made inquiry and holds that a breach has occurred, to impose the maximum fine. Surely he should be given a discretion and allowed to waive the fine or, in the case of a minor breach, to modify the penalty. The normal procedure in the imposition of penalties fixed by statutory regulation is to make the prescribed penalties the maximum that may be imposed.

Senator Vincent:

– Does not the agreement give the master a discretion?

Senator McKENNA:

– No.

Senator Wright:

– I think proposed section 115 (2.) does.

Senator Vincent:

– I am .talking about the actual agreement.

Senator McKENNA:

– Sub-section (2.) contains the words “ after proper inquiry “. It only touches the question of inquiry.

Senator Vincent:

– The honorable senator misunderstands me. Does not the actual agreement which is referred to in sub-section (1.), and which prescribes the offences and punishments, permit the master to exercise his discretion?

Senator McKENNA:

– I am not aware that it does. I believe that it does not. In fact, the agreement could not override the provisions of proposed section 115 (1.).

Senator Vincent:

– Even if the agreement gave a discretion?

Senator McKENNA:

– The agreement could not detract from the mandatory provisions of sub-section (1.) which provides, in effect, that if after proper inquiry the master finds that a breach of discipline has occurred, that breach shall be a breach of the agreement.

Senator Vincent:

– Surely the agreement provides that there is a discretion in relation to punishment.

Senator McKENNA:

– No. My recollection of my reading of sub-section (1.) is that it is completely mandatory.

Senator Kendall:

– Not in practice.

Senator McKENNA:

– Then, why do we not make the law comply with the practice? There is no doubt that the proposed provision eliminates all consideration of the degree of severity of the breach; it does not give to the master any scope to make allowance for mitigating circumstances. I should imagine that in certain circumstances if a seaman plucked the sleeve of an officer to attract his attention, that act could be construed as being an assault and a breach of the agreement. Despite the fact that the act was of a minor character and one in relation to which clemency or some discretion might be exercised, once the offence is established technically the master has no discretion. He must impose the full penalty.

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

– ‘Can a penalty be imposed on a seaman for an act of his which is not a breach of discipline?

Senator McKENNA:

– No. The Minister was good enough to hand to me a moment or two ago a list of offences and penalties. For striking or assaulting any person on board or belonging to the ship, if not otherwise dealt with according .to -law, the fine is £5. For bringing <ot having on board intoxicating liquors without the concurrence of the master., the fine is ten shillings. In the case of drunkenness, the fine for the first offence is £1. and for each subsequent offence £2. For taking on board and keeping possession of any firearms, knuckleduster, loaded cane, slung shot, sword-stick, bowie-knife, dagger or any other offensive weapon or offensive instrument without the concurrence of the master, the fine is £1 for every day during which the seaman retains such weapon or instrument. In the case of insolent or contemptuous language - surely a case in which some discretion might be exercised - the fine for each offence after the first is £5. For failure or refusal without reasonable cause to proceed to sea a person may be fined two days’ pay, and for absence from duty or from the ship without leave and without reasonable cause at the time fixed for the vessel’s departure the fine is £5. Finally, the fine for absence from duty is two days’ pay for each day on which such absence occurs. Surely in the case of offences which attract a fine of £5 or two days’ pay there ought to be a discretion in the master.

The purpose of my amendment is to relieve the master from the necessity of imposing these fixed penalties. I ask the committee to treat them as maximal only and to leave the master with a discretion to break them down.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

.- 1 need no more than the minute or two which remain before the suspension of the sitting to reply to the argument of the Leader of the Opposition. Proposed section 115 (8.) provides -

The regulations may prescribe the manner and circumstances in which a fine imposed on a seaman by the master of a ship to which this section applies may be reduced or remitted by the master.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– The reply to that comment is that there may be no regulations. Why is it a matter that should be left to regulation? Why is not a discretion left with the master in the first instance? I am asking for complete discretion in the master.

Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2.15 p.m.

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

.- Before the sitting was suspended, Senator McKenna was pursuing his submission, in the terms of his amendment, that a discretion should rest in the master to enable a penalty less than the maximum penalty mentioned in the agreement, or otherwise stated, to be imposed. That is a principle with which I agree. Senator Wright, also before the suspension, turned to a section of the act and pointed out that it provided for power to make regulations which would allow a penalty to be reduced or remitted. 1 have noticed, during the course of this debate, as Senator McKenna has pursued his submissions, that Senator Wright has given the impression that he considers that there should be some discretion to impose a penalty less than the maximum. Early in the debate, he pointed to sub-section (2.) of proposed section 115 and for a moment suggested that that might provide a discretion. It was pointed out that that sub-section applied in a different context. Then the honorable senator, later in the debate, referred to another section of the principal act under which regulations might be made.

Senator Wright:

– No. lt is sub-section (8.) of proposed section 115.

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

– That is right. I take it from that that Senator Wright agrees that there should be a discretion, and that it should be possible to impose a penalty that is less than the maximum penalty. That is the inference I draw from the honorable senator’s approach to the whole of the discussion of this question.

Senator Wright:

– That is a wrong inference. My only statement was that there was specific statutory provision to the contrary of the argument which Senator McKenna stated. I did not approve of it.

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

– That was the inference that I felt entitled to draw. I rise to say that Senator McKenna is proposing an amendment of substantive law and Senator Wright is suggesting that we should rely on the regulation-making power embodied in the proposed sub-section.

Senator Wright:

– I am not suggesting anything of the sort.

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

– That was the submission that Senator Wright made and to which he directed the attention of the committee. I do not think that it embodied a sound principle. If I have been confirmed in my attitude to that type of thing, it is primarily due to association with Senator Wright and the persuasiveness and intensity with which he has advanced certain very firmly held ideas over the years. Therefore, if I say I am disappointed with the honorable senator on this occasion, that is to understate my reaction to his attitude. 1 am completely astounded that the champion of the legislature should now ask the legislature to rely on the power to make regulations. The implementation of the regulations in cases such as those projected by these amendments would lie in the hands of one of these distasteful officials who would not have an intimate or personal knowledge of the matter which attracted disciplinary action and consequent penalty. The honorable senator makes the suggestion despite the fact that such power would deprive a person, who was associated with the situation, of the advantage of having evidence taken on the spot, seeing the parties concerned and questioning the person who was charged, and in addition, deprive him of any discretion. The honorable senator suggested that, by regulation, those very powers should be entrusted to some remote official who would have had no chance to see the offender and who would have no intimate association with the circumstances.

If Senator Wright has hauled down the flag from the masthead, I think we should now accept it as our responsibility to rehoist it and stand around it with our ranks unbroken. I am sure that Senator Wright’s departure from his own counsels of prudence and reasonable conduct over the years has merely been inspired by the intense debate that has taken place here over the last 36 hours between the Leader of the Opposition and himself, and that he was attracted more by the compulsion of logic to answer the proposition submitted by the Leader of the Opposition than by reliance on the principles which he has so constantly espoused, and which I trust he will continue to espouse in all cases, including the one that we are discussing.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I raise my voice in lamentation. If my cherished friend, Senator Byrne, pursues such advocacy, he may find the old cactus is his only refuge. Let me hasten to add, Mr. Chairman, that my name will always be included with those who stand firm in the defence of parliamentary rights. I hope that the honorable senator will not attribute to me such a superficial scrutiny of proposed section 115 as to say that I read only sub-section (8.). I thought that the basis of Senator McKenna’s submission was so tenuous that reference to that single sub-section might deprive the submission of any support which it had enjoyed up till that time; but now that I am provoked, I hasten to bring to Senator Byrne’s attention these spatterings of pepper and salt from the regulation factory.

Section 115 (1.) provides -

That the master of a ship to which this section applies shall not enter into an agreement with a seaman under section forty-six of this Act unless the agreement includes a provision in such form as is prescribed that, if the seaman commits a breach of discipline specified in that prescribed form, that breach shall be a breach of the agreement ….

Unless the regulations specify a breach of discipline, there is no subject matter to which sub-section (1.) applies. Sub-section (1.) goes on to state - and the master shall impose on the seaman a fine of the amount specified in that prescribed form . . .

Even my spirit flags sometimes. Surely we are not going to bemuse ourselves with invidious argument. It is of no use to emphasize the existence of regulations under sub-section (8.) without adverting to the fact that, unless the regulations specify a breach of discipline and the amount of fine to be imposed in punishment, the whole section of the act disappears. What endeavour would be required to re-make a Humpty-Dumpty based on a conception of that kind! Surely these considerations were not present to the mind of Senator Byrne when he referred to my brief statement before lunch, when I answered the proposition that Senator McKenna had put before us, that the master had no discretion to reduce the fine from the maximum. In desperation, I simply contented myself with sub-section (8.) If Senator Byrne will move that further consideration of the clause be postponed and seek to exorcize from it all regulation-making powers, we shall have a scene of merriment even on this fading Thursday afternoon.

Senator VINCENT:
Western Australia

– I also invite the attention of Senator Byrne and the Opposition to sub-sections (5.), (6.) and (7.) of proposed section 115. I do not want my remarks to be interpreted as meaning that I believe there should be any discretion allowed under sub-section (1.). Sub-sections (5.), (6.) and (7.) surely answer any objection the Opposition has in regard to discretion. I do not think I need read them; their meaning is plain. In actual practice, it is a very rare occurrence if a seaman is fined, and it is still rarer if the fine is not remitted in pursuance of the existing law, which this proposed law follows in principle. I merely add this to what I am saying about the amendment: The penalties that were read out by the Leader of the Opposition this morning in relation to various offences are extremely low when considered in the context of a navigation bill. They are far lower, for example, than penalties for similar offences in ordinary civil life. If there is any objection to be taken to proposed section 115, I suggest it is that these penalites are too low. A fine of ten shillings imposed on a seaman for being drunk, perhaps on duty, perhaps endangering the lives of many people including his own shipmates is ridiculously low. A maximum fine of £5 for what could be an aggravated assault on a fellow shipmate or upon an officer, to the great detriment of discipline on a ship is, I suggest, ridiculously low. Any objection to the proposed section could be along the lines that the maxima are far too low.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– This debate, whilst it has been interesting, has ranged a little far from the purpose that my amendment seeks to achieve. I am not concerned with the regulation-making powers at all.I am asking at the first point that when an offence of this type is alleged, there should be a discretion in the master either to fine or not to fine and, secondly, to impose a fine less than the amount specified if he thinks fit. I am merely asking for discretion in the master. I do so for two reasons. Why should the master be prevented from exercising the prerogative of mercy? Why not let him do broad justice, having regard to the nature of the offence? Never mind its technical designation. Secondly, people on a ship all live together. I think that, in the interests of good relations on the ship, the master should not be bound.

Apart from that, what happens from the seaman’s point of view? The master has both to fine him and to fine him the full amount. That necessitates an entry in the log. Reference has been made to the escape clauses; but I indicate that, without an assurance that regulations will be made for the prescribing of penalties, the procedure will mean a whole series of log recordings. It is to avoid that in the interests of the seamen, and to avoid it in the administration of the master, that my proposal stands.

Question put -

That the word proposed to be left out (Senator McKenna’s amendment) be left out.

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Senator the Hon. A. D. Reid.)

AYES: 26

NOES: 29

Majority . . . . 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– Without argument, because I have already addressed the committee on the subject,I move -

In sub-section (1.) of proposed section 115, after “ amount “, insert” not exceeding that “.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 72 (Scale of provisions).

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

.- Clause 72 of the bill, which seeks to repeal section 117 of the principal act and replace it by another provision, covers one of the matters on which the Opposition sought an explanation from the Minister. We are indebted to him for supplying that explanation during his reply to the second-reading debate. The section of the principal act that is being repealed provided that the scale of provisions should be in accordance with Schedule III. to the act, or as is prescribed. The proposed new section provides that provisions shall be as prescribed only. The proposal leaves the matter to executive decision and opens up a degree of uncertainty.

I gathered from the Minister’s explanation that food supplies were now adequate on all ships, but if the standard deteriorated, regulations would be promptly promulgated. I take it to be the Minister’s intention that no regulations are contemplated at the moment, but if he gives an assurance that should the need arise, regulations bringing the scale of provisions up to date will be promptly promulgated, the Opposition will be content.

Senator Paltridge:

– I readily give the assurance sought.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 73 -

Section one hundred and eighteen of the Principal Act is amended - (a)…

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I move -

At the end of the clause add the following paragraph: - “ (d) by inserting after paragraph (iii) of subsection (1.) the words ‘ or such greater sums as may be provided in appropriate industrial awards made under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-1956”’.

Section 118 of the principal act provides that if food of bad quality is supplied, or if there is a deficiency in quantity, certain financial penalties are awarded to the seamen by the shipowners. Those provisions are being lifted substantially by the proposed amendments. The effect of the amendment proposed by the Opposition is that it be left to the industrial tribunal to increase the amounts set down if it sees fit. No other purpose for the amendment exists than to bring this particular field of allowances within the jurisdiction of the commission.

