Senate
2 November 1967

26th Parliament · 1st Session



The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMullin) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers.

page 2027

QUESTION

VIP AIRCRAFT

Senator DITTMER:
QUEENSLAND

– I direct my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I ask: Will he suggest to the Prime Minister that he should eliminate the mismanagement, abuse and gross waste of public money associated with No. 34 Squadron of the Royal Australian Air Force and lay down a rigid set of rules governing flights by VIP aircraft, irrespective of the positions of persons who are given the right to use those aircraft? If the VIP flight continues to exist, will he ensure that it keeps much more accurate and complete records and that the accounts are available to the Public Accounts Committee?

Senator GORTON:
VICTORIA · LP

Mr President, I had the greatest difficulty in hearing most of the question because, as the honourable senator was reading, he turned his head slightly away. As I understood the question, the honourable senator asked that I suggest something to the Prime Minister concerning No. 34 Squadron. I think this matter could be brought to the Prime Minister’s attention in some other way, if the honourable senator has views upon it.

page 2027

QUESTION

HOMES FOR THE AGED

Senator LAUGHT:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services: What is the annual amount for housing for aged persons paid under the homes for the aged legislation by the Commonwealth Government to South Australia in the last three years? How many persons have been assisted through this amount?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– As to the last part of the honourable senator’s question, I think he will understand that I will have to inquire from the Minister for Social Services about the number of aged persons who have been assisted with housing in South Australia in the last three years. I shall also get for the honourable senator details of the amounts paid in each year to South Australia. However, I recall that some time ago the Minister for Social Services made a Press statement which referred to last year. He said that almost one-third of the number of grants and one-third of the amount paid by the Commonwealth Government for aged persons homes had gone to South Australia. This is indeed a very high figure and shows the excellent results obtained.

page 2027

QUESTION

WATER CONSERVATION

Senator MCCLELLAND:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for National Development or the Minister representing the Treasurer. Is the Minister aware that parts of New South Wales have been or are experiencing serious difficulties as a result of long existing and extreme drought conditions? Can the Minister confirm that the New South Wales Government has submitted water conservation projects worth $63 ,4m to the Commonwealth for its consideration but that to date the New South Wales Government is still awaiting assistance from the Commonwealth? Can the Minister explain why large amounts have been made available to other States by the Commonwealth for water conservation and irrigation purposes while New South Wales apparently has been discrimination against, although it is the State with the largest population?

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Supply · TASMANIA · LP

– I do not think it is quite correct to say that New South Wales has been discriminated against. In any case, I have here a statement on water conservation which I propose to make to the Senate. It was made yesterday in another place by the Minister for National Development. I am sure that the information it contains will interest the honourable senator.

page 2027

QUESTION

HOMES FOR THE AGED

What proportion of the board, if any, is he required to pay duing his temporary absence?

page 2028

QUESTION

CUSTOMS

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– 1 preface my question to the Minister for Customs and Excise by stating that the 18th Annual International Airline Security Officers Conference was opened in Sydney on Monday last. Can the Minister define the ambit of operations of his officers at airports and of security officers employed by international airlines?

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Customs and Excise · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– As I understand the question, the honourable senator is asking whether I can define the relationship between security officers and customs officers at international airports. Air operators have their own security officers. That is fundamental to their own administration and management. They work in strict cooperation with officers of the Department of Customs and Excise, and indeed my Department requires certain information and assistance from them. As to a more detailed definition of their roles, I will obtain whatever information is available for the honourable senator although I do not suggest that he put his question on the notice paper. It must be recognised that with increased air travel and the time factor associated with it, security at airports has become a major matter. We have built up our staff at overseas terminals. In fact we have trained special personnel to be stationed there.

Looking at the matter in the broad, there has been a substantial build up of customs security at international airports. Speaking in the general sense, I am happy to say that the degree of co-operation between air operators and the Department has always been of a very high standard.

page 2028

QUESTION

WHEAT

Senator COTTON:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry aware of the remarkable progress that is being made with the. development of new dwarf wheats in Mexico and India? Will he take steps to see that these new varieties are made available to the Australian wheatgrower?

Senator MCKELLAR:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– I am aware of the claims which have been made for the wheats mentioned by the honourable senator. I will send the question to the Minister for Primary Industry to see whether the request can be complied with.

page 2028

QUESTION

SURF LIFE SAVING

Senator FITZGERALD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Is the Minister aware that the Australian Surf Life Saving Association is conducting a door knock appeal to raise funds to carry out the good work of that organisation? In view of the magnificent service provided by these young Australians in order to save lives at the various surfing beaches throughout Australia, at the risk of their own lives, and the fact that they even pay to do so, will the Minister approach the Treasurer with a view to increasing substantially the present subsidy paid by the Commonwealth to the Association? The Association is faced with increased costs for equipment and an increased subsidy would enable it to carry out its work with greater efficiency - an efficiency which already has won. acclaim and fame for Australia throughout the world.

Senator HENTY:
LP

– I agree with Senator Fitzgerald’s praise of the work done by members of the Australian Surf Life Saving Association throughout Australia. They do a grand job and spend a great deal of . their own personal time in doing so. In addition, they are a magnificent advertisement for Australia. Wherever one travels throughout the world one can see photographs of these stalwart bronzed he-men on ‘ our Australian beaches, marching here and there. I will take pleasure in conveying to the Treasurer the question asked by the honourable senator and will see what can be done.

page 2029

QUESTION

ORD RIVER SCHEME

Senator SCOTT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I preface my question, which is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for National Development, by saying how pleased I am that the Government has at last announced that it will complete the Ord River scheme. I ask: What were the reasons for granting the finance to the Western Australian Government for the completion of the Ord Dam?

Senator Gair:

– That is an easy question.

Senator SCOTT:

– I have to make questions easy. How many farms will the project cater for? What crops will be grown? What increase in population is envisaged as a result of this finance being provided for this major development project?

Senator HENTY:
LP

– A great deal of the information sought by Senator Scott is contained, in a statement that I propose to read to the Senate at the end of question time. Honourable senators, are Interjecting and suggesting that they have read the statement in the Press. However, they have said over and over again that statements made in the other place should be repeated in the Senate. If honourable senators do not want this practice to be followed they should let me know because I do not regard reading statements as a hobby.

Senator Gair:

– The honourable senator is being paid to do it.

Senator HENTY:

– If the honourable senator wants me to read it I will do so. A great deal of the information sought by Senator Scott is contained in the statement, as I said, but other parts of the question are very interesting and important. The honourable senator seeks details which’ I do not have at the present time. I should not like to attempt to supply the information off the cuff. I suggest to the honourable senator that details about the increase in farm production and the growth” of population in the Ord area will have to be extracted from the case submitted by the Western

Australian Government to the Commonwealth Government. Therefore I suggest that he put his questions on those matters on the notice paper and the information will be supplied to him. The other details will be given in the statement I propose to read to the Senate, as apparently the Senate wishes me to do.

page 2029

QUESTION

WATER RESOURCES

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is also directed to the Minister representing the Minister for National Development and also refers to the matter asked by Senator Scott.. Following the .Government’s preelection announcement of special assistance to Western Australia and Queensland, what special assistance is . proposed for South Australia for water development projects, particularly the Chowilla Dam? Does the Minister agree that _ the Government’s emergency financial proposals with respect to Queensland and Western Australia indicate the folly of the Government in refusing to meet the request of the South Australian Government?

Senator HENTY:
LP

– I am sure that the honourable senator does not want to anticipate the statement I shall make shortly: He did preface his remarks by talking about some election. I would’ point out to him that the decisions with respect to water conservation in Western Australia and Queensland were made before the Capricornia byelection. The Government did not like to announce them at that time because if it had done so it could have been accused of playing politics in relation to the projects. This announcement had to be made at some time. It is being made now. Recently I paid a very interesting visit to South Australia. The honourable senator, was on the journey that J made to Port Augusta and Ooldea. I must say that I noted with great concern the season thai is being experienced in South Australia. The pastures and crops are showing great deterioration. Therefore the matter of assistance in respect of the’ Chowilla Dam becomes very important.

But I repeat what I have said many times in this chamber: I believe that in the long run it will be to the benefit of South Australia, and particularly the people who will use this water for irrigation purposes, if we make sure thai a proper plan is proceeded with and if we allow the River

Murray Commission to submit its report on its full investigation of this project before any further work is done on it. The honourable senator cannot truthfully say. that the Commonwealth Government has not shown full sympathy with and support for this project. It has. But it is in the interests of the people who will use this water and the Government and people of South Australia that we await a proper assessment of the problem that exists at the moment. I am sure that the honourable senator will not find the Commonwealth Government holding back in the traces once that assessment is available and the pathway has been made clear by the River Murray Commission, which is an independent body and which is investigating this matter.

Senator MATTNER:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– As I am not standing for re-election, my question, which relates to water for South Australia, will have no political import. Consequent upon Senator Bishop’s question about the Chowilla Dam I ask the Minister representing the Minister for National Development to consider this proposition: South Australia should have its own water storage. Will the Minister encourage the Minister for National Development to ascertain whether there are any suitable areas for such a water storage? I am thinking of the Adelaide hills and other places. Perhaps this is a rather fanciful proposal, but whilst the River Murray is flowing freely, in order to correct the salinity situation, could this low saline water be pumped into the huge catchment areas in the Adelaide hills and elsewhere, where an enormous volume and depth of water could be stored with little evaporation? The water from the Murray River has to be pumped for use anyway. Would the Minister put that proposition to the Minister for National Development and, perhaps, to the South Australian Government in order to see whether it is feasible?

Senator HENTY:

– As I can join with Senator Mattner in saying that I am not standing for re-election, I can give a nonpolitical answer. The proposition that he put to me is a matter of engineering. I do not profess to understand what the economics of such a proposition would be. I can only join with him in saying how short of water South Australia is. Whilst we members of the Commonwealth

Government are aware that this is a major problem for that State, the matter that the honourable senator has raised is largely one for the South Australian Government. The development of irrigation and water supplies within that State comes within the jurisdiction of the sovereign Government of the State.

We already have a programme under which $50m will be made available for water conservation over the next 5 years. We have invited the State governments to make suggestions and to join in this programme. I do not know whether the Premier of South Australia has made representations for a project such as the one that the honourable senator has suggested today. That project may sound fanciful. I would not know whether it was fanciful or otherwise, but it is worthy of consideration. I suggest that the honourable senator pass his request on to the Premier of South Australia who, if he believes it is of value, no doubt will include it in a request for assistance under the Commonwealth Government’s water conservation programme. We have asked the States to send us their suggestions as quickly as possible so that they can be examined.

page 2030

QUESTION

ORD RIVER SCHEME

Senator CAVANAGH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I desire to ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for National Development. I point out that I am standing for election at the forthcoming Senate election. In view of the fact that the Commonwealth previously agreed to finance the second stage of the Ord River scheme and later withdrew the offer of finance in order to ensure that it would be forthcoming on this occasion, will payment be made before 25th November?

Senator HENTY:
LP

– The Government had sought additional information from the Western Australian Government on the development of the second stage of the Ord Ris’er scheme. Over a couple of years the Government has asked to be kept closely in touch with the development of cotton and alternative crops which can be grown in this area, as well as with the development of other forms of primary industry, particularly the production of fat cattle. The Western Australian Government has been good enough to keep us informed of these developments and has given us details as they have become available. The Government now believes that the second stage of this great scheme should be undertaken, with advantage. We are satisfied with the economics of it. I think that we are indebted to the Western Australian Government for putting before us facts which have convinced us that the economics ate now such as to enable us to proceed with this great project. Senator Cavanagh need not worry about the money being available for the Western Australian Government. The Federal Government having said the money will be available, it will be there.

page 2031

QUESTION

WOOL

Senator BULL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Because of great concern about costs of production in the wool industry, will the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Industry supply us with information as to how the figure of 85c per lb is calculated as being the additional cost of production because of tariffs?

Senator HENTY:
LP

– I shall try to obtain the information for the honourable senator. This is the first I have heard of this aspect. I have not read or studied anything which would convey the information to me. If the honourable senator puts his question on the notice paper I shall endeavour to ascertain where this figure comes from and whether it has any substance. No doubt the Minister for Trade and Industry will be happy to give an answer.

page 2031

QUESTION

CANBERRA ABATTOIRS

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– Can the Minister representing the Minister for Health advise the Parliament whether a copy of the interdepartmental report which recommended that the Canberra abattoirs be disposed of to private enterprise will be made available to the Parliament or to the Australian Capital Territory Advisory Council? If the Minister does not have the information, will she undertake to obtain it before the end of today’s sitting?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– I have not got the information. I shall convey the question to the Minister for Health.

page 2031

QUESTION

ORD RIVER SCHEME

Senator SIM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for National Development. Is it a fact that the Federal Government announced the deferment of the Ord River scheme last year just prior to the Federal election?

Senator HENTY:
LP

– The honourable senator has made a very salient point. Nobody has taken the Opposition seriously when it has said that this is a matter of politics: The situation is made quite clear by Senator Sim who reminds us of the fact that the Government announced just prior to the last Federal election that it would not continue with the second stage of the Ord River scheme.

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer, who also represents the Minister for National Development. In view of the Treasurer’s statement that in order to balance the Budget .it was necessary to increase postal charges and airport landing charges and to raise more loans overseas - this was also given as a reason why no increases could be made in social service pensions or repatriation benefits - how did the Treasurer find $68m on the eve of an election for the Ord River scheme and a Queensland water scheme? Is this not another example of the Government misleading the public when it suits it, as it did in the case of the VIP Squadron?

Senator HENTY:

– This is a very interesting question. 1 should have thought that the honourable senator would be a bit chary about mentioning increased postal charges. He almost intimated that there would be another walk out or something of that nature. I thought that this was one of the delicate subjects in the political field to which he would not want to refer. I understand that when postal charges were before the Senate the honourable senator went with his colleagues on what is known in the Aboriginal language as a walkabout and was not here. He asked how this money will be found. It will be found in the same way as money was found for Tasmania for the magnificent Gordon River scheme. The Commonwealth Government made this possible by providing bridging finance of $48m for which the State of Tasmania will be eternally indebted because this is a great scheme. In exactly the same way money will be found for the second stage of the Ord River scheme.

page 2032

QUESTION

WOOMERA ROCKET RANGE

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Has the Minister for Supply seen a report that officials of his Department expect that the United States Department of Defence will provide more work for the Woomera rocket range? Can the Minister say whether included amongst the reasons for this is the fact that the Sparta project was executed successfully with what has been called only minor friction between the Australian and American teams? Does the Minister know the basis or details of this so-called minor friction? Finally, can the Minister indicate the length of time ahead that it might be expected that the United Slates Department of Defence will provide work for the range in South Australia?

Senator HENTY:
LP

– South Australia ns, of course, vitally interested in the development of this great Woomera rocket’ range which has played an important part in the progress of that State. The Sparta programme has been one of the most successful programmes that we have ever undertaken. I think I am correct in saying that we had not one setback in the firing of eight or nine Sparta rockets, which was the complete programme. They have all gone very successfully. The minor frictions are merely matters of day to day detail and of no significance whatever. This has been looked upon by the United States of America and Australia as one of our most successful joint ventures. It has left, I am sure, a very good impression in the United States which we in the Department of Supply intend , to utilise to the full, because we are exploring every avenue to make additional long term work available for this great range and the Weapons Research Establishment which goes with it. lt is not without interest that we hope next month to fire our first Australian satellite.’ We will be the fourth country in the world to fire its own satellite from its own shores. This is no mean achievement from Australia’s point of view, lt will bc completed and available for firing towards the end of this month. This project has been assisted greatly by the fact that the United States of America, because of our successful work together, has made one of its rockets available to send this Australian satellite around the world. I should like the Senate to know that I now have the permission of the President and the Speaker to arrange in King’s Hall a space exhibition which will feature Australia’s satellite which has been entirely built and developed at the Weapons Research Establishment in South Australia. It is an Australian achievement every bit of the way. I am sure that this space exhibition, which will be held some time in March next year, will prove of great interest to honourable senators.

page 2032

QUESTION

TAXATION

Senator McMANUS:
VICTORIA

– I address a question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Can a statement be made at the earliest possible date, if possible before Parliament rises, on the Commonwealth’s attitude to certain new financial proposals of the Victorian Government which have been alleged in some quarters to be regarded by the Commonwealth as involving income taxation and therefore are unacceptable? As the. delay in announcing a decision by the Commonwealth is causing much uncertainty in business and government circles in Victoria, when can we expect an announcement of the Commonwealth’s attitude?

Senator HENTY:
LP

– This is a most important question, lt is one that I would like to submit to the Treasurer. I therefore suggest that the honourable senator put it on notice and I shall ask the Treasurer to state the earliest possible date on which an announcement can be made.

page 2032

QUESTION

PUBLIC WORKS

Senator LAUGHT:

– By way of preface to a question to the Minister representing the Minister’ for Works I point out that the Premier of South Australia is reported in the Adelaide ‘Advertiser’ of 1st November to have said that Commonwealth expenditure on works in South Australia had fallen to almost nil. Would the Minister tell me how much Commonwealth money was spent by the Commonwealth Department of Works in South Australia last financial year and the estimate for the coming year? ‘

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– Las! financial year, Commonwealth expenditure on works in South Australia totalled $11.3 14m. The figure for this year is expected to be $12. 8m. This includes about $200,000 to be spent this year on work at Adelaide Airport, the total cost of which is expected to be $ 1.78m.

page 2033

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH OFFICES, BRISBANE

Senator GAIR:

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior when I may expect a reply to a question, notice of which I gave on 27th September last - exactly six weeks ago - relating to the leasing of office space in the Hammerson Building, in Eagle Street, Brisbane and in the Carlton Centre building in Sydney.

Senator MCKELLAR:
CP

– The honourable senator will remember that certain information has been supplied with regard to office space in Sydney, but I am not sure whether that includes any reference to the building to which he refers. As to the leasing of office space in Brisbane, I am sure the honourable senator will realise that his question involves the obtaining of a good deal of detailed information, but I shall bring it to the notice of the Minister for the Interior to see whether an answer can be provided to the honourable senator.

page 2033

QUESTION

CAMBODIA

Senator COTTON:

– Is the Acting Minister for External Affairs able to inform the Senate about the reported change in the attitude of the Cambodian ruler and his Government from neutralism to support of the people of South Vietnam and their allies in the current struggle to maintain their freedom against Communist aggression from the North?

Senator GORTON:
VICTORIA · LP

– I am not able at this point of time to give what I think the honourable senator might well expect me to give on a matter of this importance. I suggest that the question be put on notice so that the Minister for External Affairs or the Acting Minister at the time may supply a more considered reply.

page 2033

QUESTION

BANANAS

Senator MCCLELLAND:

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Industry: Is he aware that there is a great surplus of banana production at present on the North Coast of New South Wales and that banana growers are finding it exceedingly difficult to obtain a reasonable home market price which will give them any return on their fruit? Is the Minister also aware that as the season advances, overproduction of bananas for the local market is likely to become a much greater problem? Will the Minister ask the Department of Trade and Industry to look into the matter immediately to see whether anything at all can be done to obtain greater export markets for Australian bananas?

Senator HENTY:
LP

– I shall see what information the Department of Trade and Industry can give on this proposal. I was not aware, personally, that there was great over-production of bananas in New South Wales or in Australia. Having visited the areas in New South Wales in which production is carried out, I think that it is a most efficient industry co-operative and very well controlled. I have no doubt that the co-operatives next year will be making representations to the. Department of Trade and Industry. I will certainly pass on to the Department the request from Senator McClelland in this instance.

page 2033

QUESTION

WHEAT

Senator FITZGERALD - I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Industry: Is it true as claimed by the Australian Wheat Board that no money is available to make an immediate payment to wheat growers? Further, I ask the Minister whether this is due to the fact that wheat has been sold to Communist China on credit and has not been paid for. In view of the severe drought conditions prevailing in Australia and the financial plight of many wheat farmers, will the Minister arrange for the Australian Government to underwrite these sales to China and thereby allow a payment of 20c a bushel to be made to Australian wheat growers?

Senator HENTY:
LP

Mr President, the question involves government policy. I have not the facts and figures’ to which the honourable senator refers. The question should be put on the notice paper. If it is I will see what I am able to obtain for the honourable senator in relation to it.

page 2034

QUESTION

AIRLINE DISPUTE

Senator O’BYRNE:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service. Will the Minister make urgent representations to the Minister for Labour and National Service in another place and also to the Minister for Civil Aviation in another place to reconvene the conference between the airline operators and the Australian Federation of Air Pilots with a view to bringing this original negotiating group together for the purpose of effecting a settlement of the airline dispute as early as possible?

Senator GORTON:
VICTORIA · LP

– I am sure that the Minister for Labour and National Service is doing and will continue to do everything possible in order to make sure that the dispute is settled as expeditiously as possible.

page 2034

QUESTION

INDIA

Senator COTTON:

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for External Affairs aware that the people of India are becoming alarmed at the report that Communist China is contemplating firing, one day, an intercontinental ballistic missile, armed with a nuclear warhead, across the Indian subcontinent into the Indian Ocean area?

Senator GORTON:
VICTORIA · LP

– I have heard - how shall I put it - apprehensions expressed by various people and various representatives in India as to not only the particular danger to which the honourable senator refers but also other dangers. India still remembers, as indeed it should, recent invasions in the north of the country by Chinese ground troops. The apprehensions are not confined merely to those to whom the honourable senator refers.

page 2034

QUESTION

NORTH WEST CAPE NAVAL COMMUNICATION BASE

Senator CANT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service. Might I preface my question by stating that some few weeks ago I received a communication from the Minister, for which I thank him, advising that the Government would bring down legislation to provide that the Commonwealth would be the employer respecting workers’ compensation and common law claims by workers employed on the

North West Cape Naval Communication Base. I ask the Minister: Is it likely that this legislation will be introduced before the Parliament rises?

Senator GORTON:
VICTORIA · LP

– I give this answer, not of my own specific knowledge but as my understanding of the position. I think it unlikely that we will get that legislation before the Parliament rises.

page 2034

QUESTION

ARMY

Senator MULVIHILL:

– Has the Minister representing the Minister for the Army any knowledge of the fact that Australian troops arriving at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport from South. Vietnam have been subjected to considerable inconvenience by having to hire taxis to travel to various Army depots in Sydney to complete their leave arrangements? Why can they not be completely processed at’ the airport at which the troops arrive?

Senator McKELLAR:
CP

– I have no knowledge of the circumstances mentioned by the honourable senator. I have seen the soldiers arrive home and I am reasonably certain that on those occasions Army transport has been available for them. However. I will take up thematter. I am sure we would be very much of one mind in believing that these fellows should be subjected to as little inconvenience as is possible on returning to Australia after having done a very good job for Australia.

page 2034

QUESTION

PATENTS ACT

(Question No. 389)

Senator CAVANAGH:

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

  1. Has the Attorney-General’s Department forwarded correspondenceto most patent attorneys advising them that the Government intends introduring amendments to the Patents Act and that it is anticipated that such amendments will come into operation on 29 November?
  2. Docs the letter further state that the nature of the amendments cannot be disclosed before the Bill is presented to Parliament? If so, what was the purpose of the letter advising of proposed alterations without indicating the nature of the alterations?
  3. Is the withholding - from those likely to bo affected - of information on proposed alterations to any Act in keeping with normal Government policy but contrary to the Government’s action on the trade practices legislation?
Senator GORTON:
VICTORIA · LP

– The AttorneyGeneral has supplied the following answers:

  1. anil 2. No. 1 wrote to the President of the Institute of Patent Attorneys of Australia on 12th October 1967 a letter which set out in considerable detail thu nutters intended to be included in the proposed Patents Bill and invited the comments or the Institute. In thai letter I said that a copy of the Bill . itself could not bc made available before it was introduced into the Parliament.

    1. Sec answer to 1. and 2.

page 2035

QUESTION

ENTRY VISAS

(Question No. 396)

Senator WHEELDON:
through Senator O’Byrne

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

  1. Why were entry visas refused to three Soviet citizens - an actress, Miss Nina Veselovskaya; an economist, Mr N. Federenko; and a member of Parliament, fr G. Anlov?
  2. Why did the Minister refuse to extend the tourist visa of Mr I. Zabrodin, a senior officer of the Union of Soviet Societies’ for Cultural Relations with Foreign Countries?
Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

-The Minister has provided the following reply:

I, and 2. The refusal of entry visas to the three persons named, and of an extension of visa for the fourth person, resulted from the fact that they were sponsored by the Australia-Soviet Friendship Society - now known as the AustraliaUSSR Society - and were to attend a conference of that Society. The Government’s policy relating to such visits was stated in Parliament on 19th October 1961 by the then Prime Minister, as follows: ‘The Government sees value in genuine visits or exchanges in the field of science, medicine, culture and art, sport and so on between Australia and the Soviet Union. Its views are that activities or this kind arc chiefly of interest to the variety of Australian institutions directly active in the particular Held concerned; these bodies, which are representative of the Australian scientists, artists, sportsmen and so on who are likely to take part in exchanges are free to make suitable arrangements wilh the appropriate authorities in the Soviet Union. But the Government is concerned that exchanges which purport to be of a cultural, scientific or sporting nature should be genuinely so: and doubts of this arise if arrangements are in the hands of bodies which are in fact of a political character, such as the Australia-Soviet Friendship Society. Accordingly, the Government docs not favour the intrusion of political bodies such as the Friendship Society as intermediaries in arrangements for exchanges and visits between Australia and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics - or for that matter, between Australia and other Communist countries’. This policy is still observed. I wish to make it quite clear’ that the decisions relating to the four persons now in question were not taken because of any doubt as to their own standing.

page 2035

QUESTION

VIETNAM

Senator GORTON:
VICTORIA · LP

– I have an answer to a question which was asked on 24th October by Senator Branson, to whom I said I would get an answer as quickly as I could. Senator Branson asked:

Can the Leader of the Government tell ms whether there is any truth in the statement made in the London ‘ ‘Evening .Standard’ newspaper which said that British servicemen have been in operation in Vietnam for the last 12 months? Are these British forces frogmen of the British Navy’s combined operations force, and do they operate from Hong Kong? Have some of these British servicemen received United States decorations for their part in the Vietnam war?

I said that I had heard nothing to suggest that the report was accurate. The fact is that there are no British servicemen in the Vietnam war theatre.

page 2035

DEPARTMENT OF IMMIGRATION

Report of Public Accounts Committee

Senator FITZGERALD:
New South Wales

Mr President, I present the following report of the Public Accounts Committee:

Ninety-fourth Report - Department of Immigration. (Ordered to be printed.) 1 seek leave to make a short statement in connection with the report.

The PRESIDENT:

– There being no objection, leave is granted. .

Senator FITZGERALD:

– Your Committee’s inquiry into the Department of Immigration was made, not because the Department has been the subject of criticism by the Auditor-General, but because of the significance of immigration as an important element of population growth in an expanding Australian economy and because, in the discharge of their responsibilities, many members of the Parliament find themselves engaged frequently with the Department of Immigration on behalf of migrants and organisations concerned with migration problems in their constituencies. An additional factor was the significant increase in the level of expenditure by the Department over the years. Your Committee believes that this report which, in dealing with the accounts of (he Department also of necessity traverses much of the Department’s detailed administration, will prove to be a useful source of information for members of tha

Parliament and the public. With the concurrence of honourable senators, I incorporate the remainder of the statement in Hansard.

In the course of its inquiry, your Committee was impressed with the general level of efficiency found to exist in the operations of the Department. Nevertheless, there are certain matters arising from our inquiry to which your Committee would invite attention. The conclusions and findings relating to the extensive coverage of the public inquiry conducted by your Committee are located in chapters 22 and 23 of the report.

With regard to the Aliens Register maintained by the Department, the Committee is of the opinion that the present form is inadequate and that in the interests of efficiency and protection against loss, the Register should be converted to an appropriate mechanised system with minimum delay. The failure to make regular inspections of overseas posts by officers of the Department of Immigration, disclosed by evidence, is not satisfactory and your Committee believes that an effective system of inspections should be established in the interests of departmental efficiency. Recommendations have been made in respect of the control of the use of subscriber trunk dialling telephone facilities, interdepartmental payments, internal, audit work, qualifications for auditors, and compliance with Treasury Regulation 77(2)(b) which deals with advances .for travelling expenses.

Your Committee’s inspections during- this inquiry included both old and modern accommodation provided for migrants by Commonwealth Hostels Ltd in Queensland and New South Wales, as well as the holding centres controlled by the Department in Benalla and Bonegilla, Victoria. Your Committee recommends that the holding centres at Benalla and Bonegilla should be closed as soon as possible. We felt that this action could well have received earlier scrutiny within the Department. The announcement by the Minister for Immigration (Mr Snedden) on 10th August 1967, that the Benalla centre will be closed by 8th December 1967, has been noted with some satisfaction.

With regard to subsidies paid to Commonwealth Hostels Ltd, your Committee believes that arrears should not be permitted to accumulate in subsidy payments made by the Department of Immigration in respect of accommodation provided by the company for migrants and that the existing arrangement under , which Commonwealth Hostels Ltd is subsidised and which does not include a maintenance component, should be examined critically by the Department of the Treasury, the Department of Labour and National Service and the Department of Immigration.

In respect of the administrative costs of the Department, your Committee noted that extra duty payments made had increased from $72,122 in 1959-60 to $221,655 in 1966-67, and we were informed mat the Department does not make a practice of applying to the Public Service Board for additional positions as soon as a need begins to emerge. . Whilst your Committee would commend the Department for this conservative approach to the question of staffing, it would make the comment that, unless carefully controlled, overtime can result in a diminution in the quantity and quality of output per man hour worked, and at the same time can create a. sense of false values as to the work output that can be reasonably expected from the officers concerned and. perhaps more importantly, from officers who replace them on promotion or transfer.

Recognising the role of immigration in the development of the Australian population and economic expansion, your Committee trusts that managerial skills, including automatic data processing, will be applied wherever practicable within the Department, in order that the highest level of administrative efficiency be maintained.

page 2036

NATIONAL WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME

Ministerial Statement

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Supply · Tasmania · LP

– by leave - I make the following statement on behalf of the Minister for National Development’:

The Government has now received advice from all States in response to the invitation of the Prime Minister (Mr Harold Holt) to participate in the national wafer resources development programme . of $50m over five years as announced in our policy speech of November 1966. Further details are still awaited in relation to some State proposals for consideration under this programme. There are, however, two projects which have been under consideration by the Commonwealth for some time, namely the Ord and Emerald irrigation projects. The Ord is a large project in an isolated northern region, the first stage of which was completed in 1963. Over the past 3 years the Commonwealth has been giving consideration to the question of financial assistance for the second stage of the project. In the circumstances, we have decided to consider it outside the national- water resources development programme and to regard it rather as a special northern development project.

The Western Australian Government has recently resubmitted its proposals in regard to Stage 2 of the project incorporating the latest information available, including information on the matters which we felt required further clarification when we decided to defer a decision on the project in October 1966.

There have been favourable developments in regard to cotton growing. Firstly, satisfactory results have been achieved in the current season with a greatly increased area of stub cotton - this is the practice of allowing the cotton plant to bear for two seasons. Secondly, trials on the Kimberley Research Station and on private farms with a new cotton variety, ‘Stoneville 7a’, look promising and should enable farmers to obtain significantly greater yields in future seasons.

Apart from cotton, the prospects for commercial production of grain sorghum appear much more promising than they did 12 months ago. There is a large and growing market for this product in Japan, and the long term prospects appear good. Promising results with sorghum production have been obtained in experiments in the area. These developments should provide more flexibility in farm programmes and it is no longer necessary to regard the scheme exclusively on the basis of a cotton monoculture.

In the light of this further information, the Government considers that the economic prospects for the project have been greatly improved. The Government has therefore decided to make available financial assistance of approximately $48m to the State of Western Australia to proceed with Stage 2 of the Ord irrigation project. The financial assistance offered is on the basis of a non-repayable grant for the construction of the dam and an interest bearing loan in respect of the other irrigation works. The details of the financial arrangements will have to be discussed with tha State.

I turn now to the Emerald irrigation project, which has been submitted by the Queensland Government as its first priority for consideration under the national water resources development programme. The State had in fact submitted this project prior to the announcement of the national water resources development programme and Commonwealth authorities have had greater opportunity to evaluate it than is the case with other projects submitted more recently by other States.

A range of crops including cotton, sorghum, wheat and lucerne have been grown successfully under irrigation in the project area. On the basis of the studies made, subject to further checks on certain aspects, the economic prospects for this project appear sufficiently encouraging to warrant its inclusion in the programme.

The’ Commonwealth has therefore decided, subject to further checks in relation to the cost estimates and the. suitability of certain soils in the area confirming the State’s proposals, to make available financial assistance up to a maximum of $20m for this project under the national water resources development programme. This assistance will be in the form of a nonrepayable grant for construction of the dam. The State would be expected to finance the irrigation, drainage and associated works. I present the following paper:

National Water Resources Development Programme - Ministerial Statement, 1st November 1967

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Drake-Brockman) - There being no objection, leave is granted.

Senator CANT:
Western Australia

– I. move:.

That the Senate take note of the paper.

The people of Western Australia and Queensland will . be very pleased to hear this announcement, but I do not know how pleased they will be to hear it at this point of time-

Senator Henty:

– I raise a point of order. I understood that Senator Cant would seek leave to make his remarks later. On that basis I was prepared to grant him leave to move his motion.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Senator Cant sought leave to move a motion. Having been given leave, he may move the motion ‘That the Senate take note of the statement’ and speak to it.

Senator GORTON:
VICTORIA · LP

– I speak not to raise a point of order but to raise a point in relation to the decent operation of the Senate. Normally, when somebody reads a statement, somebody moves that the Senate take note of it, then the debate is adjourned and then the business of the Senate continues. I do not claim that Senator Cant is not entitled under the Standing Orders to speak to his motion now, but it will make the running of the Senate fairly awkward if that becomes a practice.

Senator CANT:

– I ask for leave to make my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2038

NAURU INDEPENDENCE BILL 1967

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator GORTON:
Minister for Education and Science · VICTORIA · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The Bill is a short and simple one designed to make it possible for Nauru to cease to be a Territory of the Commonwealth administered under United Nations trusteeship by Australia, Britain and New Zealand and to become an independent country. Though the terms of the Bill are simple, the effect of it is of central importance to the future of the Nauruan people and thus will be regarded by this Parliament as of great significance.

Australian responsibility in connection with Nauru began in 1914. It was then a German colony and was occupied by an Australian expeditionary force. The island has been administered by Australia since that time, first under military administration, then under League of Nations mandate in association with the governments of Britain and New Zealand. The arrangements made after the First World War, as well as providing for administration, vested the title to the phosphate deposits - the rights to which had been purchased by the three Governments from the Pacific Phosphate Company - in the British Phosphate Commissioners, who were appointed by the Australian, British and New Zealand governments respectively.

In 1942 Nauru was occupied by the Japanese, During this period most of the industrial plant and buildings and all the houses were destroyed. In 1943, 1,200 Nauruans were removed to Truk Atoll in the Caroline Islands. In September 1945 the Australian forces returned to Nauru and on 31st January of the following year the survivors of the Nauru people who had been taken to Truk returned to their home. At the commencement of the occupation there were just over 1,800 Nauruans. At the end of the war their number had been reduced to 1,280.

In 1947 the United Nations approved a trusteeship agreement under which the administering Governments placed Nauru under the trusteeship system established by the United Nations Charter. The Governments of Australia, Britain and New Zealand were designated as a joint administering authority and by agreement between the three governments Australia continued to exercise powers of legislation, administration and jurisdiction in respect of Nauru.

Under the trusteeship agreement Australia and the other two governments undertook to promote the political, economic, social and educational advancement of the inhabitants of Nauru and their progressive development towards self-government or independence as might be appropriate to the particular circumstances of the Territory and its people and the freely expressed wishes of the people concerned. When the provisions of this Bill become fully operative that trust will have been discharged.

I believe that Australia and the other administering governments can take proper pride in the administration of Nauru and in the way in which this trust has been discharged. The Nauruan population has grown from 1,280 in 1946 to about 3,100 now. An account given of the administration by the last United Nations Visiting Mission includes these conclusions:

The proceeds of the phosphate operations cover all public expenditure. Thanks to the phosphate, this tiny island lost in mid-ocean has houses, schools and hospitals which could be the envy of places with a very ancient civilisation. Its citizens pay no taxes. Because of these favourable conditions and the spirit of mutual assistance characteristic of the inhabitants, poverty is virtually unknown in Nauru. There is a high standard of living: necessities and even many luxuries are imported. The stores and shops are well stocked with goods. Few people walk in this Territory, which has an area of 8) square miles and a circumference of 12 miles.

But the Mission found that the advantages the people enjoyed were overshadowed by the problem of the future. What was to happen when the phosphate deposits had been worked out, as they will be at some time during the 1990s?

Efforts to find the most satisfactory solution to this problem have engaged the attention of the administering governments and the Nauruan leaders for many years. After unsuccessful attempts to find in the South .Pacific a suitable island which could be made available as an alternative future home for the Nauruan people, in 1960 the governments offered re-settlement on favourable terms to the Nauruans as individuals and families in Australia, Britain or New Zealand. This offer was not accepted as the Nauruan leaders saw it as leading inevitably to the dispersal of the Nauruan people and the disappearance of their identity as a group.

Subsequently, in 1963, the Nauruans were offered Curtis Island in Queensland as a future home. They were offered a considerable degree of local autonomy as a community but this offer also was refused because the Australian Government could not agree to the request that Curtis Island, which is practically a part of the Australian mainland, should be established as a sovereign independent new Nauru. The Nauruan people then decided that their future should be to remain permanently on Nauru, and they sought control of the phosphate deposits and political independence. Both of these are now assured to the Nauruan people.

Under an agreement between (he Nauruan representatives and the partner governments which was reached last Juna after lengthy negotiations, control of tha phosphate deposits will be vested in a Nauru phosphate corporation. For at least the next 3 years the whole of the phosphate output will be purchased by the British Phosphate Commissioners.

Following the inauguration of the Nauru Legislative Council on 31st January 1966, discussions on future constitutional arrangements have been taking place. The governments proposed an arrangement under which defence and external affairs responsibilities for Nauru would be exercised by Australia; with the Nauruan Government otherwise having full autonomy. After deliberation the Nauru representatives rejected this proposal. They said thai they envisaged that Nauru should in the future maintain close links with all three governments, and especially with Australia, but that the nature of the future links should be determined by agreement after independence had been attained.

The proposal of the governments for Australia to undertake defence and external affairs responsibilities was a responsible one, put forward in the belief that this would be the best arrangement in the particular circumstances of Nauru. I believe that it was right that the proposal should have been made. Since it proved unacceptable to the Nauruan delegation, after due consideration, the governments have not sought to persist in it. I believe that this also is the right course. We have followed for Nauru the policy of self determination.

The Bill provides the means by which a constitution can be established for independent Nauru. Clause 3 ensures that it is within the competence of the Legislative Council for Nauru to pass an ordinance to provide for the establishment of a constitutional convention which will in advance of Independence Day draw up the Constitution, which will become operative on Independence Day. On the day decided upon as Independence Day the provisions of clause 4 of the Bill will be brought into operation. The effect will be that Australian legislation will cease to apply, as such, in Nauru and from that time Australia will not exercise any powers of legislation, administration or jurisdiction in and over Nauru.

From what I have said earlier it will be apparent that the date of 31st January has very great significance in the history of the Nauruan people. It is the anniversary of the reunion of the Nauruan people on 31st January 1946 and since that time has been regarded as a day of national celebration. As I informed the Senate earlier, the Nauruan delegation and the partner governments are making every effort to complete all the necessary steps in time for 31st January 1968 to be Nauru Independ-. ence Day. We have assured the Nauruan delegation of every assistance in this respect. Assistance is being given in the preparation of a draft constitution for consideration by the constitutional convention. Assistance is being given towards preparing for the administrative changes that are required. As to the future, after independence, the Nauruan delegation has foreshadowed close and friendly relations continuing between Australia and Nauru. It suggested the possibility of a treaty of friendship between the two countries. Australia also confidently looks forward to continuation of the close and friendly relationships which have characterised our association with the Nauruan people.

In presenting this Bill to the Senate, I pay tribute to thosewho have served in the Australian Administration at Nauru over the years, to the enhancement of their country’s reputation, and to. the lasting benefit of the Nauruan people.

Debate (on motion by Senator Murphy) adjourned.

page 2040

SEAMEN’S WAR PENSIONS AND ALLOWANCES BILL 1967

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Customs and Excise · New South Wales · LP

-I move:

This Bill is primarily to increase the pensions payable under the Seamen’s War Pensions and Allowances Act for the children of deceased Australian mariners, in parallel with the related increases made in the recent Repatriation Bill and as announced as part of the Budget proposals. Under clause 4 section. 17 is remade, mainly for the purpose of providing for payment of pensions in respect of posthumous children of Australian mariners covered by the Act. A similar provision already exists in the repatriation legislation. In order to include such children it has been necessary to revise the wording of the section to make it correspond substantially to sub-sections (1.) and (3.) of section 45 of the Repatriation Act.

Clause 4 also inserts a new section 17a to entitle a dependent of a totally and permanently incapacitated or double amputee pensioner who dies from causes other than his war injury to receive the higher ‘special rate’ pension that would have been payable to that dependant if the pensioner’s death had resulted from the war injury. The new section is on the same lines as section 46 of the Repatriation Act. Clause 5, which gives effect to the prime purpose of this Bill; provides that in respect of children whose father, having been an Australian mariner coming under the Act, is dead, the fortnightly pension will rise-by $1 to $8.80 for the first child and by $1 to $6.50 for each other child. Where the mother of the child or children is dead also, the fortnightly pension will rise by $2 to $16.30 for each child. Sub-clause (2.) ensures that these increases will take effect at the same time as the corresponding increases under the repatriation legislation.

In order to remove two anomalies the regulation-making powers in section 59 are being extended by clause 6 in two respects.’ The first is to enable the Seamen’s War Pensions and Allowances Regulations to provide for payment of travelling expenses, together with attendants expenses, in respect of widows and children! of deceased Australian mariner pensioners where it is necessary for such persons to travel to receive medical treatment being provided under those regulations, as is already provided for in the repatriation legislation. The second extension is the insertion of power for the regulations to provide for medical benefits for widowed step-mothers of Australian mariners who have died as a result of war injuries. This, too, is already provided for in the repatriation legislation. The Bill is therefore to the advantage of dependants of persons coming under the Act, in several respects, and I commend it to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Devitt) adjourned.

page 2041

STATES GRANTS (ADVANCED EDUCATION) BILL (No. 3) 1967

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator GORTON:
Minister for Education and Science · VICTORIA · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The Bill before the Senate has two main purposes. The first of these is to enable the Commonwealth . Government to match privately raised subscriptions which are to be applied to the provision of residential accommodation at colleges of advanced education. Honourable senators will recall that when I stated on 21st September last year the Government’s general policy about colleges of advanced education I said that the Government was prepared to provide finance for residential accommodation at the colleges in a similar way to that in which, it finances such accommodation at universities which, subject to certain conditions, permits the Commonwealth to match funds from sources other than the States on a $1 for.$1 basis. No machinery was written into the principal Act to make this form of assistance possible for colleges because at the time we had received no proposals for this triennium involving the employment of privately raised subscriptions for residential accommodation. Now the State of Queensland has put forward two such proposals, for the new colleges at Rockhampton and Toowoomba. The Government believes that it is important to encourage local initiative in support of colleges, particularly new regional colleges such as these. Therefore we have decided to provide for this triennium machinery which would enable the Commonwealth Government to match on a’ $1 for $1 basis funds raised privately for residential accommoda tion at colleges of advanced education. Tha present proposal does not increase tha amountof money which the Commonwealth has undertaken to make available during this triennium, but I should mention that gifts of $2 and upwards for this purpose would, subject to the certification required by the Income Tax Assessment Act, qualify for deductions for income tax purposes.

The Bill obliges the State to match tha privately raised funds; this means that for every $1 raised privately the State contributes $1 and the Commonwealth $2. However, it is not intended that Commonwealth matching of privately raised funds should enable a State to reduce that contribution to a college which it has already agreed to make. Therefore, the State must agree to apply money it has saved under this new arrangement as an unmatched grant to another project agreed upon between the Commonwealth and tha State at the same college.

The second purpose of the Bill is to make adjustments in the building programmes at the School of Mines and Industries, Ballarat, Bendigo Institute of Technology and the Queensland Institute of Technology, Brisbane, at the request pf the States concerned. These adjustments are a necessary revision of the programme to meet new circumstances. For Ballarat the acquisition of a new site has brought with it the need for an entirely different development programme. At Bendigo too a new site is being developed and the proposed amendment reflects a change in the order of priorities occasioned by this development. The revised programme at Brisbane is to provide for the completion of two buildings started under the interim grant arrangements and takes into account revised priorities. I commend this Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Cohen) adjourned.

page 2041

UNIVERSITIES (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE) BILL 1967

Bill received from the Houseof Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator GORTON (Victoria - Minister for

Education and Science) [11.17] - I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The Universities (Financial Assistance) Act 1963-1966 which appropriated Commonwealth grants to the States in connection with universities during the 1964-66 triennium contained provision for building programmes at universities, including student residences. A condition of the payment of these grants in respect of student residences was the Commonwealth’s matching of expenditure during the triennium, that is, up to 31st December 1966. In the case of a number of building projects for student residences, the necessary planning or arrangement of private finance was unexpectedly protracted and it was not possible to commence building until very late in the triennium or early in the current triennium. For example, although in May 1966 Ormond College at the University of Melbourne, was able to proceed with working drawings for a new residential block the plans had to be re-examined by the architects because of higher costs. The contract for the building was signed in December but little expenditure had occurred by 3 1st December 1966. For Hytten Hall, at the University of Tasmania, funds became available as a result of changes in other parts of the programme. However, thiswasatalate stage in the triennium and as a result only a small proportion of the total grant had been expended at 31st December 1966. Thus, in these cases and in the case of the other student residences listed in the Schedule, it was not possible for the bodies concerned to expend sufficient before the end of the triennium, 31st December 1966, to attract the full Commonwealth grant. Difficulty was also encountered in the commencement of a major university building at the University of Queensland - the Great Hall - and the conditions to attract the Commonwealth’s grant appropriated for the triennium had not been fulfilled by 3 1st December 1966.

The Government has therefore decided to seek in this Bill authority for the payment of these amounts that formed part of the grants for the 1964-66 triennium but cannot be paid after 31st December 1966 under the provisions of the Universities (Financial Assistance) Act 1963-1966. The specific amounts for the residential colleges and halls of residence are listed in the Schedule to the Bill, together with amounts for International House at the University of Melbourne and the Great Hall of the University of Queensland. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Cohen) adjourned.

page 2042

UNIVERSITIES (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE) BILL (No. 2) 1967

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders Suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator GORTON:
Minister for Education and Science · VICTORIA · LP

-I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill is to appropriate additional grants to meet the Commonwealth’s contribution to the increased costs at the universities of the higher levels of academic salaries which the Government said that it was prepared to support from 1st July 1967. The Bill amends the specific salaries which are now set out in the Act for the purposes of financial assistance in connection with the universities. The new levels of salary which are to be paid and which will be supported by the Commonwealth are:

The estimates of cost also include the Commonwealth’s share of consequential increases resulting from these higher salaries, for example in the salaries of fulltime tutors and demonstrators which will be increased consistently with the other academic salary increases.

The only other change made by the Bill, following a request of Macquarie University and the Government of New South Wales, is to provide for an additional amount of Commonwealth assistance in 1967 for Macquarie University of $81,000, subject of course to the availability of an additional amount from fees and State contributions. Consequential reductions are made by the Bill for 1968 and 1969 totalling the same amount and there is therefore no variation in the total grant for the triennium. The need for this adjustment, which has been recommended by the Australian Universities Commission, followed a review by the University of its spread of expenditure over the whole triennium.

Debate (on motion by Senator Cohen) adjourned.

page 2043

STEVEDORING INDUSTRY (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL J967

Bill received from the House o! Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator GORTON:
Minister for Education and Science · VICTORIA · LP

– I move:

This Bill is one of three Bills which are interrelated. The others are the Stevedoring Industry Charge Bill and the Stevedoring Industry Charge Assessment Bill, which are also before the Senate. It should be most convenient and helpful to honourable senators if I provide in this speech the background to the three Bills and give an explanation of them as I go along.

Legislation in relation to the stevedoring industry is no new thing. The last major measure before the Senate was the 1965 Bill. It might truly be said that it was because of the 1965 legislation that it is now possible to place before the Senate these three present measures. Honourable senators will recall that shortly after the passage of the 1965 legislation the then Prime Minister, at the request of the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, set up a National Stevedoring Industry Conference with the objective of achieving a long term improvement in conditions in the stevedoring industry. Participants were the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the Association of Employers of

Waterside Labour, the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority, the Waterside Workers Federation and the Department of Labour and National Service. Mi Woodward, Q.C., was appointed Chairman, and his role was described as being to attempt to secure agreement over the widest area’ The Conference met pretty consistently through 1966 and into 1967, and last April produced a report which has since been widely published.

Something of a transformation has come over the industry since the 1965 legislation. From a situation where it was bedevilled by stoppages and disputes and general disharmony there has been, for two years, unparalleled tranquillity. From a situation where the monthly average of man hours lost by industrial disputes was 117,000- from January 1950 to September 1965 inclusive - over the two-year period from October 1965 monthly losses have averaged, in round terms, 5,000 man hours.

Beyond the most sanguine hopes of many, the National Conference produced agreement in principle over the whole range of matters before it - an agreement which, when given effect to, will mean a far reaching reorganisation of the industry.

The central feature of the arrangements for the reorganisation of the industry is a scheme for permanent employment on weekly hiring, to be introduced in the first instance in six major ports, namely, Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide, Fremantle, and Port Kembla. These ports employ three-quarters of the total registered waterside workers and account for over fourfifths of the total man hours worked by waterside workers. I would not wish to suggest that the scheme of permanent employment is on all fours with that to be found in industry at large. The stevedoring industry has quite unique features about it which make impossible arrangements on a par with those found in industry at large.

In the stevedoring industry, the labour force in the permanent ports will be employed on a system of weekly hire. Some of the men will be employed directly by individual employers - the operational employers. The balance of the men will be employed by. a holding company, whose members will be the registered stevedoring industry employers, and which will allocate its employees to operational employers as required. A second feature is a pensions scheme, applicable to waterside workers in the permanent and the continuous ports. A third, and quite vital, feature is arrangements to deal with those waterside workers who will in the next few years become surplus to requirements.

It is desirable that I give, at this point, a little of the background against which this quite major change in the industry’s organisation should be considered. In the first place, the organisational framework which came out of the National Conference, and to which we are now giving effect, is fundamentally of the making of the employers and the Waterside Workers’ Federation. The Government has taken the view that, even if some other, framework had merit, there were preponderating advantages in giving effect to a scheme of which the two parties principally involved were joint sponsors. In the second place, the Conference met over a period during which it became increasingly clear that the industry was in the grip of major changes. There was the progressive extension of bulk loading facilities and of roll-on-roll-off ships. More significantly, extensive plans for containerisation and the greater use of unit load ships began to take more concrete form. All of these add up inevitably to a reduction, over the next few years, in the number of waterside workers who will be required.

In short, with the industry facing vast changes - the consequence of new technology - considerable adjustments in the labour arrangements had to be made if it’ was to accommodate itself to these changes. It is a matter of the greatest importance, and indeed satisfaction, that all concerned in the industry, and in the Conference, faced the situation realistically and were prepared to work out arrangements that would cope with the clearly emerging problems.

This is the more noteworthy because this industry has had an inbuilt series of practices, generally directed to protecting the work force, And it is normally not a habit of men to cast aside habits and attitudes built up over a long period, however much may be the logical justification for so doing. If we lived in a perfect world a better scheme might have been developed. But when account is taken of the considerations to which 1 have referred, I believe that the greatest credit is due to all who participated in the Conference and, particularly, Mr Woodward, the Chairman, for the outcome that was unanimously arrived at. More than that, not merely did the tone of the Conference discussions augur well for the future, there has been no diminution, in the period succeeding the publication of the Conference report, in the enthusiasm of the principal parties for the scheme worked out. As it is, there is every reason for hoping that what is planned will work out in such a way as to produce not merely an industry free from the industrial disputation that used to plague it, not merely an industry which will be far more efficient than has been the case, but an industry in which unit costs and total costs will, in future, be less than otherwise would have been the case.

This matter of the costs of stevedoring is of the greatest importance to our community. It is for this reason that the Government has been concerned that the changes being made will not add new costs without at the same time bringing compensating advantages. It is quite impossible to determine, at this present juncture, precisely how the scales of costs and benefits will finally tip. Tip they will in the right direction - but not immediately. The Government would not have given the conclusions of the Conference its general blessing if it had not considered that what was proposed offered the prospect of a much better, and a much more efficient stevedoring industry. Some of the items agreed on in the National Conference wm add to costs in the short term. We cannot introduce a pensions scheme - even a contributory pensions scheme - which does not add. to labour costs. We cannot set up a fund from which benefits will be paid in due course to those who become redundant without meantime adding to labour costs. As the labour force is progressively reduced on an orderly basis - something that has been made possible by the agreement come to - in a matter of 4 or 5 years the total number of men employed in stevedoring operations must be fewer and the total labour costs in the industry cannot but be decidedly less than they are now. As well, in the scales, must be weighed the advantages of less time lost in industrial disputes, of better throughput, of more efficient means of using the labour force, and so on, which should be the product of the new arrangements. The Government does not expect thai there will be an immediate reduction in total costs, but we do confidently expect that, putting aside changes in wages and value of money, costs in the industry in 4 or 5 years time will be less than they are today, and would be but for the arrangements which are now being introduced.

Remembering the character of the changes wrapped up in the new arrangements,- and that we really do not know, in detail, what the precise impact of the technological changes now confronting this industry will be, it would be quite wrong to presume that we could, here and now, make fundamental changes in the structure of the existing Stevedoring Industry Act. Indeed, the time factor would not have permitted it, even had this been the proper course to take: Moreover, the parties to the Conference accepted, and so does the Government, that fundamental changes - in the legislative structure should not be made before the new arrangements have been subjected to a trial over a period of 2 years or so and until it had been shown that the new arrangements were working satisfactorily. But, meantime, we have to face the fact that the proposed arrangements cannot be implemented under the legislation as it now stands. To meet this problem, we are adopting an unusual course, but the only course open to us. We are doing this with the full knowledge and concurrence of the parties concerned.

The main purpose of the Stevedoring Industry (Temporary Provisions) Bill is to enable the new arrangements . to be implemented per medium of regulations which the Bill authorises. The necessary provision appears in clause 8. The clause provides that regulations made under it will prevail over the Stevedoring Industry Act or Regulations made under that Act. This is not a novel provision. Opposition senators who have been in this Parliament long enough will remember that, in 1945, a similar provision was included in the Reestablishment and Employment Act introduced by the Labor Government of the day. I point to, and would emphasise, two things about the regulation making power. In the first place, it is not an unlimited power; it is not open ended. Clause 8 sets out the subjects upon which regulations may be made. It is not a case of the regulation making power being at large. The regulations can only be made within the framework of clause 8. By and large, the regulations will have to relate to matters arising from changes in the organisation of the industry, consequent upon the introduction of the new permanency arrangements, or of the pensions scheme. The major object of regulations will be the arrangements to apply in permanent ports. Clause 6 of the Bill authorises the Minister to declare ports to be permanent ports where the permanency arrangements agreed to at the Conference are operating. But, because of the pensions scheme, some adjustments of the present legislation will be needed in relation to the ports described in the Stevedoring Industry Act as continuous ports. Some consequential adjustments of the long service leave scheme, which applies to waterside workers in all ports, will also be needed.

The second point about the regulation making power, and indeed about- the whole Bill, is that it has a limited life. It will cease to have effect on 1st July. 1970. Any regulations that exist then will cease to have effect unless some other provision is meantime made to deal with the matter: The I July 1970 date has been fixed to allow of the 2 year trial period I have already mentioned. While it is expected that Sydney, and also Melbourne, will become permanent ports before the close of 1967, it will be well into the first 6 months of next year before the other four ports J named become permanent ports. Given that things work out as we hope, the intention . of the Government is to bring down legislation before 1st July 1970 amending the Stevedoring Industry Act to make such, .changes as are necessary. Doubtless, in some instances, the amendments will be in keeping with the regulations that have been made meantime under this temporary provisions Bill.

The only other point calling for mention in relation to the temporary provisions Bill is clause 7, which authorises the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority, subject to the direction of the Minister, to make certain payments to the holding company. These payments will be .made from funds deriving from the charge imposed under the Stevedoring Industry Charge Act, to which I will come in a moment. Attendance money will be a thing of the past under the permanent arrangements. However, and particularly while the labour strength is running down, there will be occasions when work will not be available to men under weekly hiring for a shift or part of a shift. The men concerned will not lose by this because they will be on a weekly wage. As to the employer side, it is proposed that, where in current circumstances attendance money would have been paid, the employers concerned will be reimbursed for shifts when there is no work for their men. We have accepted also that the most sensible way of financing employers’ contributions to the pensions fund and providing a fund from which payments may be made when redundancy occurs, is to use the charge and so spread the obligation over all work done in the ports concerned.

Since I have raised the matter of the stevedoring industry charge it is convenient to say a little more about it. The charge is provided for in the Stevedoring Industry Charge Bill. From the proceeds of the charge, the Authority will go on financing its own operations and administration. Its functions will, to all intents and purposes, be unchanged as to other than permanent ports. In the permanent ports, the Authority will have some functions and it will make the payments to the holding company I have referred to. In the continuous ports, the Authority will have its normal responsibilities, and make some payments to the holding company. This leads me to a further point. Payments under the long service leave scheme will continue to be financed from the charge. The Authority will continue to administer the long service leave scheme. However, to date, the basis of financing the scheme has been to provide no more funds through the charge than are necessary to meet the payments on account of leave taken on a year to year cash basis. Looking to the future and remembering the reductions in the work force ahead, the number of leave takings will be rather higher than in the past. Not only must funds for this purpose be provided, it would be quite unjust to make the industry constituted at the time carry the burden of the leave payments that have to be made as they fall due. So it is proposed to convert the present financing arrangements from a cash outgoing basis to one where a fund will be built up to enable sufficient money to be available to pay all long service leave as and when it becomes due.

Honourable senators, if they will turn to the Stevedoring Industry Charge Bill, will notice that in place of the common charge on a man hour basis that has been operative to date, there are for the future to be three separate rates of charge.

In respect of those described as class A waterside workers, the rate of charge will be on a man week basis and be a sum not exceeding $17.55. Since, these men will be on weekly hiring, it is sensible, for accounting and other practical reasons, to levy the charge on a man week basis. Incidentally, the sum that a charge of $17.55 would produce equals the sum that a 50c per man hour charge would produce. In respect of those called class B waterside workers, the rate of charge will continue on the man hour basis and not exceed 80c. In respect of the remainder of the waterside workers - those described as class C water side workers - the charge will not exceed 55c on a man hour basis.

We have fixed the maxima rates on the best information we can assemble. Within the maxima we should be able to finance the expenditures that have to be met over the next 4 to 5 years.

For practical purposes it might be said that class A waterside workers will be those employed on weekly hiring in permanent and continuous ports, class B waterside workers will be the other regular waterside workers in continuous ports, and class C waterside workers will be those employed in ports which are neither permanent nor continuous and, as well, irregulars in all ports. Also to be noticed is that the Stevedoring Industry Charge Bill gives power to make regulations to fix the actual rates from time to time, under the ceiling rates I mentioned a moment ago. We have no wish to have the charge at a higher rate than is necessary, or for a moment longer than necessary.

Now for the reasons for the differential charges for the future. To date, we have had one uniform charge of 48c. If, at each port, the charge had been fixed at the rate required to cover all expenditure at, or referable to, the port, the range of rates would have been from 30c to 213c. In short, the bigger ports have been subsidising the administration of the Stevedoring Industry Act in the other ports.

Plainly, for the future, we could not continue with a uniform charge. In the first place, in respect of class A waterside workers the employers will be carrying, from their own pockets, a fair slab of costs that have to date been borne by the Authority from the charge - for example, the costs of annual and sick leave, and public holiday payments and of labour allocation. In round terms, these might be put down at 20c. It would be equally unfair to load on to the employment of waterside workers at ports where the pension and redundancy arrangements will not apply, the amounts needed to finance those arrangements.

To finance the employers’ contributions to the pension scheme and the redundancy fund will require the equivalent of a 15c charge per man hour for the first 5 years, reducing thereafter to approximately 7c. To build up to the fund to meet commitments for long service leave will require 7c additional to the provision currently made.

The conclusion we have come to is that the major ports should continue to contribute something to the costs of administration of the Act in the remainder. Looked at another way, the maximum rate of charge at the smaller ports is only 7c higher than at present, that is, the amount needed to finance the long service leave fund. At the continuous ports the maximum rate of 80c will be 32c higher - 22c of this represents the pension, redundancy and long service leave items. The balance of 10c represents a further contribution towards the cost of administering the Stevedoring Industry Act in those ports.

In fixing the 80c rate we also had in mind the importance of providing an incentive to employers to extend the permanency arrangements to further ports. In terms of cents per man hour, the maximum rate for class A waterside workers at permanent ports is 10c less than that for class B waterside workers at continuous ports, when allowance is made for the functions employers will be performing in respect of class A waterside workers instead of the Authority.

I must not pass from this without reminding the Senate that in 4 or 5 years, when the pensions and long service leave funds have been built up, we can look forward to the charge operating at the permanent and continuous ports being reduced by some 14c and at the smaller ports by some 7c.

One last point. At the present dme, the charge is not levied on any waterside workers employed on weekly hiring. We introduced this exemption in 1961 because then the employers concerned were only, to a very minor degree, using the services of the Authority and were not receiving any payments from it in respect of their weekly hired employees. For the future the situation will, as I have explained, be very different as regards weekly hired employees in the permanent and continuous ports. So we are cancelling the exemption in respect of those employees. This is dealt with in the Stevedoring Industry Charge Assessment Bill. The present exemption will continue in respect of weekly hired employees in the other ports because the reasons that justified the introduction of the exemption continue to operate.

For years, permanent employment in the stevedoring industry has been advocated by many. Perhaps some have attributed to the idea of direct employer-employee relationships in this industry something of a touch of magic which the circumstances do not justify. But I do not think anyone would contest the point of view that direct relationships should lead to an improvement in not merely the human, but also the industrial, relations’ of this industry. While plans are well advanced to change over to permanent employment in six ports, we shall be hoping that they work out with such success as to lead to other ports becoming permanent ports.

Just what comes out of the new arrangements will depend heavily on how the Waterside Workers Federation and the managements of the individual operational companies and the holding company discharge their responsibilities. Over the years, many critical things have been said about the management side of this industry. The customary response has been that, because of the presence of the Authority and the general character of the legislation, management has been unable to function as employers normally do. From now on, at least in the permanent ports, this will not be the case. Technological development is forcing vast changes on this industry. Those changes must be matched by a management that will not merely cope with technological problems but direct itself assiduously to making this industry a highly efficient industry in every respect. The stevedoring industry is critical in our Australian economy. It is critical because so many of our costs stem from transport and because the profitability of many of our markets and potential markets depends heavily upon the level of transport costs.

On the Federation front, there are signs of a new attitude. There is plainly abroad, at long last, the realisation that the interests of the Federation’s members can best be advanced by putting co-operation to the forefront in the resolving of the industry’s problems. It is the Government’s hope that this will be the guiding principle for the future. If the employers and the Federation both bring to their responsibilities a conviction that their respective interests in the industry are matched by obligations to the community at large, we will be well on the way to a stevedoring industry which is both efficient and notable for sensible human and industrial relations.

Debute (on motion by Senator Bishop) adjourned.

page 2048

STEVEDORING INDUSTRY CHARGE BILL (No. 2) J 967

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator GORTON:
Minister for Education . and Science · VICTORIA · LP

– I move:

Thai the Bill be now read a second time.

I have already covered the provisions of. this Bill in my earlier speech.

Dermic (on motion by Senator Bishop) adjourned.

page 2048

STEVEDORING INDUSTRY CHARGE ASSESSMENT BILL 1967

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator GORTON:
Minister for Education and Science · VICTORIA · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Basically this is a machinery Bill that stems from the changes in the Stevedoring Industry Charge Bill. I have already referred, in my earlier speech, to the principal changes made by this Bill.

Debate (on motion by Senator Bishop) adjourned.

page 2048

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY ORDINANCE

Motion to Disallow

Senator WOOD:
Queensland

– I move:

That the Freehold Land (Subdivision and Use) Ordinance 1967, as contained in Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 27 of 1967, and made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910-1963, be disallowed.