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Shipping and Transport and Minister for Civil Aviation · Western Australia · LP

– The amendment is not acceptable to the Government. As acknowledged by the Leader of the Opposition, the increase provided by clause 73 is substantial. Incidentally, I am informed that the provisions of the section of the act have never been availed of, probably for the reason that the necessity has never arisen. The Government will keep the matter under constant review, and if the occasion arises for any increase in the rates prescribed, such increase will be made promptly.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 77 (Refrigerating chambers).

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– This clause seeks to repeal section 122a of the act which provides that ships of more than 3,000 tons should have certain refrigerated space. Originally, the Opposition was concerned that section 122a should be repealed and not replaced with any comparable section, but the Minister in his second-reading speech was good enough to indicate that a similar provision has now been inserted in section 138b dealing with accommodation. It now becomes competent for the Arbitration Court to intervene in this matter by reason of section 135 of the act. In addition, the provisions of section 122a will now fall within the regulationmaking powers set up by section 136, as well as within the jurisdiction of the crew accommodation committee set up by section 138. I assume the committee is a body comprising representatives of the shipowners and the seamen, and that it is entitled to consider matters affecting accommodation and make recommendations to the Minister. The committee even has certain authority to make an order which, under the act, becomes an order of the Arbitration Commission.

In those circumstances, and with the assurance and explanation that have already been given by the Minister, the Opposition is quite happy with the Government proposal.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 80 -

Section one hundred arid twenty-seven of the Principal Act is repealed and the following section inserted in its stead: -

receives a hurt or injury . . .

suffers from an illness . . . “ 127. - (I.) If a seaman belonging to a ship registered in Australia or engaged in the coasting trade - and the seaman is not at his proper return port, the expense of -

if the seaman dies before he arrives at his proper return port - his burial, shall … be defrayed by the owner of the ship . . .

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– The Government proposes to repeal section 127 of the principal act and insert in its stead a new section 127, sub-section (1.), which states that if a seaman is injured or becomes ill abroad and is not at his proper return port, certain expenses of his illness and transport must be borne by the shipowner without deduction from the seaman’s wages. Proposed paragraph (f) provides that if a seaman dies before he arrives at his proper return port, the cost of his burial must be borne by the shipowner.

The amendment I contemplated proposing provided that the expense of the return of the seaman’s body to his proper return port should also be borne by the shipowner. The Minister has had an opportunity to consider the Opposition amendment, and I understand he has in mind a further amendment to the clause which goes a very long way towards meeting my proposal. For the moment I vacate the field until the Minister has had an opportunity to present his own proposal.

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Shipping and Transport and Minister for Civil Aviation · Western Australia · LP

– I move -

In sub-section (1.), paragraph (f), of proposed section 127, leave out “his burial,”, insert “his burial or, if his body is conveyed to his proper return port at the request of a member of his family, the conveyance of his body to that port,”.

The Government is agreeable to an amendment in that form. As the Leader of the Opposition has indicated, that will go a long way towards meeting his requirements by bringing the procedure into conformity with the modern concept that is generally accepted.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 81 - (1.) Sections one hundred and twenty-nine, one hundred and thirty, one hundred and thirty-one and one hundred and thirty-two of the Principal Act are repealed and the following sections inserted in their stead: -

“132.- (1.) . . .

” (4.) A seaman who, before his recovery, is fit to travel is not entitled to wages under sub-section (2.) of this section in respect of a day on which his conveyance to his proper return port by or at the cost of the owner of the ship from which he’ was left on shore is delayed by his own act. default or neglect. “ (5.) If- (a)…

a seaman who is left on shore at a port other than hisproper return port, being a seaman who is entitled to be paid wages under sub-section (2.) of this section, is brought or taken back to his proper return port at the direction of the owner or agent of the ship at a time before his recovery when the seaman is not fit to travel, “ (6.) A seaman is entitled to wages under this section by reason of an illness, hurt or injury only if the illness, hurt or injury -

. . .

is, of appears to be, of such a nature as to require, or to be likely to require; medical treatment for a period exceeding seven days; and

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– This brings me to amendment No. 24 in the list that I have circulated. Here, we are concerned with what happens in relation to the wages of a seaman who has been left on shore sick or injured. Proposed section 132 provides that a seamanwho is left on shore sick or injured is entitled to wages over specific periods. Paragraph (a) of sub-section (2.) provides for what shall happen if he arrives at his proper return port before his recovery. Sub-section (3.) provides for what shall happen if he arrives at his proper return port after recovery. Sub-section (4.) deals with an intermediate situation. In order to give the matter proper consideration, I invite the committee’s attention to sub-section (5.), which provides -

If-

  1. a seaman who is left on short at a port other than his proper return port, being a seaman who is entitled to be paid wages under sub-section (2.) of this section, is brought or taken back to his proper return port at the direction of the owner or agent of the ship at a time before his recovery when the seaman is not fit to travel, the owner and agent of the ship are each guilty of an offence against this Act punishable upon conviction by a fine not exceeding Two hundred pounds.

The Opposition is concerned that there should not be an obligation upon a man who has not recovered and who may be declared fit to travel by some body or person not indicated in the section. The seaman should not be disturbed at all, and, if he elects to remain, until he has recovered, in the port where he has been put ashore, he should not be compelled to travel to his home port. If he is to be compelled to travel to the home port, very much better safeguards than are provided should be inserted in proposed section 132.

I direct the attention of the committee to the definition of the term “ recovery “ in sub-section (8.) of the proposed section. The definition is made quite adequately in these words - “ Recovery “, in relation to a seaman, means the recovery of the seaman as certified by a Medical Inspector of Seamen or any other duly qualified medical practitioner;

So far as I can ascertain, there is no definition, or prescription, in this proposed section, or anywhere else in the bill, to indicate when a man is to be deemed fit to travel.

Senator Vincent:

– It is a question of medical fact.

Senator McKENNA:

– It is a question of cold fact. That is the point. It is a question that might be very grievously disputed, and I think that there should be some provision to enable a man’s fitness to travel to be determined in the way that recovery can be determined.

Senator Vincent:

– The two do not necessarily coincide.

Senator McKENNA:

– They do. They are both medical questions, in the view that I put to the committee, and they may even go a little beyond that. Any one considering this problem could say that the ordinary man would be anxious to get home as soon as possible, and that there is not likely to be malingering. This, I understand, is an entirely new kind of provision, and I think that it ought, first, to be justified in the light of the need for it. Secondly, if it is to stand, there is a clear need to incorporate adequate machinery to enable it to be determined beyond doubt whether a man who had not recovered was fit to travel.

Senator Wright:

– Senator McKenna said that there is not likely to be malingering. Has he taken the trouble to investigate the number of cases in which the stay in outports has exceeded six months?

Senator McKENNA:

-I have no statistics, but I have knowledge of particular cases.I can refer Senator Wright to one case in particular, in which a man was put ashore at Port Adelaide with a chill, for which he was admitted to hospital. The chill eventually affected his heart, and his. heart trouble then affected his circulatory system. Over a period of many months, bit by bit, he lost his lower limbs. Owing to the absence of circulation, they became gangrenous, and repeated operations were performed until he had lost both legs. Ultimately, the man died. Throughout the process, he remained at Port Adelaide. There were times, between the operations, when he was put into a wheelchair and was able to move himself about. That was a case in which, although the man had not recovered, anybody who considered mobility alone could have said that he was fit to travel. He could have been taken to a plane in a wheelchair, lifted into a seat in the aircraft, and placed in a wheelchair on arrival at his destination. Cases of that kind do occur. I do not know how many there may be, but I have made inquiries about the kind of thing that happens.

I understand that, in these cases, the psychological factor is of some importance, and it should not be disregarded. A man who develops confidence in his doctors and other medical attendants may be very much disturbed, mentally, and his recovery may be appreciably retarded if an owner says that he is fit to travel, although he has not recovered, and that he must return to his home port. This is especially so if he is not a workers’ compensation case, because he goes off wages, arid off sustenance. This factor, particularly, is unlikely to expedite his recovery. The unions regard sub-section (4.) of proposed section 132 very seriously.

  1. should be interested to know whether the Minister can answer the question raised by Senator Wright. Are there any instances of malingering to an extent that would justify the incorporation in the act of this provision, which I feel is an entirely new one?
Senator Kendall:

– A seaman would not receive workers’ compensation while he was on full wages.

Senator McKENNA:

– He is entitled to full wages only for one week beyond the date of his recovery, and only a man who has suffered an injury in the course of his employment is entitled to workers’ compensation. If such an injury is sustained away from his home port, and he is put on shore away from his home port, he receives full wages, and does not go on workers’ compensation. On the other hand, a seaman who becomes ill or contracts a disease not attributable to his service in his ship receives full wages while he is away, but he receives no workers’ compensation when he gets back to his home port.

Senator Paltridge:

– If he returns to his home port he remains on wages.

Senator McKENNA:

– But not on sustenance. He remains on wages until he is returned, and for seven days afterwards. I appreciate that there is a pecuniary aspect also. T would couple with this amendment the omission of paragraph (b) of sub-section (5.), but for the time being I move -

In proposed section 132, leave out sub-section

(4.).

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Shipping and Transport and Minister for Civil Aviation · Western Australia · LP

– The Government cannot accept the amendment. A sick or injured seaman is not encouraged to return home until he has recovered. He may remain away for months, or even years, on full wages. However, it is considered in the interests of both the seaman and the shipowner that he should return to his family when he has reached a stage of convalescence which makes this possible. I do not think that any one could argue against the reasonableness of such a proposal. If he is still unfit for work when he arrives home he receives substantially the rate of wages granted to a seaman originally landed at his home port - maybe even a shipmate. I think that the proposal is the essence of reasonableness, and makes a proper approach to the problem.

Senator McKenna:

– Under the bill, who will determine when a man is fit to travel?

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– It is a question of fact, as Senator Vincent has pointed out, which would be determined by medical opinion. The shipowner who attempts to move a man who is not fit to travel faces a penalty of £200. I think that that would be a sufficient deterrent to malpractice - if. indeed, that were even remotely contemplated.

Senator VINCENT:
Western Australia

– I agree entirely with the Minister on the merits of the provision, which I consider palpably fair and reasonable. The effect of the Opposition’s amendment would be to give us a new section 132 lacking sub-section (4.). The absence of that subsection would leave an open field for a malingerer, and could result in grave abuses. Such a person could, through his own default or neglect, delay his return indefinitely - though he may be as fit to travel as any honorable senator. He would continue to receive a wage to which he is surely not morally entitled. The Opposition would be giving an open sesame to malingerers.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– Nothing that the honorable senator has said alters the view which I put a short time ago, or removes the defect that there is no definition as to when a man is fit to travel. The matter is left at issue. In the circumstances, the Opposition will record its vote by way of division.

Senator McMANUS:
Victoria

– I feel some sympathy for the view put by Senator McKenna. A man is entitled to wages and sustenance while he is ill at a port other than his home port, therefore it would be to the advantage of his employer to return him to his home port as soon as possible-

Senator Vincent:

– Even there he is entitled to wages.

Senator McMANUS:

– But not to sustenance. Naturally, the employer would like to get him home as soon as possible. There is nothing in the bill to say who will decide whether he is fit to travel, if there is a dispute. The employer, or his representative, may say to the seaman, “ You look all right to me. You can go home.” The seaman may say, “ I do not feel well enough to travel “. Who will settle such a dispute? I am not satisfied with the Minister’s explanation that a penalty of £200 may be imposed if an employer forces a seaman to travel and he is later found to be unfit. The action against the employer may begin days after the man returns home and his physical condition may then have changed considerably. There should be a safeguard against malingering, but the seaman should have a right to refer the question of fitness to travel to a medical authority. That would avoid all the trouble foreseen by honorable senators.

Senator VINCENT:
Western Australia

– I do not intend to allow Senator McManus or Senator McKenna to get away with this. They both join issue with me on this matter of the authority who shall decide the physical condition of the seaman. I think that that is verging on the Gilbertian, because no statute - except in very special circumstances - lays down such a requirement and then postulates the authority who shall give a decision in regard to it. To begin with, proposed section 132 (2.) refers to the seaman being left on shore at a port other than his proper return port by reason of illness, hurt or injury, yet honorable senators opposite have not objected to the fact that no authority is specified for the purpose of determining whether the man is in that physical condition. It, too, is a question of fact. I doubt whether assumptions of that kind are absent from any statute in the English language. It is very simple to tell when a man is ill. If a doctor says he is ill, and the other party agrees, then he is ill and the statute operates. If there is any doubt about the medical condition of the man, it is left to the doctors for them to quarrel about it.

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

– The act is silent on the question of who shall determine illness?

Senator VINCENT:

– Yes.

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

– It is silent on the question of who shall determine fitness to travel?

Senator VINCENT:

– Yes.

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

– Why is it eloquent on the question of his recovery?

Senator VINCENT:

– Because at that point very serious economic questions have to be determined.

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

– No more serious than those that arise at the point of illness.

Senator VINCENT:

– How can a man recover unless he becomes ill first? I think the only reason why a medical authority is introduced jat the point of recovery is because some authority must be accepted by both sides on the all-important question of recovery. Otherwise no seaman would ever recover. I think that is a fairly elementary proposition. I do not think, speaking from memory, any statute requires an authority to state that a person is ill. Otherwise, you would be in the invidious situation that you would have to go to an authority - who knight or might not be available - to have the fact of illness determined. If the authority were not available, the person could not be ill. So you see the Gilbertian situation that arises when you talk about authorities determining the fact of illness.

I feel that we are allowing false sentiment to creep into this debate. The whole matter hinges on the payment of an allowance to a seaman who is living away from home. If the Opposition is anxious for that allowance to be paid when a man should in fact, be at home, there is no need for further argument about this matter. It is an attempt by the Opposition to get a little more for a seaman living away from home who should be at his home. If a man’s own doctor says that he is fit to travel, we should accept the proposition that he should travel, that he should go home and that he should not continue to receive an allowance for living away from home.

Senator McMANUS:
Victoria

.- I entirely disagree with Senator Vincent. I think the situation is perfectly clear. If a man is ill away from his home port and there is a difference of opinion between the employer and the man as to whether the man is fit to travel, it is a matter of common sense, not of sentiment, to say that a medical authority should examine the man and determine his condition. In the Public Service, if there is reason to believe that a man who has been away ill is fit to come back to work, a government medical officer is sent to visit his home to examine him and see whether he is fit to come back to work. As this section stands, it appears to me there is almost a suggestion that if a seaman is ill at a port other than his home port, the question of whether he is fit to travel shall be decided entirely by the employer, who will have authority to order him to travel.

Senator Vincent:

– No.

Senator McMANUS:

– That is what the section says, and that is what honorable senators opposite are standing for. He could be ordered to go to his home port. Even if he said that he wanted to be medically examined, he still would have to go.

Question put -

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

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Senator the Hon. A. D.

Reid.)

AYES: 27

NOES: 29

Majority…… 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

. -I move -

In proposed section 132, leave out paragraph (b) of sub-section (5.).

This amendment is associated with the one on which the committee has just divided. The Opposition will record its protest on the voices and not press for a division.

Amendment negatived.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I now refer to proposed section 132(6.), which reads, in part -

A seaman is entitled to wages under this section by reason of an illness, hurt or injury only if the illness, hurt or injury -

is, or appears to be, of such a nature as to require, or be likely to require, medical treatment for a period exceeding seven days; and move -

In proposed section 132 (6.) (c) leave out “ for a period exceeding seven days “.

Senator Vincent:

– You do not propose to substitute any other period in lieu of the seven days?

Senator McKENNA:

– No. I acknowledge that the Government has sought to improve the existing legislation. Under the act as it stands, the waiting period is fourteen days. The purpose of the Opposition’s amendment is to ask the Government to go the whole distance. It is quite as simple as that.

This is a special industry. Very often men fall ill when away from their homes. They work under abnormal conditions and can be delayed at ports long beyond their expectation through matters over which they have no control - weather, disturbances in other industries, wrecks, collisions and that kind of thing. I submit to the Minister that, as this is a special industry, there ought not to be a waiting period in the circumstances to which I have referred. Nevertheless, I do congratulate the Government upon having sought to improve the existing situation by providing that the waiting period shall be reduced from fourteen days to seven.

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Shipping and Transport and Minister for Civil Aviation · Western Australia · LP

– The Leader of the Opposition says that we are concerned with a special industry which has special circumstances attached to it. The Government acknowledges that fact and has given practical expression to its acknowledgment in the bill now before us. One practical acknowledgment of the fact that this is a special industry having special circumstances attached to it is this provision in the bill that the waiting period shall be reduced from fourteen days to seven. That is a substantial improvement. The Opposition is seeking something in the nature of an Oliver Twist amendment - give us more. The provision contained in the bill constitutes a substantial advance, and the Government rests on that.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 83 (Supply of clothing, blankets and tobacco.).

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I refer now to clause 83, which is item number 5 on the list of clauses to be opposed by vote of the Opposition if the Government’s explanation is unacceptable. The clause reads -

Section one hundred and thirty-four of the Principal Act is repealed.

Section 134 of the act provides - (1.) The owner of every foreign-going ship registered in Australia, and going to sea from any port in Australia to any port beyond Australia and New Zealand, shall cause to be carried in the ship a supply of all articles of clothing ordinarily required for a seaman’s use, having special reference to the voyage then entered upon, and also a supply of woollen blankets and of tobacco sufficient for the wants of the crew. (2.) All such articles shall be of good quality, and shall be sold to the crew at a price not exceeding ten per cent, advance on the wholesale cost price at the port of shipment.

Penalty: Fifty pounds.

The Minister dealt with this matter when he replied to the second-reading debate and indicated that the existing section was a relic of the old sailing days, that conditions had changed very considerably, and that it was proposed that it be repealed.

I can well understand that the section now has no application to clothing or blankets, Clothing is covered in awards and elsewhere in the act, and blankets are provided. In the submission I am making, it comes down to a question of the supply of tobacco. I suggest that that would still be a matter of importance to seamen.

Senator McCallum:

– But only smoking tobacco. Chewing tobacco could be omitted.

Senator McKENNA:

– The word used in the section is “ tobacco “. I am not prepared to differentiate between different kinds of tobacco - a glorious weed in any of its forms. It is not merely a question of repealing a section that is outmoded. The provision could still be of importance to men engaged in the industry in two ways - first, that they may know that their tobacco supplies are readily available on the ship and, secondly, that they may buy them at a price not greater than 10 per cent, on cost. Does the Minister not see in that part of the provision something which is of merit and of advantage to seamen?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Shipping and Transport and Minister for Civil Aviation · Western Australia · LP

– No, I do not. I am so persuaded by the fact that, when this matter was discussed by departmental officers and union representatives, the union representatives agreed that the provision was a relic of the past and should be repealed. Tobacco is supplied on every ship. The question of its supply is a matter for amicable arrangement between the shipowner and the men. The most powerful argument that I can present in favour of clause 83 of the bill is that union representatives raised no objection to the repeal of the existing provision in the act.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– All I can say in reply to the Minister is that I have had different information from the unions in the near past. They may have changed their minds.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 86 (Not liable for debt till end of agreement).

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– Clause 86 of the bill reads -

Section one hundred and forty-one of the Principal Act is repealed.

Section 141 of the act, which deals with debts incurred by a seaman, provides -

A debt exceeding Five shillings incurred by a seaman after he is engaged shall not be recoverable until the termination of his agreement.

The Minister dealt with this matter when closing the second-reading debate. He said -

Section 141 of the act refers to the recovery of debt from a seaman. This section states that a debt of more than Ss. cannot be recovered from a seaman until after the termination of his agreement. The section, however, has never been brought into operation. There has been no demand for it to operate. It is considered to be unnecessary and its repeal is proposed.

Do I correctly understand from the Minister’s explanation that, although that particular section has been in the act for a very long time, it has never been proclaimed and therefore is not effective?

Senator Paltridge:

– That is so.

Senator McKENNA:

– It is rather extraordinary that a section like that should have remained in the act for a very long period and never have been proclaimed. It presented itself to my mind as part of the pattern of protection of a seaman, particularly in relation to debts incurred when he starts out on his engagement - to prevent him from being sued in his absence in respect of debts contracted before the engagement began. If the provision has never operated, I can only put to the Minister that, if it is to have any effect, it should be proclaimed.

Senator Wright:

– What is a seaman supposed to do - wear a badge saying, “ I am a seaman. Give me no credit “?

Senator McKENNA:

– The honorable senator may ask the seamen that question. I am obliged to the Minister for the explanation he has given. If there is no demand for the provision to operate and it has never operated, I need not pursue the matter further.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 110 (Repeal of Division 22 of Part II.).

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– Division 22 deals with inquiries into deaths and accidents. The explanation that was given to the Senate by the Minister on 29th April last is quite acceptable to the Opposition.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 135 (Bulk goods, ballast, &c).

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– This clause proposes to repeal sections 257 and 257a of the principal act. Section 257 provides that -

  1. Where a ship is carrying ballast, or a bulk cargo such as grain, seed, coa] or pig iron, or other cargo that may shift, the master, owner or agent of the ship shall not take the ship to sea, or permit the ship to be taken to sea, unless provision is made, in accordance with the regulations, to prevent the ballast or cargo from shifting.

There is a penalty of £300 for breach of the provision. Sub-section (2.) provides that -

The regulations may make provision for giving effect to regulation 2 of Chapter VI. of the Safety Convention.

Section 257a states -

Where a ship is carrying a cargo of coal, the master, owner or agent of the ship shall not take the ship to sea, or permit the ship to be taken to sea, unless provision is made, in accordance with the regulations, for the ventilation of any hold in which the coal is carried.

The thing that I am concerned about here is that in the two sections that are being repealed, there is a prohibition on the master taking the ship to sea unless the regulations dealing with the shifting of cargo have been obeyed. From my reading of the amending provision, there is to be no prohibition on a master taking a ship to sea, but there is to be an obligation on him to attend to the regulations. I am suggesting to the Minister that, under the old position, we have had two conditions: First, a prohibition upon the master taking the ship to sea unless the regulations have been complied with; and secondly, the provision of a penalty if the regulations have not been complied with. Now, under this new provision, we move to a position where it is merely provided that “ The regulations may make provision for or in relation to the stowing or carriage in ships of bulk cargo “. A penalty of £300 may be imposed for noncompliance.

I submit to the Minister the proposition that the provision, as re-drawn, is weaker than the sections that are being repealed, to the extent that there is now no prohibition on a master taking a ship to sea if he has not complied with the regulations. In other words, hitherto he has been open to be charged with two offences, each involving a penalty of £300. As I understand the position under the amending clause, in future he may only be convicted of noncompliance with the regulations, and will be released altogether from the prohibition, as I interpret the matter, under sections 257 and 257a.

I should like the Minister, in reply, also to indicate why there is no reference in the clause to the question of ventilation of a hold in which coal is carried. I have no knowledge of the practicalities of the position which would justify me in offering any comment, but if the Minister could indicate why there is no reference to that matter in the clause I should be obliged.

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Shipping and Transport and Minister for Civil Aviation · Western Australia · LP

– I have a note from the department which I propose to read. It states that there is no substantial difference between the present sections and the proposed provision. It was found that certain regulations which it is necessary to make would not be authorized by the present sections, such as, for example, in relation to the proper ventilation of a hold containing bunker coal, as distinct from a cargo of coal. The new provision is indeed an improvement in regard to the penalty. At present, the sections are breached only when the ship is taken to sea. The new provision provides a penalty for contravention of the regulations at any time. This would apply if the contravention were discovered before the ship went to sea.

Senator Vincent:

– In short, you do not wait until the ship goes to sea.

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– That is right. The objection has been stated that the new provision does not specifically provide that holds containing coal shall be ventilated, but leaves provision to be made by regulation. There are two main essentials in regard to the carriage of coal. They are, first, that it shall not shift, and secondly, that it shall not get on fire. Regulations for the carriage of coal could not possibly overlook these essentials, and therefore it is not considered necessary to retain this specific provision as to ventilation. There are already regulations known as the “ Navigation, Grain, Coal and Ballast Regulations “. These are being .re-written, and after the passage of this clause they will certainly provide for the ventilation of compartments in a ship in which coal is being carried.

Clause agreed .to.

Clause 153 (Responsibility of master, owner and agent for compliance with Act).

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– The clause reads -

Section two hundred ind ninety-three of the Principal Act is amended by omitting the words, “ , and the ship in respect of which the offences committed may be disqualified by the GovernorGeneral from engaging in the coasting trade”.

Section 293 deals generally with the question of permits to non-Australian ships to engage in the coastal trade. There is quite a number of extensive provisions under the heading “ The Coasting Trade “ in the act. Amongst other things, it is provided that where a permit or an exemption is given to engage in the trade to a vessel that is normally not in the Australian trade, that ship shall pay to all members of the crew, whilst they are engaged on our coast, the same wages that are enjoyed by Australian seamen - a very necessary provision.

Section 293 states -

The master, owners, and agents of any ship engaging in the coasting trade, shall be jointly and severally responsible for compliance with this Part of .this Act or in respect of the ship, and shall be liable to any pecuniary penalty provided by this Act for any breach or contravention of this Part of this Act, by or in respect of the ship . . .

Then come the words that are at issue - and where no penalty is provided shall be liable in respect of any such breach or contravention to a penalty of not more than One hundred pounds, and the ship in respect of which the offence is committed may be disqualified by the Governor-General from engaging in the coasting trade.

It is proposed, in the clause that we are considering, to strike out those last few words. I suggest to the Minister that the fact that the penalty of disqualification has never been invoked is one of the very good reasons for its continuance. It may well be that the presence of this threat hanging over the heads of those engaged in the coastal trade, has helped to keep them honest, has persuaded them to observe the conditions of the industry and to pay the Australian rates of wages. 1 do not think it is an undue penalty for anybody who fails to comply with these conditions, to have that held over his head. I recognize what the Minister has already said when replying to the second-reading debate. He indicated that the provision has never been invoked and that he thought it was anomalous. In addition to a penalty of £100 for a breach of the conditions that are imposed, d do not think it is an undue penalty to say to a wrong-doer, “ >Y.ou .cannot use that vessel on our coast any more “. .That ,is a very useful weapon.