In moving this motion I would like to say , that the Committee’s recommendation in the report it submitted imputes no want of good faith to any person. The Committee is concerned with the maintenance of a system which does not make the rights of persons unduly dependent on administrative decisions without the protection of courts of justice. Nor does the Committee fail in appreciation of the merits of proper town planning. The Committee, of course, has to take cognisance of this situation. The Ordinance is obnoxious to the principles which the Committee is constituted to support. Firstly, the Ordinance unduly interferes with rights of property and contract by means of ministerial discretionary decision. Secondly, the Minister is bound by no rule of law. Thirdly, there is no right of appeal to any tribunal or any court of justice from the Minister’s decision.’” Fourthly, the Ordinance is discriminatory without giving the public the right to object to zoning in the manner customary in State planning legislation.

The Committee of course has had correspondence with the Minister for the Interior in this connection. The Minister was agreeable to setting up a tribunal to give a right of appeal to the landowners and also a right of further appeal, if necessary, to a court of law. The Committee examined this proposition very thoroughly and found that there were no guide lines by which an appeal could be made on questions of law. Because there were really no guide lines, there was no basis on a rule of law and the setting up of such a tribunal would be misleading. We eventually arrived at the decision that the suggestion offered by the Minister would not fulfil or altogether take away the discretionary power that we thought the Ordinance contained. The Committee gave the matter full consideration, with due recognition of the necessity of town planning. Because the rights of citizens have to be considered very strongly by the Committee, it has decided to continue to pursue the disallowance of the Ordinance.

Senator BISHOP (South Australia) 111.54] - I formally second the motion and take the opportunity to support it. I do not intend to try to improve upon what Senator Wood has said. He stated very briefly the reasons for the recommendation of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee. They are set out in the report. We considered that because of the obligations .of the members of the Committee we were required to make such a report. The main point is that the report, was unanimous. There was no dissenting voice in relation to the substance of the report, the contents of which were referred to by Senator Wood. The only other comment I wish to add at this stage is that we have records to indicate that the Minister is aware of the Committee’s reasons for its decisions. I believe he supports the reasons advanced by the Committee, but believes that it is impossible to carry out the Committee’s recommendations in the time suggested by the Committee. That is the position as the Committee sees it. It is aware of the situation as it has been stated. We had hoped that the Ordinance would be repealed. In the circumstances the Committee has decided unanimously to move for disallowance of the Ordinance.

Senator MCKELLAR:
Minister for Repatriation · New South Wales · CP

– The Government has decided not to oppose the motion for the disallowance- of the Ordinance. However, I would like to inform the Senate that the former Minister for the Interior promised some time ago that he would amend the Ordinance to include appeal provisions. An ordinance containing such provisions was signed by the Executive Council this morning.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the. Opposition

– I would like to speak shortly on this matter. The attitude of the Opposition is that had the Ordinance simply been repeated we would have considered on its merits any ordinance which was then introduced. Otherwise the Opposition takes the view that this Ordinance should be disallowed for the reasons which have been advanced in the report of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee. If a fresh ordinance were made the Opposition would consider it on its merits. The course of repealing the Ordinance has not been taken. Instead, the Ordinance was amended and no other course of action was open to the Opposition than to support the motion for its disallowance. The method which was pursued would have meant the creation of a prejudicial situation had we not supported the motion for disallowance. As the situation stands, if this motion is carried, the Government will be able to protect the position in the Australian Capital Territory for the reasons that it thinks desirable. There is nothing to prevent the making of another ordinance which is not the same in substance as an ordinance which is disallowed.

There would be no difficulty at all in the Government’s taking any of the courses open to it, entirely to protect the situation which it claims needs protecting. I thought this ought to be made clear so that noone would think that the carrying of this motion by the Senate would leave the Australian Capital Territory open to speculators, as I think has been suggested, without any remedy being available to the Government.

The motion for disallowance ‘ is based on the grounds of the principles adhered to by the Regulations and Ordinances Com,mittee for many years. Those principles would be applied irrespective of the matter occurring in the Australian Capita] Territory and irrespective of the subject matter with which we were dealing. They are matters of general principle and the Committee has taken the view - and I have little doubt that the Senate will take the view - that the principle’s oh which the (Committee acts should be firmly adhered to and invariably applied.

Senator GORTON:
Minister for Education and Science · VICTORIA · LP

– I too would like to say one or two words about this matter. The views of Senator McKellar, the representative in this chamber of the Minister for the Interior (Mr Nixon), have been made perfectly clear already. I think the Senate knows that the Regulations and Ordinances Committee which brought in the recommendation now before us is not a committee of the Opposition or of the Government; it is a committee of the Senate. I want to make it clear that what has come before us has come from people drawn from both sides of the Parliament. In this particular circumstance it does not matter but in other circumstances I do think it is rather regrettable that that being so, when these reports come before us, groups on one side of the Parliament or the other should meet and form a block vote as to what they will do about a recommendation of the Committee, instead of each honourable senator making up his own mind. But that, of course, is a fact of life, which I think is regrettable in the running of the Parliament.

In this case I think it true to say that there has been fairly constant consultation between the Committee and the Minister. There have been aims held in common; the method of attaining the aims has been the large points at issue, as I understand it.

Senator Wood:

– There has been complete co-operation.

Senator GORTON:
VICTORIA · LP

– Yes. But there has been no satisfactory solution yet as to the methods of attaining the aims. This is the last day on which the Senate can take action to disallow the ordinance in dispute. That being so it appears reasonable to the Government that this course should be taken and that the consultation should proceed in an attempt to arrive at a solution satisfactory to everyone.

Senator Murphy:

– The Opposition members on the Committee . were not directed by the Australian Labor Parry as to what they should do. Their actions are free an independent.

Senator GORTON:
VICTORIA · LP

– I am sure of that. I would agree wholeheartedly, Mr President, and would not question the remark made by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy) that the members of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee drawn from the Opposition side were not directed as to what they should do. The point I was making Was that the Committee of the Senate having brought in a report, it was a shame that the decisions on that report might tend to be made according to directions given by one party or the other as to what should happen in the Senate and not in the Committee.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2050

COMMONWEALTH EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION BILL 1967

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 1 November (vida page 2021), on motion by Senator Henty:

Thai the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

Mr. President, when this Bill was before us last night 1 had traced the history of employers’ liability up to the English Employers’ Liability Act of 1880. I had shown that that was the first Act which provided some protection for workmen although, again, it had to be action under tort. The Act omitted to provide for negligence on the part of a number of supervisors of the employer and conditions of payment were limited. But the significant thing about that Act was that as it extended to workmen the right to proceed, it restricted the amount that could be received. Whereas under common law they could receive compensation for the amount that they lost as a result of the wrongful act of someone else, under the Employers’ Liability Act the maximum claim was based on the earnings of the average three years preceding the injury. That was the limit of claim under the Act.

Senator Wright:

– Can the honourable senator tell me the year of the Employers’ Liability Act to which he refers?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– Yes. The English Government brought in the Employers’ Liability Act of 1880 in May 1880. lt became operative on 1st January 188.1.

Senator Wright:

– My recollection is that subsequent amendments of that Act did not contain that limitation.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I think there were subsequent amendments and perhaps 1 will be able to deal with them later. The original Act contained a limitation on damages, based on the average earnings over the three years immediately preceding the injury. The important thing is that this Act was passed in 1880. We have amendments before us today to the Commonwealth Employees’ Compensation Act which do not improve to any great extent the rates of workers compensation. According to the current Commonwealth ‘Year Book’ the average weekly wage of employees throughout Australia was $54.60. if we multiply that sum by 156 - a 3-year period - we get a total average salary of $8,517.60. The present Commonwealth Employees’ Compensation Act provides a maximum payment of $10,000. If we compare this maximum with the maximum provided under the English Act of 1880 we find that the present limit has been increased by only $1,482.40. It can be seen therefore that the conditions of compensation provided in this amending Bill are not really as favourable as those under the English Act of 1880. While the compensation paid could be higher for those receiving less than average salary, taking it on the whole the Opposition cannot see that the benefits have increased very much compared with those paid under the original English Act in 1880. As Senator Wright said last night, we must take a new look at the question of workers compensation. We have a responsibility to increase the benefits to the extent that public conscience will permit. We should consider those persons who, unfortunately, are injured or killed, and their dependants, and not worry so much about what ‘ someone might have to pay.

Senator Wright:

– 1 suggest it is basic to the honourable senator’s argument to acknowledge that the English Employers’ Liability Act was for faults. This Commonwealth Employees’ Compensation Act relates to all cases of accident, irrespective of faults.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– Yes, I acknowledge that. But the English extended liability from just the person who was actually at fault. Liability was extended to take in the responsibility of the employer in relation to his foreman. The Act extended the liability to cover those who were responsible for supervision. The law recognised that the employer was liable in respect of compensation although he was only indirectly in control of the employee. In my studies I found that the first Workmen’s Compensation Act was passed in 1897. This Act was not based on liability, lt provided an automatic payment. It provided for a payment of half the wages that the employee was earning for the period during which he was incapacitated. It did not apply when the accident was the result of the worker’s own negligence and the injury was of a minor nature, but it did apply if the injury was a major one despite the fact that it was due to the worker’s own negligence. Common employment was no longer a defence under the act of 1 897 but the payments were much lower than were provided for in a civil claim for wrong. In 1906 the Act was extended to cover all workmen receiving less than a certain income. The consolidated Act of 1927 extended the legislation to cover industrial diseases. Senator Wright can correct me if I am wrong here, but I believe that whilst the legislation now provides for an automatic claim the defence of volenti non fit injuria - that is, that anyone who knows the risk is presumed to take the risk - is still open to the employer.

Senator Wright:

– It is not open in respect of compensation under this Act.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– The Law Reform Act 1945 abolished the doctrine of common employment.

Senator Wright:

– Yes, but the honourable senator was talking about the defence of volenti non fit injuria.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I have quoted the history of this matter. The Beveridge report was presented in Great Britain in 1946. In 1948 the Employers’ Liability Act and the Workmen’s Compensation Act in

Great Britain were repealed. The important trend in British workmen’s compensation was that a compulsory employee’s contribution was made to a social services fund, with increased payment if the incapacity for work or injury was due to an industrial cause. The new trend in respect of workmen’s compensation in Australia today is the need to consider whether we are getting the best out of our Act.

Senator Wright:

– Has the honourable senator any information on the reaction of the trade union movement and on how that change is working?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– No, but the Act was passed in 1948 and is still in operation. The fact that we have not heard the reaction of the British trade union movement would suggest to me that there is no violent opposition to the Act. Because of the need for contributions by the employees I could understand it if there were a reaction. As the employee’s contribution is normally paid into the British social insurance scheme and is obligatory on every worker, it could well be that the additional amount in respect of the increased payment of workmen’s compensation could be contributed by the employer, as is done in Australia.

The main point that I raise is that we are not facing up to the fact that an injured workman is entitled to greater assistance than our Act, even as amended by this Bill, will provide. We have automatic payment. We have got away from common law rights except that a workman still has the right to take proceedings at common law if he can show negligence by someone. Why should there be different rates because one workman can show negligence and another workman who is injured as a result of the negligence of another servant of his employer fails to prove negligence? The suffering is the same; the loss is the same; the hardship caused to the family is the same. No-one sets out deliberately to injure himself. Our society has progressed to the stage where there is justification for comparable payments being made to the workman who is injured as a result of the negligence of someone else and to the workman whose suffering is the same but whose injury is not the result of the negligence of someone else.

This principle could extend far beyond the field of workmen’s compensation. I do not know that society should not consider the position of anyone who is injured,’ even outside his employment, and is unable to work, and grant him a substantial amount of money that will allow him to enjoy the benefits and privileges of our advanced society which he would have enjoyed but for the unfortunate injury that he received.

Senator Wright:

– Might we not seriously damage society if we gave the same compensation to the careless as to the careful?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– We have that situation under our social services system, under our repatriation system and also under our workmen’s compensation system. I doubt whether carelessness is not a development of the nature of the individual rather than a matter of deliberate intent. I doubt whether there should be a differentiation because a person has the peculiarity of being careless. If someone ever thought that he would be in a better position on compensation and set out deliberately to obtain it, there would be justification for differentiation. But I do not think that happens.

I conclude my remarks by saying that, although we will move the amendments that Senator Bishop has mentioned for the purpose of improving this Bill, we will not oppose the motion for the second reading. We are concerned that the promise that was made to the effect that a new Act would be introduced this session has not been carried out. In our opinion the rates are still not sufficient. Because of our advanced society we should be giving the lead in Australia by having a new look at the matter of workmen’s compensation. 1 have a great liking for the suggestion that Senator Wright made last night, namely, that a committee should consider this matter and determine what the basis of future workmen’s compensation payments throughout industry in Australia should be.

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Supply · Tasmania · LP

– in reply - 1 thank the three honourable senators who have spoken in this debate for their speeches. It has been a very interesting debate. The theme that has run through all of the speeches has been that in our present day society we should adopt a more enlightened attitude to the problem of workers compensation. The cases that were made out were built substantially around that proposition. I am closely in accord with it. The history of this legislation that has been given to us today and the case that was presented by Senator Bishop last night were pretty comprehensive.

I was interested in the human story that Senator Cavanagh told us last night. He said that he was closely connected with workers compensation as a result of the suffering of one of his grandfathers. I would like to think that that suffering has resulted in the grandson having some expert knowledge of this matter.

Senator Cavanagh:

– It has resulted in some bitterness.

Senator HENTY:

– No doubt there were other results, but I believe that that is one of the compensations that have resulted from that suffering, little as its intrinsic value may be. The Government has already said that more than 100 proposals have been submitted to it over the last few weeks. Those proposals relate to many major matters in respect of the administrative machinery. The Government is examiningthe wide field of the Act. At the present time we are dealing only with rates. The other matters are receiving detailed attention and a great deal of time has been spent on proposed amendments.

Sitting suspended from 12.20 to 3.5 p.m.

Senator HENTY:

– Beforethesuspension of the sitting I was pointing out that more than 100 proposals relating to this important field of activity have been submitted to the Government over the past few weeks. They are being carefully examined. 1 believe that when honourable senators see the Bill which will contain these proposals they will, in general, be pleased with them.

Senator Cavanagh:

– When can we expect to sec them?

Senator HENTY:

– The Bill will be introduced early in the next session: We have explained that the Bill now before us is an interim measure. The Government does not go along with the point of view that we should lead the States in this region of workers compensation because a vast area of it conies within State jurisdiction, not Commonwealth jurisdiction. However, there are one or two ways in which we think that the Government, as a model employer, possibly can bring in innovations which will be of benefit to Government employees. This will be done in the spirit of the debates on this particular matter during this session. The Government has already introduced innovations. There are other innovations which it could introduce in this field without taking the lead because, as I have already said, in a majority of cases workers compensation comes within jurisdiction of the State governments. With those few words I thank honourable senators for their contributions to the debate.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Clause I agreed to.

Clause 2.

This Act shall come into operation on the day on which it received the Royal Assent.

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

-I move:

The Opposition moves this amendment for the reasons which I stated in my speech at the second reading stage. We have stated here, and it has been stated elsewhere, that there has been too long a delay in introducing the amendments contained in the Bill. In 1959 and in 1964 the Government promised to introduce amending legislation. Just before the Minister for Supply (Senator Henty) concluded his remarks afew moments ago he said that the Government intended to deal expeditiously with certain matters. We put to the Committee that the benefits which are contained in the Bill ought to operate from the date on which the Bill was introduced. That is all I wish to say on this amendment.I think it is as clear as that. The amendment is designed to cover employees who are at present injured. If the amendment is not accepted their position will be worse than that of employees who are covered by State legislation.

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Supply · Tasmania · LP

– Only once in the history of this legislation has the date on which it received royal assent not been accepted as the date of operation. Acceptance of the Opposition’s amendment would mean that this Bill would come into operation earlier than otherwise. It is not the practice to give retrospective effect to such amendments because whatever date is selected there will always be some people who will fail by a narrow margin to qualify for the new rates. With the one exception, on all previous occasions on which this Act has been amended, the new provisions have operated as from the date on which the Bill received royal assent. The exception was in 1954. In 1953 the Government had given an undertaking to introduce amending legislation, but it was not possible to introduce the Bill before the end of the parliamentary session. Because of this, the operation of the amending Bill of 1954 was made retrospective. These circumstances do not obtain on this occasion. The Government does not wish to depart from its normal practice and the practice of all governments. This was the practice of the Australian Labor Party when it was in government. For these reasons the Opposition’s amendment is not accepted.

Question put:

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

The Committee divided. (The Chairman - Senator T. C. DrakeBrockman)

AYES: 23

NOES: 26

Majority . . . . 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3.

Section 11 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting from sub-clause (2b.) the words ‘Five hundred pounds’ and inserting in their stead the words ‘One thousand dollars’.

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

-I move:

We propose this amendment for the reasons that I stated during the second reading debate. This provision applies to the amounts payable for medical expenses. I pointed out that five States had better provisions and that Victoria and New South Wales had legislation that provided for reasonable expenses. In another place the Minister indicated that the Government intended to eliminate this ceiling. Unless the Minister in this place reiterates what was said by the Minister in another place we propose to press the amendment.

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Supply · Tasmania · LP

– The Government undertakes that no employee will be disadvantaged in the interim should the existing limit be exceeded. As I have already forshadowed, the Government proposes to provide for the elimination of the limit in the forthcoming new legislation.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– What about the position of those who will be affected between now and the introduction of the new legislation? Surely this is not an unreasonable request. It is not proposed to provide an excessive amount. The intention is to make provision for increased expenditure, with the safeguard that (his expenditure must not be unwarranted.

Senator Wright:

– What are the safeguards?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– The section provides: (1.) Where compensation is payable . . .

  1. the Commonwealth shall be liable to pay a sum ascertained in accordance with the next succeeding sub-section in respect of the cost of such medical treatment in relation to the injury as is, in the opinion of the Commissioner, reasonably necessary.
Senator Webster:

– That is no safeguard.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– He cannot select a doctor because the doctor’s fees are high. The costs must be reasonable in the opinion of the Commissioner. The section continues:

  1. the Commonwealth shall, subject to subsection (2a.) of this section, be liable to pay . . . the expenditure incurred by the employee in travelling to a place for the purpose of receiving any such medical treat ment or to his place of residence after receiving any such medical treatment.

Sub-section (2a.) provides:

Where an employee has incurred expenditure in relation to which paragraph (b) of sub-section (1.) of thin section applies and the Commissioner is of opinion, having regard to all the circumstances, including -

the means available for the conveyance of the employee;

the places at which appropriate medical treatment was available for the treatment of the employee; and

the accommodation that was available to the employee, that it was not reasonably necessary for the em ployee to incur any such expenditure or that the expenditure incurred exceeded the expenditure that was reasonably necessary, the liability of the Commonwealth under that paragraph shall be a liability to pay a sum equal to the amount of the expenditure, if any, that, in the opinion of the Commissioner, was reasonably necessary.

If a man is capable of travelling by public transport and he elects to get a taxi, the expenditure is not recoverable if it is not considered reasonably necessary. The commissioner has full right to refuse to reimburse the employee for extravagent expenditure, or expenditure that was not reasonably necessary. I agree with the Minister that there should be no limit. When the new legislation comes into operation an employee will have full repayment of any expenditure, but what about the chap who suffers an injury between the time when this Bill receives assent and the time when the new Act comes in? We do not know on what date that will be. We must have regard to his position. Is there not some provision for payments to be made to him? At present there is a limit of $1,000. The amendment seeks simply to raise the limit. I think that we have an obligation to do this.

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Supply · Tasmania · LP

– The Opposition proposes that the existing limit of $1,000, which the Bill leaves unaltered, be increased to $2,500. This proposal is not accepted by the Government. In another place it was explained that the existing limit operates only to provide a point of review and not as a maximum beyond which the employee has to meet his own medical expenses. The Government has already announced that it proposes to provide for the removal altogether of this limit in the amending legislation which I foreshadowed when introducing this Bill. I give the Senate an undertaking that no employee will be disadvantaged in the meanwhile should the existing limit be exceeded:

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

– In view of the undertakings given here and in another place, the Opposition docs not press the amendment.

The CHAIRMAN:

-(Senator Drake-Brockman).- Does the honourable senator want to withdraw the amendment?

Senator BISHOP:

– No, but we will not divide on it.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 4 and 5 agreed to.

Clause 6.