Senator Cooke:

– ft is a deterrent.

Senator McKENNA:

– Yes, and it is an instrument that the Government should not relinquish. It is no answer to say that it has never been used. It is in the discretion of the Executive Council. The position would be far healthier if that power were retained in the hands of the Executive. I know it can be asked, “ What would you do if the command were changed, if the ownership were changed? “ If that took place, that might be the answer and the disqualification could be removed in the case of the new owner, or under a new command. The mere fact that the ship may change ownership is no reason for withdrawing what in my view is a very salutary and powerful deterrent.

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Shipping and Transport and Minister for Civil Aviation · Western Australia · LP

– With great respect, 1 feel that the Leader of the Opposition has not taken a very realistic approach to this proposal. When 1 was explaining it a day or two ago, some one interjected humorously that the present provision disqualifies the trainer as well as the horse.

Senator McKenna:

– That is true.

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– That is, in effect, what happens under this provision, or could happen under this provision, I suppose, if it were necessary to use the power. In point of fact, as I have said, it has never been used - never. The imposition of one penalty would seem to me - and I think it would seem to most people - to be sufficient to meet any breach that might occur. Despite what the Leader of the Opposition says about removing the ban should there be a change of command or ownership, all that would happen would be that there would be a period of confusion, loss to the shipowner, loss, of use of the vessel to those who wanted, it - they may be Australian people - and possible loss of employment. Sir,. I. suggest that the Government’s amendment isi one that is reasonable and one to which no real objection could be taken.

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

.- I should like to obtain the guidance of the departmental officers, through the Minister, in relation to section 293. Part VI.. of. the act commences at section 284, and includes the section with which we are dealing. Section 288 provides, in part - (1.) Subject to this Act a ship shall not engage in the coasting trade unless licensed to do so.

Certain conditions are laid down in subsection (3.) of that section, subject to which a licence shall be issued. Sub-section (4.) provides -

Any breach of the above conditions shall be a contravention of this Act.

Sub-section (6.) provides -

In addition to, or in lieu of, any penalty otherwise provided, the Governor-General may cancel any licence . . .

When we turn to section 293 we find that if there has been a contravention, in addition to the penalty the ship may be disqualified from engaging in the coastal trade. That would have the same practical effect, I presume, as withdrawing its licence. Well, we take out the power of the executive government in section 293 to disqualify the ship, but it appears to me that in completely similar circumstances we retain it in section 288 in relation to non-compliance with the section. Section 293 provides that for noncompliance or contravention the ship may be disqualified from trading on the coast. It would appear to me that if we are to exclude the words proposed to be excluded by the Government, it would be logical also to exclude the power of the GovernorGeneral under sub-section (6.) of section 288 to cancel the licence of the ship. I am sure that this aspect must have received the consideration of the Government, and that is why I commenced my remarks by asking the departmental officers, through the Minister, to be so kind as to acquaint me of the position in relation to the apparent contradiction. I should be pleased if the Minister would enlighten me on that point.

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Shipping and Transport and Minister for Civil Aviation · Western Australia · LP

– Section 288 (3.) provides that the seamen employed on the ship shall be paid wages in accordance with that part of the act, and makes other provisions. Non-compliance with those listed conditions is regarded as being sufficiently important to warrant a cancellation, of the licence of the ship to engage in the coasting trade. Section 293 deals with the responsibilities’ of masters and owners,. particularly in relation to the conditions listed in section 283, and a penalty is provided. The Government proposes to remove the double penalty.

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

– Section 293 deals with non-compliance with this Part of the act, which includes section 288.

Senator McKenna:

– Of course.

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

– Therefore, it appears to me that the Government in merely confining its attention to section 293 in relation to non-compliance, has completely overlooked the effect of the action it is taking in relation to section 288.

Senator Vincent:

– There is this important distinction that sub-section (7.) of section 288 gives an owner a right of appeal.

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

– Of course, that is something in addition, but it does not go to the root of my submission.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I merely wish to add to what Senator Byrne has directed attention. Obviously, the mind of the Government did go to a consideration of section 288 (6.), to which Senator Byrne referred, because clause 151 (c) of the bill does propose to take from the GovernorGeneral the power to disqualify and vest it in the Minister, so that the comparison between section 293 permitting disqualification and section 288 was clearly before the mind of the Government when it was considering the two provisions. The Government has retained the provision in the case of section 288 but proposes to remove it from section 293. The Government has had both matters before it and made a deliberate determination. I say, on behalf of the Opposition, that that seems to be a little inconsistent. As mentioned by Senator Byrne, any of the matters laid down as breaches in section 288 would also be covered by section 293. I think the Government is making a mistake in seeking to discard an instrument which will act as a very powerful deterrent.

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Shipping and Transport and Minister for Civil Aviation · Western Australia · LP

– I am informed that the answer to Senator Byrne’s question, which is pertinent, is that if the power to cancel is conferred by section 288, and action may be taken under that section, it is quite unnecessary to repeat the power in section 293 in relation to those particular offences against this part of the act.

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

. -The Government’s proposal goes only part of the way. Section 293 refers to contraventions of this part and would, therefore, deal with contraventions of every section of this part. That is the power sought to be eliminated. If it is retained in section 288, it is being retained only in relation to contraventions of the requirements of that section, not in regard to any other section contained in that part and not in regard to section 288 formerly covered by the provisions of section 293. I cannot accept the Minister’s answer as conclusive.

Senator McKenna:

– The Government appears to have repealed the section in the wrong place.

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

– It has repealed the more embracing section and retained the minor.

Senator VINCENT:
Western Australia

– The answer to this question is very simple. Under section 293 a power of disqualification exists without the right of appeal in respect of any breach. For reasons best known to itself, the Government is saying, in effect, that the provision is far-reaching and is not regarded as warranting attention. I can understand that.

The cancellation of a licence under section 288 is a far different kettle of fish. In the first place, it does not involve the disqualification of a ship. There may be a big difference between those two positions. The ship may still be used in certain circumstances. The important distinction between the two provisions is the right of appeal given under section 288. That right of appeal does not exist under section 293, which is the disqualification of the horse and trainer. I can understand the Government, for the particular reasons contained in section 288, saying, in effect, that the provisions relating to the cancellation of a licence will be retained because there is the right of appeal.

Question put -

That the clause be agreed to.

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Senator the Hon. A. D. Reid.)

AYES: 29

NOES: 26

Majority . . 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause 155 (Examination on oath as to wrecks).

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– The Minister gave an explanation of this clause at the second-reading stage that is acceptable, and I am indebted to him.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 161.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I regret that the circulated list of clauses to be opposed by vote of the Opposition if the Minister’s explanation is unacceptable contained a typographical error, clause 162 appearing in the list where 161 should have been stated. Consequently, the Minister did not have very much notice of our opposition to this clause. However, I took the opportunity of informing him of the error earlier this afternoon. I ask the Minister whether the limitation of liability in respect of government ships applies to managers and lessees under the proposed new part of the act. If so, why should the new provisions be adopted? What was the position previously, and what is the position generally, as to the liability of ships that may be damaged as a result of their own negligence? Will the Minister give the committee a general statement as to why, altogether apart from government ships, they are not fully dealt with in this clause?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Shipping and Transport and Minister for Civil Aviation · Western Australia · LP

– The provision is new in Commonwealth law. The limitation of a private shipowner’s liability is a long-standing provision in the maritime law of Commonwealth countries and of most foreign countries. The present law on the matter is contained in the United Kingdom Merchant Shipping Act, which applies to Australia. In 1947, the United Kingdom Parliament extended this limitation of law to government ships. This extension has no effect on Australian law as a result of the Statute of Westminster. Therefore, to extend the limitation to government ships in Australia, it is necessary for us to pass our own law on the subject. That is the purpose of the proposed provision, which extends to Australian government ships the limitation of liability conferred on United Kingdom ships in the United Kingdom act of 1947. Under Australian law, as it now stands, there is no limit on the liability of Australian government ships. It should be noted that government ships do not include ships of the Australian National Line, which are subject to the same laws that apply to private ships.

The principle of the limitation of the liability of shipowners has been recognized for many years, the reason being that, in the event of a major disaster, the shipowner could be liable to such a degree that he could not survive financially if he had to pay without limit, and he probably would not be prepared to carry on business under such a threat. Thus, the provision was originally designed to foster the shipping industry. The extension of the limitation of liability to Australian government ships is in line with the modern trend towards applying to governments the same provisions that apply to private persons.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I am very much obliged to the Minister for his explanation.

As J understand it now, the term “ government ships “ would include our naval ships.

Senator Paltridge:

– Yes.

Senator McKENNA:

– Would it include the ships operated on the Western Australian coast by the Western Australian Government?

Senator Paltridge:

– Yes.

Senator Wright:

– It would not include State ships.

Senator McKENNA:

– The Western Australian ships to which I refer are State ships.

Senator Wright:

– How could they be subject to the Navigation Act, which is based on an interstate power? The Western Australian Government would have to apply its own limitation of liability.

Senator McKENNA:

– Apparently, Senator Wright does not know that the vessels of the Western Australian State Shipping Service, although owned by the Western Australian State Government, are licensed for the interstate trade. In those circumstances, proposed section 33 will apply to those ships. I am concerned to ascertain the kinds of ships to which it will apply. It appears that this limitation of liability, which did not exist hitherto, will now apply to naval ships belonging to the Commonwealth, and to State ships operated directly by a State government.

Senator Paltridge:

– And engaged in the interstate trade.

Senator McKENNA:

– I agree - and only so long as they are so engaged. I think the Minister is aware that the vessels of the Western Australian State Shipping Service are in fact licensed for the interstate trade.

The Minister mentioned that it was unlikely (hat, without some kind of limitation of liability, shipowners would engage in the risky business of carrying cargo and passenger traffic on the high seas.

Senator Wright:

– Is not the term “ government ship “ defined somewhere?

Senator McKENNA:

– It is defined in proposed section 6 of the principal act, which is contained in clause 7 of the bill. That definition excludes the vessels of the Australian National Line, which are right outside the scope of the limitation now proposed.

Senator Wright:

– Why?

Senator McKENNA:

– Their position in regard to liability remains undisturbed at the moment. What is to happen in relation to Commonwealth naval ships? I think the Minister will concede that it is not argued that the Commonwealth would not be likely to continue to operate naval vessels just because their operation might involve it in too much expense if the Commonwealth were held to be liable for a collision involving a naval vessel.

Senator Paltridge:

– That is so.

Senator McKENNA:

– The second point that I wish to put to the Minister concerns the limit of liability fixed under the United Kingdom Merchant Shipping Act. Is it fixed according to English conditions? Is it fixed on a monetary basis, and, if so, in translating the English statute to Australia, has account been taken of the exchange rate?

Senator Paltridge:

– The English statute applies here, and it applies certain monetary limits in sterling. I understand that there is a legal decision that the ruling rate of exchange shall apply.

Senator McKENNA:

– So the English limitation would be translated into terms of Australian currency.

Senator Wright:

– Would the rate of exchange adopted be that existing at the date of collision?

Senator Paltridge:

– Yes.

Senator McKENNA:

– I should think that that would be the case.

Senator McCALLUM:
New South Wales

– The clause begins -

Part VIII. of the Principal Act is repealed and the following Part inserted in its stead: -

I have been reading Part VIII. of the principal act, which contains a great many provisions.

Senator McKenna:

– It relates to pilots.

Senator McCALLUM:

– It deals with pilots. Why is there no reference to pilots in the Part proposed to be substituted?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Shipping and Transport and Minister for Civil Aviation · Western Australia · LP

– It has been removed altogether. When the principal act was originally enacted, it was assumed that pilots and piloting would be the business of the Commonwealth. In point of fact, that assumption has not been borne out.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 201 (Returns as to earnings of ships).

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– Section 421 of the principal act, which is to be repealed by this clause, is the section to which the Minister referred when speaking in reply at the second-reading stage. He informed us that some amusement might be derived from reading the earlier debates on that section, sub-section (1.) of which provides -

The owner of every ship registered in Australia or engaged in the coasting trade (not being a fishing boat) shalL in each year make a return to the Minister at the prescribed time showing the aggregate gross earnings during the preceding year of all ships so registered and engaged in the coasting trade of which he is owner, in the prescribed form: . . .

I gather, from what the Minister said, that no regulations on the matter have ever been made, and; that there has never been any requirement that ships should furnish particulars of their gross earnings.

Senator Paltridge:

– That is so.

Senator McKENNA:

– Then I say to the Minister, who is responsible for the administration of the wide field of shipping, that it might be as well if section 42 1 were retained and owners were obliged to make returns showing their gross earnings. I remind the Minister that, from time to time, he has been very much concerned about freights charged on the Australian coast, and I point out that the owners of coastal vessels are never cooperative in making available all the information that the Minister may require. Further, a board of inquiry appointed by this Parliament had the greatest difficulty some little time ago in obtaining information that would enable it to determine the operating costs of the shipping lines. I am surprised that the Government, in a field where its own and the Minister’s freedom to act are limited by the operation of section 92 of the Constitution, should be disposed to put aside anything that will help it to draw relevant information from the shipping companies. Certainly, details as to gross earnings only are required, but even they would enable the Minister to observe trends. A marked rise in gross earnings might lead him to the conclusion that administrative costs had not risen, and might put him in a stronger position to contest statements claiming that freight increases were justified. I have in mind the disastrous freight increases which have occurred on our coast in recent times. Even though gross earnings are only one element, the Minister could, by retaining the provision, keep his elbow in the crack so far as the financial accounts of shipping companies were concerned. Looking at the history of the matter, I was surprised that the Government could feel willing to relinquish anything of that kind. I am astonished that the requirement concerning disclosures has not been extended to other aspects of shipping finance. I put these comments in the hope that the Minister will reply and leave us better informed.

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

.- It is rather interesting to read section 421 (2.), which states -

The Minister shall not publish or disclose in any way any return made under this section, or any summary of such returns other than figures only showing the percentage variations from year to year in the aggregate gross earnings returned, distinguishing, if he shall think fit, the coasting trade:

Provided that nothing in this section shall prevent the Minister from using the returns to assist him in preparing periodical estimates of the extent to which the relation between imports and exports of Australia as a whole is affected by the freight earnings of shipping which reaches this country.

That is a direct invitation to the government of the day to use the section for a specific purpose affecting, in a very vital way, the economy of this country. It refers to a matter which is affecting Australia more and more as the years go by. The provision was obviously included to give the Government an unequalled opportunity, not otherwise available, in that direction. It lends even greater weight to the submission of Senator McKenna that there need be no haste in removing the section. I share his perplexity that it has not been taken advantage of in the past. It is not a matter of the gravest moment, but the Minister might well reconsider his attitude to it. The section has undoubtedly some value and opens the door to the Minister to avoid the strict prohibition as to disclosure, and use the information gained to draw important inferences as to the effect of freight on our trade position. The matter is certainly of sufficient importance to warrant the Government looking at it once more, and considering whether it can be retained.

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Shipping and Transport and Minister for Civil Aviation · Western Australia · LP

– Replying first to Senator Byrne, who feels that the section has some worth, I point out that even if the Government did not object to it on other grounds its operation is confined to ships engaged in the coastal trade. Certainly, the section goes on to provide that this information may be used in estimating the extent to which shipping freights affect our trade position but I suggest that this is merely another example of the Opposition’s complete misunderstanding of what was intended when the bill was brought down in 1912 - when the amusing debate to which I referred the other day took place. Even if it were not otherwise objectionable the section is of no value in assessing the extent to which trade is affected by freight.

It is neither appropriate nor desirable that a bill of this nature should contain a provision requiring certain people to furnish information as to their business activities. Secondly, if that argument is not of itself sufficiently persuasive - and I do not imagine that it will be - the provision is quite useless. What value to the Government, or to a Minister, are figures concerning the gross earnings of a ship? The Government has not even an elbow in the crack, to use the words of Senator McKenna. Having read the debate of 1912, I am firmly convinced that the provision was inserted by a fervent socialist who thought it would be the answer to everything, and the means by which the Government would find out what the shipping companies were doing. In point of fact, it is quite useless.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I cannot accept the Minister’s view that the section is completely useless. The information described would at least indicate trends of growth or decline.

Senator Hannaford:

– Could that not be obtained from other sources?

Senator McKENNA:

– I do not know what other sources would be useful. Such details would not be provided in the balance sheets of the shipping companies - certainly not in regard to particular ships. If I were responsible for controlling the coastal trade of this country I should very much like to have at my disposal information as to gross earnings. The earnings of a particular ship might not interest me, but I should be glad to have a picture of current trends. I do not think that the section is useless, if only because of what the shipowners have done by way of multiplying, almost seven times, the costs since the pre-war days. As the Minister and the Government seem powerless to influence freight rates, I should think that any information which would help bring their persuasiveness to bear should be retained. I agree that gross earnings do not show net profit, but any one who watched trends and the earnings of individual ships would know whether profits were rising, and would be in a far better position to bring pressure to bear against the imposition of unjust freight rates. I should like to see the section go very much further than it does. In effect, a board of inquiry appointed by this Parliament was rebuffed by the shipowners when it sought certain information, and it seems to me that there would be real value in obtaining and studying gross earnings. Any change in the section ought to be in the direction of extending the requirement. Certainly, the Government should not throw away the only wedge that it has. That is the last proposal which I have to make to the committee, and we shall finish in a blaze of glory by dividing upon it.

Question put -

That the clause be agreed to.

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Senator the Hon. A. D. Reid.)

AYES: 29

NOES: 25

Majority .. . . 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Remaining clauses, except postponed clauses 7, 30, 33 and 52 - by leave - taken together, and agreed to.

Postponed clause 7, as amended -

Section six of the Principal Act is repealed and the following sections are inserted in its stead: - “6. - (1.) In this Act, unless the contrary intention appears - official ‘ means a Deputy Director, a superintendent, a surveyor, a Medical Inspector of Seamen, a seamen’s inspector or any other person, including a Collector or other officer of Customs, required to perform functions or discharge duties for the purposes of this Act; seamen’s inspector ‘ means a seamen’s inspector referred to in section thirty of this Act; “6c. For the purposes of this Act -

Amendments (by Senator Paltridge) - by leave - agreed to -

In proposed section 6 (1.), in the definition of “ official “, leave out “, a seamen’s inspector “.

In proposed section 6 (1.), leave out the definition “ seamen’s inspector “.

Amendment (by Senator McKenna) agreed to -

In proposed section 6c, leave out paragraph (a) and insert the following paragraph: - “ (a) an officer is incompetent if he is inefficient in the performance of any of his duties as an officer; and “.

Amendment (by Senator Paltridge) agreed to -

In proposed section 6c, leave out paragraph (b) and insert the following paragraph: - “ (b) an officer is guilty of misconduct if he is guilty of careless navigation, drunkenness, tyranny, want of skill, improper conduct or, without reasonable cause or excuse, failure of duty.”

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Postponed clause 30 -

Section 45 of the Principal Act is amended by inserting in sub-section (1.), after the word “ employed “, the words “ at a port in Australia “.

Section proposed to be amended -

– (1.) Except as prescribed, a member of the crew of a foreign-going ship (whether British or foreign) shall not be employed in handling cargo or ballast in connexion with the loading or unloading of a ship:

To which Senator McKenna had moved by way of amendment: -

After “ Australia “ insert - “ and in the case of a foreign-going ship registered in Australia shall not be employed at a port outside Australia “.

At the end of the clause insert - “ and by adding at the end of sub-section (2.) the words: - provided that the Regulations shall not allow the employment of the crew of such ship in loading cargo or ballast where a sufficiency of shore labour is available

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Shipping and Transport and Minister for Civil Aviation · Western Australia · LP

– The Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) has moved two amendments to clause 30. It will be recalled that I asked that consideration of the clause be deferred until such time as I had had an opportunity to examine it further. The Leader of the Opposition has moved an amendment to clause 30 which would have the effect of extending the operation of sub-section (1.) of section 45 of the act to ports outside Australia, in the case of foreign-going, Australian-registered ships. As honorable senators are aware, sub-section (1.) of section 45 prohibits a member of the crew of any foreign-going ship, British or foreign, from being employed in handling cargo or ballast in connexion with the loading or unloading of a ship. The sub-section is, of course, subject to the proviso that any regulations made to effect the operation of the sub-section, shall not allow the employment of the crew when sufficient shore labour is available.

I am advised that the sub-section in the form in which it at present stands in the act applies only to ports in Australia and the amendment to be made by clause 30 of the bill to section 45 of the principal act is intended only to make this clear. The amendment proposed by the Leader of the Opposition, therefore, would add an element to the sub -section which has never existed heretofore.

In the examination of whether Senator McKenna’s amendment is acceptable to the Government, consideration has been given to sub-sections (1a.) and (Ib.) of section 45. Sub-section (1a.) provides that the rates of wages to be paid in any port in Australia - and I draw attention to the limitation of the sub-section to Australian ports - to shore labourers employed in handling cargo or ballast shall not be less than award rates. Sub-section (1b.) goes on to provide that if a sufficiency of shore labour cannot be obtained at such rates of wages the shore labour shall be deemed not to be available. Sub-section (1b.) is thus related to sub-section (1.) in that the master of a ship can use his crew for handling cargo or ballast if he cannot get shore labour at award rates, even though ample labour may be available at less than award rates.

It will be clear to honorable senators from what I have said that sub-section (1b.), because of its relationship to subsection (1a.) which applies to Australian ports only, is capable of applying only in Australian ports. It would, for example, be unthinkable to expect a master of a ship in a foreign port to have to make a comparison between the wages of shore labour at that port and Australian award wages for waterside workers. It will be seen, therefore, that the amendment proposed by the Leader of the Opposition could cause practical difficulties in relation to the operation of the section, and, therefore, I must, on behalf of the Government, reject’ the amendment. However, Senator McKenna’s amendment prompts me to feel that the whole of the operation of section 45 should be closely inquired into. This will be done at an early date, and, if necessary, appropriate action will be- taken.

Senator- McKenna- also proposed’ ari amendment- of sub-section (2.) of section- 45 to insert a proviso at the end of that subjection. The sub-section provides that the. regulations may forbid the employment, except as prescribed, of the crews of Australiantrade ships in handling cargo or ballast. The proviso proposed’ to be inserted by the amendment is to the effect’ that the regulations shall not allow the employment of the crew of a ship in loading cargo or ballast where a sufficiency of shore labour is available.

Honorable senators will observe that the proviso suggested by Senator McKenna is the same as the proviso which already appears in sub-section (1.) of section 45. However, there is an important difference in form between sub-section (1.) and sub-section (2.). The first sub-section itself forbids the use of crew members in the handling of cargo. However, subsection (2.) does not itself operate to forbid the use of crew members of an Australiantrade ship for such a purpose but merely authorizes the making of regulations which may so forbid. The position is that regulations are not, and never have been, in force under sub-section (2.). If the necessity for making such regulations arises, the question would then arise as to whether the proviso suggested by the Leader of the Opposition should be inserted in the regulations. In any event, honorable senators would certainly have their opportunity of debating the regulations when they were tabled in this chamber and moving for their disallowance if the regulations were regarded as being unsatisfactory in any particular.

For those reasons, the Government is not disposed to accept the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition. However, I repeat that the section will come up for review when I am reviewing the earlier section.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I ask the Minister whether that review is contemplated in the near future dr the distant future. I should be happy with what he has indicated if I felt that in the reasonably near future he intends to address his mind to a review of the whole provision, putting foreign-going ships in a separate category altogether from those that are confined to our coast. I know the Minister appreciates the difficulties involved as the section is at present drawn. Does he intend to make that review in the near future?

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Shipping and Transport and Minister for Civil Aviation · Western Australia · LP

– Yes. The intention is, as was forecast by me at the second-reading stage, that the act as amended will immediately become the subject of further review with the idea of introducing, fortunately, a smaller amending measure than this.

Senator McKenna:

– I hope that the next one willbe accompanied by an explanatory memorandum.

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– It will not be necessary.

Amendments negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Postponed clause 33 -

Sections forty-six, forty-six A, forty-seven, forty-seven A, forty-eight and forty-nine of the Principal Act are repealed and the following sections inserted in their stead: - “ 48. Where, after the commencement of this section, a seaman is engaged at a port outside Australia to serve on a ship registered in Australia, the master of the ship shall not take the ship to sea with that seaman as a member of the crew of the ship unless -

the master has entered into an agreement with the seaman with respect to the employment of the seaman on the ship; and

except in a case where it is not practicable so to do, the agreement is signed by or on behalf of the master and by the seaman in the presence of a proper authority at the port and attested by the proper authority.

To which Senator McKenna had moved by way of amendment -

Leave out paragraph (b) of proposed section 48, insert the following paragraph: - “ (b) except in a case where it is not practicable so to do, the agreement is completed in accordance with the provisions of sub-sections (2.), (4.) and (5.) of section 46, with the substitution of the words ‘ proper authority ‘ for the word ‘ superintendent ‘ in those subsections.”

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Shipping and Transport and Minister for Civil Aviation · Western Australia · LP

– Before the suspension of the sitting for lunch, I asked that consideration of the amendment be postponed until I had had an opportunity to examine further its implications. I now inform the committee that I am prepared to agree to an amendment in a different form. Accordingly, 1 propose to move - (1.) Leave out paragraph (b) of proposed section 48, insert the following paragraph: - “ (b) except in a case where it was not practicable so to do, the agreement was entered into before a proper authority at the port.” (2.) At the end of proposed section 43, insert the following sub-section: - “ (2.) A proper authority at a port outside Australia before whom an agreement is entered into shall, so far as it is practicable so to do, ensure that the requirements of section forty-six of this Act applicable to agreements with seamen engaged at ports in Australia are complied with in relation to the agreement entered into before him as if the agreement were entered into in Australia and the proper authority were a superintendent.”