The First Schedule to the Principal Act is amended as set out in the following table: {: #debate-38-s6 .speaker-K1Y} ##### Senator BISHOP:
South Australia -I move: This amendment merely seeks an adjustment of the payments set out in the table to an amount which bears some relationship to what we think the total wage should be. Our reasons for the amendment were given during the second reading debate. {: #debate-38-s7 .speaker-KOW} ##### Senator HENTY:
Minister for Supply · Tasmania · LP -- The principal amend ment proposed here seeks to provide that the weekly payment for an adult employee with a dependent wife and one child under the age of 16 years should amount to the minimum adult total wage - that is, in effect, the total minimum wage for the six capitals - rather than the current equivalent of the six capitals basic wage of 1964, which is the basis for the increased payments under the Bill. Acceptance of this amendment would place the Commonwealth rate ahead of all the State rates insofar as the weekly payment for a single adult male and the weekly payment for the man with a wife and one child are concerned. It is the Government's view that because the area of the States' responsibilities in this field is far wider than the Commonwealth's - for every person covered by the Commonwealth Act there are ten persons covered by the State legislation - it should not in general set the pace in this field but should ensure that the benefits provided for its employees are generally in line with those provided by the legislation of the States. In any event, the Government believes that the concept of the minimum total wage is not yet sufficiently established to warrant Commonwealth compensation payments being related to it in preference to the current equivalent of the old six capitals basic wage. The proposed amendment to paragraph (1.) (a) (iii) of the First Schedule is not acceptable at this stage, but the Government has noted it for further examination. Question put: >Thatthe words proposed to be left out **(Senator Bishop's amendment)** be left out. The Committee divided. (The Chairman - Senator T. C. DrakeBrockman) AYES: 22 NOES: 25 Majority . . . . 3 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the negative. Clause agreed to. Clause 7 postponed. Clause 8 agreed to. The Schedule. THE SCHEDULE Schedule Inserted in the Principal Act dv this Act THE THIRD SCHEDULE Part I Injuries in respect of which the Amount or Compensation Specified in Section 12 (1.)IS Payable * *** Part II Injuries in respect of which a Percentage of the Amount op Compensation Specified in Section 12(1.) is Payable **** Leave out Part II of the Third Schedule to be inserted in the Principal Act, insert the following part: This amendment merely seeks to bring the Commonwealth legislation into line with that of four of the States. At one time the legislation of those States provided for differences in the amount of compensation payable according to whether the injury was on the left or right side. That practice has been discontinued. The State legislation now makes no differentiation in the payment to be made irrespective of whether for example, it is the left or right eye or limb that is lost. We submit that Commonwealth employees should enjoy the same benefits and therefore ask the Senate to accept this proposal, which seeks to bring the Commonwealth legislation into line with that of those States. Consequently, we have not disturbed the percentages. What has happened in the Bill now before the Committee is that the nominated amounts have been replaced by percentages. In the amendment, we have not disturbed those percentages. We have simply eliminated cases where there are differing amounts for the loss of left arms and right arms, etc. We have taken the higher percentage. Briefly, that is the explanation of the amendment. {: #debate-38-s8 .speaker-KOW} ##### Senator HENTY:
Minister for Supply · Tasmania · LP -- I wish to advise the honourable senator that the effect of his amendment would be to eliminate the existing distinction that the schedule makes between the loss of a right arm or hand, etc., and the loss of a left arm or hand etc., depending on whether a person is right handed or left handed. This is a new proposal. While the amendment that has been moved is not acceptable at this stage, the Government will examine this proposal in connection with the further amending legislation which I have already foreshadowed. I point out that four States - New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia and Tasmania - have adopted the approach now suggested by the Opposition. However, the amounts provided under the legislation of those States are generally inferior to those provided in this Bill. For example, under this Bill $7,200 will be payable for the loss of a left arm. South Australia provides the same amount for the loss of the other arm. But in New South Wales the amount is only $4,600 while in Tasmania it is $5,625 and in Queensland $5,055. In view of this, I suggest that we be given the opportunity to examine the proposal before the new legislation is introduced. Question put: >That the amendment **(Senator Bishop's)** be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman - Senator T. C. DrakeBrockman.) AYES: 22 NOES: 25 Majority . . . . 3 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the negative. Schedule agreed to. Postponed clause 7 agreed to. Title agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. {:#subdebate-38-1} #### Third Reading Bill (on motion by **Senator Henty)** read a third time. {: .page-start } page 2059 {:#debate-39} ### REPRESENTATION OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA The **PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMullin)** - Honourable senators, I have an announcement to make to the Senate regarding a new senator. I suggest that before I make my announcement the bells be rung to summon honourable senators to the Senate. (The bells having been rung) The **PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMullin)** - I inform the Senate that 1. have received through His Excellency the Governor-General, from the Governor's Deputy of the State of South Australia, a telegram certifying the choice of Condor Louis Laucke as a senator to fill the vacancy in the representation of South Australia in the Senate caused by the death of **Senator Hannaforcl.** The telegram will be laid on the table and read by the Clerk. The Clerk then laid on the table the telegram certifying the choice as a senator of Condor Louis Laucke. **Senator Condor** Louis Laucke made and subscribed the oath of allegiance. {: .page-start } page 2059 {:#debate-40} ### SEAMEN'S COMPENSATION BILL 1967 In Committee The Bill. {: #debate-40-s0 .speaker-K1Y} ##### Senator BISHOP:
South Australia -- 1 have four amendments and 1 seek leave to move them together. {: #debate-40-s1 .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: **-(Senator Drake-Brockman).-** There being no objection, leave is granted. {: .speaker-K1Y} ##### Senator BISHOP: -- My first amendment refers to clause 2, which reads: >This Act shall come into operation on the day on which it receives the Royal Assent. My second amendment refers to clause 4, which reads: >Section 5a of the Principal Act is amended by omitting from sub-section (1.) the words 'Five hundred pounds' (wherever occurring) and inserting in their stead the words 'One thousand dollars'. My third amendment refers to clause 9, which reads: The First Schedule to the Principal Act is amended as set out in the following table: My fourth amendment refers to the Schedule, which reads: >THE SCHEDULE > >Schedule Inserted in the Principal Act by this Act > >THIRD SCHEDULE > >Part I. > >Injuries in respect of which the Amount of Compensation Specified in Section 5b (1.) is Payable Loss of both eyes Loss of an only useful eye, the other being blind or absent Loss of both hands Loss of hand and foot Loss of both feet I move: {: type="A" start="I"} 0. In clause 2, leave out the clause, insert the following clause: {: type="1" start="2"} 0. This Act shall be deemed to have come into operation on the twenty-seventh day of September, One thousand nine hundred and sixty-seven'. 1. In clause 4, leave out ' "One thousand dollars" ', insert " "Two thousand five hundred dollars" '. 2. In clause 9, leave out the table, insert the following table: {: type="1" start="4"} 0. In the Schedule, leave out Part II . of the Third Schedule to be inserted in the Principal Act, insert the following Part: These amendments are similar to the amendments which were proposed when the Commonwealth Employees' Compensation Bill was being dealt with in another place. lt was recognised that the assurance given by the Government in relation to that Bill would apply to the Bill now before us. For that reason and to facilitate the business of the Senate we have suggested that the amendments be moved together. Before they are formally tested by the Senate I ask the Minister to have regard to our proposed amendment to clause 4. We propose to change the amount of $1,000 to $2,500. This amendment relates to medical expenses. The Committee will know that the Minister has indicated that the limits here will be eliminated in respect of the Commonwealth Employees' Compensation Bill. We request the same undertaking in relation to the Bill now before us. {: #debate-40-s2 .speaker-JZQ} ##### Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Customs and Excise · New South Wales · LP -- The arrangement indicated is acceptable to the Government. This Bill is complementary to the Commonwealth Employees' Compensation Bill. The proposed amendments are identical and the assurances given in relation to the other Bill are now given in relation to this Bill. The amount specified is not the limit. It represents only the amount above which approval is necessary. I do not think that in recent years payment has. been withheld, lt is more or less a formality. The Government has announced elsewhere that it will remove the barrier in legislation to be introduced in the next sessional period. In the meantime I give an undertaking that the Government will ensure that no seaman will be disadvantaged should the existing limit be exceeded. Question put: >That the amendments **(Senator Bishop's)** be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman - Senator T. C. DrakeBrockman) AYES: 22 NOES: 25 Majority . . . . 3 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the negative. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. {:#subdebate-40-0} #### Third Reading Bill (on motion by **Senator Anderson)** read a third time. {: .page-start } page 2063 {:#debate-41} ### DEFENCE (RE-ESTABLISHMENT) BILL 1967 {:#subdebate-41-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed from 26 October (vide page 1707), on motion by **Senator McKellar:** >That the Bill be now read a second time. {: #subdebate-41-0-s0 .speaker-K1Y} ##### Senator BISHOP:
South Australia -- This Bill makes a number of minor amendments in relation to loans provided for national servicemen on discharge. Clause 3 of the Bill provides for an additional subsection in section 50 of the Act to enable a prescribed authority to use his discretion in relation to the authorisation of loans. Examples have been given of cases likely to be considered. Many national servicemen may not follow their usual occupations just prior to being called into the Service. Under the terms of the present legislation they would not be eligible under section 50 for a re-establishment loan. In that respect the amendment proposed by the Government is a benefit. The second amendment relates to interest payable on loans and has been introduced as a result of legal advice given to the Government that it will be necessary to ensure that the provisions of section 54 are legally sound. Consequently the Minister has stated that the proposed amendments are necessary. The Opposition does not oppose the measure. However, we are concerned that the Government, having considered reestablishment loans for national servicemen for agricultural and business purposes, has not acted to improve the existing legislation. Only a meagre loan is provided for. A paltry concession is given to national servicemen in that interest is not payable on the first $100 of a loan. This concession is worth about $4.50 to national servicemen. In my opinion the amounts of the loans prescribed, both for business and for agricultural purposes, on present day standards are not sufficient to provide adequate reestablishment for national servicemen. How far would a national serviceman get with a loan of $6,000 if he wished to establish a farm? That amount does not represent half the cost of a decent tractor for his property. We are critical of the legislation. We think the Government should have taken the opportunity to increase the maximum loans allowable. The amendments proposed are almost machinery matters. I believe that the Government could have announced a reduction in interest rates. My final point concerns the land settlement of ex-servicemen. This is a very important matter for national servicemen. We have been expecting for some time that the Government would bring down legislation to provide the same facilities for national servicemen, who are obliged to serve in Vietnam, as would apply to people who volunteer for the Services. The Government has applauded the activities of national servicemen in all theatres of war and also within this country. For this reason I was rather surprised to notice what the Minister for Repatriation **(Senator McKellar)** said yesterday in reply to a question. His remarks appear at page 1972 of Hansard. **Senator Heatley** had asked the following question: 1 ask the Minister for Repatriation a question. Can he explain why returned national servicemen who have served in Vietnam are not entitled to war service land settlement loans in Queensland? After answering this question **Senator McKellar** went on to say: >So far as the Commonwealth administered War Service Land Settlement Scheme for national servicemen is concerned the Government has given very careful consideration to the question of introducing a scheme on similar lines to the War Service Land Settlement Scheme which was introduced following the 1914-18 War and reconstituted after the 1939-45 War. As far as national servicemen are concerned there ate re-establishment benefits which already apply to them. However, in relation to the current conditions of both national servicemen and members of the regular forces it is important to note that the periods of service are fixed - there is none of the indefiniteness of a 'for the duration' enlistment. Against this background and bearing in mind the very small numbers of national servicemen and members of the regular forces who would be suitably qualified for land settlement, the Government has decided not to re-introduce a scheme along the lines of the War Service Land Settlement Scheme. I think the Government ought to be condemned for refusing to do this. We are considering now in this Bill a proposition from the Minister to amend the Act to provide a discretion for the prescribed authority to permit him to award the agricultural loan to an ex-serviceman in circumstances where that person, in relation to farming for example, left the industry for some reason for a short time. We are being asked to agree that this person should be re-established on a farm. But the Government is not prepared to give that person benefits equivalent to those available for persons who served in the First World War and the Second World Wan I trust that the Government will take note not only of what the Opposition has said in this place and in the other place but also of the representations made by the ex-servicemen's organisations. Those organisations have consistently advocated that the re-establishment loans be increased and that the Government introduce legislation with respect to war service land settlement for these men. {: #subdebate-41-0-s1 .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator WEBSTER:
Victoria -- T congratulate the Government on introducing this Defence (Re-establishment) Bill. I certainly would not criticise the Government, as the previous speaker did, for the view it has taken in regard to this legislation. 1 think the financial assistance which the Government is providing for these exservicemen who, perhaps, only served for 2 years, is very fair. An amount of $3,000 can be made available for certain reestablishment purposes, such as the case of an ex-serviceman wishing to get back into business. I think we should compare this benefit with the situation of a person who spends 2 years in the ordinary community. Such a person would be fortunate indeed to secure a loan of that amount in a normal 2-year working period. The Government should be congratulated on adopting this basis for the Defence (Re-establishment) Act. I had some difficulty in understanding the necessity for the amendments introduced in this Bill. It appeared to me that under section 50 of the Act it was fairly clear that some discretion could be exercised by the prescribed authority. It seemed doubtful to me that this Act should be amended by adding to section 50 the words contained in clause 3 of the Bill. The clause states that section 50 of the principal Act is to be amended by adding the following new subsection: (2.) Where a person is not an eligible person by reason only that he is not a person to whom paragraph (b) of the definition of 'eligible person' in the last preceding sub-section applies, a prescribed authority may, if the prescribed authority considers it desirable in the circumstances of the' case, determine that the person shall be an eligible person for the purposes of this Part. When I read the original Act I believed there was sufficient scope for the prescribed authority to use his discretion. I accept the view that the legal authority has suggested that power was not there for that discretion to be used. However, I make the point that I doubt whether this amendment is necessary. I also query whether the amendment to section 54 of the Act is required. The Senate discussed and passed the Defence (Re-establishment) Act 1965 and I note that section 54 states: >Loans made under this Part bear interest at such rate as is prescribed. That would be the interest rate prescribed by the authority. It would be my view that the authority could prescribe any interest rate on any part of the loan that the authority so desired to the extent of prescribing a no rate. Apparently this involves a legal technicality and it has been suggested that such a rate would not be a legal prescription by the authority. Therefore this amendment is before us although my view is that this is not necessary. I have given some thought to the principles behind this legislation. If we feel that we should encourage national servicemen in the defence of this country we should look at the allowances and benefits available under this legislation. We should regard it as being, perhaps, the main encouragement to young men in our defence forces at the present time. We should look at the legislation as being machinery by which they can in future life become self-employed. I think that in the future there will be nothing more important to Australia than re-establishing these men. I say that because Australia is a young country with enormous potential and a wonderful future. The advantages of this legislation should be extended to the utmost as an inducement to the men that are going abroad to serve this country or defend it on our own shores. I would encourage the Government to increase the ambit of this Act and to make the financial arrangements even more liberal than is proposed under this Bill. We find that the Government proposes that the first $100 of a re-establishment loan will be free of interest. As I understand the Act, the discretion about interest rates is being used at present. The term of the loans and the interest rates should be considered as means of bringing to individuals who will receive the benefit a certain amount of business responsibility. This sense of responsibility is one of the greatest things which come within the ambit and make up the strength of this legislation. I urge the Government to increase further the amount of loan that may be made available in instances where discretion can be used. If we really consider the position, the sum of $3,000 would not be sufficient to enable a person to become re-established in any business of consequence at this time. However, I am pleased to support the amendments contained in this Bill. {: #subdebate-41-0-s2 .speaker-KTL} ##### Senator MCKELLAR:
Minister for Repatriation · New South Wales · CP -- in reply - 1 am pleased to see that the Opposition is supporting this Bill. 1 did not expect anything else. It was apparent from the speech of the spokesman for the Opposition, **Senator Bishop,** that he is concerned about gaining the utmost benefit that can be gained for these men who are returning to civilian life after performing their duty not only for the Army but also for the people of Australia. He mentioned the saving of interest. He said that it involved only a small amount. That is so. He mentioned an amount of $4.50. But this is in favour of the chaps who are returning to civilian life. Had it been against them his point might have had greater significance. I remind him that in regard to the loans, quite apart from the rate of interest to be paid on them, the fact that the repayments are to be over a long term is of considerable value to men who are in need of these loans. **Senator Bishop** referred to what he said was the need for a system of land settlement for these men. As far as I could gather, he correctly stated an answer that 1 gave in reply to a question that he asked on this matter. In fact, as late as yesterday I gave an answer to a question asked by **Senator Heatley** on the same subject. The reason why the Government has decided not to institute a system on land settlement for these chaps who are returning to civilian life after their 2 years of service in the Army has been stated over and over again. Admittedly we bad a land settlement scheme for the men who served in the Services in World War I and World War II. But the circumstances there were very different. Those men were in the Services for an indefinite period. These men are being called up for a period of not more than 2 years, 12 months of which will be served in Australia and 12 months of which will be served overseas in normal circumstances. In view of that fact and the other forms of help that are made available to these men, it was felt that this decision was fair in the circumstances. If the period of service were 4 or 5 years the situation would be entirely different. That is the main reason why the Government decided that it would not institute a system of land settlement for these men. Everyone, particularly a person who has had any experience on the land, knows that a $6,000 loan is not nearly sufficient to enable anybody to purchase a property and to go on to the land. But this loan is not intended to be for that purpose, lt is intended to be made to those men who have been on the land and who wish to go back on to it. This loan could be of material assistance to them, lt is at a low rate of interest. The conditions attached to the first $100 have been referred to. The loan is to be repaid over a long term. For a man going back into a business the loan is $3,000. lt is at the same rule of interest and has the same long term for repayment. These may be small amounts in themselves, considering today's values, but they are designed to be of assistance - I am quite sure that they will be of considerable assistance - to the people who need them. In addition, although the relevant legislation has been postponed for the time being. I mention the defence forces retirement benefits that will be made available to men who have suffered injury during their service. This legislation will be made retrospective. That has been made quite clear, lt was obvious to me that this extension of the defence forces retirement benefits scheme would necessitate quite a deal of detailed thought, examination and drafting. So I was not surprised to find that it was not possible to introduce the legislation in the present parliamentary session, lt was hoped thai it would be possible to do that, but it has been found not to be possible. These benefits will not be denied to the men who are in need of them. They are in addition to repatriation benefits. **Senator Webster** mentioned eligibility and discretion. The very reason why a discretion is being given in this case is to favour applicants. I mentioned the case of a man who was on a farm or was share farming and who because of adverse circumstances, such as drought, was forced to relinquish his interest just prior to enlistment, if we were to stick strictly to the provisions of the original legislation that man would not be eligible for the assistance that we hope to give him. So this discretion has been given in the interests of applicants. I am sorry that **Senator Webster** is not present to hear what I am saying. The reason for giving a discretion was to give the benefit of the doubt to applicants. I am glad to see that the benefit of the doubt that we exercise in the repatriation field is being extended to cases of this nature. {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator Cavanagh: -- The Minister is kidding himself. {: .speaker-KTL} ##### Senator McKELLAR: -- **Senator Cavanagh** and I cannot seem to agree on that matter. I am hoping to convert him. I will pursue the matter with him very steadfastly. {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator Cavanagh: -- I will speak about it on the motion for the adjournment tonight. {: .speaker-KTL} ##### Senator McKELLAR: -- ( will not be here, but the honourable senator may speak if he wishes to. **Senator Webster** proffered the advice that this discretion was not necessary. That is his view. The Government has to take cognisance not of **Senator Webster's** ideas but of the advice of its legal advisers. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- They are not only **Senator Webster's** ideas. {: .speaker-KTL} ##### Senator McKELLAR: -- No. The Government has to take notice of its legal advisers, not the view of **Senator Webster, Senator Wright** or anybody else. In the main the Government's legal advisers have been found to be right. **Senator Wright** may disagree with me as much as he likes. He often does. But that does not alter the fact that I am still able to get along with him. I believe that 1 have answered all of the points which were mentioned and which required some explanation from me. If I have not, I will be happy to try to do so later. This is a very worthy measure. I am glad to see that it has the support of the Opposition. I hope it will have a speedy passage through the Committee stage. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. {: .page-start } page 2066 {:#debate-42} ### SUPERANNUATION (PENSION INCREASES) BILL 1967 {:#subdebate-42-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed from 20 October (vide page 11513) on motion by **Senator Gorton:** >Thai the Bill be now read a second lime. {: #subdebate-42-0-s0 .speaker-KBC} ##### Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia -- **Mr Acting Deputy President,** might I suggest that the Superannuation (Pension Increases) Bill, the Defence *Forces* Retirement Benefits (Pension Increases) Bill and the Parliamentary Retiring Allowances (Increases) Bill be debated together? The ACTING **DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Laught)** - There being no objection, that course will be followed. {: .speaker-KBC} ##### Senator WILLESEE: -- These three Bills amend their parent Acts. I make the point immediately that they refer to past contributors, not to present contributors. They refer to people who are no longer working in the occupations that are covered by the three measures. 1 also make the point that the adjustments in pensions are being met by the Commonwealth itself. The money will not come out of the general funds. The adjustments are necessary because of inflation. What was planned for originally now is no longer adequate and the Commonwealth has to step in and supplement superannuation payments and pensions. If this was not done in a world of inflation we would have the situation in which the only period of fear, from the financial point of view, would be following retirement. This would a pretty self-defeating sort of thing for superannuation schemes. Although people who are in employment may not receive ;is much money as they would like to, they do receive an income and out of that income they provide for their retirement. If we were not to have a scheme such as this it would mean that the days of fear would be those encountered after retiring at 60 years or 65 years of age. As I have said, this would be self-defeating. Although there would be difficulties associated with it, my own view is that a provision ' to cover these circumstances should be written into legislation. Inflation is a challenge to all superannuation schemes throughout the world and will lead to difficulties for a person who, after he retires, lives a long time. Injustices occur because a certain time elapses before somebody - in this case the Treasurer - has a look at the problem and says: 'Yes, I think it is time that we should lift the superannuation payments and pensions of these people up to present day values'. Obviously superannuation payments and pensions must lag behind. They could lag behind for several years. I do not pretend to say for one moment that this problem can be easily overcome. For a long time accountants have been battling wilh the problem of offsetting the effects of inflation. I think that this challenge faces every superannuation scheme, whether it is a government scheme or a private scheme. The Government ought to examine the possibility of writing into legislation a permanent provision relating to this problem. The Bills refer to the government form of superannuation. But superannuation is widespread throughout the community. We get all forms of superannuation schemes. We get them amongst self-employed people whose contributions are allowed as concessional deductions for taxation purposes and we get them in the form of government superannuation schemes such as those we are debating today. There are also superannuation schemes as between private companies and their employees. The critics fail to recognise that there is a difference between pensions and superannuation. I do not think that I need to go into this matter. ( do not think that reporters who write about these matters should go into it, either. The Government contributes five-sevenths of the benefit received from the Commonwealth Superannuation Fund and the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Fund, and it contributes seven-tenths of the benefit received from the Parliamentary Retiring Allowances Fund. In respect of contributions by companies and the privately employed people to whom I have referred - and to whom **Senator Henty** referred recently - in advocating an increase in allowable concessional deductions for taxation purposes the Government is foregoing about Si 60m a year in revenue. 1 commend to any honourable senator who makes a study of Commonwealth superannuation the booklet that has been issued by the Commonwealth Superannuation Board. At the bottom of page 9 the following passage appears: >Overall this pension plan provides for such pensions to be of the order of 70% of salary for over 95% of contributors, if all entitlements are taken up by these contributors before retirement. Of course, this provision cannot be carried into the parliamentary retiring allowances scheme. Under that scheme the contributor contributes 11¼% of his salary - a very high rate of contribution - and he receives a return of approximately 50% which. prima facie, is not as good as what a contributor to the Commonwealth Superannuation Fund receives. But the difficulty with the Parliamentary Retiring Allowances Fund is that we are not able to control the age at which members retire. Nevertheless, 1 think that from time to time the critics ought to take cognisance of some of the differences in these schemes. Because of the age in which we live a great challenge faces superannuation schemes today. People are leaving school at a higher age; they probably leave school in their early 20s if they undertake tertiary education. Also, the tendency is for people to retire at a younger age. Because of this people have a shorter working life and a shorter period in which to contribute to superannuation schemes. Also the attitude to old age is not what it was some years ago when people, immediately they reached 60 years, thought that they were ready for the scrap heap. Today, as one gets older one finds that the old adage 'You are as young as you feel' has some significance. People of all ages have their interests and their pleasures. I noted in Perth recently that Professor Murdoch, the great essayist, celebrated his ninety-third birthday. When he was asked how he felt he said: 'It is a wonderful age. ft is great indeed to be able to sit back and look over your past works, to ruminate on your mistakes and to see whether you could have made improvements, and not be bound to write an essay or a column in a newspaper every week'. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- What relieved him of that obligation? {: .speaker-KBC} ##### Senator WILLESEE: -- I presume that he took it on himself not to do so. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- He did not have a Public Service superannuation pension? {: .speaker-KBC} ##### Senator WILLESEE: -- I do not know. I do not quite get the significance of that. I would not have thought that he would have received Public Service superannuation. He was a university professor and, as the honourable senator knows, he is a very great essayist. I mention that fact not in the context of **Senator Wright's** interjection, but to point out that the old problem of not caring very much about people the moment they finish work can be overcome by a superannuation scheme. I think the problem is being overcome on a very much wider basis throughout the world. 1 do not see anything wrong with this. I think it is very good that we should recognise the dignity of man at all ages, not only while he is in his productive years. I do not want to say a great deal more on this matter. The Opposition does not oppose these three Bills. It does not intend to move any amendments to them. But I express the wish that some of the criticisms that have been levelled at the parliamentary retiring allowances scheme had been more constructive and more logical. It has been said there was something wrong with increasing parliamentary retiring allowances and that because **Sir Percy** Spender was already receiving a superannuation of some sort he should not receive another increase. Reference was made also to the GovernorGeneral and other people. It seems to me that the only alternative to extending the increases to these people would have been to introduce some sort of means test. We would have had to say: 'We will increase the superannuation of these people who are receiving it, but we must apply a means test'. The moment that one starts to consider how high the income is a means test is applied and this is undesirable. If this were done in relation to any persons at all their retort would be: What about the payments that we made during the years when we were contributing? To apply this test would be completely impracticable. It is so ridiculous that I do not think it is even worth arguing the point. There may be criticisms at other levels, too, but when one singles out individuals and inflames public opinion merely because these people appear to be in a fairly good financial position this is completely unfair reporting. It is journalism at its lowest. We do not oppose the Bills. We realise that they are a direct result of inflation. I add my own thought that if possible these provisions should be welded into a superannuation scheme so that a person who contributes knows what he is doing and it is not left to the whim of the Department of the Treasury or the Government to look at this matter from time to time. At the same time, I acknowledge immediately all of the difficulties associated with this proposal. {: #subdebate-42-0-s1 .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania -- I support none of these Bills. The Superannuation (Pension Increases) Bill is, as **Senator Willesee** says, an attempt to benefit Public Service superannuitants to adjust in a measure for inflation. These people are not in as much need of that adjustment as are many other sections of the community. Ordinarily I would support a proper adjustment, along with adjustments for other sections of the community. I have in mind particularly primary producers and the very straitened circumstances of primary industry at the present time. Secondly, it has been found possible to bring in the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits (Pension Increases) Bill to provide increases for retired servicemen who are superannuitants, but it has not been found possible to bring in a Bill that the Budget promised for adjustments in respect of serving servicemen in the war zone. These superannuitants, in my view, of the peace time years of the Permanent Military Forces are in exactly the same category as public servants. As to the parliamentary superannuitants, they have no claim whatever to adjustments. **Senator Willesee** referred to the parliamentary retiring allowances scheme as a contributory scheme. So it is, and the contributions of the member are matched by the contributions of the other party, and in accordance with the terms on which contributions are made benefits are provided. Under this Bill benefits are being given only from the Treasury without any corresponding contributions by those who will get the increased benefits. That is a principle that is destructive of any superannuation. I rise especially to protest against the terms of a memorandum that has been circulated to honourable senators in explanation of these matters. These three Bills are dealt with in one document. It states that in 1968-69 the cost of superannuation increases will be $5.9m, and that the cost of increases in defence forces retirement pensions will be $1.8m. Then there is an indication upon which we are to rely, I suppose, as to the comparative insignificance of the cost of the increases in parliamentary retiring allowances. This will be $0.08m in 1968-69. One would therefore be led to believe that the impost on the Treasury for parliamentary retiring allowances was merely chicken feed. But if we take the per capita benefit in each of these three categories we find that per annum the former public servant is to receive a benefit of $295; the' defence forces superannuitant a benefit of $11; and the former member of Parliament, if you please - the total being put at the insignificant amount of $0.08m - a benefit of $920. These documents that come to provide explanations for the Parliament can be misleading, unless they are properly dissected and every factor that is relevant for comparison is put before us. The other thing that I want to say with regard to the parliamentary superannuitant is that it is relevant to consider needs. Before making an adjustment only out of Treasury funds, it is relevant to consider what other emolument the recipient is drawing from the Treasury for whatever office he enjoys - Governor-General, judicial or otherwise. It is relevant to consider the degree to which his services are being remunerated for the duties of other offices. In my view, if we are to make an adjustment to relieve a disadvantage that comes from inflation it is pathetic that no account is taken of the larger emoluments that some of these ex-members of Parliament enjoy by reason of offices that they exercise at the present time. The fact that weighs with me is that this Parliament has too much of an introspective view which fails to consider the country that supports these things. The people from whom these imposts are being demanded are not in a position to make these adjustments at the present time. What we have to consider is that the huge Public Service that we are supporting, which cost this, country in 1949 one-fifth of the farm incomes of the country, this year costs onehalf of the farm incomes of the country. It is of no use for the Parliament just to go on following its sweet wishes without regard to the requirement that these emoluments be geared to earnings of the sections which have to pay the benefits. I express my extreme disappointment that it has been appropriate to introduce any one of these measures and take the time that should have been devoted to drafting a measure to make defence forces retirement pensions available to the presently serving soldier in the war zone. **Senator MCCLELLAND** (New South Wales) T4.45]- The three Bills under discussion are the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits (Pension Increases) Bill, the Superannuation (Pension Increases) Bill, and the Parliamentary Retiring Allowances (Increases) Bill. As **Senator Willesee** has said, we of the Opposition do not oppose the passage of any of these measures. There lis an enormous number of Bills going through the Parliament at this stage, and honourable senators should realise that it has been impossible to give any really detailed consideration to every measure that has been submitted. However I take advantage of this second reading debate to say something about the Superannuation (Pension Increases) Bill 1967. **Senator Wright** has related the cost of the Public Service in 1949 and the cost of the Public Service in 1967 to the productivity value of the agricultural section of the community. He seems to bear some grudge against those in the work force who, during the course of their working career, are or were employed as officers of the Crown. **Senator Wright** obviously does not appreciate the value to the agricultural section of the community of, for instance, those in the Public Service who are engaged in assisting the agricultural section, agricultural scientists, veterinary officers, agronomists, officers of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, officers of the Department of National Development and others whom one could enumerate at considerable length. **Senator Wright** seems to bear a grudge against public servants. Of course he is entitled to express his opinion on these matters, and I respect his opinion. But whilst I respect his opinion T would strongly disagree with him because, in my experience as a parliamentarian moving round New South Wales, I have met a great number of retired workers for the Commonwealth who contributed compulsorily for years to the Commonwealth superannuation scheme. They thought at the time that their contributions would give them some measure of comfort in their old age; and it is to be remembered that the amount that they contributed to secure them in their old age, the amount which they had to contribute compulsorily, was not available to them during their working life to help rear, educate, and meet all the other responsibilities of maintaining a family. So they have suffered at both ends of the scale. Then a period of inflation occurred and those people, after having contributed for many years, some for as many as 45 or 50 years, found that the amount of their superannuation benefit was not sufficient to lift them above the means test for the age pension. They had to fall back on the assistance of a partial pension. When one looks at some of the figures it is obvious that many of the present contributors to the Commonwealth superannuation scheme are likely to find themselves in a situation similar to that in which the contributors of past years find themselves today. According to the last annual report of the Commonwealth Superannuation Board - that for the year 1965-66- some 130,300 contributors contributed an amount of $23,639,335. The table on page 14 of that report shows that the annual liability of the Superannuation Fund amounted to some $27m in round figures for some 23,000 beneficiaries. As to the finances of the scheme, it is disclosed on page 5 of the report that income for the year amounted to $63,637,744, comprising $26,570,117 for contributions, $14,991,860 for interest on investments and $22,075,767 being the contribution by the Commonwealth. The fund, therefore, is in a very healthy financial state. When we bear in mind that there are many private schemes available to people in private industry on a dollar for dollar basis, and when we appreciate that the contributions of the public servants plus the interest earned by the Board on those contributions amount to about two-thirds of the income of the Fund and that the Commonwealth, as the employing authority, contributes only about one-third of the income of the Fund, it is fair to say that, as they apply under the present arrangement, the present superannuation provisions represent superannuation on the cheap for the employing authority, the Commonwealth Government. I had proposed to outline the history of the superannuation scheme, but time is running short. So I will, however, draw the attention of the Parliament to some aspects of the Commonwealth superannuation scheme which I think could well be reviewed in future legislation. At present the scheme is designed to provide a pension of 70% of salaries on retirement for those on the lower and middle ranges of salaries. This reduces to, I think, roughly 50% for those on top level salaries. The entitlement to units of superannuation is governed by the salary rates, and the amount of fortnightly contribution to the fund is determined by the number of years of service before expected retirement. For the fellow starting work in the Commonwealth Public Service at 16 years of age. the fortnightly cost of each unit taken by him works out at about 8c. lt rises to somewhere near $13 - from recollection I think it is $12.18 - for each unit taken out by an employee in his 65th year. Contributions for the number of units to which an employee is entitled are compulsory up to the age of 40 years. After that age, the taking, out of additional units becomes optional. Although the acceptance of additional units after 40 years of age is optional, most members of the Public Service have become so deeply involved compulsorily in the superannuation scheme that, in order to protect what, for want of a better word one might term their investment in the fund, they must of necessity contribute for additional units as the units become available in order to make adequate provision for their old age. lt is very interesting to note that recently a member of the Australian Clerical Officers Association wrote a very informative pamphlet on the Commonwealth superannuation scheme in which he stated: >Tho life expectancy of a male aged 65 is 12.3 years. Retail and Consumer Price Index figures issued by the Bureau of Census and Statistics for years 1901 to 1966 show a progressively increasing cost of essential goods and services during this period which on average would have had the effect al the end of a 12,3 year span of reducing the purchasing power of a 70% of salary pension to a mere 50%, whilst the 50% of salary pension would be reduced to 36%. When applied to the last 12.3 year period ended 31st December 1966, the purchasing power of the 70% and 50% pensions would have been reduced to approximately 52% and 37% respectively. So. it is obvious that the plight of persons who live beyond the 12.3 years, and their widows, is worse still. For many reasons, I believe that the scheme and the administration of the scheme in the interests of contributors certainly need review and modernisation. The lower paid employees retire on their superannuation benefits and have little opportunity of obtaining additional income. The amount that they receive from the scheme takes them above the means test under the Social Services Act yet they have contributed to social service benefits for years by way of taxation. Thus they are deprived of the right to obtain benefits that are available to other workers who have retired. They do not receive the pensioner medical entitlement because of the amounts that they are paid from the superannuation scheme. In many instances they have been contributing, as the Minister well knows for periods of 45, even 50 years. Great inroads are made by inflation into their savings. Yet, on the other hand, senior public servants - for example some officers of the Postmaster-General's Department - are able upon retirement to obtain appointments to boards of directors of companies or positions in private industry generally, and thus substantially supplement their superannuation entitlements. There is also the policy regarding investment. I notice in the pamphlet prepared by **Mr Gurd** of the Australian Clerical Officers Association that the Association suggests the investment of a greater proportion of the accumulated funds in mortgages. The Association points out that the report of the Superannuation Board for 1964-65 stated that 8.1% of the funds at 30th June 1965 were invested in mortgages compared with 3.8% a year earlier. This is progressively increasing the percentage of the fund's portfolio in these mortgages in the interests of diversification and higher interest returns. The Association goes on to state (hal perhaps this process could be accelerated. Then, of course, there is the matter of loans to individual contributors to the scheme. Just recently I took up a case with the Minister assisting the Treasurer **(Mr Howson).** I urged him to give consideration to allowing younger members of the Commonwealth Public Service, who are of marriageable age, or who have recently married and arc anxious to obtain funds for the construction of a home, to be allowed to borrow from the Superannuation Fund for the purposes of home building. In most cases, a private bank or financial institution to which a public servant has applied for home building finance, will not recognise the amount that the officer has invested in the superannuation scheme as an asset against which he can obtain an advance. Recently, the Minister assisting the Treasurer replied to my representations. He said: >The reason behind this policy- That is, the policy of not lending moneys to individual contributors: is that the Board, as trustee for the contributors, is bound to invest the Fund in the best interests of the contributors, as a whole, and not to the particular benefit of any one individual or group of individuals. What I am suggesting is that people who have a vested interest in the success of this fund certainly would not be an encumbrance on it so far as borrowing is concerned. Surely investment in the contributors themselves is in the best interests of the fund. I have come to the final matter that I wish to raise. Earlier this year an announcement was made in the 'Sydney Morning Herald' that the Commonwealth Government was reported to be considering changes in the Superannuation Act to make superannuation transferable for employees of Federal and State government departments, semi-government authorities and universities. Again I suggest that this reform is long overdue. The Opposition does not oppose the passage of these Bills. I draw the matters I have mentioned to the attention of the Minister and to the representatives of the Superannuation Board because they relate to the administration of the scheme and are well overdue for consideration, all of them being in the interests of the contributors to the fund who are doing a good job for this country. {: #subdebate-42-0-s2 .speaker-KOW} ##### Senator HENTY:
Minister for Supply · Tasmania · LP -- Madam Acting Deputy President, I wish to take a few minutes of the Senate to deal with one or two matters that have been raised during the course of this debate. The first thing I think I should say is that all of us here share the concern felt by **Senator Wright** regarding the nonintroduction of the legislation relating to the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Fund which was promised in the Budget. But as the honourable senator well knows, this has presented a very intricate problem and because of the vast number of amendments involved it has not been possible to complete the legislation. Nobody is more disappointed than the Government is because of this. The Government shares with honourable senators the disappointment that is felt. But the delay has been inevitable. Nobody would have liked more than the Government to have had the legislation introduced. The legislation has not been introduced for obvious reasons. Without going into the matter further let me say that if the legislation could have been introduced it would have been introduced. **Senator Wright** made some criticism of the memorandum which has been circulated. I think I can say in all fairness that the honourable senator would be the last to persist with this criticism if he felt that it was not justified. 1 want to explain to him what the memorandum was. It was not put forward in any way to mislead. **Senator Wright** suggested that it was a misleading document. The honourable member who led for the Opposition in another place when this Bill was being considered there sought certain things from the Minister who was handling the Bill. He asked for the total cost of- {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- I have not read the report of the words that were used by the honourable member in another place. {: .speaker-KOW} ##### Senator HENTY: -- No. I am telling the honourable senator how this memorandum came about. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- I thought that the Minister said that I was taking a lead from the Opposition in another place. {: .speaker-KOW} ##### Senator HENTY: -- No. I referred to the honourable member for Melbourne Ports **(Mr Crean)** in another place who led for the Opposition when this Bill was before the other place. On behalf of the Opposition he requested certain facts from the Department. He asked whether the Department would set out some examples of three instances that he had mentioned, the total cost involved and so forth. That is exactly what has been done. In no way was this intended to be a memorandum to mislead anybody. It was merely a statement in reply to what was asked for. This was circulated not only to the Opposition but generally to honourable senators and members in the other place. This is an explanation. I think that it is a valid explanation. I do not think that the memorandum misleads. If the honourable senator looks at the attached reference to the individual cases he will find that nothing could be fairer than the way in which each case is set out in relation to the various classes. Regarding class 11, third division, four different types of examples are given. We find that four different types of examples are given regarding class 6, third division also. Regarding linemen, grade 2, fourth division, four different types of examples are given. The honourable member for Melbourne Ports asked for the total costs. **Senator Wright** has translated these costs into a set of figures. He says that the benefits of $5.9m - I will take the full year in this example - work out at an average of $295 per head in the superannuation pensions. In 1 968-69 the average cost of benefits that will be paid to contributors to the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Fund works out at $300 a head and that of contributors to the Parliamentary Retiring Allowance Fund at $920 a head. Those amounts are correct in the situation which **Senator Wright** mentioned, but there are 87 persons involved in the parliamentary sphere so let us consider 87 pensioners out of the 6,000 receiving benefits from the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Fund and the 20,000 receiving Commonwealth 'superannuation. If we base our comparison on a salary of $7,000 - the salary paid to a parliamentarian - we find that those pensioners will receive a little more than will retired members of Parliament. Let me state the comparison in more detail. The nearest Public Service superannuation pension is class 9, for an officer who received a salary of about $6,945. The pension increase to the Public Service pensioner is $1,170. A member of Parliament on a salary of $7,000 will receive an increase of $1,139.60. The retired member of Parliament will receive less than the retired public servant. I think that is the fairer basis of comparison, because it puts the matter into the correct perspective. Nothing could be fairer than to select 87 retired public servants on a salary equivalent to that of a member of Parliament and compare the relevant increases. The retired member of Parliament does not get the cream. He will get nothing more than a person receiving a pension from the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Fund or from the Commonwealth Superannuation Fund. It was suggested that this proposal will benefit some very wealthy people who have contributed to the Superannuation Fund. In any group of 20,000 beneficiaries there will be some who are more fortunate than others, but we have a wonderful way in this Commonwealth of levelling out the position - we use taxation. It is all very well to pick out a handful from the 20,000 and point out how much they will receive, but why not look at the other side of the picture and see what they have left after they have paid their taxes? {: .speaker-KKP} ##### Senator Gair: -- They must have a good deal, because they are very anxious to get the increase. {: .speaker-KOW} ##### Senator HENTY: -- That is fair enough, and the honourable senator can criticise if he wishes, but the argument I am using- {: .speaker-KKP} ##### Senator Gair: -- None will knock it back. {: .speaker-KOW} ##### Senator HENTY: -- Of course not. Nor would the honourable senator. They are just as entitled to it as is anyone else. If I received a certain sum and had only one shilling left after having paid my taxes, what I did with (hat one shilling would be a matter for myself. I do not mind that the honourable senator disagrees with me. I am answering criticism and trying to put the matter into real perspective. This is not a case in which a few wealthy men are receiving an increase. The increase must be judged on the basis of what they have left after they have paid their taxes. That is, I think, the fairest way to approach this matter. The honourable senator may still disagree with me, but that is the position. **Senator Wright** related the pensions paid to public servants to farm incomes. Unfortunately I do not have the relevant table with me, but I can say that in 1948-49 Public Service pensions represented onefifth of total farm incomes. Now they represent one-half. But is it fair to relate those pensions only to farm incomes? I think **Senator McClelland** brought out this aspect. Let me relate Public Service pensions to the gross national product. In 1948-49 the gross national product was $4,51 2m. In this year of grace 1966-67 it is $22,729m. It has increased more than five times in those 18 years. I do not think it is right to compare Public Service pensions with farm incomes, because I suppose very many of those 20,000 pensioners have never worked on a farm; they have been engaged in industries which have helped to produce the vast increase in the gross national product from $4,5 12m in 1948-49 to $22,729m in 1966-67. I think that is a fairer way to look at this matter and a fairer basis of comparison. At any rate, it is not a distorted way of stating the position. The honourable senator rather distorted the position by relating this only to farm incomes. {: .speaker-KKP} ##### Senator Gair: -- What percentage of the adult work force in Australia does the Public Service represent? {: .speaker-KOW} ##### Senator HENTY: -- Unfortunately I have only the figures relating to the gross national product, but if I had a little more time 1 would be happy to obtain the information for the honourable senator. However, whatever else we say I think it is not a distortion of the position to compare payments to the pensioners in question with the gross national product. I point out that no-one is seeking to denigrate in any way our primary industries. I have endeavoured to reply to the criticisms which have been levelled at this proposal. Honourable senators are entitled to criticise if they wish to do so, but I ask them to criticise in a fair and equitable fashion, not in a distorted way. I believe that the facts that 1 have cited give a far clearer picture of the position. Only 87 former members of Parliament who left prior to 1959, I think it is, will receive this increase. If one selects 87 people on a comparable retiring salary in any of the two categories I have mentioned it will be seen that they will receive as much as will the former members of Parliament. It is not fair to say that one will receive $200 and the other $920. In my opinion that was a gross distortion of the position. {: #subdebate-42-0-s3 .speaker-KKP} ##### Senator GAIR:
Leader of the Australian Democratic Labor Party · Queensland -- 1 have certain objections to this legislation because it is sectional in character. It applies to three sections of the community in a very privileged category - three sections of the community which have at some time contributed to specific superannuation schemes and to which the Government now says: 'Out of taxation - out of general revenue - we will compensate you for the depreciation in the value of money which has resulted from inflation'. Without the contribution of an additional penny since they retired from their particular calling they will receive increases in their pensions because of the inflationary trend which has been taking place over recent years. These increases will be paid out of contributions through taxation by the general public. There might be some merit in the scheme if it were not exclusively for three sections of the community and if all contributors to superannuation schemes were to be similarly treated from the Commonwealth Treasury and were to have their payments brought up to date. But that is not so. If it has any merit or justice, as is claimed, then why not legislate to compel insurance companies to bring up to present day values their payments at the expiry of insurance policies? Let us say that I insure myself at the age of 21 years and contribute for 40 years to an insurance company for an amount of $1,000. At the time I insure it is a lot of money. At the time the period of insurance expires and I draw the sum insured plus bonuses I can buy considerably less than I could have bought for $1,000 at the time that 1 insured. But who is concerned about that? Nobody. No-one contemplates introducing legislation to cover people who are affected in that way today. {: type="A" start="I"} 0. will take a more deserving case - a man on a fixed income who, during the period of his active life, in addition to paying taxation provided for his own period of retirement by investing in government loans. He assumed that because of his investment he would have on retirement an income of $2,000 a year, or $40 a week - an income not more than that earned by the average worker. He finds that because of inflation the amount that he had planned to receive as a result of his investment is depreciated. He is not nearly so well off as he had hoped to be when he undertook the plan to cover his old age so as to relieve the Commonwealth Treasury. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- And it is out of the pool of taxes to which he contributed that these benefits are to be paid. {: .speaker-KKP} ##### Senator GAIR: -- It is out of the pool of taxation that three sections of the community are to benefit. Let me make it clear that I am not opposed to the Public Service. I graduated from a branch of the Public Service. I might be permitted to say that the remarks made by **Senator Wright** did not convey to me that he had an antipathy to the Public Service. 1 believe that **Senator McClelland** - if not deliberately, then inadvertently - misrepresented **Senator Wright** in that connection. **Senator Wright's** remarks are timely. Whether we relate the public servants to primary producers or anybody else, the fact remains that the army of public servants is growing at a rapid rale, lt must be of concern to the people of this country when they relate the growth of the Public Service to the balance of the work force in the community. I am not unconscious of the fact that the growth of this country has increased the ramifications of the Public Service. 1 do not undervalue the work done by many public servants, and I have had long and wide experience in many departments of State. However I am often reminded of a statement made by an early Labor Minister, John Arthur Fihelly, who was a customs clerk prior to entering Parliament. He said: Give the average public servant a blotting pad and two ink bottles' - this was before the days of ball point pens - 'and a couple of pens and he will have a staff of 10 around him in a month. He will be an Under Secretary in 6 months'. That often happens unless proper control and scrutiny are exercised over the Public Service. {: .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator Webster: -- The Public Service Board controls that rather well today. {: .speaker-KKP} ##### Senator GAIR: -- I just wonder whether it does. The honourable senator may be prepared to accept that, but I am not. After all, **Senator Webster** has not had experience of administering a department. {: .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator Webster: -- I have been for some time a member of the Public Accounts Committee. {: .speaker-KKP} ##### Senator GAIR: -- Yes, the honourable senator has been on some committee and we will probably read about it in his memoirs because it will be one of his few attainments in the time he is here. {: .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator Webster: -- We are hearing about the honourable senator's attainments now. {: .speaker-KKP} ##### Senator GAIR: -- Yes, and the honourable senator can read about them, too, if he is prepared to read. Mine is an honourable record and one that the honourable senator could emulate with advantage to himself and Australia. I object to this legislation because of its sectional character. If it were to be extended to cover all people in superannuation schemes, well and good. J appreciate how inflation has affected the incomes of a lot of people who have provided for themselves through superannuation schemes. 1 am quite sympathetic towards them. Whilst 1 object to this legislation on principle I would not oppose what has been done in respect of the Public Service or defence forces retirement benefits. Perhaps the Commonwealth is endeavouring to compensate the people who have been good and trustworthy servants of the Crown for many years. But the benefits are to be paid from the revenue gained through taxation contributed by the general public. Nothing is to be done for other big sections of the community. My main objection is to the parliamentary retiring allowances. The scheme of parliamentary retiring allowances has operated for a number of years, lt has very obvious defects that advantage parliamentarians and their dependants. At least the people covered by the first two Bills in the main ure people who saw out their period of service to the Crown to the time they were required to retire, irrespective of their wishes. However, many parliamentarians have retired from Parliament voluntarily to take more remunerative jobs in the field of private enterprise. Merely because they were here for 8 years they qualified for a pension. {: .speaker-JZU} ##### Senator Ormonde: -- How would the honourable senator separate them? {: .speaker-KKP} ##### Senator GAIR: -- 1 would separate them by having a minimum retiring age. A case comes to my mind of a man under 50 years of age who retired to take a remunerative job with a shipping company on a very princely salary. At present he is paid a full parliamentary retiring allowance and that is to be increased. If my memory serves me correctly the scheme was introduced mainly to cover old parliamentarians who, because of ill health or age, had to retire, or young men who came in at an early age, served the Parliament for 10 or 12 years and were defeated at an election in middle age when they found difficulty in obtaining a position in the community. The objectives were very worthy and desirable. Parliamentarians who were defeated are entitled to lue pension to which they contributed. Men who retired voluntarily from Parliament to take a better job, whether with the judiciary or with private enterprise, now receive a pension. If they are in an office of profit under the Crown, they receive under the Commonwealth scheme half the pension; if they are in private enterprise they receive the full pension. {: .speaker-JZU} ##### Senator Ormonde: -- Are there some persons in that position entitled to this allocation? {: .speaker-KKP} ##### Senator GAIR: -- There will be. 1 do not like to mention names but the honourable senator would know these people better than I do. He would be better acquainted with them. I have not been in this Parliament for very long. Under the Queensland parliamentary superannuation scheme, if a person holds an office of profit under the Crown - as I did after the majority of people living in South Brisbane in 1960 thought that I should retire from the State Parliament - he does not get any part of the pension. My pension was suspended and remained suspended for as long as 1 occupied an office of profit under the Crown. Furthermore, the pension to which I was entitled then, and to which I contributed, remained static. There is no provision for compensating me, or anyone else who went out of office at that time, for the depreciation in value of that pension because of inflation. That is the position that obtains in most superannuation schemes. The contributor invests so much a year or a week in order to have a fixed allowance on retirement. If there is to be any compensating provision in the Parliamentary Retiring Allowances (Increases) Bill to cover the depreciation of money or inflation, the principle should be made general. Former parliamentarians have not contributed one additional penny to the fund since their retirement or defeat, but they will receive an increased pension. I shall refer to a particular case and I hope that honourable senators will not misunderstand me. I do not begrudge what is given to a widow, any widow, but there is a case on record of a man elected to this Senate who, unfortunately, because of illness and ultimately death, was never sworn in. He never took the oath of office and never gave any service to this Parliament. At the most, he con tributed to the retiring allowances fund for a couple of months. His widow is receiving about $2,225 a year. Do honourable senators know of any other superannuation scheme which would provide for such a case? 1 do not. Where does the money come from? Does Santa Claus bring it? What happens? It comes out of the purse of the Treasury from funds paid by the general taxpayers. That is why I say that there are a lot of defects in this legislation. On principle I oppose it because of the failure of the Government to have any regard for the urgent need to do something for general pensioners and people on fixed incomes - many of them former Commonwealth and State public servants. Are the State superannuation schemes to have the benefit of Commonwealth advances to enable them to bring their payments up to the level proposed in this legislation? I doubt it. What about other superannuation schemes operated by emporiums, oil companies and other organisations? The value of their annuities have depreciated also. Those superannuation funds also have a just claim on the Commonwealth Treasury for the restoration of their purchasing power. Where are we to go when we start to legislate in order to benefit select sections of the community? Do we suggest for a moment that there are many former parliamentarians urgently in need of an increased pension? Are we going to benefit the manager of a company already receiving a big salary, are we going to benefit a member of the judiciary, are we going to give this money to company directors receiving big incomes simply because they formerly were parliamentarians? The Minister for Supply **(Senator Henty)** referred to how little these people will receive after paying tax on the money. I know that a good lump does go in taxation. But the fact remains that these people are very concerned about and interested in what they are likely to get. There may be some, a few, who might need the money. {: .speaker-KPK} ##### Senator Kennelly: -- 'But are not the persons mentioned by the honourable senator exceptional cases? {: .speaker-KKP} ##### Senator GAIR: -- These cases may not be numerous but the fact remains that none of these people has contributed one additional penny towards an increased allowance from the day he left this Parliament whereas those currently serving in the Parliament continue to pay contributions. The others have not paid a penny since they went out of office. {: .speaker-JYA} ##### Senator O'Byrne: -- The late **Senator Sandford** did not collect anything. He had no dependants. He contributed for 20 years. {: .speaker-KKP} ##### Senator GAIR: -- The contributions paid by **Senator Sandford** might compensate the fund for the former parliamentarian who never took the oath of office and never served. On principle I object to these three Bills because they place three sections of the community in a privileged category as against what is happening to so many more in the community who have also been disadvantaged because of inflation. I refer to men against whom the means test applies; men on fixed incomes; men who contributed to other superannuation schemes and who are not getting any consideration at all; and the clients of the insurance companies whose pensions will not be increased. These men receive no compensation for the depreciation of the value of money. I object on principle generally because of the failure of the Government to give any sympathetic consideration to the more deserving section of the community, the indigent and the poor - in the main, the pensioners. The history of the Parliament will show that there are two matters on which members are unanimous. The records will show that every time there has been a move for an increase in parliamentarians' salaries, the political parties have come together and voted as a man for the legislation. The legislation was despatched expeditiously through the Parliament without quibble, controversy or delay. The same has applied to any improvement in the Parliamentary superannuation scheme. There is never any discord or controversy in such cases. **Mr Deputy President,** whilst 1 object to the three Bills we are discussing 1 shall not oppose the Superannuation (Pension Increases) Bill or the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits (Pension Increases) Bill. As I said earlier, former public servants and the other persons covered by those two Bills are probably merely getting something to which they are entitled anyway, even though this legislation is dealt with under a general heading. But on principle I will oppose and vote against the Parliamentary Retiring Allowances. (Increases) Bill. I ask, in all sincerity, how Labor men can live with their consciences on this issue when, during this session, they have cried for pensioners and have voiced their solicitude for the aged, the invalid, the widows and the war pensioners. Yet on this issue only because of some selfish outlook, they will approve of this legislation. They do so because one day they might benefit. They know full well that the money is coming out of the Treasury or the taxes paid by other people many of whom are working men whose incomes are considerably less than the pensions that the former parliamentarians will receive after this Bill has become law. I find it difficult to understand how members of the Labor Party can live with their consciences on this issue. Furthermore, they will have difficulty in explaining to their constituents their attitude to this measure in comparison with all their empty platitudes about the difficult times through which the pensioners are passing. I will content myself with making those few observations. In conclusion let me say that what is happening under this measure could not happen in respect of the Queensland parliamentary superannuation scheme unless the Act governing it were amended. In addition, the pensions paid to former parliamentarians in Queensland, including former Ministers and former Premiers, are about half the pension that an ordinary member for the Commonwealth Parliament now receives on retirement. {: .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator McClelland: -- What are the rates of contribution? {: .speaker-KKP} ##### Senator GAIR: -- I do not know what they are now. but in my time the rate was about £4 a week. {: .speaker-KUD} ##### Senator McManus: -- That is about half our rate of contribution. {: .speaker-KKP} ##### Senator GAIR: -- Yes. They are just about in balance. The Queensland scheme shows some responsibility and some regard for the taxpayers. I know that **Senator McManus** shares my views on this matter. We will oppose the Parliamentary Retiring Allowances (Increases) Bill. We will call for a vote on it at the appropriate time. {: #subdebate-42-0-s4 .speaker-KBL} ##### Senator WOOD:
Queensland -- I wish to record my opposition to these three measures. I do not propose to speak at great length. I am opposed to the principle embodied in them. We are being asked to increase retiring allowances in order to meet rises in the cost of living. These measures arc very nice and very generous to the people who will benefit from them. But, as **Senator Gair** pointed out. these increases have to be paid for. Sometimes they are paid for out of the general revenue that other people in less privileged sections of the community contribute. Therefore, before being generous to these people the Government should remember the people who are less well provided for and who very often have to pay for these privileges. This is a matter of principle. Some people go to the expense of taking out assurance. When the cost of living rises they do not receive any adjustment in their annuities. Let mc refer particularly to the Parliamentary Retiring Allowances (Increases) Bill. Again it is very nice to be generous to the people who have left the parliamentary service. Their retiring allowances are also to be increased considerably. Let us look at what has happened over the years. The contributions made by members of the Parliament have been raised from time to time. When we present parliamentarians retire wc will be paying in to the parliamentary retiring allowances fund at a much higher rate than did the people who retired some years before us. The position is that many present parliamentarians would not know some of the former parliamentarians who ure to receive these increases in retiring allowances, and perhaps would not even be able to recall their names. {: .speaker-JYA} ##### Senator O'Byrne: -- They still have to eat. {: .speaker-KBL} ##### Senator WOOD: -- Yes. But their retiring allowances will be increased to such an extent that they will certainly be a very fortunate section of the community, particularly in view of the fact that their contributions were not comparable with the present contributions. I believe that when these former parliamentarians left the parliamentary service they were quite happy to accept the then existing retiring allowances, it would appear that a great proportion of the extra money that will have to be paid will not be paid from the parliamentary retiring allowances fund but will have to be voted by the Parliament from the general revenue that is contributed by other people. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- None of it comes from the parliamentary retiring allowances fund; it all comes from the Treasury. {: .speaker-KBL} ##### Senator WOOD: -- That is what 1 am getting at. It will have to come from the general revenue or the Treasury, as **Senator Wright** says. That means that other people, many of whom are wage earners and less privileged people, will have to pay extra taxation. The amount paid by each taxpayer may be only minute, but collectively the extra taxation will amount to quite a sum. I am opposed to the principle of such people paying money in order to place former parliamentarians in a privileged position. {: .speaker-K5K} ##### Senator Scott: -- Does not the honourable senator think that costs have risen? {: .speaker-KBL} ##### Senator WOOD: -- Of course they have, but 1 do not believe that that should have any effect on retiring allowances. If it should, why do not the insurance companies vary their annuities in accordance with movements in the cost of living? They do not do that. A contract is made between the insurance company and the person who is to receive the annuity. Similarly, each parliamentarian, when he paid into the fund, did so as part of a contract. I am quite sure that the former parliamentarians were quite pleased with what they received when they retired. I do not believe that the fact that circumstances have changed a little is any reason why we should pass legislation to meet those changed circumstances. Therefore, I am strongly opposed to the principle embodied in these three Bills. I propose to vote against them, if it is possible to do so. {: #subdebate-42-0-s5 .speaker-K8Y} ##### Senator TURNBULL:
TASMANIA · IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970 -- I speak in support of the honourable senators who have spoken in opposition to these Bills. This is not only disgraceful legislation hut also disgusting legislation. It is disgraceful that the Government should bring in legislation such as this at this time. It has been crying poor and saying that it cannot find any money for certain things. It is disgusting to hear honourable senators on both sides of the chamber, virtually in connivance, supporting these measures with no interest whatsoever in the people of Australia but because they will benefit from this legislation later on. Recently I stood up and criticised a law of this land because it was made for the wealthy, the powerful and the privileged person. That applies to these Bills. They are Bills for the privileged person. Do not let anyone tell me that the public servants are entitled to have these privileges given to them when people who do more for this country than they do have no superannuation, have to look after themselves and do not receive increases in their annuities. **Senator Gair** made a very good point when he said: If the Government believes that the principles embodied in this legislation should be applied, why does it not legislate to make sure that the life assurance companies increase the annuities that they pay to their contributors? The argument of the life assurance companies is that as the value of money goes down so also does the value of the premium. But the percentage of depreciation in the premium is nothing when compared with the depreciation that occurs in the total sum for which a person is insured. If this is fair enough for one section of the community, it is fair enough for all. I believe in national superannuation. I believe that we should establish a national superannuation scheme instead of just giving further benefits to sectional people - privileged people. An age limit should be imposed for these benefits. Members should not be allowed to leave the Parliament of their own free will under a certain age and draw these benefits. If they are defeated, that is all right. But if they wish to have a retiring allowance scheme, they should not be entitled to receive any benefit under it until they reach, say, 60 or 65 years of age. That should be the first essential in the parliamentary retiring allowances scheme. The second essentia] should be that if members voluntarily retire, they should receive nothing at all until they reach 65 years of age. The other iniquitous aspect of the parliamentary retiring allowances scheme - most of my remarks concern this scheme - is that former parliamentarians who are working as officers of the Crown can still receive 50% of their parliamentary pension. The Government says that only a handful of members are involved. That does not matter. It is the principle that matters. The Government allows these people to receive a pension while they are holding office under the Crown. Extremely senior and wealthy people are receiving this pension. We come to the means test, which the Government does not believe in abolishing. If Government supporters do not believe in abolishing the means test in relation to other pensioners, they should apply a means test to themselves when they retire so that there will be some justice in this matter. It is disgusting to find people on salaries of more than $10,000 or $15,000 per year still receiving their parliamentary retiring allowances. The Australian people do not agree with this, but because Government supporters have the support of the Opposition - I blame both sides in this matter - and bcause the increases may help them later when some of them have to retire because of the actions of the people, they are happy to agree to these increases. It is shameful for the Government to grant an increase of $21 per week to a person who is receiving a pension of $42 per week when it says that it cannot grant an increase of 50c per week to social service pensioners. I believe that the means test for social service pensioners should be abolished. But although the Government applies the means test to those pensioners, cries poor mouth and says that it cannot grant them an increase of 50c per week, it rashly comes in here, agrees to increases in parliamentary retiring allowances and says that it does not matter because only eighty-seven people are involved. It does matter. The principle is the same whether eighty-seven people or 870 people are involved. Government supporters should be ashamed of themselves for allowing it. They sit there and do nothing whatever for other pensioners. They will not raise a hand to help these other pensioners. Honourable senators opposite should try to live on a pension of $13 per week. They just could not do it. They get into this Parliament because they are first or second on the ballot paper and they think they are made. They help themselves to bigger and bigger cuts of the cake. I think it is disgusting. They give an increase of $525 per year to these poor, pitiful people who receive $3,000 per year. They should be ashamed of themselves for doing it. They should impose a means test on these people and make sure that they do not receive any increase in allowances. As **Senator Gair** pointed out, one man is benefiting to the extent of $80,000 because he voluntarily retired from this Parliament at a young age. This is the type of thing that honourable senators opposite are allowing to happen. They do not care two hoots about it. I do not want to go into the question of the gross national product. I was told, by interjection, that members of the defence forces are taken into account in the gross national product. I do not believe that for a moment. The gross national product refers to productivity. Certainly public servants are responsible for increasing productivity, but not to the same extent as other people. People who are not in the Public Service or in the Parliament have to provide for themselves. They do not receive any help. We do something for 25% of our work force which is in this privileged section but we do nothing for the other 75%. There is one other point that I want to make. This is rather sad for the people concerned. Because the Government is forcing pension increases on to these people, it is said that their taxes will bc increased. That is a nebulous argument and one that has never prevented anybody from accepting an increase. Time and time again when I was a Minister public servants in my own department would say to me: 'This increase will mean nothing to me because I have to pay increased taxation'. I used to say to them: 'Do not take it and then your taxation will not be increased'. Everyone knows that one is better off if he accepts an increase even though the tax is increased. It is a nebulous argument to say that a person suffers because his tax is increased. {: .speaker-KKP} ##### Senator Gair: -- Is not that supported by the claim of the higher bracket of public servants? {: .speaker-K8Y} ##### Senator TURNBULL:
TASMANIA · IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970 -- That is so. I feel terribly sorry for these people who are forced to take this extra money and to pay extra taxation. I shall vote against the Parliamentary Retiring Allowances (Increases) Bill. I am not so much interested in the Superannuation (Pension Increases) Bill, but I am certainly interested in the one that concerns us. The Government has no right whatever to increase these allowances. The Government has no justice on its side. It has no principle. Honourable senators, by mutual connivance, are helping themselves, and that is disgusting. {: #subdebate-42-0-s6 .speaker-K5K} ##### Senator SCOTT:
Western Australia -- 1 would like to say a word in reply to the accusations that have been made by **Senator Turnbull** and some other honourable senators. This is a very important piece of legislation, lt seeks to increase superannuation benefits for some people who retired prior to 1963, to former members of Parliament some of whom retired prior to 1949, and to former members of the defence forces. **Senator Turnbull's** argument simply means that a person receiving an age pension, as it was in 1949, should not be entitled to an increase. These are the basic principles of **Senator Turnbull's** argument. He has said that although a member of Parliament retired from this place prior to 1949 and although there have been immeasurable increases in the cost of living since then, that member of Parliament is not entitled to an increase. Those are the facts. 1 just wanted to make them clear. I think that the Government is sincere in its desire to increase superannuation benefits to former members of the Public Service, the defence forces and the Parliament. Having said those few words, I have great pleasure in supporting the Bill. {: #subdebate-42-0-s7 .speaker-KUD} ##### Senator McMANUS:
Victoria -- I am opposed to the Parliamentary Retiring Allowances (Increases) Bill, If there is a division - I hope there will be - it will give an opportunity to other honourable senators to show where they stand upon this particular issue. I think it is always interesting to know how these things are done. Out of a clear sky there suddenly appears a statement that parliamentary pensions are to be increased. Those of us who have been here for a few years know what has happened. There have been discussions behind closed doors between the Leader of the Government and the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Australian Democratic Labor Party **(Senator Gair)** was not invited to participate in those discussions. It was done between the Government and the Opposition, as so many other things are arranged in this Parliament, without the Democratic Labor Party or the independent senators being made cognisant of it. I am told that there is a committee that runs this fund. We are not given any representation upon that Committee. I am told that the caucuses of the Government and the Opposition receive regular reports of discussions that the committee has, but the only way in which I ever find out about the discussions of these trustees is when some member of one of the parties is kind enough suddenly to tell me: 'We were talking about this or that the other day and this is so or that is so.' In a Parliament surely every party is entitled to be consulted on these matters. We should not merely have, as happens now, something placed before us as a fait accompli. If there are to be discussions beforehand between the leaders of the other parties, why is the Leader of the Australian Democratic Labor Party always left out? I have no doubt that quite a case can be made for compensating people who receive these allowances for the effects of inflation, but it is not a better case than one can make out for a lot of other people. If a strong case can be made out for finding the money to look after three categories in the community, what about the age pensioner? Is he not feeling the effects of inflation? We were told the other day that there had been a remarkable rise in the cost of living in my State of Victoria. We say to the pensioner: 'It is really tough for you. Our hearts bleed for you.' 1 heard a very eloquent statement by **Senator Cohen** which did him great credit. He said that his heart was bleeding for the pensioner but, of course, it did not bleed sufficiently to make him stay in this chamber when we moved a motion to reject the Budget unless justice were given to pensioners. What is the good of being sympathetic with the pensioner and saying to him: You have to tighten your belt. It is a tough thing but the community cannot do anything for you', and having said that, as a member of Parliament, to come along and say: 'Now in my case and in the case of my males who have left this Parliament, we do not believe in tightening our belts. We believe in looking after No. 1'? There is a saying that applies to this. It is that you should not ask other people to do what you yourself are not prepared to do. The basis of this as far as parliamentarians are concerned is that we are saying to pensioners and a lot of other people in the community who do not come into these three categories: Tighten your belts. The country cannot do anything for you.' Having said that we say: Of course, that is for you but not for us. We will look after No. 1.' I do not know that I could face people 1 meet who are not to get anything under this proposal. I would not have an answer to them if they said to me: 'Did you vote for this but tell us that nothing could he done for the pensioner and the rest of us?' I do not know how a Labor man can vote for a thing such as this. Therefore, I propose to vote against it. {: #subdebate-42-0-s8 .speaker-KPK} ##### Senator KENNELLY:
Victoria -- I have listened to some remarkable speeches. I often wonder how honest are the people who make them. People who have spoken today voted against increases in parliamentary salaries some time ago, but if they let me have a look at their bank books I would see that they had accepted the increases right through. It is a very good thing to hit one's chest and say: 'What about this? What about that? I will vote against it and try to make a very great martyr of myself as far as the people are concerned.' {: .speaker-KKP} ##### Senator Gair: -- 1 will table my bank book, if the honourable senator will table his. {: .speaker-KPK} ##### Senator KENNELLY: -- The honourable senator may easily have a look at mine. All that this Bill does is to bring up to date the pensions that were paid for. {: .speaker-KKP} ##### Senator Gair: -- No. They do not contribute one additional penny. {: .speaker-KPK} ##### Senator KENNELLY: -- These people were members of this Parliament and' they contributed a certain amount, of money. Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m. {: .speaker-KPK} ##### Senator KENNELLY: -- We are dealing wilh three Bills which have for their purpose the increasing of benefits payable to past contributors to the Commonwealth Superannuation Fund, the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Fund and the Parliamentary Retiring Allowances Fund. It would seem that there is no objection to increasing the allowances to past contributors to either the Commonwealth Superannuation Fund or the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Fund, but there does seem to be some objection to granting retired members of Parliament an increase in their allowances to restore to them something like the purchasing power they had as at the time of their retirement. I believe everyone is entitled to have the purchasing power of his retirement pension or allowance maintained at the level at which it was at retirement. As I have said, this reduction in purchasing power has been caused mainly by the intiation that has swept this nation and possibly many other countries over the years since World War II. I see no reason why those of our colleagues who have retired from this Parliament or the dependants of those who have since died, should not enjoy the benefit of a retiring allowance having its purchasing power maintained at the level at which it was when the member left the service of the Parliament of this nation. I think almost every superannuation scheme has to be adjusted. I know quite well that the value of the units of both Federal and State superannuation schemes have been adjusted over the years to compensate for the effects of inflation, and I am at a loss to know why some people are still prone to say that although it is quite all right for people under those schemes to enjoy the benefit of that, the same privilege should not be extended to former members of Parliament. {: .speaker-KKP} ##### Senator Gair: -- I would be interested to know the other superannuation schemes under which it has been done. {: .speaker-KPK} ##### Senator KENNELLY: -- I know that the value of the units in Victoria has been increased and, if my memory serves mc correctly, so has the value of the units in the Commonwealth scheme. {: .speaker-KKP} ##### Senator Gair: -- That is the scheme we arc dealing with. {: .speaker-KPK} ##### Senator KENNELLY: -- I am speaking of the ordinary schemes, not the parliamentary allowances scheme. **Senator Gair** spoke of his own position with relation to his retiring allowance as a former member of the State Parliament. I am in a similar position. I served in a State Parliament for 14 years and 10 months and contributed to the State scheme, but I am now treated in the same way as **Senator Gair** has been treated. I cannot receive full benefit from that State scheme, and I do not agree with that. {: .speaker-KKP} ##### Senator Gair: -- J do not expect to receive it while I am in receipt of a salary here. {: .speaker-KPK} ##### Senator KENNELLY: -- I am one of those who believe that if a person has fulfilled all the obligations required of him, he is entitled to receive full benefit. I even disagree with our scheme under which, although he has met all his obligations and done all that was required of him, the man who is under 45 years of age when he leaves this Parliament is permitted to receive only a proportion of the benefit. I do not say it is only a small proportion; the point is that it is a proportion only, not the full amount. 1 repeat that if a man fulfils all the obligations imposed upon him by the scheme I see no reason why he should not receive full benefit upon retirement, irrespective of his age. **Senator Gair** spoke of a member who had retired voluntarily from the Parliament to take up a position outside. Under our scheme it is provided that even though a man retires from the Parliament voluntarily, if he has paid his contributions for 12 years he receives the retiring allowance. {: .speaker-KKP} ##### Senator Gair: -- This man was under 50 years of age. {: .speaker-KPK} ##### Senator KENNELLY: -- Even so, if he fulfilled his obligations he should receive the benefit. He must have contributed for 12 years to become entitled to full benefit. I do not know how many such cases **Senator Gair** knows of, but I can remember only one. Then there are those who have left this Parliament and taken a position under the Crown. Quite a number have done that. They do not receive the full allowance. {: .speaker-KKP} ##### Senator Gair: -- They get half pension. {: .speaker-KPK} ##### Senator KENNELLY: -- 1 cannot see any reason why we should not agree to doing what this Bill proposes to do for members of Parliament. {: .speaker-KKP} ##### Senator Gair: -- Then let it apply to all schemes, to insurance companies and all. {: .speaker-KPK} ##### Senator KENNELLY: -- And why not? I do nol think there would be a great number of senators in this place who would not support the extension of the principle to all schemes. **Senator Turnbull** seeks to interject. He is quite all right. If it were not for the fact that he is compelled to be in our scheme he would not be in it, for he certainly has no need of its benefit. Therefore, what he says does not concern me at all. But why single one Bill out from the three measures before us for objection? I understand that the cost of the proposed increases, which are designed to give justice to men who have served this nation - 'many of them in very bad times - is only about $80,000 a year. **Senator Gair** expressed regret that no provision was made in the Budget for increases in certain social service benefits. I suggest that **Senator Gair** and his Party should take more responsibility for that omission than anyone else, for his Party has kept the present Government in office since 1955. This has been the case for election after election. I can name for my friend some seats, if he wishes me to do so, in respect of which his Party has been responsible for the re-election of supporters of the Government. It is no good coming here and crying over spilt milk. It is no good saying that no increase has occurred in social services this year because of the actions of the Opposition. All I say is that I think this action is honest. I think it is right. I think it is just. I know quite a number of the men who will receive increased pensions as a result of the passage of this legislation. I refer to one only. I mention the honourable E. J. Holloway who was a member of the Parliament for many years and served as a Minister during the war years. I believe that he is one person who, for the work that he did for this nation, is entitled to everything in reason that this nation gives him. Therefore. I hope that the Bill will be passed. {: #subdebate-42-0-s9 .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator WEBSTER:
Victoria **- Mr President,** I support the three Bills that are under consideration by the Senate. I have some queries about a principle involved in the legislation, but I regard as absolutely inconsistent anybody who selects one Bill out of the three Bills and says that for a particular reason he opposes it. 1 find nothing in the arguments which have been raised that is consistent in that text. There is one proposition, in reference to the Parliamentary Retiring Allowances (Increases) Bill, that has been advanced as one reason why the Bills should be opposed. There is one member of the Federal Parliament today, as I calculate from the facts that I know, who will be paying approximately $68 per month to the parliamentary pensions scheme for the next 23 years before he will be entitled to the full benefit of that scheme. Of course, certain honourable senators who have spoken against this Bill did not mention this instance. They referred only to those cases in respect of which the figures appeared to be high. Let me come now to my query. Under this scheme, I imagine, we are delving into a new area of compensation by way of superannuation funds. I give the Government the greatest credit for the policies that it has followed throughout the last few years in encouraging the community at large to invest in pension funds and superannuation schemes. The mind of the Government is quite active in relation to allowing taxation deductions for contributions to private insurance schemes and also for companies which contribute to retirement schemes for their employees. We find that in the 1967-68 Budget increased taxation deductions were granted respecting superannuation and insurance contributions by which a privately employed person can secure for himself some benefit on retirement. All these provisions are good. My query is this: Nowhere is any encouragement given to the private community whereby a benefit is offered such as we find being offered in the Superannuation (Pension Increases) Bill. No encouragement of this sort is available to a person employed in private industry. One can see that the compensation to a private individual who takes out an insurance policy is increased because he can calculate that the pension payable to him at the end of a period probably compensates him much more than would interest on an investment. Perhaps it can be said that this does not flow through the Commonwealth superannuation scheme. I ask the Minister for Education and Science **(Senator Gorton),** who is handling this Bill, whether the Government is bringing in » new idea. Is it saying today that, using the money of the taxpayers, pensions should be upgraded for the three classes of individuals dealt with in these Bills? Is this the first instance in which this has been done in this way? The point that **Senator Kennelly** made regarding the distribution of excess contributions relates to an entirely separate scheme. It is a scheme in respect of which the Government is deciding to tate from the money of the taxpayers some $5m or $7m - I think that is the calculation - immediately for the upgrading of pensions. This is a subject which will be followed with interest because if the money continues to depreciate in value to the extent of 3% or 4% per annum this practice will occur more regularly. We must get it into our minds that this is a proposition that will be repeated. I do not agree with that principle unless the Government has in mind doing something for individuals in the community who have private superannuation schemes of their own. I suggest to the Government that if what is taking place at the present time is an innovation, and if it is something that will recur in future years, some benefit must be made available to people in other sectors of the community. 1 refer, for instance, to bank officials. I know personally a number of bank officials who, throughout their lives, have been contributing quite sizeable amounts to a pension fund. When they retire they will get an amount perhaps a little better than is available at. the present time through the superannuation fund. But it is an amount upon which they are paying tax. They find that it would be much better for them, because of the situation that has arisen, if they had wasted their money in riotous living than to provide for their retirement by payments to a private pension scheme. They are at a disadvantage. The situation that has been created has discouraged this type of investment in the community. I suggest to the Minister that the proposition should be put forward that a tax concession be allowed to individuals who pay contributions in order to receive incomes from private pension schemes. We know that these are individuals who will be entitled to benefits and who are suffering from the scheme that we have now. There is a further point. Can the Minister convey to me whether any of the individuals who will be receiving a benefit under these Bills have received any benefit at all by way of the distribution following the recalculation or reassessment of the Commonwealth Superannuation Fund which, as we know, occurred some 2 or 3 years ago? {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- Involving an amount of $5m. {: .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator WEBSTER: -- I ask the Minister whether there are individuals who will receive the benefits of this legislation but who in actual fact received a cash disburse ment from the Commonwealth Superannuation Fund when it was recalculated recently. As **Senator Wright** said, a disbursement of $5m was made. Undoubtedly certain policy was followed regarding this matter. If a line can be drawn between that which took place then and that which is taking place now I would certainly say that the amount that accrued in the fund and which was apparently in excess of requirements should have been applied to this scheme and certainly no claim should have been made upon the taxpayers to provide the increase that is necessary to make up the depreciation in value of the benefits provided by the fund. The last point that I raise with the Minister is this: In dealing with the Superannuation (Pension Increases) Bill will he make clear to me what is involved in the Schedule? Will he explain why the names of pensioners appear in the Schedule? I take it that this Schedule refers to clauses 5 and 6. Will the Minister make clear to me the reason why these individuals receive the rates of pensions that are detailed in the second and third columns of that Schedule? {: #subdebate-42-0-s10 .speaker-KH5} ##### Senator GORTON:
Minister for Education and Science · VICTORIA · LP -- in reply - The Senate is debating three Bills although a great deal of the debate appears to have been concentrated on one Bill. The purpose of one Bill is to increase the superannuation payments of officers of the Public Service who have retired and who have been in receipt of superannuation payments - I do not believe that pensions is the correct word - to which they have contributed and whose income, it is felt, because of changes in the value of money should be increased. There is nothing new in that. It has been suggested that perhaps some new principle is involved, but there is not. I suppose this has been done at least half a dozen times in relation to the Commonwealth Superannuation Fund. Some honourable senators would probably know exactly how many times, but I should think it has been done about six times previously. There is nothing new in principle in this proposition. {: .speaker-KBC} ##### Senator Willesee: -- And it was done, I think, without opposition. {: .speaker-KH5} ##### Senator GORTON:
VICTORIA · LP -- At any rate, the point is that this is no new principle for officers of the Commonwealth Public Service. Some people may well have an opposing view and think that the proposal is wrong. However that may be, the fact is that it is not an innovation. It is nothing new. The second Bill we are discussing, which relates to an increase in superannuation paid to people who have retired from our defence forces and who have already contributed to the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Fund, provides that those payments shall be increased as well. **Senator Wright** quite rightly pointed out that the increase will not be as great as it would have been if the private contribution had been included. Payments are being increased by the amount of the public contribution and completely at the cost of the Treasury. There is nothing new in that. It has been done on many occasions in the past. If one sought to make out a case against those who object to the increase, the case would be even stronger so far as the defence forces are concerned than in respect of the public servants, because members of the forces, by virtue of the conditions of the work they do, are constrained in many cases to retire at much earlier ages than is necessary in the Public Service or than is usual in the case of a parliamentarian if he happens to be tossed out. If a Service officer is not promoted to a particular rank at a particular age he retires, perhaps at age 45 or 50. He does not have the opportunity to continue to 60 or 65 years of age as public servants do and to so regulate his contributions as to get the retirement allowance that he expects. There is nothing new in a provision for increasing the pensions of those people. Former members of Parliament are treated by the Bill in exactly the same way as it is proposed to treat persons retired from the Commonwealth Public Service or from the defence forces. 1 thought that **Senator Wright** presented a distorted picture. He said that the cost of the increases to the Treasury - I think these are close enough to his figures - in the case of public servants was $295 per person, in the case of persons retired from the defence forces $3 1 1 and in the case of former members of Parliament $920. Does the honourable senator agree that that is a reasonably accurate representation of what he said? {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- Yes. {: .speaker-KH5} ##### Senator GORTON:
VICTORIA · LP -- I think he drew a distorted picture. He quoted an average of $295 for officers of the Public Service but he has taken in the whole range of public servants who have retired at different ages and who have contributed at different rates, and he has said: 'Overall these people are securing $295'. If there is to be any meaningful comparison in this it needs to be a comparison between public servants and members of Parliament who were receiving the same salary, making the same contributions to their respective funds and who retired at a comparable age, whichever age the honourable senator likes to choose. That appears to be a far more accurate and meaningful comparison. If such a comparison is made I think it will be seen that there is very little difference in the proposals now before the House. I have had certain information prepared to support what I have said. I think that a reasonable basis of comparison is to compare the increase for the parliamentary pensioner who retired at 31st December 1959 at age 65 with that to be received by a former public servant who retired on 31st December 1959 from a position attracting a salary equivalent to that of the parliamentarian. In other words, there are the same age, the same date and the same salary. On that basis the increase is much the same. In members of Parliament we have a group of people all of whom receive the same salary and make the same full contribution, because they are compelled to do so, towards their pension. {: .speaker-KBL} ##### Senator Wood: -- Salaries and contributions vary with the passing of the years. {: .speaker-KH5} ##### Senator GORTON:
VICTORIA · LP -- That is quite true. That applies as well to public servants. As their salaries change, the contributions they make to buy their units of superannuation also change. But with members of Parliament we are dealing with a group of people all of whom receive the same salary and all of whom contribute, by law, the full amount required to attract the superannuation when they retire. Public servants are not in the same category. They are a group of people who receive varying rates of pay, according to their grades and the promotions they receive, and who contribute of their own volition part of what is necessary to secure a pension, or a greater amount if they want to secure a larger pension. There is no real comparison unless one selects comparable public servants. That is just by the way. I have dilated upon that aspect at somewhat greater length than I meant to, because I thought this matter needed that kind of comparison to put it in the correct perspective. {: .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator Webster: asked me one or two questions which I believe would be better put to me at the Committee stage when I am sitting closer to my advisers, who may be able to give me the information be sought. He asked me, I think, whether any of the people now retired who are to benefit as a result of the passage of the Bill now before us have already benefited as a result of some contribution from Public Service funds. That refers, of course, only to members of the Public Service. I am not sure of the answer to that question but I will seek to obtain it during the Committee stage. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. In Committee The Bill. {: #subdebate-42-0-s11 .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania -- I wish to take a little time to repel the suggestion that my opposition to this Bill is derived from any sense of grudge. I also wish to take the opportunity to answer submissions made by **Senator Gorton** and **Senator Henty** about my criticism of the paper presented to us. The viewpoint I wish to convey to the Senate is this: Where parliamentarians themselves stand to benefit, extreme candour and completeness is proper in any parliamentary paper. It is not to the point to say that an individual member of the Public Service receiving a salary of $7,000 a year - the figure used by **Senator Henty** - would receive an increase in his superannuation almost equal to that received by a public servant who retired on a salary of $7,000. I would not have expected the discrepancy to have been very great in that case. But we have a paper which shows the cost of three categories. The Public Service is shown at approximately $5m, the defence forces at $1.8m, and the parliamentary category at $0.8m. The first impression given by the document is the comparative insignificance of the parliamentary category. {: .speaker-KOW} ##### Senator Henty: -- Those are the figures asked for by a member of the Opposition. The document was not put out for any other reason. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator WRIGHT: -- I am saying only that a paper that comes to us to be interpreted in that way is calculated to mislead. {: .speaker-KOW} ##### Senator Henty: -- No. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator WRIGHT: -- It is not intended to mislead.I accept the Minister's assurance. But I am pointing out that information in that form can very well be understood in a misleading sense. A calculation of the per capita distribution for the three categories shows that the distribution for the parliamentary beneficiary is about three times that of the public servant or a member of the defence forces. The categories of the Public Service and defence forces arc stated in the schedule, but it is necessary to go to the appropriate Bill to find the benefits for parliamentarians. Many people who would read the statement would not have the Bill readily before them. {: .speaker-KOW} ##### Senator Henty: -- They are different Bills. **Senator Wright** knows that quite well. There is a schedule to one Bill and in the other case the information is in the Bill itself. There could not be anything fairer than that, for anybody who intended to be fair. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator WRIGHT: -- I expounded yesterday on questions of fairness and I am expounding my views on fairness today. It may be that when objectively considered, it will be seen that a different method of compilation may be to the great advantage of Ministers who depend upon their officers for the preparation of documents. I have heard the argument that I am unfair. 1 want it to be distinctly understood that a document such as I am describing is to be deprecated. It has also been suggested that I have distorted the picture by relating the cost of the Public Service to farm income and not to the gross national product. The gross national product consists of an addition of all the receipts of the various categories of the economy. If you add $2,000 to the salary of a departmental head you add $2,000 to the gross national product. But I want to get a comparison in reality in respect of people who earn their money and depend in a large sense upon export income for their receipts. I took one category the significance of which to export incomeI thought would be understood.In comparing farm income with the Public Service income a trend can be seen to be developing in this country. It has to be considered. If it is said that there is any distortion in putting that comparison before honourable senators, the criticism comes oddly this week from others. I have taken the occasion at the Committee stage of the debate to put my view of the submissions made. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment: report adopted. {:#subdebate-42-1} #### Third Reading Bill (on motion by **Senator Gorton)** read a third time. {: .page-start } page 2087 {:#debate-43} ### DEFENCE FORCES RETIREMENT BENEFITS (PENSION INCREASES) BILL 1967 {:#subdebate-43-0} #### Second Reading Consideration resumed from 20 October (vide page 1513), on motion by **Senator Gorton:** >That the Bill he now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. {: .page-start } page 2087 {:#debate-44} ### PARLIAMENTARY RETIRING ALLOWANCES (INCREASES) BILL 1967 {:#subdebate-44-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed from 20 October (vide page 1513), on motion by **Senator Gorton:** >That the Bill be now read a second time. Question put. The Senate divided. (The President - Senator Sir Alister McMullin) AYES: 42 NOES: 5 Majority . . . . 37 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. In Committee The Bill. {: #debate-44-s0 .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania -- I would like the Minister for Education and Science **(Senator Gorton)** to clarify for me the difference between clause 3 and clause 4. In regard to clause 3 I should like to know whether I am correct in understanding that a weekly pension of $30 is to be increased by $18.16 and whether the weekly pension of $33 is to be increased by $23.89, and so on in accordance with the table therein. I should like to know the category of the recipients of those pensions and the relationship between the figures in the column under the heading 'Weekly amount of pension' and the figures in the corresponding column headed 'Weekly amount of increase in pension'. Similarly, in regard to clause 4 I should like to know the relationship between the figures in the column headed 'Annual amount of pension' and the column headed Annual amount of increase in pension'. According to the tables an annual pension of $2,291.67 is to be increased by $437.50. I would like to know the category of persons referred to in clause 4. {: #debate-44-s1 .speaker-KH5} ##### Senator GORTON:
Minister for Education and Science · VICTORIA · LP -- In answer to the honourable senator's question regarding clause 3,I mention that a pension of $30 a week for a widow is to be increased by $18.16 to a new rate of $48.16. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- Does clause 3 relate only to widows? {: .speaker-KH5} ##### Senator GORTON:
VICTORIA · LP -- No. The rate of $33 a week for ex-parliamentarians under 45 years of age will be increased by $23.89 to $56.89. For ex-members over 45 but under 65 years of age, the present rate of $36 a week is to be increased by $21.79, making the new rate $57.79. The honourable senator is correct in his understanding of the tables set out in clause 3. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- But why is the pension rate of $33 a week to be increased by $23.89 and the pension rate of $36 a week to be increased by $21.79? {: .speaker-KH5} ##### Senator GORTON:
VICTORIA · LP -- 1 will answer the second part of the honourable senator's inquiry first. His second query related to clause 4. There again, his interpretation of the figures is quite correct. The present annual pension of $2,291.67 is to be increased by $437.50. The same applies to the next two sets of figures, one set relating to ex-members over 45 but under 65 years of age and the other set relating to exmembers over 65 years of age. The operative part of the honourable senator's inquiry is this: What criterion was applied in order to arrive at a situation in which a pension of $30 is increased by $18.16 and one of $33 is increased by $23.89. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- I wanted to know the reason for the distinction between clauses 3 and 4. Who are the people who are covered by clause 3 and who are the people who are covered by clause 4? There is a marked difference between the increases. {: .speaker-KH5} ##### Senator GORTON:
VICTORIA · LP -- Clause 3(1.) provides for increases in pensions other than pensions in respect of some ex-members who served in the Twenty-fourth Parlialiament. Clause 3 (2.) ensures that future widows of ex-members in those categories will receive pensions at the increased rate. The question that **Senator Wright** has asked is: Why is there a difference between the increases for people covered by clause 3 and those for people covered by clause 4? It is clear on a study of the figures that the people who are covered by clause 4 do not receive as high an increase as the people who are covered by clause 3. The answer given to me is that clause 4 covers people who served in the Twenty- fourth Parliament and who receive higher pensions than people who served in previous parliaments; whereas clause 3 covers only people who served in parliaments prior to the Twenty-fourth Parliament. I am left to infer that because the people covered by clause 3 received lower pensions as a result of serving in parliaments prior to the Twenty-fourth Parliament they are now receiving higher increases. As I understand the position, the principle that is now being applied is the one applied in respect of all these Acts to raise the Consolidated Revenue share of the pensions of all of the people concerned. I do not know that that is a very satisfactory answer, but it is the best one that I can obtain at the moment. {: #debate-44-s2 .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania -- I do not want to be difficult, but T have not understood whether clause 3 is applicable only to widows. The Minister mentioned only widows when he was replying to me. but he seemed to imply that the clause did not deal only with widows. I should like to know in what year this class of exmembers left the Parliament. I am very vexed when I am answered in terms of the number of a parliament because my mind does not work on that basis. I live by the calendar. The words 'Twenty-fourth Parliament' do nol: mean much to me. Then, why should a pension of $30 a week be increased by $18.16, a pension of $33 a week by $23.89 and pensions of $36 and $42 a week by $21.79 each? Surely we can be told the reason why those figures are put on a weekly basis and the figures in the next clause are put on an annual basis. 1 have no doubt that it is done in order to make the position clear for members of the Parliament who have to compare the two sets of figures. But we will get rid of this overburden of obscurity in the departments before long. 1 may be the only member of the Committee who does not understand these points. If that is so, I apologise to the other members of the Committee. But I do not think an apology is due from me. In respect of clause 4 I ask: In what year did the exmembers covered by that clause retire and why does a man on a pension of $2,750 a year receive an increase of $525 and a man who is now enjoying a pension of $3,062 a year receive the same increase, namely, $525? I have taken up time for the purpose of enabling a reply to be prepared. I believe that I am justified in trying to obtain an understanding. I am in a similar position to Rabbie Burns who asked for freedom to him that can read. {: #debate-44-s3 .speaker-KH5} ##### Senator GORTON:
Minister for Education and Science · VICTORIA · LP -- The Twenty-fourth Parliament was the one that finished in 1963. It went from 1961 to 1963. The notes that have been given to me state that in 1963 parliamentary pensions were to be increased at the same time as the pensions provided from other Commonwealth superannuation funds were increased. That is what we are proposing to do now. However, that course proved to be impracticable and the proposed increases in parliamentary pensions were not made until 1st November 1964. In order to ensure that members of the Parliament that concluded in 1963, whom it was intended to place on the same basis as other superannuation pensioners, did not receive inequitable treatment, as a result of their not being elected to the next Parliament and the change in the timetable it' was decided that they should receive pensions on the new basis; that is, 50% of their parliamentary salaries. The effect of that was to give ex-members of the Parliament that concluded in 1963 larger pensions than those payable to people who had retired earlier. Since the purpose of the Bill is to increase the Consolidated Revenue share of all pensions to the level now prevailing in respect of people contributing to pensions, the amount that is required to increase the Consolidated Revenue share of the pensions of exmembers of the Parliament that concluded in 1963 is less than that required to increase the pensions of people who retired earlier. In other words, there were people who served in the 1961-63 Parliament and who, in the normal course of events, would have had an Act passed to entitle them to retiring allowances that would have risen in the same way as Public Service superannuation pensions rose; but because of certain events that Act was not passed and they did not receive that entitlement. In the next Parliament they were given that entitlement. That put them at an advantage compared with people who had retired from Parliaments previous to the Parliament th.it concluded in 1963. But it is not intended to perpetuate that advantage. Therefore, as we propose to apply the principle of adding to the retiring allowances of those who have retired the Consolidated Revenue contribution in order to bring them up to the present level, those people require a smaller increase in pension than do the people who retired from Parliaments previous to the 1961-63 Parliament. {: .speaker-KKP} ##### Senator Gair: -- They get an increased pension without contributing one additional penny. {: .speaker-KH5} ##### Senator GORTON:
VICTORIA · LP -- This applies to all the people about whom we are speaking. It is of common application. I am trying to explain why some people receive u smaller increase than others. {: #debate-44-s4 .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator WEBSTER:
Victoria -- The Minister for Education and Science **(Senator Gorton)** stated that increases similar to the ones now proposed have been granted on half a dozen occasions in the past. If the Minister has the information I should like to know in what years these increases were granted and what percentage of increase was granted. {: #debate-44-s5 .speaker-KH5} ##### Senator GORTON:
Minister for Education and Science · VICTORIA · LP -- I have not the information that the honourable senator seeks. It could be obtained for him if he thinks it would be useful. The point I think he is referring to is the principle that is applied in making increases in pensions to retired public servants. That principle is well established. I do not know the years in which the increases were granted or what particular percentage was granted. But the honourable senator may be assured that the principle is not a new one. {: .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator Webster: -- Could the officers who are advising the Minister indicate when the last Bill was passed that did exactly as this Bill is doing? {: .speaker-KH5} ##### Senator GORTON:
VICTORIA · LP -- Docs the honourable senator mean the last Bill that applied exactly the same principle? {: .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator Webster: -- Yes. {: .speaker-KH5} ##### Senator GORTON:
VICTORIA · LP -- That is different from doing exactly the same, lt was in 1963. {: #debate-44-s6 .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania -- I shall leave my inquiry in the hope that the Minister for Education and Science **(Senator Gorton)** will see fit to request that a letter in explanation be directed to me. If one converts the weekly pension of $30, which is referred to in clause 3, to an annual pension, it is I think $1,560. The proposed weekly increase of $18.60 works out at approximately $1,000 per year. But under clause 4 an increase of $437 is to be added to an annual pension of $2,291. 1 take it that is because of the circumstances to which the Minister has just referred, namely, the difference in the year of retirement of various members of the Parliament. It was my understanding that the same rate of pension was paid to all members who went out of Parliament in, say, 1963. Why under clause 3 are pensions of $36 and $42 per week to be increased by $21 when under clause 4 an increase of $525 per year applies to annual pensions of $2,750 and $3,062? I do not wish to delay the Committee. I have no doubt that the Minister is perfectly satisfied that there is justice as between individuals in this matter. But I must confess a failure to understand the position. I should be obliged if the officers who are assisting the Minister could be directed to write to me in terras which ordinary people use so that 1 can understand the reconciliation of these figures. {: #debate-44-s7 .speaker-KH5} ##### Senator GORTON:
Minister for Education and Science · VICTORIA · LP -- I shall undertake to see that the honourable senator receives a letter in terms which he and I can thoroughly understand. But it does appear to me that the basic explanation is that we are proposing to make an increase in pensions but that the increase we are proposing is confined basically to the Commonwealth revenue component which goes into the increase. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- That is 70% in each case, lt is 70% of $2,750 and 70% of 33,062. {: .speaker-KH5} ##### Senator GORTON:
VICTORIA · LP -- Yes. We are endeavouring to confine it to the Commonwealth revenue component of the increase. Furthermore, we are endeavouring to provide a Commonwealth revenue component which in each case will be equal to what a contributor would receive today. We are dealing with a number of people who have retired at different periods in the past. In respect of some of them the Commonwealth revenue component is closer to the Commonwealth revenue component received today than it is in the case of others, and there are various intermediate cases. For that reason there is a requirement for a difference in the actual sum to be added to bring them all up to the one level. Having stated that as the basic reason for the present situation, 1 shall see that the particular reasons are given to the honourable senator. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. {:#subdebate-44-1} #### Third Reading Bill (on motion by **Senator Gorton)** read a third time. {: .page-start } page 2090 {:#debate-45} ### JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY The ACTING **DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Laught)** - The President has received a letter from the Leader of the Government in the Senate **(Senator Gorton)** appointing **Senator Cotton** to fill the vacancy existing on the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory. {: .page-start } page 2090 {:#debate-46} ### PRINTING COMMITTEE {: #debate-46-s0 .speaker-JTT} ##### Senator DAVIDSON:
South Australia -- 1 present the fifth report of the Printing {:#subdebate-46-0} #### Committee Report - by leave - adopted. {: .page-start } page 2090 {:#debate-47} ### BANKING BILL 1967 {:#subdebate-47-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed from 26 October (vide page 1705), on motion by **Senator Henty:** >That the Bill be now read a second time. {: #subdebate-47-0-s0 .speaker-K6R} ##### Senator COHEN:
Victoria -- The Bill which is before the Senate is entitled 'A Bill for An Act Relating to the Papua and New Guinea Development Bank and to the Australian Resources Development Bank Ltd'. The Minister for Supply **(Senator Henty)** in his second reading speech indicated that the main purpose of the Bill is to confer bank status on a corporation known as the Australian Resources Development Bank Ltd. The Minister went on to say: >The Bank has now been incorporated in Victoria by the eight major trading banks, with the aim of providing finance to Australian enterprises engaged in large scale developments of Australia's natural resources. The case made by the Government is that it has often proved difficult for Australian enterprises to mobilise capital from Australian sources on the scale needed to bring to fruition very large projects. The Minister also said that with new discoveries, particularly mineral discoveries, very large sums are required for development. Everybody would agree with that. Apparently the Government has decided that the best thing to do is to establish a new institution which will be capable of mobilising sums thai otherwise might require negotiations with a considerable number of lenders. The Opposition will oppose this Bill. I want to state as shortly and simply as 1 can the reasons why we will do so. First of all, I think it is necessary to refer to one or two matters of history. The corporation to which this Bill refers has had an interesting history. It was originally called the Australian Bankers Development Refinance Corporation, lt is in fact a body set up by the eight trading banks for the purposes that I have indicated. But at about the same time as this bank was put forward as being the brainchild of the present Treasurer **(Mr McMahon)** another institution was being floated in public information circles as being the brainchild of the Minister for Trade and Industry **(Mr McEwen).** {: .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator Webster: -- 'Floated' would not be the correct word there, would it? {: .speaker-K6R} ##### Senator COHEN: -- 1 will come to exactly what the Minister for Trade and Industry said about it. lt was to be called the Australian Industrial Development Corporation. When the decision was made to go ahead with the body which is now the subject of this Bill, the Minister for Trade and Industry had something quite acid to say about it. He said: >There is nothing in the announcement which indicates that this Australian organisation is to have the primary object of preserving Australian ownership in ventures connected wilh the development of our national resources and opportunities. He also said that it had been importantly renamed and its functions redesigned, clearly to meet purposes not originally intended but capable of now being serviced along lines for which he had exposed the necessity, and to that extent he welcomed the broader approach to making finance available for Australian development. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- In what context did he make that statement? {: .speaker-K6R} ##### Senator COHEN: -- He made it on the occasion of the announcement that the Government was to go ahead. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- lt was a public comment by the Minister for Trade and Industry? {: .speaker-K6R} ##### Senator COHEN: -- Yes. That was in September 1966. A question was asked in April 1967 by the honourable member for Melbourne Ports **(Mr Crean),** in another place, who is the spokesman for the Australian Labor Party in this Parliament on financial matters. **Mr Crean** asked the Minister for Trade and Industry whether there were to be two separate institutions. The two that had been named were the Commonwealth Development Bank and the proposed Bankers Development Refinance Corporation. He searchingly questioned the Minister for Trade and Industry on what the position was as far as the Government and the Minister were concerned. The Minister said: >This is a very complex question and obviously there is no simple answer to it. However, the honourable member will know that the Government has taken a decision to establish a certain banking institution, to which my colleague the Treasurer has just referred. That is the whole of the comment of the Minister for Trade and Industry on this new bank: 'a certain banking institution'. Then he went on to elaborate on his own brainchild: >At the same time that Cabinet discussed the matter and reached this decision it gave some consideration to whether there was scope not so much for leaning on Australian banking finance, from both the private banks and the Reserve Bank, but perhaps to mobilise to some extent foreign funds which it would be hoped could bc obtained more in the form of loan than in equity ownership of some of the great enterprises with which we are all familiar these days. > >Cabinet decided that a study should be made of this proposal to reach a conclusion in due course as to whether there could be established, with advantage to Australia, an authority which would have the function of mobilising such funds . . . lt obviously is clear to all honourable members that, if certain funds are needed for such a project, and the funds are provided as foreign owned equity capital they probably will remain foreign owned forever. If, on the other hand, some of the capital needed is provided from foreign funds by way of loan, then in due course when that loan is repaid there is scope for Australia to have the equity, or a bigger proportion of the equity than it otherwise would have. This, I hope, explains what the Government has decided to examine. The examination will proceed. T have no doubt it will take months to complete. What' the Government has done is indicated in this Bill. It has gone ahead with its plan to confer bank status on this creature of the private banks, this new institution which the Financial Editor of the 'Sydney Morning Herald' has described as 'the totally captive thing of existing bank management'. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- One could correctly describe every banking company in those terms. {: .speaker-K6R} ##### Senator COHEN: -- I am trying to explain why it is that we have come to the decision that we should oppose this Bill. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- I am only trying to indicate an interest. {: .speaker-K6R} ##### Senator COHEN: -- I understand the honourable senator's interjection to be not in any way hostile but only seeking information. What appears to us is that, first of all, there is no need whatever for this institution. No solid case has been made out for a new institution which is not really independent of the existing eight major trading banks, including the Commonwealth Banking Corporation. Apparently the establishment of this institution has led to a great deal of heart-burning on the Government side and it is perhaps part of the great struggle between Treasury and Trade or between the Minister for Trade and Industry and the Treasurer. In any event on 27th September the Minister for Trade and Industry, replying to a question in another place from the Leader of the Opposition **(Mr Whitlam)** as to the position of his own baby, the Development Corporation, said that the best thing he could, do was to abandon his own scheme because it had been misrepresented, as he put it', to many important people. This, I think, indi cates a glaring division on the Government side and a great deal of uncertainty in the ranks of senior Government members as to whether what' is being done is the right thing. Our case quite simply is that, first of all, we do not see the need for such an institution. Secondly, we believe that the creation of this institution is bypassing the Commonwealth Development Bank. After all, the responsiblity of the Commonwealth Government is to develop its own institutions. It is quite obvious when one looks to the enormous potential of what has to be done with development of great industries, and particularly mineral industries, that' large funds are needed. Firstly, there is no indication that they will be forthcoming in any greater measure under this new institution. Secondly, there is, I believe, an obligation on the Commonwealth to develop its own institutions to do this work. The third thing that we say about this proposal is that it is not really proper to confer the title Australian' on such a body to give it the dignity, the financial standing and the national identity which the word 'Australian' confers on it. It is obviously meant to be a status symbol for international banking purposes. It is meant to sound like an official Government body - the Australian Resources Development Bank- Ltd. We do not regard that as a proper use of the word 'Australian'. I now refer to an analysis of the problem that this bank has created which appeared in the 'Sydney Morning Herald' on 13th September 1967. This closely reasoned article by the financial editor of the 'Sydney Morning Herald' makes, we believe, some very important points. It reads: >This was supposed to be a great new institution to take on a big national job. Its name was changed only the other day- This article, as I say. was written on 13th September - from 'Bankers' Development Refinance Corporation*. lt ends up a more totally captive thing of existing bank managements than one had expected under the old title. It makes the point that this new bank is essentially a- bank the directors of which arc managers of the existing banks. Apparently not one of them is a director of his own institution. The financial editor of the 'Sydney Morning Herald' says this: >The situation is so unreal- He is referring to the 19th century habits of some of the existing banks - that one of the banks which makes a point of keeping up the olde worlde style of calling its numerous shareholders 'the Proprietors' nevertheless refuses to allow those Proprietors to know who they are. No shareholder, let alone anyone else outside the managerial-directorial circle is permitted to lay eyes on the register of shareholders. I do not know which one of the banks that is. Perhaps other honourable senators do. The article goes on: >By its constitution the Australian Resources Development Bank seems to be emphasising that it is being launched as a refinancing instrument of the existing banks, with Reserve Bank backing in the initial stages. Later on, it says: >Putting the control of the new bank completely in the hands of the existing bank managements will mean that mineral prospectors and developers can see little or no chance of an independent re-appraisal of their propositions. In other words, how is this different from the existing banks? {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- ls not this simply a cooperative with representation from all the private banks? {: .speaker-K6R} ##### Senator COHEN: -- What it has done has been to draw some starting-off capital from the Reserve Bank. That is to help it get afloat. Apparently it is hoped that the institution will finance itself and in due course the Reserve Bank advances will no longer be needed. The thing that is obvious in our view is that there is nothing that one can look to this new institution to do which could not properly have been done either by the existing trading banks or, more properly from the Commonwealth's point- of view, by enlarging the functions and responsibilities of the Commonwealth Development Bank. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- 1 thought all these large financial undertakings were financed by contributions from various enterprises. One does not get big money out of the one pocket these days. {: .speaker-K6R} ##### Senator COHEN: -- That may be so, but there is no reason why this cannot be done, we believe, through the Commonwealth Bank. After all, that is the public bank of Australia and that is the body through which enterprises should be encouraged and through which development should be encouraged. I have indicated in a very summary way the points that we take about this institution. We do not believe that any real case has been made for conferring bank status on the institution, remembering that this is the first use of the power in the Act since the new banking structure of 1945. I shall content myself at this stage with saying that it was open to the Government to expand the powers of the Commonwealth Bank, that there is no role which has been set out clearly enough for this bank which would make it a proper thing for us to support at this stage. For those reasons, I indicate to the Senate that the Opposition will vote against the second reading of this Bill. {: #subdebate-47-0-s1 .speaker-JQR} ##### Senator COTTON:
New South Wales -- This is a Bill designed to confer bank status on the Australian Resources Development Bank Ltd. and I welcome it. I believe that, in many ways, it is long overdue. **Senator Cohen,** on behalf of the Labor Party, has made some comments which disclose that neither he nor the Labor Party knows much about this matter. It. is obviously a very involved matter. I do not claim to know a great deal about it myself, but it is very clear that the members of the Labor Party know nothing about it. **Senator Cohen** spoke of ownership by the Australian people. Ownership involves two important considerations. Firstly, what local financial resources are available and secondly, how we are to measure these against the rate of progress that we want to achieve in a given time. If we want a very fast rate of progress which is beyond our resources, we are committed to some kind of requirement to get some support from somebody else. What do we want in Australia at this stage? Do we want only progress measured by our own ability to accumulate resources? Or are we prepared to take some opportunity to acquire some help from other people to expand our resources? I prefer the second type of progress. It would seem from **Senator Cohen's** argument that the Labor Party prefers the other course, which, in simple terms would mean that we would have to slow down very considerably. I think we will all agree that not one of us wants proliferation of the banking structure in Australia outside Reserve Bank control. But this institution is clearly kept within the confines of Reserve Bank control. Indeed, the measure provides for that. **Senator Cohen** has complained about the activities of the Australian trading banks. {: .speaker-K6R} ##### Senator Cohen: -- I did not complain about them at all. The honourable senator is missing the point. I said that this institution would not be anything really independent of them, and that is an entirely different point. {: .speaker-JQR} ##### Senator COTTON: -- I rather got the impression that the honourable senator thought they had not done a good job. {: .speaker-K6R} ##### Senator Cohen: -- If the honourable senator thought that, he was not listening. {: .speaker-JQR} ##### Senator COTTON: -- 1 am glad to hear that. 1 thought the honourable senator was asserting that they had not done a good job. ( believe their contribution to Australian progress has been quite remarkable. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- Yes, but mainly for themselves. {: .speaker-JQR} ##### Senator COTTON: -- That is not my view. 1 take the view that the Australian trading banks arc substantially owned by the Australian people anyhow. So what is the honourable senator complaining about? What we are concerned with in this measure is how best we can marshal the skills in banking that we have in the community. I also draw the honourable senator's attention, most politely, to the fact that one of the banks in the consortium is the Commonwealth Bank. This is an extremely capital hungry world. It is not easy to secure money for development within this country from Australian lenders, and from overseas lenders it is getting increasingly difficult. I suggest that what we are looking for is the most imaginative approach that we can achieve in an endeavour to attract the resources that we need for this country. I cannot really sec why the Opposition complains about the use of the word 'Australian' in the name of this institution. Are we ashamed of the name 'Australian'? Why do we not want to use it? This proposal is a sensible and tidy way of marshalling resources. Firstly, it will lead to the marshalling of Australia's financial resources and Australia's financial expertise. Some honourable senators may feel that they could perhaps do better in the banking world than the existing bankers. If they do, then the opportunity is open to them at any time. The expertise that we have in the banking world in Australia is to be marshalled in this organisation. Then, too, under this proposal some opportunity will be given to take advantage of the enterprise and initiative of the Australian people. Further, we must not forget the pride of the Australian people in Australia and their desire to see it develop at the rate al which it should be developed. By this consortium, by this combination of abilities, resources and skills that we have within Australia, we hope to attract some help and support from overseas financial interests. 1 believe that in this country today there is a literal treasure house of pastoral opportunity, agricultural opportunity, mineral opportunity and industrial opportunity, and it ill behoves us to neglect these opportunities at this stage in our history. We have heard complaints about insufficient Australian ownership. This particular proposal is designed to attempt to marshal Australia's resources to rectify to some extent, though not totally, some of the causes of the possible diminution of Australian ownership. Substantially, Australian ownership is conferred upon Australians by their willingness to take it up and by their preparedness to expend themselves on its behalf. Let us not be unkind to ourselves either. What we are talking about is a high rate of progress calling for resources. The saving rate of the Australian people is very high. It is the second highest in the world. We would find it hard in real terms to get the Australian people to save a great deal more. I think that all Australian people want progress. But how is this to be achieved without getting resources put together or perhaps some other people? In some discussions earlier **Senator Cohen** mentioned that he thought that there was a problem as to where the finance is to come from. This seems to me to be quite clear. The capital structure is $5m in the first stage. The equity of the eight banks in the consortium, including the Commonwealth Bank, is $3m. The loan from the Reserve Bank of Australia is $2m. Further loans will be made available by the Reserve Bank as capital subscriptions are increased by the eight trading banks. The trading banks and the Reserve Bank can provide bridging finance from time to time to help the expansion of this institution if more expansion is called for. The support of the Reserve Bank is to be progressively withdrawn as the institution becomes more and more secure. This is a very proper function for a Reserve Bank. It is a proper and sensible way for a Reserve Bank to behave. The Reserve Bank has really, on behalf of the Australian people, underwritten this operation. As the institution becomes more successful, the Reserve Bank will take a detached position. Australian investors who are concerned about the ownership of the assets of this country can clearly solve the problems of their consciences by investing in the transferable deposit certificates that this bank will issue on terms of 3 years to 10 years. The interest rates will be the market rates. They will be better than the market would normally be expected to provide because this is a more secure institution, more soundly backed and well underwritten by the total resources. Overseas borrowing is proposed to be acquired on terms not of equity but of fixed interest investment. This is a very sound way to behave. I could not agree more with this proposal. The Bill before us covers the Papua and New Guinea Development Bank which has been brought into operation by ordinance. lt is now sought to confirm the establishment of this Bank by legislation. I think that we can all agree that the establishment of this Bank in Papua and New Guinea is a very worthy thing. This job in relation to the Papua and New Guinea Development Bank ought to have been done before. The job has been done now. The Bank ought to be confirmed now by legislation. The Bill now before the House will confirm the establishment of the Papua and New Guinea Development Bank and this resources bank. It is noted that the reserve deposit scheme will not be sought from either of these institutions. I think this is quite proper. But the thing that really ought to salve the conscience of everybody regarding this problem and ought to overcome all the objections that anybody has to this proposal is this: This is an operation which has been thought out over 2 years by the Reserve Bank, the Department of the Treasury and the trading banks including the Commonwealth Bank. Is anybody going to suggest that the Reserve Bank and the Treasury do not represent the interests of the people of Australia? It is a pretty far-fetched argument to suggest that the trading banks and the Commonwealth Bank are not substantially owned by the Australian people. These institutions have thought the matter out and have arrived at what they consider to be the best, way to handle this problem. The new bank is to be financed by a combination of equity capital from the Australian people through their own banking system plus loan money from the Reserve Bank. Above all those things this operation comes very strictly under the advance policy which has operated. It is under the control of the Reserve Bank. I do not think that we could have a better method of approaching this problem. My only regret is that it has taken as long as it has to bring this about. I commend the Bill to honourable senators. {: #subdebate-47-0-s2 .speaker-KOW} ##### Senator HENTY:
Minister for Supply · Tasmania · LP -- in reply - **Mr Deputy President,** I wish to reply only briefly to the points made by **Senator Cohen.** The first point was that the proposed Australian Resources Development Bank will usurp the work of the Commonwealth Development Bank. I point out to the honourable senator that the functions of the Development Bank are set out in section 72 of the Commonwealth Banks Act 1959-1961. The Act provides: >The functions of the Development Bank are - > >to provide finance for persons - > >for the purposes of primary production; or > >for the establishment or development of industrial undertakings, particularly small undertakings, in cases where, in the opinion of the Development. Bank, the provision of the finances desirable and the finance would not otherwise be available on reasonable and suitable terms and conditions; and > >to provide advice and assistance with a view to promoting the efficient organisation and conduct of primary production or of industrial undertakings. {: .speaker-K6R} ##### Senator Cohen: -- That is section 72? {: .speaker-KOW} ##### Senator HENTY: -- Yes, that is section 72 of the Commonwealth Banks Act. The functions of the Development Bank are completely the opposite of the functions of the Australian Resources Development Bank. The Development Bank will assist the small man. I refer to the man who has not sufficient capital or assets to make his proposition to the Bank an attractive one. He is a man of good reputation, a man who has the reputation of being a worker. He is reliable. Therefore, the Development Bank has the opportunity of assisting him in the development of his proposition. This was the original conception and design of the Development Bank. It was primarily for propositions relating to primary production and other propositions which might not be strictly acceptable as banking propositions because of lack of assets or lack of capital. This applies to the man or woman who has great assets in the way of appeal through known character and who is putting a proposition before the Bank. {: .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator Webster: -- In his words just now, the Minister used the expression 'great assets'. Did he intend to use that expression in his comment? {: .speaker-KOW} ##### Senator HENTY: -- Yes. I was referring to the great assets of character. One of the greatest assets that a person can have is good character. I know that this is not of intrinsic value as a banking proposition. But the great asset of good character is one of the assets that belongs to the people who go to the Development Bank. The Development Bank is entirely the opposite of the Australian Resources Development Bank which is designed to deal with large propositions which may relate, for instance, to mining or rural development activities. It will deal with propositions that call for enormous amounts of capital which are not available in individual cases and which are not available in many cases of a risk capital in equity hands. This Bank has the enormous advantage of being a co-operative. I think that 'co-operative' was the word that **Senator Wright** used, and rightly so. lt represents co-operation between all the banking institutions operating in Australia at present. The tremendous combined strength of the resources of these banks will give the Australian Resources Development Bank access to fields from which if can attract large amounts of capital which are needed and needed urgently for the development of the great undertakings that lie before Australia. {: .speaker-K6R} ##### Senator Cohen: -- Is there any reason why this function could not be undertaken by the Commonwealth Bank if its powers were expanded? {: .speaker-KOW} ##### Senator HENTY: -- The Commonwealth Bank has undertaken the establishment of the Australian Resources Development Bank as an equal partner with private enterprise. I do not wish to become political, but I understand full well how the Opposition is opposed to private enterprise. {: .speaker-K6R} ##### Senator Cohen: -- No. We believe that the Commonwealth Bank is perhaps the most important instrument that has ever been created in this country. We created it. {: .speaker-KOW} ##### Senator HENTY: -- The Commonwealth Bank is a magnificent institution. I have nothing to say in denigration of the Commonwealth Bank in any way. It has my overdraft and for that, if for nothing else at the moment, 1 think it is a magnificent institution. The overdraft is not very big but at the same time it is helpful. The Commonwealth Bank is a partner in the project. The fact that **Senator Cotton** made so well is that the Australian Resources Development Bank is under the control of the Reserve Bank which controls the banking policy of Australia. I think that the establishment of this Bank is a great step forward. I was interested to listen to the remarks by **Senator Cohen.** He started off by playing politics, J think, by trying to divide the Government parties in this field. I think that the honourable senator was really charging the Government because it had failed to establish two new banks. I think he said we should have got on with the establishment of both banks. In fact we have got on with the establishment of one bank. The future of the other bank is always under discussion. The proposition is always there to be looked at. I was interested in an expression **Senator Cohen** used. He said that if some of these great enterprises started with foreign capital they would be foreign owned forever. {: .speaker-K6R} ##### Senator Cohen: -- That was not my expression; that was the expression of **Mr McEwen,** Minister for Trade and Industry. I was quoting him. {: .speaker-KOW} ##### Senator HENTY: -- That is right. I was about to say that the honourable senator was quoting **Mr McEwen.** Let me mention a couple of instances - I think pretty relevant instances - of real significance in this field. Only recently I read that the great Western Mining Corporation Ltd and Broken Hill South Ltd were entirely foreign owned when they commenced operations in Australia. Today I understand that they are between 80% and 90% Australian owned. That is the normal development which takes place with these great enterprises. This Bill is designed to make available the resources of all Australian banking institutions so that the organisations concerned will have access to the great sums of money that are often needed to commence operations and to retain the organisations as much as possible in Australian hands. I was happy to hear **Senator Cotton's** remarks and I am happy indeed to support the legislation. Question put: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Senate divided. (The President - Senator Sir Alister McMullin) AYES: 24 NOES: 21 Majority . . . . 3 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. {: .page-start } page 2097 {:#debate-48} ### COMMONWEALTH EMPLOYEES' FURLOUGH BILL 1967 Second' Reading Debate resumed from 26 October (vide page 1707), on motion by **Senator Henty:** >That the Bill be now read a second time. {: #debate-48-s0 .speaker-K1Y} ##### Senator BISHOP:
South Australia -- This Bill seeks to amend the Commonwealth Employees' Furlough Act. The Opposition supports it as far as it goes, but we intend to move amendments to provide for a number of matters that we regard as very important, including the matter of retrenchment. Many people in various Commonwealth departments are affected by this legislation. They include some 16,000 temporary employees; 56,000 exempt employees; 7,500 people in the Department of the Navy; 4,500 in the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation; over 1,000 in the Australian Atomic Energy Commission; over 1,000 in the Overseas Telecommunications Commission; 225 in the Australian Wheat Board; 370 in the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority - I interpose here to say that we are concerned about those waterfront employees, because shortly there will be a number of retrenchments and some provision should be made for their entitlement - some 6,000 in Trans-Australia Airlines; 5,000 in the Australian Broadcasting Commission; over 3,000 with the Commonwealth Railways; nearly 3,000 with the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority; 900 with the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories and 1 12 with the Australian Broadcasting Control Board, making a total of over 105,600. Automatic and mechanical processes are being introduced in a number of those organisations and we would normally expect redundancy, and retrenchment, of staff. I have in mind particularly, asI have mentioned, the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority. The Minister pointed out that the Bill aims to remove differences of furlough entitlement under the Furlough Act and the Public Service Act. It is intended to provide throughout the Commonwealth sphere similar conditions of eligibility for furlough. In industry it is termed long service leave. The Public Service Board will become the common administering authority. In the past the Furlough Act has been administered by the Treasury. The Bill provides for the delegation of powers in a fashion similar to that provided for in the Commonwealth Employees' Compensation Act. The Opposition does not oppose the measure, but we suggest that there is room for improvement. We trust that the Government will consider our suggestions and perhaps accept them before the debate finishes. The first provision to which I refer relates to an employee who ceases duty on account of pressing necessity. Payment in lieu of furlough will be made in such cases. An officer with at least 10 years service and less than 15 years service will, when this measure is passed, be entitled to pro rata furlough. In cases of death or retirement due to ill health the Act at present provides for an 8-year qualifying period. The Bill reduces the qualifying period to 4 years and applies the pro rata scale which operates under the Public Service Act. Unfortunately, some of the people it is intended to cover will receive less under this legislation than their previous entitlement, because of the effects of uniformity. Shortly I will give some examples. Previously deductions were made from entitlement to furlough because of recreation leave. That practice has been discontinued, as the Minister has pointed out in his second reading speech. 1 will read that part of his speech because it is important and 1 will be referring to it later. The Minister said: >The Furlough Act has always provided that the grant of furlough would affect recreation leave. After considering the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission's decisions on claims for long service leave in the metal trades and graphic arts industries, which provided that annual leave should remain unaffected by the grant of long service leave, the Government decided to eliminate the provisions which require deductions from recreation leave on account of furlough being granted. While the Government has decided to follow the decision of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in respect of recreation leave, it has not adopted the same policy in respect of entitlement. The Act still provides for discretion, as the word 'may' is still in the Act. We think it should be removed and we intend to move an amendment to that effect. I will refer to it shortly. Another provision of the measure refers to prior service of an employee who retires on account of age. Under the existing legislation retirement on account of age is treated differently from termination of service for other reasons. As the Minister has agreed, the legislation operates unfairly against some permanent officers when compared with temporary employees. It is suggested that anomalies exist in cases where permanent officers and permanent members of the defence forces retire on age grounds and are re-employed in a temporary capacity or are appointed to a statutory office. At present the position is unfair, and the amendment will rectify it. The existing limitation in respect of prior service with a Commonwealth or State government department or authority is to be removed, lt constitutes an anomaly. Most States acknowledge service in the Commonwealth or in another State government department for the purposes of continuous service. Within reason, previous service is recognised and the amendment is a consistent move for uniformity in entitlement. We think that local government authorities should he covered by the legislation. Their employees are entitled to consideration, and we ' will bc moving an amendment to include them. In fact, two particular parts of the Bill should be amended to allow for their inclusion. To the Opposition this seems a consistent point of view in this age of general organisation within the community. Local government bodies are interconnected very closely with State and Federal activities. The Minister has pointed out in respect of continuity of service that it has been necessary to include an amendment to cover a continuous off duty period of 12 months. This legislation provides that where an employee ceases duty because of ill health and returns within 12 months of his health being restored his continuity of service shall be preserved. Another important point is the lower retiring age in some classifications of industry. The Government has provided that in cases of lower retiring ages where the earning period is reduced the pro rata entitlements will apply. 1 have said that the Opposition believes there is a clear case to include employees of local government bodies. There is a particularly urgent need to cover employees who will be retrenched, certainly by the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority. Entitlement is provided for persons who retire on account of invalidity after 4 years. We see no reason why the same earning period should not apply to employees who are retrenched because of a technological or other type of change in organisation. Many authorities may displace large numbers of employees because of changes in organisation. They ought to be entitled to some benefits. 1 have broadly outlined the position. I wish to enlarge on reduced entitlement for some employees because of the introduction of uniformity. I will read a scale which refers to employees who are retrenched or retired and which compares the existing position and the position as it will be when the Bill is passed. Employees with service of from 8 years to 10 years are at present entitled to 3 months furlough; the proposed entitlement is 3 months. The present entitlement to furlough of employees with 1 1 years service is 3 months; the new entitlement is 3 3/10 months. Employees with 12 years service under the present legislation are entitled to 4 months furlough; their entitlement is to be reduced to 3 6/10 months. Employees with 13 years service are at present entitled to 4 months furlough; their entitlement is to be reduced to 3 9/10 months. In the last two categories there is a loss of entitlement. 1 will indicate later the amendment we propose to prevent that reduction. I turn now to qualification for furlough through death or retirement through invalidity. Employees with service of from 8 years to 10 years will retain their present entitlement of 3 months. The present entitlement of 3 months furlough for employees with 1 1 years service is to be increased to 3 3/10 months. Employees with 12 years service are to have their present entitlement of 4 months reduced to 3 6/10 months. Employees with 13 years service are at present entitled to 4 months furlough. Under the new scale their entitlement will be 3 9/10 months. So such people have a clear case. We cannot see any reason why these things should be in the legislation. Because of these things. and because the Minister was good enough to offer the services of his draftsman, the Opposition has designed some amendments which, according to the advice we have received, cover the policy we would like to be adopted. I want to point to another anomaly which is created in this legislation. For example clerk A who has 9 years service at the appropriate time, and who is retrenched after completing 14 years service, will receive 4 2/ 10th months pay; but clerk B, with 10 years service, if he is retrenched after completing 19 years service, will receive 4 months pay. There is another matter which I want to point out but which the Opposition is not pressing. Under most of the long service leave codes negotiated between the unions and the employers generally - the Chamber of Manufactures in my own State of South Australia and in some other States - and other codes provided by legislation, any worker retrenched after 5 years service because his position becomes redundant is entitled to pro rata payments. Before concluding my second reading speech. 1 want to refer to the amendments that the Opposition intends to move in Committee. We will move an amendment to clause 4. which relates to proposed section 3a, to omit the words 'not being' and insert in their stead the word 'including'. We want to include persons working for local government bodies. In clause 6. before paragraph (a) we wish to insert a new paragraph (aa) so as to include the words including a local governing body' after the word 'State*. We intend to move an amendment aimed at omitting clause 7 and inserting a new clause so as to substitute the word 'may* with the word 'shall'. The reason for this amendment is that we think there ought to be a clear entitlement. The Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission has already made a firm decision about this matter. The Government has, to an extent, taken account of that decision. Our fourth and fifth amendments will be moved together because they relate to clause 8 and are designed to cover retrenchments. The first of them is designed to take out the word 'retrenchment'. We do not intend to move this amendment separately from the second amendment because unless the two amendments are carried the position could be worse. The other amendments are consequential matters which will ensure, in our opinion, that employees will be entitled to retrenchment benefits. {: #debate-48-s1 .speaker-JZU} ##### Senator ORMONDE:
New South Wales -- I wish to support **Senator Bishop** and to suggest to the Minister that he take notice of what is said by members of the Opposition, particularly about the amendments that have been suggested and what has been said about the anomalies in this legislation. For a long time members of unions have enjoyed these rights and they have been the subject of discussion by the Australian Council of Trade Unions. **Mr Riordan,** who is Secretary of the Federated Clerks Union, is present in the chamber tonight because he is interested in this matter on behalf of his members. Most of the things that the Opposition is seeking are being enjoyed by union members in Australia. As so often happens - and this is probably true of other governments as well as this Government - the weaker sections of the working class movement are the last to receive benefits. I realise that there is one difficulty in relation to continuity of service and obviously the Government has considered this. There is also the matter of long service leave. I imagine that this applies particularly within the Public Service and within those semi-government undertakings such as the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority, the Joint Coal Board, and, in the State sphere, the Milk Board, because many people move from one of these organisations to another as they are set up. Not everybody is permanently employed. The matter of long service leave was settled many years ago within the trade union movement. I refer to the rights of the iron and steel workers, for example. In the steel industry, an employee can move from one section to another without losing his long service entitlement. There were many difficulties in this regard at one stage or another but most have been solved. Therefore I cannot see why the difficulties cannot be solved in what I might call the extra clerical industries associated with the Public Service. On reading this Commonwealth Employees' Furlough Bill and the proposed amendments, I note that only small sections of the Bill are involved. In other words, when justice was dispensed in the major Public Service organisations the little groups were left unattended. I remind the Senate that justice delayed often means that justice is denied. I congratulate the Government on producing a Bill which attempts to solve some of these problems. But I say to honourable senators opposite that on the Opposition side of the chamber there are people who are very experienced in these matters - people who have spent most of their lives working out solutions. The Government could well take heed of the advice given about the amendments which are to be moved in Committee. The amendments were designed for no other purpose than to give more benefits to the people whom this Bill was designed to assist by creating better conditions. The Government set out to improve the conditions for the people who are represented, on this side, by representatives of the trade unions. I think the people on the Opposition side of the chamber are experienced enough to be able to express the view of the trade union movement. All these amendments have been designed with a view to improving the legislation, not to stand in the way of what the Government proposes. I hope that the Minister will give special consideration to the amendments which will be moved by **Senator Bishop** in Committee. {: #debate-48-s2 .speaker-KUD} ##### Senator McMANUS:
Victoria -- There are many good provisions in the Commonwealth Employees' Furlough Bill and the Government is to be commended for them. However, I am concerned about one matter mentioned by **Senator Bishop** in the clear and interesting survey he presented in relation to this legislation. What 1 am going to refer to relates to employees of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority who are to be transferred to other jobs as a result of projected legislation. I think it is to be regretted that in the trade union field at times there are certain problem trade unions which cause the Government to take certain action. As a result of that action other trade unions which have not been troublesome are adversely affected. Although I voted for the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill relating to airline pilots, I was not very happy to see that the flight engineers, who had a good record and who wanted to stay under arbitration, were to be taken from arbitration and joined with the pilots in the new organisation dealing with their industrial matters. There are elements of unfairness when a union with a good record has to be penalised because something has to be done about a problem union. 1 think the same comment applies to this legislation we are debating. The Government is anxious to do something about one of the problem unions, namely, the Waterside Workers Federation. But as a result of the action that it proposes to take a number of members of another union, which is not a problem union and which has a very good industrial record, find that they are being penalised. Quite frankly, the case appeals to me because I am, and have been for many years, a financial member of the Federated Clerks Union. I know something of the circumstances and of the men who will be penalised. They have been very good and faithful servants of the Government. I do not believe that they should be retrenched. I have not debated this matter without obtaining all the information that I could. I have discussed it with a representative of the Union, **Mr Riordan,** and with representatives of the department concerned. I have come to the conclusion that the stand that the Union is taking in regard to retrenchment is right. Therefore I will be voting for amendments Nos 4, 5, 6 and 7 circulated in **Senator Bishop's** name. Amendment No. 7 is a consequential one, is it not? {: .speaker-K1Y} ##### Senator Bishop: -- Yes. {: .speaker-KUD} ##### Senator McMANUS: -- The Government, in order to do something about a problem union, has decided to take action that will cause certain men to be retrenched. Whilst 1 have been assured that many of them will be looked after - that they will go into other industries - and that there is nothing to worry about, I have not been able to obtain assurances that win apply to all of them. I do not believe that even a section of them should be penalised. The principle should apply not merely in this case but generally. I can speak for **Senator Gair.** I say that we will vote for amendments Nos 4, 5, 6 and 7. {: #debate-48-s3 .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator MCCLELLAND:
New South Wales -- As **Senator Bishop** has said, the Opposition does not intend to oppose the motion for the second reading of this Bill but, because it affects many temporary and casual officers of the Commonwealth Public Service and officers of government instrumentalities and because we believe that the Commonwealth Employees' Furlough Act could be modernised even more, we intend to move seven amendments at the Committee stage. Because the debate, in the main, will centre around the Committee stage, my remarks will be comparatively brief. Senator^ Bishop has already said that, according to information that has been supplied to members of the Opposition by the Federated Clerks Union, 105,661 officers of the Public Service and Commonwealth government instrumentalities will be affected by this legislation. Therefore it is very important to a fairly large section of the Australian work force. Principally for that reason, the Opposition rather regrets that this Bill was introduced at the death of a parliamentary session and has to receive rather hurried consideration. The Minister for Supply **(Senator Henty),** in introducing the Bill, said that its purpose was to provide some - I emphasise that word - improvements in the furlough entitlement of those who derive their furlough benefits from the Commonwealth Employees' Furlough Act. He also said that the effect of the Bill would be to eliminate virtually - I emphasise that word - all the differences between this scheme, which is administered by the Treasury, and the scheme that operates under the furlough provisions of the Public Service Act. The Bill appoints a common administering authority. The Government has decided that that authority should be the Public Service Board rather than the Treasury and that in certain circumstances the Board should delegate its powers to officers of Commonwealth departments. When the Minister introduced the Bill on 26th October he pointed out that there was provision for: . . payment in Heu of' furlough where the Public Service Board is satisfied that an officer with,,at least 10 but less than IS years continuous service is ceasing duty on account of domestic or other pressing necessity. He said that the Government had undertaken to amend the Commonwealth Employees' Furlough Act when amendments were being made to the Public Service Act at an earlier time. He went on to say: >The Furlough Act differs from the Public Service Act in respect of furlough benefits in cases of death or retirement because of permanent ill health. I point out that, whilst this Bill provides for payment in lieu of furlough to an officer with at least 10 but less than 15 years of continuous service, under the provisions of New South Wales legislation introduced by the former Labor Government in that State workers in a similar category can receive pro rata payment after 5 years of service. I understand that the waterside workers will also receive pro rata payment after 5 years of service. There appears to be a great distinction between officers of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority and waterside workers. There is also a great distinction between the person who dies or has to retire because of invalidity - in that case the minimum period of service is 10 years - and the person who is retrenched, who receives pro rata payment after 4 years of service. **Senator Bishop** has mentioned the matter of retrenchment. It is vital to officers of the Stevedoring Industry Authority in particular. At the present time they number 370. I repeat that we members of the Opposition believe that it is a great pity that this Bill should have to be debated at this stage of a parliamentary session. It affects very many people. We do not oppose its provisions, but we believe that it can be improved substantially. Therefore, at the Committee stage we will be moving the seven amendments that have been circulated in **Senator Bishop's** name. {: #debate-48-s4 .speaker-JZQ} ##### Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Customs and Excise · New South Wales · LP -- I note that the Opposition will give this Bill a speedy passage through the second reading stage, but will move some amendments at the Committee stage. It is obvious from the debate that it is recognised on all sides that the Bill provides improvements. The only question that emerges is whether greater emphasis should be put on certain matters, as proposed in the amendments circulated by the Opposition. I believe that we should proceed without delay to the Committee stage and deal with each amendment as it is moved. I thank members of the Opposition for their support of the motion for the second reading of the Bill. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. In Committee Clases 1 to 3 agreed to. Clauses 4 to 6 - by leave - taken together. {: #debate-48-s5 .speaker-K1Y} ##### Senator BISHOP:
South Australia -- I have two amendments to propose. The first refers to clause 4, which reads in part: >After section 3 of the Principal Act the following sections are inserted: 3a. Subject to the regulations made in accordance with the next succeeding section, a reference in this Act to an authority of a State shall be read as a reference to a public authority, not being a local governing body, constituted under the law of a State for the purpose of discharging, subject to the direction or control of a Minister of State for the State, functions within the province of the Government of the State. The second refers to clause 6, which reads in part: >Section 6 of the Principal Act is amended: (a) by adding at the end. of paragraph (b) of subsection (3.) the word 'or'; I move: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. In clause 4, proposed section 3a, omit 'not being', insert 'including'. 1. In clause 6, before paragraph (a) insert the following paragraph: (aa) by inserting in paragraph (b) of subsection (J.), after the word "State", the words including a local governing body" '. I have already stated the purpose of the amendments. I think it is clear. I shall put it to the test. {: #debate-48-s6 .speaker-JZQ} ##### Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Customs and Excise · New South Wales · LP -- I appreciate that the purpose of these amendments is to enable prior service with local government bodies to be recognised as service for furlough purposes. These amendments are not acceptable to the Government. As honourable senators are aware, the Bill provides for the administration of the Commonwealth Employees' Furlough Act to be transferred to the Public Service Board. The Board has indicated that it is prepared to re-examine the recognition of prior service with local government bodies after it has taken over the administration of the Furlough Act. I understand that the case is built around the fact that there is interchangeability between State and local government instrumentalities. The term 'local government' is fairly wide. I am interested to know where one draws the line. After all, there are ad hoc bodies associated with local government bodies. I am interested to probe the depth of the proposed amendments. However I have indicated that the Government is not prepared to accept them. I agree with **Senator Bishop** that it would be wise to submit them to the will of the Committee. **Senator** MCCLELLAND (New South Wales) fi 0.23] - I appreciate that, as the Minister for Customs and Excise **(Senator Anderson)** has said, the Public Service Board is prepared to consider a proposal of the nature suggested in the two amendments that have been proposed by **Senator Bishop** after it has taken over the actual administration of the Commonwealth Employees' Furlough Act. Frankly, 1 think they are very reasonable amendments, having regard to the intricacies of Public Service institutional life. 1 use that description broadly for the purpose of describing Commonwealth governmental activities, Commonwealth institutional activities, State Public Service activities, and local government activities. I shall take the case of officers of the New South Wales Department of Railways who do not come within the ambit of the New South Wales Public Service Board. The Department of Railways is a State instrumentality, hut nevertheless it does not come within the jurisdiction of the Public Service Board. I naturally refer to New South Wales because I represent that State in this chamber. I know of cases in which officers of the New South Wales Department of Railways transferred to Government departments which are under the control of the New South Wales Public Service Board and subsequently transferred to the Commonwealth Public Service. Having become officers of the Commonwealth Public Service they applied to the Public Service Board to have their period of service with the New South Wales Department of Railways recognised as service within the provisions of the Public Service Act. In the two cases that I personally can cite, the Public Service Board acceded to such service being recognised for the purposes of long service leave, seniority, and other related matters. Let us assume that officer A and officer B are employed by a local government authority in New South Wales. Officer A might transfer to the New South Wales Local Government Department and then become an officer under the control of the New South Wales Public Service Board. Then he might transfer to the Commonwealth Public Service. Certainly the period that he served with the New South Wales Public Service would be accepted for the purposes of furlough rights. Let us assume that officer B had the same length of service in the same capacity as officer A with that local government authority, which was not under the jurisdiction of the State Public Service Board, and that he transferred from that authority to the Commonwealth Public Service. I suggest that the same sort of provision in regard to furlough should apply to officer B as to officer A. The Minister has already indicated that he is aware that there is an interchangeability between State and local government authorities. Having regard to the wide ramifications of the Public Service generally. I suggest that the Opposition's amendments are very reasonable. They would bring the Act more up to date and in line with modern Public Service requirements. I suggest that the amendments should be agreed to. {: #debate-48-s7 .speaker-K1Y} ##### Senator BISHOP:
South Australia -- 1 understand the reasons given by the Minister for Customs and Excise **(Senator Anderson).** They were also given in another place. There are some doubts as to whether provision for local government bodies can be included in the Commonwealth Employees' Furlough Act. The Minister says that the question is under consideration. We put it to the Government that if it intends to agree to the inclusion of local government bodies it can amend the Act. The legal position under the Public Service Act is stated in section 47e (2.). which states: >In this section - authority of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory' means a body corporate (not being an incorporated company, society or association) incorporated for a public purpose by or under a law of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory; public employer' means the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory or an authority of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory. We submit that there are many reasons, including those advanced by **Senator McClelland,** why employees of local government bodies should be included in the general ambit of the concessions that have been granted. It is well known that since the war years -I personally have been engaged in negotiations on behalf of trade unions concerning this matter - there has been an interchange of service entitlements between the States and the Commonwealth. Commonwealth employees have come across to the States without any break in service, and vice versa. The Opposition believes that the principle should be extended to include employees of local government bodies. {: #debate-48-s8 .speaker-JZQ} ##### Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Customs and Excise · New South Wales · LP -- Whilst there is a question as to the interpretation of the definition of 'authority', as **Senator McClelland** has very properly pointed out there is quite definitely a historical affinity between the Commonwealth and the States. But it seems to me that the Opposition seeks to spread it out, as it were. It is saying that because there is an affinity between the Commonwealth and the States and an affinity between local government bodies and the States, therefore there should be an affinity between local government bodies and the Commonwealth. There are many gaps to be bridged in the extension of that principle. I suggest to the Committee that even under the definition of local government there is a wide variety of fields. It is within my own knowledge that there are quite substantial variations in the terms and working conditions of employees in local governmental and State authorities. This is not to gainsay, as we have acknowledged, that there is recognition as between local government and the States. When we consider taking the matter one step further to extend the provisions of this legislation to local governing bodies we find that there are certain legal aspects to be considered. The matter has to be looked at in a different set of circumstances. **Senator ORMONDE** (New South Wales) these arrangements will be made? I understand that he is sympathetic to the proposition put by **Senator Bishop,** which involves many people. AmI right in assuming that but for technical difficulties the Government would accept these amendments? Is the Minister in a position to indicate when we may expect action in this regard? {: #debate-48-s9 .speaker-JZQ} ##### Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Customs and Excise · New South Wales · LP -- I can only reiterate that the Bill provides for administration of the Act to be transferred to the Public Service Board, which has indicated that it is prepared to reexamine the question of recognition of prior service with local governing bodies. I cannot put it any higher. We come back to the point that was mentioned in another place: To be recognised under section 47e of the Public Service Act a local governing body would need to come within the definition of an authority, and legal opinion is quite conclusive that these bodies are not authorities of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory. The examination that is to take place will be against the background of this bar. Question put: >That the amendments **(Senator Bishop's)** be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman - Senator T. C. DrakeBrockman) AYES: 20 NOES: 23 Majority . . 3 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the negative. Clauses 4 to 6 agreed to. Clause 7. Section 7 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting from sub-section (2.) the words 'the salary for a period of leave not exceeding that which the employee could have been granted under sub-section (1.) of this section' and inserting in their stead the words 'his salary for a period not exceeding the period, or the sum of the periods, of leave on full salary that could have been granted to the employee under sub-section (1.) of this section if he had not ceased to be an employee'. {: #debate-48-s10 .speaker-K1Y} ##### Senator BISHOP:
South Australia -- I move: >Omit the clause, insert the following clause: 7. Section 7 of the Principal Act is amended - > >by omitting from sub-section (1.) the word "may" and inserting in its stead the word "shall"; > >by omitting from sub-section (2.) the word "may" and inserting in its stead the word "shall"; and > >by omitting from sub-section (2.) the words "the salary for a period of leave not exceeding that which the employee could have been granted under sub-section (I.) of this section" and inserting in their stead the words '"his salary for a period not exceeding the period, or the sum of the periods, of leave on full salary that could have been granted to the employee under sub-section (1.) of this section if he had not ceased to be an employee".' The reasons for the amendment were partly canvassed in my previous comments. This matter has been tested before in this chamber and also in another place. It was moved last year when we were considering an amendment to the Public Service Act. The intention of the amendment is to ensure that the employee enjoys a clear entitlement to furlough. We do not favour the vesting of a discretionary power in the delegated authority, because in most instances the delegated authority will be the head of the Department. We submit also that the amendment which I have proposed is consistent with a decision brought down by the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission with respect tolong service leave, one paragraph of which reads: >An employee who has completed15 years service and whose employment is terminated or ceases for any reason will be entitled to pro-rata payment. I emphasise that this passage is not taken out of its context. That in effect is the purpose of the amendment and we also consider it necessary in view of the fact that the other amendments proposed by the Government are related to service. {: #debate-48-s11 .speaker-JZQ} ##### Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Customs and Excise · New South Wales · LP -- Paragraph (c) of the proposed clause 7 is virtually the same as the provision contained in the Bill. It is therefore not open to objection from the Government's point of view. But the effect of paragraphs (a) and (b) is to make obligatory the granting of furlough to an employee who has completed 15 years service, instead of furlough being at the discretion of the approving authority. These are the points of difference which we come to, and the proposals submitted by the Opposition are not acceptable to the Government. Honourable senators will recall that during the debate on the Public Service Bill 1966 the Government rejected similar amendments which were moved by the Opposition and which were designed to give permanent officers of the Commonwealth Public Service furlough as a right after completing 15 years service. For the same reasons as were indicated at that time, the amendments proposed now are not acceptable to the Government. There are practical and historical reasons associated with this condition of employment that, in the opinion of the Government, do not support a change in existing arrangements. This matter has been considered by the Joint Council, which includes representatives of the High Council of Commonwealth Public Service Organisations and the Amalgamated Postal Workers Union on a number of occasions, particular regard being had to the effect it would have on the entitlement of the dependants of a. deceased officer. After consideration of all aspects the Joint Council, as recently as May 1963, decided not to recommend to the Public Service Board that this change be sought. The Public Service Board has indicated that arrangements can be made for further discussion in the Joint Council of the proposal that furlough be granted as a right after completion of 15 years service, and any recommendation from that body would be carefully considered. Here again we get to a point of division between us, and we must rest on the will of the Committee. {: #debate-48-s12 .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia -- It is hard to argue for the acceptance of the amendment when the Joint Council on which both sides are represented has decided not to recommend any alteration, but in view of the fact that further consideration can be given to the matter the point did occur to me that there is really no difference between the discretion permitted under this proposal and that about which we spoke this morning when we considered the discretion vested in the Minister with relation to recommendations from the Australian Capital Territory Advisory Council. Surely furlough should be granted as a right after a given length of service. Our objective is to ensure that the delegated authority is given no opportunity to discriminate between employee A and employee B. This is a principal for which we have fought at every opportunity in the Senate. **Senator Bishop's** proposal seeks to prevent the delegated authority from exercising his discretionary power to grant furlough to employee A and to refuse it to employee B. I submit that if we are to be consistent, we must do what the Senate has done in connection with other matters and support the proposed amendment. {: #debate-48-s13 .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator MCCLELLAND:
New South Wales -- I support the amendment that has been proposed by **Senator Bishop.** As the Minister has said, our concern is centred mainly on paragraphs (a) and (b). We seek to delete the word 'may' and insert the word 'shall'. I have in front of me a book entitled 'The Commonwealth Bureaucracy' written by G. E. Caiden, who made a study of the Public Service in the period between 1901 and 1961. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- From inside or outside? {: .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator MCCLELLAND: -- I have not had time to read the whole of the book. Perhaps the honourable senator will be able to tell me after he has read it. On page 370 of that book, when referring to the question of furlough, the author says: >Long service leave is discretionary and in determining whether leave, or pay in lieu, should be granted an officer's conduct is supposed to be taken into consideration. In fact, furlough has virtually become a right and service In other public authorities may be included. He then goes on to point out the rate of calculation and says: >Outside employment during furlough is not usually permitted if an officer is likely to return to the Service. Otherwise furlough is mainly a matter involving taxation laws and complications about length and continuity of service. My point is that, as Caiden says, furlough has virtually become a right, and it seems to me that the Government has no justification for allowing this discretionary power to be vested in the delegated authorities. The Minister said that there are practical and historical reasons associated with the Government's attitude which do not support any of the proposed amendments, but which do support the existing arrangement. Unfortunately, 'the Minister has not set out for us what those practical and historical reasons are. The Minister also stated that the matter was considered by the Joint Council of Public Service Associations as late as May 1963. I notice that in 1964 a **Mr Spellman,** who was I. understand, a member of the Australian Capital Territory Advisory Council, moved a motion at the Council to the effect that the Minister for the Interior be advised to repeal section 10 of the Commonwealth Employees Furlough Act 1943-1959 relating to the power of Government employers to recommend that terms of long service leave be granted to employees according to their conduct. **Mr Spellman** is reported as having said: >This matter was of concern to the Australian Capital Territory because of the large number of Commonwealth employees in the Territory. He said that the provision was used as a disciplinary measure by various departmental employers and that, he believed that the Government employer had sufficient disciplinary power under existing award arrangements. **Senator Bishop** has already pointed out that in the opinion of one employing authority the conduct of an officer can be construed by him to be different from that of another employing officer. The proposed amendment will make a mandatory provision for the Commonwealth to give furlough after the period involved. Therefore, we of the Opposition support the amendment. Question put: >That the amendment **(Senator Bishop's)** be agreed to. The Committee divided. AYES: 0 NOES: 0 AYES NOES Ayes . . . . . . 20 Noes . . . . . . 23 Majority . . . . 3 Question so resolved in the negative. Clause agreed to. Clause 8. (1.) Section 8 of the Principal Act is amended - (a) by inserting in paragraph (a) of sub-section (1.), after the word "years", the words " or, where under the terms or conditions of his employment he may be retired by reason only of his having attained an age less than sixty years, on or subsequent to his attaining that lesser age"; {: #debate-48-s14 .speaker-K1Y} ##### Senator BISHOP:
South Australia -- **Mr Chairman,** the amendments which have been proposed by the Opposition have been circulated. I come now to the amendments numbered 4 and 5 on the circulated sheet. I move: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. After paragraph (a) of sub-clause (1.) insert the following paragraph: (ab) by omitting paragraph (b) of subsection (1.)'. 1. In proposed new sub-section (3.), afterdue to', first occurring, insert 'retrenchment or'. The effect of the first amendment would be to take out of the Act as it stands at the present time sub-section 8 (1.) (b) which refers to retrenchment. The second amendment seeks, as I have pointed out, to insert retrenchment or' after 'due to'. As these amendments are associated, I ask that they be taken together. The purpose of these two amendments is to provide for a situation to which I referred earlier. This situation could occur very shortly and it could happen all the time. In the first instance, we know that there will be a number of employees of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority, covered by this legislation, who will be retrenched. Many of these people - most of them, as a matter of fact - will not have long periods of service. We think that provision should be made to give them an entitlement on the basis of 4 years service. In addition io what I have mentioned, there are other employees who would become redundant as technological changes take place and automation is introduced. So, a clear case exists for the need to provide a retrenchment provision for employees who have service of not less than 4 years. 1 have pointed out already that the provisions of this Bill give this entitlement to employees who, duc to ill health, are forced to cease their employment. They would become eligible for the furlough entitlement after 4 years. The intention of the Opposition is to make it clear that an entitlement exists to those who have 4 years service. I have pointed out already that in most long service leave provisions of the States and of the agreements there is and has been for many years - in fact, since 1956 - an entitlement based on a period of service of 5 years. {: #debate-48-s15 .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- ls it the wish of the Committee that the two amendments be moved together? There being no objection, that, course will be followed. {: #debate-48-s16 .speaker-JZQ} ##### Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Customs and Excise · New South Wales · LP -- **Senator Bishop** has again Said with great accuracy that these amendments are designed to vary the existing retrenchment provisions. The Government feels that the implications of these amendments need careful consideration. No evidence existed of representations having been made to vary the existing provisions in relation *io* retrenchment. These representations came after the Bill became current in another place. Prior to the presentation of the Bill they were not evident. The Government has noted the proposals contained in the amendments and will arrange for the Public Service Board to examine them further after it has taken over administration of the Commonwealth Employees Furlough Act. That is on all fours with the statement I made in relation to the first proposed amendment. I agree that it is wise that they should be taken together. {: #debate-48-s17 .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition -- 1 rise to support what has been put by **Senator Bishop.** It is clear that there is wide support for the amendments which have been proposed. One of the industrial organisations principally concerned is the Federated Clerks Union of Australia. The Federal Secretary of that organisation is present in the gallery, thus indicating the concern that he feels not only for members- of his own organisation but also for members of many other organisations who will be affected by these provisions. I understand some 70,000 or 80,000 people may be affected. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- What is the effect of the amendments? {: .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator MURPHY: -- The effect of the amendments will be that retrenchments will come within the same category as illness and so forth instead of being left apart. The proposed amendment to clause 8 contains a provision which will carry retrenchments along with ill health as a reason for ceasing service. We think that as a matter of justice a person who ceases to be employed because he is retrenched should be in the some position as a person who ceases to be employed because of permanent ill health. {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator Cavanagh: -- It must not be due to misconduct or certain other things. {: .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator MURPHY: -- Yes. Retrenchment is clearly ceasing to be employed because of action taken by an employer which is not a matter of dismissal for misconduct or anything of that nature; it is a retrenchment such as we obviously will have to face in many industries because of technological changes, automation and various other economic or administrative rearrangements in industry. Proper provision must be made for that. One of the tragedies is that we have not prepared for the social consequences of automation and the other changes which will occur in industry. It is quite clear that in our generation industrial workers will be faced with a problem which was not in existence in other generations, that is, the necessity to move from industry to industry. It will happen now on a great scale. Men will be trained for a particular occupation in a particular industry and will find that that occupation has disappeared. The training they received will be virtually useless and they will have to be retrained to move into another industry. That will be the pattern of life in industry on a scale which has never been experienced before. So it is important that we provide a proper measure of relief and remedy for those workers who are retrenched on that account or on any other account not due to their own fault. These proposed amendments are aimed principally at producing that result so that the employee, as mentioned in our fifth amendment, will be in the same situation as he would be in of he ceased to be employed because of ill health. I ask the Senate to accept the proposals which have been advanced by **Senator Bishop.** Question put: >That the amendments **(Senator Bishop's)** be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman - Senator T. C. Drake-Brockman) AYES: 22 NOES: 21 Majority . . . . 1 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. {: #debate-48-s18 .speaker-K1Y} ##### Senator BISHOP:
South Australia -- I move: The reason for the suggested new provision arises from the uniformity introduced between the Public Service Act and the Commonwealth Employees Furlough Act. Honourable senators will remember that I said earlier that employees with 12 years and 13 years service under the new legislation will lose part of their present furlough entitlement. In respect of retrenchment or retirement an employee with 12 years service will have his present entitlement of 4 months reduced to 3 6/10 months. An employee with 13 years service will suffer a reduction from 4 months to 3 9/10 months. In respect of death or retirement through invalidity an employee with 12 years service is at present entitled to 4 months furlough but under the new legislation he will be entitled to 3 6/ 10 months. An employee with 13 years service now receives 4 months furlough, which is to be reduced to 3 9/10 months. For the reasonsI have stated I ask honourable senators to support the amendment. {: #debate-48-s19 .speaker-JZQ} ##### Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Customs and Excise · New South Wales · LP -- Again the Government is not prepared to accept the amendment proposed by the Opposition. The amendment provided in the Bill seeks to change the entitlement of persons who have not completed 10 years service. When the legislation receives royal assent their position will be identical with that of employees covered by the Public Service Act 1966. The adjustments in the pro rata scale in the Public Service Act were made in conjunction with the introduction of a new benefit for officers who terminate their service for domestic reasons or other pressing necessities. The adjustment of the pro rata scale was made after consultation with the Joint Council and formed part of the total agreement reached at that time. To that extent it narrows the existing gap. The amendment now proposed would give an added benefit. For the reasons that have been indicated in relation to earlier amendments 1 am not in a position to accept it on behalf of the Government. {: #debate-48-s20 .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition -- So that the purpose of the proposed amendment will be clear I think 1 should say that what was said a llew moments ago by **Senator Anderson** does not appear to be entirely correct. He said that the amendment proposed by the Opposition seeks to add a benefit, but in fact it seeks to preserve the position as outlined by **Senator Bishop.** Unless our amendment is carried the entitlement to furlough of some people will bc reduced, lt is an extraordinary anomaly. In a sense there is a vested or an inherent right. But their benefits will actually be reduced. However much there might be a re-arrangement of the benefits flowing to other people through the amendments proposed by the Bill, the fact is that some people concerned will actually have their entitlement reduced. A person who today is entitled to a certain amount of furlough will, if the Bill is passed without the amendment proposed by **Senator Bishop,** have that amount of furlough reduced. The purpose of the Opposition's amendment is to ensure that employees do not have their entitlement to furlough reduced. lt is not a matter of adding benefits. I concede that something may be added to the general scheme which is proposed, but it is not designed to protect the rights of all the persons involved. The entitlement of some persons will be reduced. For that reason the proposed amendment deserves the support of the Committee. {: #debate-48-s21 .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator MCCLELLAND:
New South Wales -- I support the amendment moved on behalf of the Opposition by **Senator Bishop.** The Opposition seeks to have sub-clause (2.) of clause 8 deleted from the Bill, lt provides: >The amendments made by paragraphs (b) and (d) of the last preceding sub-section do not apply in relation to a Commonwealth employee whose period of service was, at the date on which this legislation receives the Royal Assent, not less than ten years. **Senator Bishop** has already pointed out that employees with service of from 8 years to 10 years will retain their present entitlement to 3 months furlough. Persons with 11 years service at present receive 3 months fur lough. The new provision allows for furlough of 3 3/10 months. An employee with 12 years service will have his present entitlement of 4 months furlough reduced to 3 6/10 months. Thus he will lose 4/10 of a months furlough. A person with 13 years service at present receives 4 months furlough. That entitlement is to be reduced to 3 9/10 months. An employee with 14 years service now receives 4 months furlough. That entitlement is to become 4 2/10 months. Furlough of 4-1 months is at present allowed for 15 years service, lt is not to be changed. According to the sub-clause (2.) the provisions of paragraphs (b) and (d) of subclause (I.) will not apply to persons with less than 10 years service. Cases will arise involving officers with 9 years service at the time that the Bill receives royal assent. One of those officers may be retrenched after having completed 14 years service and therefore he will get 4 2/ 10th months pay or furlough. Another officer may already have 10 years service. He is retrenched after 14 years service and gets only 4 months pay. Obviously this is an anomaly which certainly needs to be remedied. By the deletion of sub-clause (2.) the anomaly will be overcome. Opposition members want to see all the anomalies, or as many of them as possible, overcome. We want this Bill to be brought up to date so that no-one loses any existing benefit. We suggest that the amendment be carried. {: #debate-48-s22 .speaker-JZQ} ##### Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Customs and Excise · New South Wales · LP -- There is just one point about this matter. It has to be appreciated that in any movement to bring other employees under furlough provisions comparable with the provisions of the Public Service Act some of the officers will be entitled to increased benefits and others to decreased benefits. Certain examples have been quoted by **Senator Bishop** to illustrate the downward variation in the benefit. Tn other cases, the benefit will remain constant, and in others the advantage will increase. This Bill may be described as a rationalisation of the matter and it has to be so. A person cannot expect to have all the advantages and none of the disadvantages. He cannot say that he will not live with the rationalisation because it involves certain disadvantages. I suggest that we have to accept the fact that there is this marginal situation. The whole purpose of this legislation is to bring the provisions of the Furlough Act into line with the provisions of the Public Service Act. This clause affects one of the minor marginal situations. It would not have been surprising if we had been confronted with this situation to a far greater degree.It is significant that it has not emerged to a far greater degree. I think the Opposition should recognise that the purpose of this Bill is to bring all officers and employees under comparable furlough provisions. Acceptance of the amendment will put these provisions out of balance. {: #debate-48-s23 .speaker-JYA} ##### Senator O'BYRNE:
Tasmania -- I support the amendment moved by **Senator Bishop.** The principle involved in this amendment affects people eligible for the long service provisions. Under the Bill people who have not less than 12 years service will be affected by the downward variations. It may be that some people will be affected by upward variations, but that will not be much consolation to those who will suffer when they become eligible for long service leave. I believe it is wrong in principle for any person to be disadvantaged. In most cases the advantage is given to borderline cases. But some people will be disadvantaged because they have a particular period of service. The Minister should give a more sympathetic hearing to the arguments put forward by **Senator Bishop** in favour of this amendment. The Opposition believes that the amendment will give justice to the section of people involved - those whose period of service is not less than 12 years. We maintain that the period of leave to be granted should be not less than 4 months. Question put: >That the words proposed to be inserted **(Senator Bishop's amendment)** be inserted. The Committee divided. (The Chairman - Senator T. C. Drake-Brockman) AYES: 22 NOES: 21 Majority . . . . 1 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Consideration interrupted. >That the Chairman do now leave the chair and report to the Senate. Question resolved in the negative. Consideration resumed. {: #debate-48-s24 .speaker-K1Y} ##### Senator BISHOP:
South Australia -- I move: >Leave out sub-clause (2.). I think it will be evident to most honourable senators that, the Committee having agreed to the principle in relation to retrenchment involved in the last amendment, this sub-clause should be deleted. It restricts the right of a person with less than 10 years of service to receive the benefits contained in paragraphs (b) and (d) of clause 8(1.). Because the Committee has endorsed the Opposition's approach to this matter, it should agree to delete this sub-clause. {: #debate-48-s25 .speaker-JZQ} ##### Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Customs and Excise · New South Wales · LP -- This amendment is consequential upon the one on which we have just had a division and which was agreed to. Therefore I see no point in opposing it. {: #debate-48-s26 .speaker-KUD} ##### Senator McMANUS:
Victoria -- I am pleased to hear the Minister say that. I will not speak for long. Naturally I support the amendment. As in the case of the other amendments, I support this amendment for many reasons but for one in particular. As I said earlier, the legislation that caused the clerks employed by the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority to become redundant was necessary because the Waterside Workers Federation was a problem union. The members of the Federated Clerks Union employed by the Authority had given good service to the community. They were to lose their employment because the Government said that something special had to be done. 1 believe that a little common sense on the part of some of the members of another place would have resulted in that place doing something that would have made it unnecessary for this chamber to take action. I quote the following from the statement of the Clerks Union on this matter: >Due to the total cost of the scheme for giving permanency to waterside workers, as well as pensions, improved long service leave and the like, what was asked for the redundant staff of the ASIA was only, comparatively speaking, a handful of pennies. One of the troubles that occur these days when people talk about some of the unions getting into the wrong hands is that a union that is a problem union has the Government doing all sorts of things to smooth matters over, whereas a union that does the right thing finds the greatest difficulty in getting the Government to do things. What happens is that the members of unions such as the Waterside Workers Federation are told: 'If you elect one sort of leadership the Government will do things for you, but if you elect the other sort of leadership the Government will fight you to the last ditch*. I regret that in this instance the little concessions that were, asked for in order to smooth over the problem of the redundancy of these men have not been granted although the statement of the Clerks Union - let me repeat it - says: >Due to the total cost of the scheme for giving permanency to waterside workers, as well as pensions, improved long service leave- and the like, what was asked for- the redundant staff of the ASIA was only, comparatively speaking, a handful of pennies. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Remainder of Bill - by leave - taken as a whole, and agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report adopted. {:#subdebate-48-0} #### Third Reading Bill (on motion by **Senator Anderson)** read a third time. {: .page-start } page 2112 {:#debate-49} ### ADJOURNMENT {:#subdebate-49-0} #### Repatriation Motion (by **Senator Anderson)** proposed - >That the Senate do now adjourn. {: #subdebate-49-0-s0 .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia -- For a number of reasons, it is with very much regret that I find it necessary to speak on the motion for the adjournment tonight. One reason is that I know that the Senate has had a long and busy day. Another is that the matter that I wish to raise concerns repatriation and I knew that the Minister for Repatriation **(Senator McKellar)** would not be present tonight. However, the gravity of the matter compels me to raise it. I was unable to do so last night because I would have been the fourth speaker in the adjournment debate and the hour was too late. Some honourable senators are still optimistic enough to think that the Senate will conclude its business tomorrow. If that happens the adjournment debate tomorrow will consist of the valedictory and I do not think that would be an appropriate time to raise this matter. I wish to submit the case of a returned serviceman who is in need of some treatment and who, because of the delay in hearing his appeal, cannot find out whether he has an entitlement under the repatriation scheme. I refer to a **Mr F.** A. Hall. He was in the Royal Australian Navy for 4i years during the Second World War. He was a stoker on HMAS 'Swan'. While he was in the Navy his mother died. When he asked for leave to attend the funeral his request was refused and he was told that we were at war. He suffered severe nervous strain while in enemy territory. The result is that today he has hypertension, which is generally believed to be somewhat hereditary rather than war caused. **Mr Hall** made application to have his hypertension accepted as a war caused disability. The application was disallowed in March this year. He then submitted additional evidence to the Repatriation Commission and asked for reconsideration of the matter. He then came under section 64 (7aa.) of the Repatriation Act, which reads: >Where, in the opinion of the Commission, further evidence submitted by an appellant is not material to, or has not a substantial bearing upon, the appellant's claim, the Commission shall notify the appellant accordingly and the appellant may - > >submit that evidence in writing to an Appeal Tribunal; and > >if the Appeal Tribunal decides that the evidence is material to, and has a substantial bearing upon, his claim, appeal to an Appeal Tribunal. **Mr Hall** has submitted his appeal in writing to the War Pensions Entitlement Appeal Tribunal. In the meantime his doctor has told him that he is in urgent need of an operation. He could take a stroke at any time. On 6th June he was notified that his appeal had been received and would be placed before the Appeal Tribunal. As yet the Appeal Tribunal has not heard the appeal. I telephoned the Deputy Commissioner in Adelaide regarding this matter. He told me that the case came under section 64(7aa) of the Act, that the Appeal Tribunal is at present sitting in Adelaide but that this case has not been listed. The Tribunal has another sitting in Adelaide in December and another one in January. The Deputy Commissioner informed me that this case is not listed for hearing at the December sitting of the Tribunal. This man is in urgent need of attention. Possibly he is in a financial position to undergo the operation privately, but he does not want to submit himself to the cost of the operation until such time as his claim that his disability is due to war service is determined by the Tribunal. This matter has been under consideration for a period of nearly 6 months. But although this man is in urgent need of attention he cannot get his appeal listed before the Tribunal. In fairness, I point out that **Mr Collins,** the Deputy Director in South Australia, has undertaken to try to speak privately to the Chairman of the Appeal Tribunal in order to have the case brought on for hearing at the December sitting. The other point I raise is that the Repatriation Commission found that the additional evidence was not material to or did not have a substantial bearing upon the case. 1 do not think that this attitude Wouk be taken by any reasonable person who studied the additional evidence. As I have said, the general opinion is that hypertension is hereditary. It would appear that there is a change of thinking in the medical profession as to the causes of hypertension. **Mr Hall** submitted to the Commission a report from **Dr Geoffrey** T. Ey, M.B., B.S., M.R.A.C.P., who is an authority on blood pressure complaints. He examined the file on **Mr Hall,** and on 15th July 1966 he wrote to the Returned Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen's Imperial League of Australia, as it was then, in the following terms: >Thank you for your letter of the 27th June, 1966. > >The precis of his Repatriation File has been sent to me and I have read it. **Mr Hall's** hypertension was fully investigated by me at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in May and June of this year. No cause was found for his hypertension so that it must be classed as idiopathic benign hypertension, that is hypertension arising without obvious cause. Although it is claimed that there is a family history of hypertension this, in fact, is not the case. I understand that his father is still alive at the age of 75 and his mother died of Bright's disease at the age of 49. Bright's disease is another name for chronic nephritis which in its terminal stages is complicated by hypertension. While it is generally agreed that the distinction between primary renal and primary hypertensive disease in its terminal stages can be extremely difficult nevertheless if the diagnosis Bright's disease is accepted then this means that **Mr Hail's** mother had primary kidney disease and so there is no family history of hypertension. Furthermore from my own case, notes I see that **Mr Hall** has two brothers both older than himself neither of whom suffers from hypertension and one sister who is younger who also does not suffer from hypertension. > >From the precis of his Repatriation File it will be seen that between his enlistment and demobilisation his systolic pressure remained the same but the diastolic rose from 70-85. However a further reading in 1951 was 120/80 while three months later in the same year the reading was 150/95. In March of 1952 the blood pressure was 160/85 and in April 1953 128/90. While the increase in diastolic pressure between 1941 and 46 can scarcely be regarded as the development of hypertension, it is nevertheless obvious that in those and the succeeding years **Mr Hall's** blood pressure was labile. From 1955 onwards, that is nine years after demobilisation, his blood pressure steadily increased. That this accompanied an increase in an already considerable weight is not disputed but, nevertheless, since under my cure his weight is slightly less than it was on his enlistment and decidedly much less than it was on demobilisation and in the subsequent few years but this was not accompanied by any spontaneous fall in his hypertension. Why he alone of the four children in the family should be the only one to develop hypertension is, of course, not known but it seems to me reasonable to suppose that the stress of **Mr Hall's** war service was significant in the production some nine years later of significant hypertension in an individual who under other circumstances may well, tike his brothers and sister, have remained normotensive. **Mr Hall** does not know the cause of his complaint, but- in the opinion of the specialist he could be suffering from a war caused disability. He was also examined by **Mr L.** L. Wilson, who is a specialist in hypertension at the Repatriation General Hospital in Adelaide. He wrote to the Repatriation Commission in the following terms: >Thank you for letting me peruse the file of **Mr F.** A. Hall in trying to support his application for the entitlement of hypertension. > >I have no further investigations to discuss regarding this man and feel as has been claimed earlier, that the diagnosis is definitely that of essential hypertension. Because the etiology of this condition is difficult to define, it therefore becomes equally difficult to define whether such a condition is due to war service or not. Nevertheless one can't help but be a little unhappy with the man's case in view of the many people who have this condition already allowed. > >From previous experience the main feature that seems to allow cx-members to obtain this entitlement is the finding of one or more blood pressure that may be above the normal range at some stage during his war service. Experience now throughout the world in the field of hypertension, I feel shows the extreme falsehood of making predictions from isolated blood pressure. My point here is that normal blood pressure during the years of service should surely not preclude this entitlement. It is now very well substantiated that the etiology of essential hypertension is multifactorial and hereditary is only one small factor. The point of issue in this case seems to be whether his war service could have in some way lead to the development of essential hypertension in the ensuing years. > >I cannot see how anyone can deny this possibility in any case, and certainly **Mr Hall** is no exception. If therefore the Repatriation Department considers that essential hypertension can be due to war service, then to be at all consistent **Mr Hall** should bc given his entitlement. > >The other factor that arises in this case, is the length of time after war service that hypertension became apparent for the first time. Here again I think that it is probably entirely false to place any arbitrary time limit in deciding whether the claim will or will not be accepted. Having worked in the field of hypertension for a number of years, 1 have always been somewhat intrigued with the reasoning behind claims for essential hypertension being accepted or rejected. This is obviously a field of conflicting opinions. But in the present exmembers case, I feel that he should be given this entitlement in view of his war service. In the opinion of the experts there must always be a doubt as to the cause of hypertension. In their opinion, it could be war caused. As **Dr Wilson** says, if entitlement has been granted to anyone on this ground, as we know it has been, it should be granted in this case. No one can deny if anyone who has had war service develops hypertension it is a war caused disability, unless possibly there is a long history of hereditary hypertension in the family. It is very obvious that there is additional evidence. To my mind this would be sufficient for the Commission itself to grant a pension entitlement. In view of the expert opinion that it cannot be stated with certainty what caused the disability and that it is quite probable that it was war caused, it could bc established before any legal tribunal that there was a doubt and the benefit of the doubt must be given to the applicant. I interjected when the Minister was speaking today to say that I had no confidence in the operation of the provision under which the benefit of a doubt is given to an applicant, because of the way in which the tribunals work. I do not criticise the tribunals as not being impartial. I say that it is impossible for an applicant to get the benefit of a doubt by reason of the system under which tribunals are appointed and conducted. Something must be done to get this man's appeal heard immediately. He is working today and he only wants recognition. He does not want a pension or to cease work. This could be the means of saving him from the possibility of a stroke and it could relieve his condition. He is not in a position to decide to undergo an operation until it is decided whether he is entitled to any benefits for having a war caused disability. I trust that. the Minister for Customs and Excise **(Senator Anderson)** will refer the matter to the Minister for Repatriation. I have had wonderful co-operation from the Minister for Repatriation in his endeavours to investigate claims that I have put to htm and these have not been without success on some occasions. {: #subdebate-49-0-s1 .speaker-JZQ} ##### Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Customs and Excise · New South Wales · LP -- in reply - I shall direct the attention of the Minister for Repatriation **(Senator McKellar)** to the remarks made tonight by **Senator Cavanagh.** I should like to make two observations, if I may. As I understand the honourable senator, there is to be an appeal to an appeal tribunal, whether immediately or later, and an attempt is being made to bring it on as expeditiously as possible. If that is the position, I have grave doubts about the wisdom or the efficacy of bringing clinical notes and medical reports into the Parliament prior to the matter going before the appeal tribunal. Secondly, I should like to say - not in any critical way - that **Senator Cavanagh** revealed in his very sincere advocacy for this ex-serviceman that he has not a proper appreciation of the functioning of the benefit of doubt provision, but at 5 minutes to midnight I will not go into a dissertation on that. I suggest that the provision does not have the application that he has put on it. As I understand it, the doubt must be in the minds of the members of the tribunal. {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator Cavanagh: -- That is my complaint. {: .speaker-JZQ} ##### Senator ANDERSON: -- 'This is part of the repatriation law. However, I shall most faithfully bring to the attention of the Minister tomorrow the points that the honourable senator has brought to our notice. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 11.54 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 2 November 1967, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1967/19671102_senate_26_s36/>.