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I appreciate the consideration that the Minister has given to the proposal. I completely accept the re-draft that he proposes. It effectuates the purpose of my amendment but does so with more amplification and - with a bow to the draftsman - in better form. In these circumstances I withdraw my amendment.

Amendments (by Senator Paltridge) agreed to - (1.) Leave out paragraph (b) of proposed section 48, insert the following paragraph: - “ (b) except in a case where it was not practicable so to do, the agreement was entered into before a proper authority at the port.” (2.) At the end of proposed section 48, insert the following sub-section:: - “ (2.) A proper authority at a port outside Australia before whom an agreement is entered into shall, so far as it is practicable so to do, ensure that the requirements of section forty-six of this Act applicable to agreements with seamen engaged at ports in Australia are complied with in relation to the agreement entered into before him as if the agreement were entered into in Australia and the proper authority were a superintendent.”

Clause’, as amended, agreed to.

Postponed clause 52 -

Sections seventy-seven and seventy-eight of the Principal Act are repealed and the following sections inserted in their stead: - “ 78. If a seaman’s wages are not paid in accordance with section seventy-five of this Act before or at the time he is given his discharge from a ship, the seaman’s wages shall continue to run and to be payable until the time of the final settlement of his wages unless the delay is due to the seaman’s act or default, to a reasonable dispute as to liability for the wages or to’ any other cause not attributable to the wrongful act or default of the owner or master of the ship.”.

To which Senator McKenna had moved by way of amendment -

In proposed section 78, after “ payable “ insert “ at double rates “.

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Shipping and Transport and Minister for Civil Aviation · Western Australia · LP

– I have now had an opportunity to examine this proposal and I agree to the principle involved.I propose to move -

That, in proposed section 78, the words “ and to be payable until the time of the final settlement of his wages “ be left out and the following words inserted: - “ until the time of the final settlement of his wages (and shall be payable at double rates for any period after the time he is given his discharge from the ship) “.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I find that amendment completely acceptable, and I withdraw my own amendment in its favour.

Amendment (by Senator Paltridge) agreed to-

In proposed section 78. leave out “ and to be payable until the time of the final settlement of his wages”, insert “until the time of the final settlement of his wages (and shall be payable at double rates for any period after the time he is given his discharge from the ship) “.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.

Third Reading

Motion (by Senator Paltridge) proposed -

That the bill be now read a third time.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

.- I refrained, during the committee stage, from making reference to the matter about which I propose to speak, because it is not of the order of the matters that were discussed then. It has a more general scope. It concerns the general provisions in Part VI. of the act, relating to the coasting trade. The Minister has indicated that this amending bill does not represent the final consideration that will be applied to the legislation. The provisions of Part VI. are of such fundamental importance to the general navigation affairs of the Commonwealth that I feel obliged to make a brief reference to them.

Section 288 provides - (1.) Subject to this Act, a ship shall not engage in the coasting trade unless licensed to do so. (2.) Licences to ships to engage in the coasting trade shall be for such period, not exceeding three years, as is prescribed, and may be granted as prescribed. (3.) Every licence shall be issued subject to compliance - with certain conditions. It is provided that no licence shall be cancelled unless an opportunity has been given to show cause.

If honorable senators will refer to section 286, they will see that the Minister may grant a permit for an unlicensed British ship to engage in the coastal trade, either unconditionally or subject to such conditions as the Minister thinks fit to impose from time to time. In sub-section (3.) of section 286, it is provided that a permit issued under the section may be for a single voyage only, or the permit may be a continuing one. The Minister has referred to sub-section (6.), which particularly deals with cases of possible detriment to the tourist traffic and purports to give authority to issue a permit in such cases.

I am concerned with this system, because it involves something that seems to be inveterate in Commonwealth legislation. We have experienced great difficulties in regard to certain aspects of interstate trade in the last five years, due to indecision as to the constitutional validity of interstate road transport laws. I am happy to say, as an apostle of freedom, that after a long contest the Privy Council finally has decided that he who purports to permit interstate road transport by his licence assumes that he has the power to prohibit such trade. In view of the progress which my silence has enabled us to make this afternoon, I think that no one will resent the time that will be taken up if I read a most thoughtful passage from Mr. Justice Williams’s judgment in the last Hughes and Vale case. His Honour was dealing with a system of licensing for the transport of goods by road. He stated -

If the commissioner can be authorised to refuse to grant a licence because he is satisfied that an applicant is not a fit and proper person to engage in the interstate carriage of passengers or goods a court would not have complete power to help a person who was wrongly excluded. Its power would be of a very limited nature. It would be confined to inquiring whether the commissioner had exercised his discretion bona fide . . .

His Honour went on to say that there was then the possibility of mandamus. He continued -

But beyond this the court could not inquire, because the legislation would confer on the commissioner the power to decide whether the applicant is or is not in fact a fit and proper person to hold a licence.

The right of any person to engage in the trade would depend, not on the facts sufficient in law to justify bis exclusion, but on the opinion of an executive officer that such facts existed.

And now, just one brief passage from the Privy Council’s judgment in the previous Hughes and Vale case. Lord Morton of Henryton said, in dealing with a system of licensing for the motor transport of goods -

It is quite impossible, in my opinion, to distinguish the present case from the case of a simple prohibition. If I cannot lawfully prohibit altogether, I cannot lawfully prohibit subject to an absolute discretion on my part to exempt from the prohibition. 1 would add, by way of what you might call a permit under section 286 or what you might call a licence under section 288.

This matter is of such fundamental importance in all the Commonwealth-wide industries that it is time this system of licensing for interstate trade was destroyed. Take the position of banking. If you arrogate to yourself the right to issue a licence whereby, and whereby alone, a bank will be given authority to carry on interstate trade, how can you distinguish that case from the system that was contemplated in the road transport cases? This is a matter so vital to the economic unity of Australia that, consistently with the modern interpretation of section 92 of the Constitution, if you are to regulate the coastal trade effectively in a navigation act, the whole of this Part requires radical revision. It is in the hope that my speech will stimulate the revision that I have spoken.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 753

BILLS OF EXCHANGE BILL 1958

Bill presented, and (on motion by Senator O’sullivan) read a first time.

Standing Orders suspended.

Second Reading

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
General · QueenslandVicePresident of the Executive Council and Attorney · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this short bill is to make it clear beyond doubt that a day declared to be a bank holiday or a bank half-holiday by or under an Ordinance of the Australian Capital Territory or the Northern Territory is a bank holiday in the Territory in question for the purposes of the Bills of Exchange Act. That is a question of some importance, because a bank holiday is a “ non-business day “ for the purposes of the act and “ non-business days “ are excluded in computing time where the act imposes a time limit of less than three days, or where something is to be done in connexion with a bill of exchange, cheque or promissory note on a certain day and that day falls on a “ non-business “ day.

At present sub-sections (4.) and (5.) of section 98 of the Bills of Exchange Act respectively identify a bank holiday for the purposes of the act with a day on which a bank holiday or a bank halfholiday is declared “ in pursuance of the law of the Commonwealth or a State “. As regards a bank half -holiday declared “ in pursuance of the law of the Commonwealth or a State “, that day is deemed to be a bank holiday for the purposes of the act only insofar as bills of exchange and promissory notes are concerned which are payable on that day at any bank in the locality to which the half-holiday applies and which are not presented for payment during the portion of the day not included in the bank half-holiday.

Although the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory form part of the Commonwealth, there is some doubt whether the expression “ in pursuance of the law of the Commonwealth “ as used in these sub-sections includes a declaration of a bank holiday made by or under an ordinance of either Territory. It is desirable that this doubt be removed from the act, and the bill is intended to achieve this result.

Debate (on motion by Senator McKenna) adjourned.

page 753

BANKRUPTCY BILL 1958

Bill presented, and (on motion by Senator O’sullivan) read a first time.

Standing Orders suspended.

Second Reading

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
General · QueenslandVicePresident of the Executive Council and Attorney · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

This short bill proposes some important amendments to the Bankruptcy Act 1924- 1955 for the purpose of remedying deficiencies in the bankruptcy law of the Commonwealth to which attention was drawn by the decision of the High Court of Australia in June, 1957, in the case of “ James v. The Deputy Commissioner of Taxation “. In that case, the High Court held that extending or abridging a time limited by the Bankruptcy Act for doing any act or thing was a judicial act. This meant, in effect, that the practice that had been followed in the bankruptcy jurisdiction since 1928 under which the Registrar in Bankruptcy extended or abridged time was invalid. It became necessary, therefore, to validate the proceedings taken in all those cases to which a Registrar in Bankruptcy has extended or abridged time. It is not proposed, however, to apply the bill to Mr. James, who has established his rights in the High Court. Sub-clauses (1.) and (2.) of clause 7 of the bill give effect to these proposals.

The High Court criticized the practice of intituling documents used in proceedings in courts exercising federal jurisdiction in bankruptcy in the form “In the Court of Bankruptcy “. This was a neutral description intended to apply to all courts exercising federal jurisdiction in bankruptcy. The High Court pointed out in the James case there was no count properly called “ The Court of Bankruptcy “. Although the incorrect intitulement of documents will not necessarily invalidate the proceedings in which the documents are used, it has been thought proper to remove any doubts by providing that in State courts exercising federal jurisdiction in bankruptcy the expression “ The Court of Bankruptcy “ shall be deemed to refer to the State court in which the proceedings were instituted. Sub-clause (3.) of clause 7 thus effects this purpose.

It is proposed to amend section 49 of the act by prescribing a seal for the Federal Court of Bankruptcy, leaving State courts exercising federal jurisdiction in bankruptcy to make provision for their own seals. It is thought that Commonwealth legislation which, relates to seals for State courts might, well be invalid’. Clause 3 gives effect to the proposed amendment.

The opportunity has been taken to make three amendments to the bankruptcy law which do not arise out of the James case. First, provision has been made for the taking of shorthand notes of proceedings before the Registrar in Bankruptcy and for making those shorthand notes admissible in evidence. This was the practice from 1928 until 1954, when the definition of “ The Court “ was amended and a reference to the Registrar was omitted. The effect of this amendment is to restore a practice that had worked satisfactorily to what it was before 1954. Provision is also made for repayment to the Commonwealth of the cost of taking shorthand notes. Clause 4 of the bill enables this to be done. Secondly, the bankruptcy law at the present time does not provide adequately for the debtor who wishes to establish a counter-claim, setoff or cross demand greater than or equal to the debt claimed from him by his creditor. He may find that he has committed an act of bankruptcy before he had had a satisfactory opportunity of establishing his claim. Rule 147 (2.) of the Bankruptcy Rules which purports to assist the debtor to establish his claim by authorizing an extension of time by the registrar until the claim has been heard by the court is probably invalid on the ground that it is not authorized by the act. Clause 5 has been inserted in the bill for the purpose of ensuring that no debtor who takes steps at the present time to establish that he has a counterclaim, set-off or cross demand will commit an act of bankruptcy without having his claim first determined by the court.

Third, the bill will make it an offence for a bankrupt to fail to account to the Registrar in Bankruptcy for a loss of a substantial portion of his estate within one year immediately preceding his bankruptcy. Until 1954, the definition of “The Court” included the Registrar. A failure by a bankrupt to account to the Registrar for a loss was, up till that year, a failure to account to the court and a bankrupt who failed to account was liable to be prosecuted. Most examinations of bankrupts are carried out by registrars. Unless provision is made for those bankrupts who fail to account for losses, in their- businesses to be made: subject to a. penalty if they refuse to. give material evidence at their- examination before the Registrar, the courts will be obliged to undertake the. examination of bankrupts, registrars will be seriously impeded in their examination of the bankrupts’ affairs, and creditors might well be adversely affected. Clause 6 of the bill will make it an offence for a bankrupt to fail to give to a registrar a complete and satisfactory account of loss of any substantial portion of his estate within a period of one year immediately preceding his bankruptcy.

All other matters in the bill are formal, or necessarily incidental to those matters to which 1 have adverted. None of the provisions in the bill appears to be contentious, and all provisions are intended to remedy defects in the existing bankruptcy legislation. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator McKenna) adjourned.

page 755

CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL 1958

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Customs and Excise · Tasmania · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Honorable senators are requested to consider a bill relating to duties of customs which have been in operation since 21st March. 1958. The new duties in the main are based on recommendations by the Tariff Board following public inquiries to determine the assistance to be given for the protection of certain Australian industries.

Tariff protection is being provided for industries engaged in the manufacture or production of passionfruit juice and passionfruit pulp; wheeled agricultural tractors not exceeding 10 belt pulley horsepower, including rotary cultivators, hoes and- tillers; floor polishing machines and floor polisher-scrubbers of the household type; cathode ray tubes for television sets; ai range of papers, including toilet paper and some- surface coated papers; and motor vehicles and parts of vehicles. However, reduced duties are being provided for some papers, such as vegetable parchment, plain transparent cellulose paper and copying paper, and on safety helmets and bathing hats and caps.

On the recommendations of the Tariff Board, a new tariff structure is being made for self-propelled vehicles, such as passenger cars and trucks, and for their components and spare parts.

The task which faced the Tariff Board in evolving the new tariff structure was an extremely difficult one. It is best demonstrated when I remind honorable senators that at present there is no single set of duties in our customs tariff which covers a motor vehicle as such. Actually, the duty payable on a complete motor vehicle consists of the sum of the duties payable on its various components, such as chassis, body, tyres, batteries, bumper bars, spark plugs, and so on. As many as 30 different tariff items could be involved, some carrying specific rates, per lb. or each, some ad valorem, some alternative depending on which rate returns the higher duty, some with primage duty and some exempt from primage duty.

All this, as will be appreciated by honorable senators, has imposed a considerable burden on the Australian importer, the overseas supplier, and the customs administration. Not only have problems of tariff classification arisen when new models have been introduced to the Australian market, but the different bases on which the duties are levied require a detailed dissection of invoice values and verification of the weights of various components. Moreover, new techniques developed in the production of the modern motor vehicle have, in many instances, outmoded the existing tariff structure.

Accordingly, it is proposed to provide for motor vehicles, their components and spare parts under three broad groups in the customs tariff.

Complete, or assembled incomplete, motor vehicles with self-contained power, when not exceeding 10 tons gross vehicle weight, will be admitted under proposed tariff item 360 (d) (2) at rates of duty of 25 per cent. British preferential tariff and 35 per cent, otherwise. In respect of the assembled incomplete vehicles provision is made for a reduction in the duties to minima of 22i per cent. British preferential tariff and 32£ per cent, otherwise if certain determined parts, e.g., batteries, bumper bars, tyres and tubes, windscreen wipers, and so on, are not supplied by the overseas manufacturer.

This provides an incentive to the importer to obtain these parts locally.

Vehicles exceeding 10 tons gross vehicle weight, when complete or substantially complete, will be admitted under proposed by-law item 360 (d) (1) at rates of duty of 12± per cent. British preferential tariff and 22i per cent, otherwise. This, for all practical purposes, will apply to heavy-duty trucks and the like.

Original equipment components, other than a few specified exceptions such as tyres and tubes, batteries, radios and sparking plugs, when for use in the manufacture or assembly of vehicles of the types covered by proposed item 360 (d), are provided for in four separate sections to proposed item 359 (d) at rates of duty ranging from 35 per cent. British preferential tariff and 42i per cent otherwise to free of duty from all countries. Tyres and tubes, batteries, radios and sparking plugs will continue to be dutiable under their appropriate items in the customs tariff.

The original equipment components provided for in proposed item 359 (d), when of a kind being supplied in commercial quantities by the Australian industry, will, in the main, be subject to protective duties of 27i per cent. British preferential tariff and 35 per cent, otherwise. A small but important range of components, namely, electrical warning devices capable of giving an audible warning, and parts therefor; propellor shaft assemblies of the needle roller type, usable with vehicles of less than 10 tons gross vehicle weight, and parts therefor; shock absorbers, and parts therefor; and windscreen wipers, and parts therefor, will, however, be dutiable at the higher rates of 35 per cent. British preferential tariff and 42] per cent, otherwise.

Many components for which Australian industry is not yet in a position to meet the reasonable needs of the market will be admitted free of duty from the United Kingdom, and at 7i per cent, otherwise, but, if these components are not reasonably available from the United Kingdom, they will be admitted free of duty from any source.

Vehicle replacement parts are, in the main, now provided for under proposed items 359 (e) and (f). With the exception of tyres and tubes, batteries, sparking plugs and other parts more specifically provided for in the Customs Tariff 1933-1957, those replacement parts which are reasonably available from Australian sources of supply will be dutiable under item 359 (f) at rates of 27£ per cent, under the British preferential tariff, and 37i per cent, otherwise. Parts not reasonably available from local sources will be admitted free of duty from the United Kingdom, and at 7i per cent, otherwise. If, however, these replacement parts are not available from the United Kingdom, they will be admitted free of duty from all sources.

What I have said does not, as honorable senators will readily appreciate, cover in detail all the changes relating to motor vehicles which emerge from this new tariff structure. At the most, I have merely given a broad outline. The position is, however, set out more fully in the summaries of alterations which have already been circulated.

It is also proposed that the mostfavourednation tariff on flexible metal tubes and metal-cased tubes and pipes not further manufactured than plated, polished or decorated, covered by non-protective item 151 (a), be reduced from its existing rate of 12i per cent, to 7i per cent. This action is complementary to that taken in the Customs Tariff Bill 1957, when the preference margins on a wide variety of producer goods were similarly reduced consequent on the signing of the United KingdomAustralia Trade Agreement.

In addition to the alterations consequent on recommendations by the Tariff Board and on the United Kingdom-Australia Trade Agreement, this bill provides for two amendments of an administrative nature. No change in the rates of duty is involved.

The first of these alters the wording of item 174 (x) (88) from “ balancing machines, static-dynamic “ to “ balancing machines, dynamic “. This action follows a report by the Tariff Advisory Committee of the Department of Customs and Excise. The committee ascertained during the course of its inquiries that the term “ staticdynamic balancing machines “ was relatively unknown in the trade and apparently was intended to describe machines which balance both statically and dynamically. Such machines are, in fact, dynamic balancing machines and it is considered desirable that the description more widely known should be used.

The other administrative amendment relates to tariff item 401 (b). It proposes to amend the present restriction in that item requiring that re-imported goods shall have remained the property of the exporter from the time of exportation until the time of re-importation. The requirement of ownership operates adversely against an importer who imports goods on loan. As such an importer at no time owned the goods, he cannot at present take advantage of the provisions of the item if he brings the goods back to Australia for further use. An example of the transactions which the proposed amendment to item 401 (b) will cover is found where an Australian manufacturer imports goods such as stamping dies, pays customs duty at the appropriate rate thereon, uses them in the production of goods, and returns the dies to the overseas owner. If, subsequently, the Australian manufacturer borrowed the dies, he would, prior to this proposal, have been required to pay duty a second time on the same stamping dies. The proposed amendment will permit the borrowed dies to be admitted free of duty when imported on the second and subsequent occasions. The amendment proposed thus places such an importer in a no less favorable position than an importer who is the actual owner of the goods, and who sends such goods out of the country and subsequently re-imports them.

The bill is commended to honorable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Kennelly) adjourned.

page 757

CUSTOMS TARIFF (CANADIAN PREFERENCE) BILL 1958

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Customs and Excise · Tasmania · LP

– I move -

That thebill be now read a second time.

The provisions in this bill are complementary to those in the Customs Tariff Bill 1958. The principal amendments relate to motor vehicles and spare parts, and to components for the manufacture or assembly of motor vehicles. They provide for a preferential tariff margin of71/2 per centum lower than the intermediate tariff rates of duty set out in the Customs Tariff Bill 1958.The remaining amendment relates to rotary cultivators, hoes and tillers, and will ensure that these goods, when the manufacture of Canada, will continue to receive mostfavorednation treatment as heretofore.

I commend the bill to honorable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Kennelly) adjourned.

page 757

CUSTOMS TARIFF (NEW ZEALAND PREFERENCE) BILL 1958

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Customs and Excise · Tasmania · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to restate the position for New Zealand hats, caps and bonnets when imported into this country. This action is necessary in view of the redrafting of the item relating to these goods in the Customs Tariff Bill 1958, and will ensure that no higher rates of duty than those applying to hats, caps and bonnets when admissible under the British preferential tariff are charged on similar goods when of New Zealand origin.

The bill is commended to honorable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Kennelly) adjourned.

page 757

CUSTOMS TARIFF (FEDERATION OF RHODESIA AND NYASALAND PREFERENCE) BILL 1958

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Customs and Excise · Tasmania · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The bill now before the Senate is complementary to the Customs Tariff Bill 1958. The sole purpose of the amendment is to honour our obligations to the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland to apply British preferential tariff rates of duty to certain fruit juices on importation into Australia. This amendment will ensure that passionfruit juice the produce of the Federation will continue to receive British preferential tariff treatment. 1 commend the bill to honorable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Kennelly) adjourned.

page 758

EXCISE TARIFF BILL 1958

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Customs and Excise · Tasmania · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

This bill reduces the duty payable on Australianmade cathode ray tubes from £7 to £6 each. This action arises from the Tariff Board’s recommendation that tariff protection to local industry be given to the extent of £5 each against tubes admissible at British preferential tariff rates, and £5 each plus 10 per cent, ad valorem otherwise.

Honorable senators may recall that the Government imposed revenue duties on both imported and locally produced cathode ray tubes in August, 1956. The decision to adopt the Tariff Board’s recommendation to accord protection makes it desirable to fix customs duties and excise at levels which will return approximately the same revenue that can be expected under existing duties. On this basis, the Government considers that the rates for Australian tubes should be fixed at £6 each, and for imported tubes at £11 each when admissible at British preferential tariff rates, and £11 each plus 10 per cent, ad valorem otherwise.

I commend the bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Kennelly) adjourned.

page 758

WESTERN AUSTRALIA GRANT (NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT) BILL 1958

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 this bill is to give effect to a Government decision which was announced by the Prime Minister in November last. On that occasion the Prime Minister said that during the present session the Government proposed to introduce legislation to authorize making available to the Government of Western Australia over the next five years a total grant of £2,500,000, to assist in promoting the development of the area of that State north of the twentieth parallel of latitude.

In considering this matter, the Government had before it the views of the State Government, of an all-party delegation from the Western Australian Parliament, and of Western Australian members and senators of this Parliament. These representations drew attention to the special difficulties involved in the development of the northern area of Western Australia, and in particular to the financial problems involved for the State Government.

The essence of the problem of developing the north of Western Australia is one of stimulating private investment to greater effort and, as an essential complement to this, the carrying out of a systematic programme of public investment on a larger scale than hitherto. Development of the area has been slow for a variety of reasons. Not the least of these has been the relatively meagre financial resources that the State of Western Australia has found itself able to devote to the purpose. This, perhaps, is not surprising when it is remembered that while Western Australia comprises nearly one-third of the area of the Commonwealth, there is only about 7 per cent., or one-fourteenth, of the population of the Commonwealth in that State.

The bill relates to .that part of Western Australia, lying north of the twentieth parallel, which is commonly referred to as the Kimberleys. This is the most northern part of the State. It comprises an area of about 160,000 square miles: an area equal to approximately one-seventh of the total area .of ‘Western Australia and nearly twice the size of the State of Victoria. The white population is sparse, comprising perhaps 4,000 in all. Communications are poor.

The Kimberleys are rugged, and, over a large portion, mountainous, rising to over 3,000 feet at some points. At the same time there are considerable areas of woodland .and extensive flood plains associated with large river systems. Over the greater part of the area there is a good wet season rainfall which ranges from about 15 inches to over 50 inches.

The main economic activity at present is cattle raising. Some agricultural development is, however, taking place. The rice growing at Liveringa is an example. The possibilities of further agricultural development in the area are being investigated by the Kimberley Agricultural Research Station, which is located about 60 miles east of Wyndham on the banks of the Ord River and is operated jointly by the Commonwealth and the State. The present programme for the station covers a period of five years and is due to be completed in 1960. The results to date are promising, but there are many local hazards which have to be faced and overcome. Furthermore, it is not merely a question of finding what crops will grow; the crops obviously must be ones for which a satisfactory market is likely to exist.

The other main developmental activity in the Kimberleys is the search for petroleum. This is being energetically pursued. My technical advisers believe that it has promising possibilities. I am pleased that private companies are active in the area, as is, of course, the Bureau of Mineral Resources.

However, the fact is that at present there is little or no systematic knowledge of the economic resources of the Kimberleys. Much of the region is only partially explored. Until the last few years, when a gauging station was established on the Ord, there had been practically no stream gauging of its several important rivers. Knowledge of the soils is limited. Scientific research in the region is in its infancy. On the whole there is little detailed knowledge of .the geology oi the region except in parts where studies have been made in connexion with petroleum and iron ore. Nevertheless, sufficient is known of the region’s economic possibilities to justify the view that public investment on an increased scale is warranted.

After giving the situation much careful thought, the Government has concluded that the development of the Kimberleys presents special financial problems for the State government and that, if this development is to proceed at a faster rate, some direct Commonwealth assistance is necessary. We have, therefore, decided that the Commonwealth should provide .special financial assistance to the State for the purpose, and the bill now before the House embodies proposals to that end.

It provides for the making of payments by the Commonwealth, not exceeding in the aggregate £2,500,000, in respect of expenditure by the State during the period of five years commencing 1st luly, 1958, upon approved developmental projects. The timing of individual payments will be determined by the Treasurer on the basis of certificates by the State Auditor-General as to expenditure by the State in connexion with approved projects.

Approved developmental projects for the purposes of the scheme as defined in the bill are projects, submitted by the State to the Commonwealth, which the Treasurer is satisfied will contribute to the development of the northern area of Western Australia, and which could not reasonably be carried out during the five-year period without the grant of special financial assistance by the Commonwealth.

These provisions are designed to give effect to the principle explained by the Prime Minister in his statement of last November and regarded by the Commonwealth Government as being of fundamental importance: That prime responsibility for the development of the area should continue to rest with the State government. It will still be the State’s function to attend to the planning and execution of developmental projects in the area. The Commonwealth’s role will be restricted to ensuring that the assistance provided under the scheme results in new and additional development, and not merely in a substitution of Commonwealth for State expenditure on projects which the State would have undertaken in the normal course of events.

The Premier of Western Australia has already advised that he wishes to obtain approval for three projects under the scheme; namely, the establishment of the Black Rocks deep-water port on King Sound, the carrying out of extensive investigations into the development prospects of the North Kimberleys for which the Napier-Broome Bay area may provide an outlet, and extensions to the Wyndham jetty. The Premier’s request for approval of these three projects is under consideration pending the passage of the legislation.

In the belief that the proposals in the bill will do much to benefit a remote area of Australia, the development of which gives rise to problems of a special and peculiar kind, I commend the measure to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Kennelly) adjourned.

page 760

WHEAT ACQUISITION (UNDISTRIBUTED MONEYS) BILL 1958

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Shipping and Transport and Minister for Civil Aviation · Western Australia · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

This bill is intended to provide more money for wheat research. The moneys are the residual amounts left from the wartime wheat pools; they total £284,000. This is money that would have been paid to the growers as payment for wheat acquired by the Commonwealth, if it had been practicable. lt has always been recognised that the money belongs morally to the growers; but legally it belongs to the Commonwealth as money received from the sale of Commonwealth acquired wheat. So this bill to appropriate the amount is necessary.

The wheat pools concerned are Nos. 2 to II, covering the seasons from 1938-39 to 1947-48; and the amounts of the undistributable fractions for the pools are -

lt will be noted that there is no reference to pool No. 3. That was really a part of No. 2 pool, and is included with it. Pool No. 11 shows no balance, as it was paid out in full; while in the case of No. 10 pool a balance of £4,000 has been repaid to the Commonwealth against an overpayment that was made to the pool some years ago. The growers wish the money to be used in wheat research, although in the meantime it has been held by the Australian Wheat Board; and has served a good purpose by reducing the interest charge against successive wheat pools. The intention now is to combine this money with the amounts being contributed each season by growers for research.

Last year the Wheat Research Act was passed. That act met the growers’ wish that they should be taxed, on their wheat deliveries each season, to provide regular funds for wheat research. The Wheat Research Act makes full provision for the use of the money that growers provide, and the amount covered by the present bill will be brought into the same plan. It will be a substantial addition to the regular payments, and good use can be made of it for the benefit of the wheat industry. Naturally there was full consideration given to the method of using the money. Obviously it could have been given to a federal research body, to a State authority, or to a number of different research organizations. In fact the advice of the State Ministers for Agriculture, meeting in the Australian Agricultural Council, was sought, tendered, and accepted.

The Australian Wheat Board was able to advise on the division of the amounts between the States. It was calculated according to the deliveries in each State to each pool; and so it gave accurately the share of each State in the sum available. The Australian Agricultural Council recommended that the amount should be divided on the basis just mentioned, and this is provided in the bill. The amounts to be paid to each State are set out in the schedule to the bill, and they range from £98,776 for New South Wales down to £95 for Tasmania.

Earlier it was said that the present £284,000 is to be brought under the terms of the 1957 Wheat Research Act. The allocation for each State will be paid into a separate account, and from the account it will be paid out as approved by the Committee for the State. Just to make it clear that growers will control the disposal of these funds, it is mentioned that there is a majority of wheat-grower members on the State wheat industry research committees;, and this majority is nominated by the Stats grower organizations that are affiliated with the Australian Wheat Growers’ Federation.

The bill itself is simple. Provision rs made for the Australian Wheat Board to pay the amount to Consolidated Revenue. This bill then provides that the £284,418 is appropriated. The amount is apportioned amongst the State accounts: and the schedule sets out the amount going to each. That finishes the pool fractions: but it also starts something that will benefit the wheat industry for years to come. There is a great scope for research in Australia. The need for it is known and recognized; and here we are making it possible for more research to be carried out in connexion with one of our greatest rural industries.

It is a pleasure to introduce a measure like this. The growers, the States, and the Commonwealth have combined in a worthy cause. AH recognize the benefits that have come from the research done in the past. It revolutionized our wheat industry, changed the appearance of the wheat districts, and gave benefit and profit to the whole Australian economy. Again all recognise the benefits still to come from research in the future; and all are anxious to provide the money that will ensure progress for the industry. Growers, States, and Commonwealth are doing their parts in promoting research. This bill is one part of a big programme for our future benefit; and I know that it will be welcomed.

Debate (on motion by Senator Kennelly) adjourned.

page 761

TARIFF BOARD BILL 1958

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.

This bill proposes to amend the Tariff Board Act which, in most important respects, has remained unchanged since 1921. The only important amendment in recent years was in 1953 when the strength of the Board was increased to seven members to enable it to handle an increased volume of work by sitting in two divisions. The amendments now proposed were foreshadowed when a strengthening of the Tariff Board’s secretariat was announced some weeks ago. At that time the right honorable the Minister for Trade indicated that it might be necessary to remove certain ambiguities from the present act and to make other changes to facilitate the board’s proceedings.

As has been the case for some time past, the board is at present faced with a heavy programme of work. It currently has a fairly large back-log of inquiries. The Government attaches the greatest importance to the elimination of delays in the consideration of requests by Australian industry for changes in tariff rates. Clause 14 of the bill proposes that an additional member be appointed to the board for a short period. This member would assist the board in overcoming the existing backlog of work. It is expected that, as a result of action taken by the Government to strengthen the board’s secretariat, a board of seven members will be able to handle the board’s normal programme once the back-log has been disposed of.

Another amendment designed to speed’ up the board’s inquiries is the proposal in clause 5 of the bill that one of the members be appointed deputy chairman. Honorable senators are aware that the board normally divides into two committees and that the chairman is a member of both committees. It is proposed that the deputy chairman shall assist the chairman generally and shall relieve him whenever necessary. He would, under delegation from the chairman, exercise all the powers, duties and functions of the chairman. He would also act for the chairman in the latter’s absence through illness, leave or for any other reason.

The present act does not clearly define the chairman’s powers. Also it makes no specific provision for decisions on certain procedural and administrative matters. This is not conducive to efficiency. The chairman must be in a position to coordinate the work of the board and clause 6 of the bill would make him specifically responsible for the administration and general working of the board as well as for the control and direction of the board’s staff. Among other things, he would -

  1. Decide which members shall take part in any particular inquiry;
  2. Convene meetings and public hearings; and
  3. Decide on the form of minutes and other records to be kept by the board.

He would be specifically required, however, to consult the other members, to the extent practicable, before taking decisions on the time and place of meetings and the form of the board’s records. I would like to emphasize that the bill does not alter the existing position governing decisions by the board on questions of substance.

When the departmental organization was changed in 1956, the administration of the Tariff Board Act became the responsibility of the Minister for Trade. References in that act to “ the Minister “ became, by virtue of the Acts Interpretation Act, references to the Minister for Trade. Section 15 of the act lists the matters which may be referred to the board by that Minister.

Several of the matters now listed in section 15 are, however, matters which bear directly on the responsibilities of the Minister for Customs and Excise. For this reason, clause 11 of the bill gives to that Minister power to refer to the board -

  1. certain questions relating to the operation of the Customs Tariff (Industries -Preservation) Act;
  2. certain questions relating to the admission of goods under customs by-law;
  3. questions of the value for duty of goods in cases where that value is difficult to arrive at; and
  4. questions of the interpretation of the customs and excise tariffs and the classification of goods under those tariffs.

Because the two last-mentioned subjects are matters which are solely the responsibility of the Minister for Customs and Excise, clause 10 of the bill deletes the relevant provisions from section 15 of the act. As already explained, section 15 covers the matters which may be referred to the board by the Minister for Trade.

The present act provides that at least two, but not more than three, members of the board shall, at the time of appointment, be officers of the Department of Trade. Suitable officers for appointment to the board from the Public Service are not, however, to be found only in the Department of Trade. Clause 4 of the bill therefore provides that at least two but not more than three members shall, at the time of appointment, be officers of the Public Service of the Commonwealth.

An allied amendment is contained in clause 9 of the bill which will delete the existing provision that one former public servant shall be a member of each committee of the board. This will permit more flexibility in the arrangements for handling the work of the board. The limitation in the number of former public servants who may be appointed to a committee of the board is, however, retained.

The remaining amendments to the act which are proposed by the bill are either drafting changes or relate to minor administrative matters. The latter relate to such things as the leave and allowances to be granted to members, the retention by former public servants of their existing rights, the presence of the Chairman or Deputy Chairman to be necessary for a quorum of the board and the control of proceedings at inquiries. I would like, however, to direct the attention of honorable senators to the provisions in clauses 1 1 and 12 of the bill relating to the tabling of reports made by the board.

The act provides that copies of the board’s annual reports and of certain other reports by the board shall be laid before each House of the Parliament within seven days of receipt by the Minister or, if Parliament is not sitting, within seven days of the next sitting of Parliament. The Government Printer has found difficulty in printing copies of such reports within that time limit and this has, on at least one occasion, necessitated a typed copy of the report being tabled before sufficient printed copies were available for distribution to honorable senators and the general public. Clauses 11 and 12 of the bill would alter the time limit to fifteen sitting days for each House.

In conclusion, I repeat that the bill arises out of the Government’s efforts to speed up the work of the Tariff Board and to reduce delays in the consideration of the claims of Australian industry for adequate tariff protection. I commend the bill to honorable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Kennelly) adjourned.

page 763

INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS) BILL 1958

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · Queensland · CP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The main purpose of this bill is to give the force of law to an agreement entered into by Australia and Canada for the avoidance of double taxation on incomes derived in one of the countries by a person or company resident in the other country. Where income flows from one country to another, it is not unusual to find that both the country in which the income has its source and the country where the recipient of the income resides seek to impose tax.

In order to overcome the untoward effects which this double taxation has upon the flow of investment capital and upon trade, Australia concluded a double taxation agreement with the United Kingdom in 1946 and a further agreement with the United States of America in 1953. The protection afforded to investors against unreasonably heavy double taxation has undoubtedly encouraged the flow from those countries to Australia of capital which has assisted the economy of this country. Corresponding benefits are anticipated as a result of the agreement now made with Canada.

The agreement provides two means by which the effects of double taxation will be prevented. First, the country in which some classes of income have their sourcewill refrain from imposing tax. The country in which the recipient of the income resides will, however, impose its normal tax, but double taxation will not occur. This method applies to a limited range of incomes, which are itemized in the explanatory memorandum which has been made available to honorable senators.

The more general procedure adopted in the agreement is for tax to be imposed in the country in which the income has its source. If the other country also imposes tax, it is required by the agreement to allow a credit so as to relieve the burden of double taxation. The ultimate result is that the total taxes payable by the recipient of the income do not exceed the higher of the taxes imposed by the two countries. This basis of relieving double tax offers no unfair advantage to overseas investors, but it avoids a burden which might otherwise prevent the flow of capital between countries.

An important feature is that the agreement will in no case relieve a Canadian enterprise, which trades in Australia through a subsidiary company, branch or other permanent establishment, from the usual Australian taxes paid on business profits. Where those taxes have been paid by a subsidiary company, the dividends paid to a Canadian shareholder will also be taxed, but the agreeement limits the tax to 15 per cent. of the dividend. In the case of a public company paying a dividend to a Canadian parent company, the total Australian liability on each £1 of distributed profit will be approximately 9s. 4d. When a distribution is made by the Canadian company to individual shareholders, a further liability for Canadian tax will arise. Dividends paid by Canadian companies to Australian shareholders will remain liable for Canadian tax, but only at a maximum rate of 15 per cent. Australia will impose its normal tax on the dividends, but will allow a credit for the Canadian tax, thus avoiding double taxation of the dividends.

The agreement also authorizes the taxation authorities of the two countries to exchange information required for the purposes ofl operating- the agreement or for the prevention of tax avoidance. Secrecy will be maintained under the taxation laws ofl the two countries and, moreover, the agreement provides that there shall be no exchange of information which would discJose a trade secret or trade process. If the bill receives the force of law by 30th lune next, the agreement will apply, in Australia, for the current income year, and in Canada, for the taxation year which began on 1st January, 1958.

In addition to giving the force of law to the agreement, the bill has a secondary but minor purpose. The Income Tax (International Agreements) Act 1953 contains a reference to certain interest on Government securities which, may be taxed at rates not greater than the 1930-31’ rates. As .securities of this kind. are not now held by the public, the reference to this.- interest is no longer required and the opportunity has-been taken to- make the appropriate deletions from section 1 6 of the act. The. amendment will not be detrimental to taxpayers or to the revenue. I commend the. bill to honorable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator McKenna) adjourned.

page 764

RE-ESTABLISHMENT AND EMPLOYMENT BILL 1958

Bill returned from the House of Representatives without amendment.

Senate adjourned at 5;47 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 1 May 1958, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1958/19580501_senate_22_s12/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant