Senate
20 May 1971

27th Parliament · 2nd Session

  1. Senate
  2. 27th Parliament
  3. 1971

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Bull) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers.

page 2141

QUESTION

THE SENATE

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:
Minister for Supply · New South Wales · LP

– by leave - Mr Deputy President, the Whips have informed me that they have received information from the transport officer to the effect that there is a high degree of possibility that honourable senators will not be able to be accommodated on aircraft leaving Canberra late this afternoon for a variety of reasons which I do not think are germane to what I want to say to the Senate. Therefore, it would seem to me that I should ask the Senate for its complete co-operation in order to terminate our sittings by 1 o’clock today. I understand that honourable senators will be able to travel on aircraft leaving Canberra at 2.55 p.m. and 3.15 p.m. but that, because of heavy bookings and other matters, there is a high degree of probability that they would not be able to leave Canberra on later aircraft. There are 3 hours between 10 o’clock and 1 o’clock and, looking at the business paper, I think that we can deal with the business in that period without in any way prejudicing our approach to the disposal of the business. Therefore, I ask for a high degree of cooperation from the Senate in order to achieve this result.

page 2141

QUESTION

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Health. I refer to the publicity which has been given in the Press to the Minister’s criticism of Mr Hawke yesterday, and particularly to the headline in the ‘Australian’ which states Hawke accused of robber baron tactics’. Does the Minister realise that Mr Hawke represents the national trade union movement and that his policies and decisions are endorsed by that movement throughout the States. Does he realise that Mr Hawke is also a member of the National Labour Advisory Committee that in this capacity and in other capacities in relation to labour matters heads the trade union delegation to the Government which confers with the Minister for Labour and National Service and his colleagues, and that in the circumstances the degree of conciliation and good relations which exists between labour and management must be preserved? Does the Minister accept the fact that his published comments, including his speeches as reported in Hansard, are highly offensive not only to Mr Hawke but also to the trade union movement because the policies which Mr Hawke enunciates are supported by the trade union movement? Therefore, having regard for the objectives of conciliation in Australia to which I have referred, I ask the Minister whether in the future he will be more moderate when he criticises the men of the trade union movement.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Minister for Health · VICTORIA · LP

– I recall well what I said on this issue in the Senate yesterday, and I do not retract one word of it. I have no control over newspaper reports of what I say but I hope that such reports will be accurate. I appreciate full well the circumstances in which the Australian Council of Trade Unions has decided to go into a commercial venture. If the ACTU, in pursuit of a commercial venture, uses tactics which can be fairly described as I described them yesterday, I think that it is desirable in the public interest that I should so state them. If it is urged that one should remain quiet and not condemn what I likened yesterday to the robber baron tactics of the nineteenth century, then I say that one should be prepared to assert the facts and not give in to suggestions that, because of some need for conciliation, what is wrong should not be categorised as wrong. I have noted what the honourable senator has said. I believe that if the ACTU wishes to become a profit-making enterprise in the business world and if it wishes to use its industrial power to further its own commercial interests, those facts should be made known to the people of Australia. As I said yesterday, members of unions who depend upon unions should reflect upon their position.

page 2141

QUESTION

WATER

Senator LAUCKE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for National Development. Has a determination yet been made in respect to Commonwealth financial assistance for the proposed South Australian pipeline project on

Eyre Peninsula to reticulate water to the Kimba area from the Polda Basin?

Senator COTTON:
Minister for Civil Aviation · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– For quite a while the honourable senator has had an interest in this matter. The latest information that I have is that the committee that was formed to assess the project submitted by the States for Commonwealth financial assistance has completed its work and has prepared its report. The report has been transmitted to the Department of National Development and is under consideration by the Government. A decision should be made in the very near future.

page 2142

QUESTION

NATIONAL PARKS

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– 1 direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for National Development. By way of preface I refer to the open appeal, emanating from 800 Australian scientists this morning, for a greater appreciation of the need for conservation of our natural resources. In view of the lengthy deadlock between the Department of National Development and the Department of the Interior over proclamation of the Northern Territory Top End National Park, will the Minister for National Development offer himself to the social environment committee for questioning and so allay the fears of many conservationists that he has become unwittingly a lackey of the big mining interests in this country?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– All 1 can do is suggest to the Minister for National Development that he volunteer his services in the capacity in which the honourable senator stated. It is a matter for the Minister to decide what he wants to do.

page 2142

QUESTION

BASS STRAIT OIL RIG

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for National Development. It refers to the fire that has taken place on the Marlin drilling rig. Can the Minister say how many people were injured on that rig yesterday and, if any people were injured, how badly they were injured? Has the Minister any further information with regard to the situation on the rig, particularly with regard to the stratum structure of the sea bed and the actual cause of the fire?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– All that I have is information that has just come into my possession from the Department of National Development. I shall read it for the benefit of the honourable senator and of our other colleagues here. The fire occurred when the operators were carrying out work on well A4 on the Marlin rig. In order to do this work it was necessary to shut off the automatic valve which would normally have control of any unplanned escape of gas. It is not known yet what was the exact cause of the fire, but an investigation is being carried out by engineers of Esso-BHP and also by senior officials from the Victorian Department of Mines. It should be made clear that, under the Agreement entered into in October 1967 between the Commonwealth and the States, operational and administrative responsibility for such matters lies with the Designated Authority of Victoria, namely, the Victorian Minister for Mines.

Reports so far to hand indicate that the damage was restricted to the living quarters and the helicopter landing pad. Production equipment was not damaged. There will be no interference to supplies of natural gas to Melbourne or in the production of crude oil from the Halibut and Kingfish fields. The other information that I have is information that I obtained yesterday afternoon, and made available to those honourable senators whom I thought were interested in the matter. My information was that nobody on the rig had suffered any injury and that everybody had escaped quite safely.

page 2142

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Senator FITZGERALD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Minister for Civil Aviation aware of the concern felt by licensed aircraft engineers, their association and air travellers about the changes proposed to be made in the Air Navigation Orders so that persons other than qualified licensed aircraft engineers can certify as to aircraft maintenance? Realizing the Minister’s concern about air safety and his desire to protect Australia’s great name in this field, I ask him whether he will ensure that maintenance work on all aircraft is certified to by qualified aircraft engineers and that future employment of these licensed aircraft maintenance engineers and apprentices in this industry is guaranteed.

Senator COTTON:
LP

– I am aware of the matter that Senator Fitzgerald mentions. I took the trouble quite a while ago myself to talk to the representatives of the licensed aircraft maintenance engineers. The Department of Civil Aviation has been closely in touch with them in regard to the matters that the honourable senator has mentioned. I have had nothing further on this matter for the last 3 or 4 weeks, and from that I assume - I emphasise the word ‘assume’ - that the discussions and the arrangements which are being made have proceeded satisfactorily to both the Department and the engineers.

page 2143

QUESTION

BASS STRAIT OIL RIG

Senator MULVIHILL:

– I direct a further question to the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport stemming from his earlier reference to the recent oil rig episode. What explanation can the Minister offer for the failure of the Commonwealth Government to insist that the off-shore tenders that service Bass Strait oil rigs are fully equipped with modern fire fighting appliances using foam smothering techniques?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– This question has rather the implication that the Commonwealth Government has responsibility for every act that takes place in Australia no matter what it is, where it is, how it is or by whom. This may not be the case. I have a note of this question and it will be referred to the appropriate department. As we will be adjourning, I imagine, today what I will have to do is see that the Department writes through me to the honourable senator about this matter.

page 2143

QUESTION

BASS STRAIT OIL RIG

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– I preface my question to the Minister representing the Minister for National Development by reminding him that I think there are conclusive reports that some injuries were sustained during the incident on the rig in Bass Strait yesterday. Can the Minister ascertain today how many workers were injured slightly or otherwise in the Martin 4 gas rig disaster? Under what Act will they be covered by compensation?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– As I mentioned to the honourable senator, the only information I had yesterday was that which I passed out as an act of courtesy, I might say, to all honourable senators who I thought might be interested. I was told that everybody had got off the rig and that the only injury was a sprained ankle. Beyond that I cannot go, but I will certainly try to find out more for the honourable senator and let him have the information he asked me for in his question. I think one ought to say in passing that it is fairly evident from what one reads that some quite considerable acts of personal bravery were performed in this operation. One ought to commend the people concerned.

page 2143

QUESTION

MARGARINE

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Has the attention of the Minister for Health been drawn to cases of insufficient labelling of packets of margarine in relation to the content of animal and vegetable fats? Is he aware that because of alleged misleading descriptions elderly people warned by their doctors to refrain from consuming certain fats are buying certain brands of margarine unaware that they are detrimental to their health? Will he cause inquiries to be carried out so that packages of margarine will show an accurate description of their contents?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I am not aware of the matters to which the honourable senator refers, but I would agree that if the facts are as he has stated them it is a matter for concern. However, there is a limit to any action which I can initiate because the questions of labelling of foodstuffs and whether or not there is a misdescription in labelling are essentially matters for the State governments. The States have the power to pass laws and do pass laws with regard to standards and purity of foodstuffs. I will investigate as far as I can what the honourable senator has said. There is a body to which I have referred in this place, the National Health and Medical Research Council, which endeavours to promote uniform standards in this area throughout Australia, and I will ask that body to have a look at this question. However, as I said, this is primarily a matter for the States to consider.

page 2143

QUESTION

BASS STRAIT OIL RIG

Senator KEEFFE:

– My question is again directed to the Minister representing the

Minister for National Development. Can he inform the Parliament whether any first aid facilities are available on the Marlin 4 oil rig? Are any radio aids available on the rig to call for help in the event of a disaster? Is the Minister aware that the first call for help for this rig was made by a radio equipped fishing boat?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– The honourable senator is well aware, as I am, that there is first aid equipment on those rigs and that they are equipped with radio telephones. The third part of the honourable senator’s question asks whether I know that the first call for help came from a fishing boat. I certainly do not know that, but I shall find out more details in relation to the 3 matters and see that the honourable senator gets the information.

page 2144

QUESTION

BASS STRAIT OIL RIG

Senator KEEFFE:

– Is the Minister for Civil Aviation aware that at the time of yesterday’s disaster in Bass Strait Esso-BHP took over the air space above the rig? I also ask why the Department of Civil Aviation assign this to a private company.

Senator COTTON:
LP

– Apparently the honourable senator came out with this statement last night because someone came to see me about it. I must say that I thought it was an astonishinig observation. As soon as the Department of Civil Aviaition was notified of the rig mishap the air space around the rig was declared a restricted area. This restriction applied from sea level to 5,000 feet within a radius of 10 miles. Only authorised aiircraft were permitted to operate inside this area, and this included pontoon equipped helicopters from Longford on the Victorian coast. Such restrictions enabled rescue aircraft to operate without the possibility of hindrance by other aircraft not directly engaged in rescue operations. The Department carried out frequent checks and is completely satisfied with the search and rescue procedure and the equipment in the rig operation.

page 2144

BASS STRAIT OIL RIG

Senator KEEFFE:

– I also ask the Minister for Civil Aviation whether he can inform the Parliament who owned all of the rescue aircraft.

Senator COTTON:
LP

– No, I cannot. There are about 3,000 aircraft on the Australian aircraft register and I do not carry the details in my head.

page 2144

QUESTION

LICENSED AIRCRAFT ENGINEERS

Senator FITZGERALD:

– My question is directed to the Minister for Civil Aviation and is supplementary to one I asked previously in reference to licensed aircraft engineers. Their association has before it the orders regarding future maintenance certificates for aircraft. Not having heard from the Department, is the Minister, as he claims, quite satisfied that everything is in order? I am satisfied that that is not the case. I ask therefore: Are the Minister and the Department still open for adjustment on these orders from the Association?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– It is quite evident that the level of satisfaction between us is not the same. The Department has been in consultation with the engineers for quite some time. As I said, I understand that it is still in consultation with them and no dissatisfaction has been expressed to me by the engineers whom I saw on 2 occasions about a month ago. The honourable senator may be sure that where I can help and not hinder these cases I try to do so So does the Department, and it will continue to do so.

page 2144

QUESTION

CUBA

Senator WOOD:
QUEENSLAND

– Two days ago I asked a question relating to cane cutting machines being supplied to Cuba. Since then the Queensland Premier has made a statement on this matter. I ask the Minister representing the appropriate Minister: In view of the very serious situation which could develop in the Queensland sugar industry because of any loss of markets or loss of the opportunity to increase markets in the United States as a result of this sale, will the Minister see that some statement is made publicly so that the people of Queensland, and in particular those engaged in the sugar industry, will know that the Commonwealth Government is on the alert in relation to this matter, because of the potential loss not only to Queensland but also to the nation generally in external or overseas credits.

Senator COTTON:
LP

– I think this matter would properly lie within the area of the

Minister for Trade and Industry. I do not have any more information about the matter than I gave to the honourable senator 2 or 3 days ago. It is evident, though, from reading an article from the United States which appeared in this morning’s Press that this is, as one suspected earlier, to some extent tied up with the general position of Australia in negotiating for a higher sugar quota in the United States. Some people who do not want Australia to get that quota are becoming involved in this operation and using the machinery supplied to Cuba as part of their argument to try to make our case more difficult. I think I should ask the Minister for Trade and Industry, who is closely in touch with this matter, to let me have information which I can send to the honourable senator.

page 2145

QUESTION

PHARMACEUTICALS

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Health. I remind the Minister that some time ago I asked him to inquire into the prices of pharmaceuticals outside the national health pharmacopoeia that are available to the public from chemists. As many such items are carrying a retail mark up of 100 per cent and more over the wholesale price, will the Minister inform the Senate whether he has or has not instituted any inquiries into the matter? If he has not, will he refer this matter to the trade practices authority?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I shall investigate the state of the inquiries into the matters to which the honourable senator has referred.

page 2145

QUESTION

EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

Senator KEEFFE:

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. Is the Minister aware that the Australian High Commissioner in London is reported to have made a statement strongly criticising Britain’s proposed entry into the European Economic Community? Can the Minister inform the Parliament whether this statement was made with the authority of the Australian Government or whether it was an independent statment made by the Australian High Commissioner?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Minister for Air · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · CP

– I have seen a newspaper report of the alleged statement. I have not seen details of the statement. I will make inquiries and let the honourable senator have an answer.

page 2145

QUESTION

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

Senator KEEFFE:

– I ask a further question of the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. Is the Minister aware that Sir Alexander Downer, the Australian High Commissioner in London, also made a lengthy statement on Papua New Guinea in which he said that Britain’s entry into the European Economic Community would eliminate the primary industry export markets for Papua New Guinea? I ask the Minister: Can he inform the Parliament whether, in fact, the export market of Papua New Guinea for primary products will be lost in the event of Britain joining the European Economic Community?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– I will have to refer this matter to the Minister for Primary Industry and also to the Minister for External Territories. I shall do so, and if they are in a position or care to answer this question, I will pass the information on to the honourable senator.

page 2145

QUESTION

CONSUMER DURABLES

(Question No. 1078)

Senator GEORGES:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Has the Government studied whether there is a trend to increased or decreased ‘durability’ in ‘consumer durables’, in view of increased concern about the cost of living in Australia; if not, will steps be taken to institute a continuous assessment of this situation?
  2. Is there any Government sponsored research undertaken, designed to improve the use of products manufactured in Australia; if so, what is the amount spent on such research and will the Government increase it, in view of the contribution it could make to reduce the cost of living?
Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. No. There would be great problems and difficulties in making objective measurements of the type suggested by the honourable senator and the Government is not contemplating instituting the continuous assessment to which he refers. It is generally believed that market forces are sufficient, at least in the longer run, to ensure that the characteristics of consumer durables, including their durability, are reflected in their prices. The honourable senator will be aware of the activities of consumer associations which in recent years have given wide publicity to the results of their tests of various products, including consumer durables.
  2. Research designed to improve products manufactured in Australia is carried out in a number of Divisions of the CSIRO - among them the Divisions of Food Research, Forest Products and Applied Physics. This work forms part of the overall research programme of these Divisions and no accurate estimate of the cost involved can be given. The Government also makes annual grants for industrial research and development generally; for 1969-70 the amount involved was $8.915m.

Mr FRANCIS JAMES (Question No. 1103)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Was the Australian Government planning to confiscate the Australian passport of Francis James and was it planned that this should happen after he left Australia?
  2. Was the passport confiscated?
Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · TASMANIA · LP

– The Minister for Foreign Affairs has furnished the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. No.
  2. No action has been taken by the Australian Government to confiscate the passport.

page 2146

QUESTION

MR FRANCIS JAMES

(Question No. 1104)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Was the Australian Government aware that there was a possibility that Francis James would infiltrate the United States Central Intelligence Agency to satisfy his own curiosity;
  2. if so, was the Government then responsible for ‘leaking’ this information so that ‘Green Beret’ methods would be used to eliminate Francis James;
  3. or alternatively, was the information supplied to the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation or Central Intelligence Agency agents in the People’s Republic of China in order to ensure that Francis James would be detained indefinitely in that country.
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The Minister for Foreign Affairs has furnished the following reply:

  1. No.
  2. No.
  3. No.

page 2146

QUESTION

MR FRANCIS JAMES

(Question No. 1105)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Did the United States Central Intelligence Agency approach Australian journalist Francis James to act as an agent during his overseas tour;
  2. if so, was the approach made with the knowledge or at the instigation of the Australian Government.
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The Minister for Foreign Affairs has furnished the following reply:

  1. and (2) The Government has no knowledge of any such approach, and no reason to believe or suspect that one was made.

page 2146

QUESTION

MR FRANCIS JAMES

(Question No. 1106)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

What factual evidence is there that Francis James was detained or is still being detained in the People’s Republic of China.

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The Minister for Foreign Affairs has furnished the following reply:

It is known that Mr Francis James entered the People’s Republic of China from Hong Kong in October 1969. It is known that Mr Jamesthen visited China and that he travelled from Canton to the Hong Kong border by train on 4th November 1969. He informed an Australian passenger during that journey that he believed he might have difficulties leaving the People’s Republic of China. He was seen in discussion with Chinese border officials, but neither then nor since has he re-entered Hong Kong. He wrote to friends and relatives up to the time he was in Canton, informing them of his travel plans. The Government knows of no letter or other communication from Mr James written since that time. The British Government has, at the request of the Australian Government, made 5 formal written requests, and 1 oral request, to the Foreign Ministry in Peking, asking about Mr James’s whereabouts, but has received no acknowledgement, or confirmation or denial of his presence in China. Other approaches have also been made.

The Government has received no report to suggest that Mr James is at liberty, in China or elsewhere.

page 2146

QUESTION

VIETNAM

(Question No. 1123)

Senator GEORGES:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

Will the Government, through the United Nations Organisation, take some initiative to bring an end to the war in Vietnam in view of the appalling and continuing revelation of atrocities in this war.’

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The Minister for Foreign Affairs has furnished the following reply:

The North Vietnamese have denounced all attempts to use the United Nations as a means of seeking an end to the war in Vietnam. This has included opposition to any suggestion that the United Nations might be used as a forum either for negotiations, or for the discussion of a peaceful settlement, or even as a means of reducing tensions in the area. They have consistently said that it is ‘illegal’ for the United Nations to discuss Vietnam since the United Nations has no competence in the matter.

Senator Georges:

– Do you accept that position?

Senator WRIGHT:

– The honourable senator has already asked his question. I shall content myself with directing my attention to that question. The answer continues:

Any efforts to use the United Nations as a means of moving towards a settlement in Vietnam would be futile as long as Hanoi maintains its adamant refusal to co-operate in any measures the United Nations might recommend.

The Australian Government, for its part - and this was emphasised by the Minister for Foreign Affairs in his statement to the House on 6th April - has given full support to Allied efforts to achieve a negotiated settlement in Vietnam. The Australian Government will continue to give its support, in whatever ways may be most appropriate, to efforts to seek a just and peaceful settlement of the conflict in South Vietnam.

page 2147

QUESTION

SUGAR

(Question No. 1179)

Senator KEEFFE:

– Before addressing this question on notice to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, for the sake of history may I state that this will be the last time that I shall address a question in this Parliament through you, Mr Deputy President. I thank you very much for putting up with me. When you do come back to this chamber we hope that it will not be in your present position but as an occupant of the Opposition benches. Nevertheless, my tribute to you is sincere. I ask:

  1. What tonnage of Australian sugar was exported in the last season to (a) Britain, (b) Japan and (c) U.S.A.
  2. Have each of these countries indicated to the Australian Government that their imports of Australian sugar are likely to be reduced during the current season.
Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. (a) 338,827 metric tons raw value.

    1. 560,095 metric tons raw value.
    2. 177,149 metric tons raw value, based on a season July 1969 to June 1970.

  2. No.

page 2147

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– I refer to the ques tion of Senator Douglas McClelland on 13th May asking:

Has the Minister seen a statement attributed to the New South Wales President of the Returned Services League that national servicemen who have been conscripted by the Government to fight in Vietnam and who, upon their return to Australia, have sought entry to a university are finding difficulty in gaining admission? Will the Minister undertake to raise this matter with the universities to see whether national servicemen are finding difficulty in gaining admission to a university and, if so, will he take steps to ensure that these young men are given every assistance to re-establish themselves in civilian life?

In reply I wish to say this matter af admission or re-admission of national servicemen to universities was taken up with the Australian Universities Vice-Chancellors’ Committee some three years ago. The ViceCancellors’ Committee recommended that universities adopt the following principles:

  1. that national servicemen applying for admission to Australian universities should receive not less favourable treatment that they would have had they sought entry at the appropriate time. Thus, national servicemen applying for admission to courses with quotas should be assessed on exactly the same basis as they would have been in the year when they commenced their training and be accorded the same order of priority as they would have been accorded in that year; and
  2. that national servicemen re-enrolling at an Australian university should not suffer any loss of academic status on account of work completed prior to their period of national service training.

It was understood that ex-servicemen would apply to enrol or re-enrol as soon as possible after completion of their national service. Various universities subsequently adopted provisions no less favourable than those which had been recommended by their Vice-Chancellors. As far as we know these arrangements have been working satisfactorily, but if there is any individual case where problems seem to have arisen the Minister will be glad to investigate.

page 2148

QUESTION

CONTAINERISATION

Senator COTTON:
LP

– On 22nd April Senator Bull asked me the following question as Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport:

Is the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport aware that when the Senate Select Committee on the Container Method of Handling Cargoes was taking evidence, overseas shipping interests were stating that containerisation and other improved methods of wool handling would prevent increases in wool freights for at least a few years? As sea freight costs determined by the Australia-United KingdomEurope Conference, in which the Government participates, have risen substantially since those statements were made and further sharp increases are threatened because of inflation and industrial disputes, what steps does the Government propose to take to prevent this further burden being imposed on the already hard pressed wool industry? Is the Government prepared to assist purchasers of our wool to find alternative shipping arrangements outside the Conference? Is the Government, which operates its own ships in the Australia-Japan Conference, satisfied that present wool freights are the best obtainable?

The Minister for Trade and Industry is the responsible Minister and has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The basic freight rate for wool to United KingdomEurope is lower now than at the time of the inquiry of the Senate Select Committee on the Container Method of Handling Cargoes. Wool rates were reduced by 4.5 per cent in September, 1968 and increased by 4 per cent in September, 1970.

The increase last year was the first since 1966. During that period costs of all kinds outside the control of the Australian Government or of shipping companies had increased markedly. For example, in the United Kingdom, increases in seamen’s wages had been of the order of 40 per cent and in Australia stevedoring costs had increased by over 30 per cent. If the trade had been served by only conventional ships - where stevedoring costs represent some 40 per cent of freight rates and seamen’s wages are a larger cost component than in container vessels - a much larger increase than 4 per cent could have been justified.

As far as future rate increases are concerned, the Government’s policy on rate determination is long standing and well defined. The Government does not interfere in, or to arbitrate on, what are essentially commercial negotiations between the parties directly concerned with the commercial contracts involved - the shippers and shipowners.

The Trade Practices Act is designed to provide a framework within which these negotiations can take place - in this case between the Conference and the Australia to Europe Shippers’ Association - and also to provide safeguards to ensure that the Conferences provide an adequate, economic and efficient service.

In this trade protracted negotiations took place at the time of the last rate increase. As a result, from a much higher overall starting point, the Conference eventually came down to increases of 4 per cent for wool and 10 per cent for other cargoes.

There is no compulsion on woolbuyers to ship on the Conference lines and they are free to seek any alternative shipping arrangement that offers a better commercial deal. It is well known that wool interests in Australia, Europe and the United States of America have been carrying out such investigations for some time. The Government would prefer, of course, that Australian wool interests rather than overseas purchasers arrange shipment to ensure that the process of fixing outward freight rates be confined to negotiations in Australia, particularly under the aegis of the Trade Practices Act.

page 2148

QUESTION

SUPERVISION OF INSURANCE COMPANIES

(Question No. 1130)

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

When will the Government introduce legislation for the supervision of insurance companies which it foreshadowed 8 months ago, in view of the fact that nine insurance companies have collapsed in Australia since July 1970 and two more large companies are in the process of being wound up.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONThe Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

It has not proved practicable to introduce legislation during the present Session, but it is hoped that legislation will be ready for introduction during the Budget Session.

page 2148

QUESTION

PAYROLL TAX

(Question No.1148)

Senator POKE:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. What amount of pay-roll tax was paid to the Commonwealth Government over the past three financial years.
  2. How were these amounts disbursed.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONThe Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. Details of pay-roll tax collections over the past three financial years are set out in the following table:
  1. The proceeds from pay-roll tax, along with the proceeds from other taxes levied by the Commonwealth, are paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund. As part of the general revenues of the Commonwealth, these amounts are used to meet the Commonwealth’s overall financial commitments.

page 2149

QUESTION

REPATRIATION

(Question No. 1155)

Senator BUTTFIELD:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minis ter for Health, upon notice:

  1. Has expenditure in the Rehabilitation Department of the Canberra Hospital been cut due to the Federal Government’s economy drive.
  2. Are there any other activities in this hospital which have been cut for the same reason.
Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

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

  1. No.

  2. (i) Establishment of the proposed Department of Nuclear Medicine has been deferred.

    1. The 1970 minor works programme was reduced by $30,000.

page 2149

QUESTION

SHIPPING

(Question No. 1167)

Senator WILLESEE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

  1. Does an inadequate situation exist at present with regard to the berthing of ships at Port Hedland.
  2. Will me Department of Shipping and Transport investigate the position at Port Hedland, giving particular attention to the contentious issue of priority in berthing.
Senator COTTON:
LP

– The Minister for Shipping and Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. I understand that certain difficulties have arisen from time to time with’ regard to priorities for berthing and labour at Port Hedland. These, I believe, have been due to the harbour regulations controlling those aspects in favour of locally consigned cargoes. The Western Australian State Shipping Service vessels are also given priority.
  2. As the honourable senator will appreciate the maintenance and operation of this port falls within the responsibility of the Western Australian Government.

I understand that the State authorities having responsibility in this area are to have discussions with interested parties on the priorities system and the adequacy of port facilities at Port Hedland. In view of its interest in all matters affecting Australian shipping, the honourable senator may be assured that my Department will be following these discussions with interest and has already offered its assistance to the Western Australian Minister for Works, Water Supplies and Electricity.

page 2149

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Motion (by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) - by leave - agreed to:

That, unless otherwise ordered, leave of absence be granted to every member of the Senate from the termination of the sitting this day to the day on which the Senate next meets.

page 2149

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) - by leave - agreed to:

That, unless otherwise ordered -

The Senate, at its rising, adjourn until a day and hour to be fixed by Sir Alister McMullin.

In the event of Sir Alister McMullin being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, Thomas Louis Bull or one of the Temporary Chairmen of Committees shall act in his stead for the purposes of this order, upon request of the Government

The hour and day of meeting so determined shall be notified to each senator by telegram or letter.

page 2149

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

States Grants (Technical Training) Bill 1971.

Customs Tariff Bill 1971.

International Wheat Agreement Bill 1971.

States Grants (Housing Assistance) Bill 1971.

Supply Bill (No. 1) 1971-72.

Supply Bill (No. 2) 1971-72.

Ministers of State Bill 1971.

States Grants (Universities) Bill 1971.

page 2150

INTERNATIONAL MONETARY SITUATION

page 2150

EARTH RESOURCES SATELLITE PROGRAMME

Ministerial Statement

page 2150

INTERNATIONAL MONETARY SITUATION

As honourable senators are aware, there has been considerable publicity in recent weeks, and particularly over the last few days, concerning activities in the international foreign exchange markets. I think it would assist honourable senators if I were to give some background to the current situation. Last week several major foreign exchange markets were closed. This closure was preceded by large currency flows, primarily of United States dollars, across the foreign exchanges and particularly into Germany. As a result certain central banks found it increasingly difficult to maintain their exchange rates against the US dollar. The US dollar is central to the world’s international monetary system - it is used by almost all countries in settling their accounts with other countries and most countries hold the dollar in their international reserves.

For many years the United States maintained a healthy surplus in its trade account. At the same time the United States was able to extend foreign assistance to other countries and to provide large amounts of investment capital. This was welcomed by other countries, many of which wished to increase the level of their own reserves. In the last few years, however, this position has changed. While the flows to other countries of United States investment and foreign assistance have continued, its trading position has deteriorated, partly due to inflation in the United States economy which has reduced the United States international competitiveness.

At the same time, the competitive position of certain European countries, and

Japan, improved to the point where they could compete highly successfully in international trade with the United States. These countries have over the years built up large reserves. The strength of their overall position has in itself attracted further flows of United States dollars. The situation has been aggravated by the current economic conditions in the countries concerned. In the United States, there is a high level of unemployment, and for the past twelve months the United States has been trying to stimulate activity largely by means of a policy of easier money and lower interest rates. In Germany, broadly speaking, the reverse has been the case. Both these countries maintain a high degree of freedom in capital movements across their borders and the result has been very large flows of funds from the United States, and from the Eurodollar market, into Germany. The relatively highly developed financial structure of these countries has facilitated this process.

The main pressure during last week was on the German mark. Germany and its Common Market partners met over the weekend to consider action and agreed that European Economic Community members, if they wished, could float their currencies for a limited period. Germany and the Netherlands have decided to take advantage of this agreement. This means that the exchange value of their respective currencies will not be pegged against the dollar, tout will be allowed to find their own levels acccording to demand and supply, Of the other European currencies the Swiss franc was revalued upwards by 7 per cent and the Austrian schilling by about 5 per cent. The British authorities stated that sterling has not been directly involved in the present disturbances and that there is to be no change in the sterling parity. There will be no change in the exchange value of the United States dollar, or in the official price of gold. No other country is, as far as we areaware, contemplating a change in its exchange rate, nor are we.

Revaluation of a currency, such as undertaken by the Austrian Government, is a, method of adjustment which is permitted under the rules of the International Monetary Fund. The action taken by the German and Dutch governments, to float their currencies, is not provided for under the rules of the International Monetary Fund. However, given the extraordinary situation with which Germany and the Netherlands were confronted last week, the members of the IMF have acquiesced in the German and Dutch decisions, which are for a limited duration. As far as Australia is concerned, the implications for our external position of the decisions taken over the weekend are small. The countries involved - West Germany, Switzerland, Austria and the Netherlands - currently account for only 4 per cent of total Australian exports and about 11 per cent of total Australian imports. They also account for only a small proportion of total overseas investment in Australia. Imports from the countries Which have revalued will be more expensive in terms of Australian dollars. This may cause Australian importers to switch their purchases to other overseas suppliers, but in any event the impact on Australian import prices will be marginal.

Australian exporters might derive some gains from the overseas revaluations in that our exports will be cheaper in terms of the currencies of those revaluing countries, and we will be more competitive vis-a-vis those countries in the markets of other countries whose exchange rates have not changed; (for example, the United States and the United Kingdom). The extent of such gains are, however, also likely to be very small. Australia holds a small amount of Swiss francs in its international reserves. The Australian dollar value of this holding will increase as a result of the revaluation of the Swiss franc. At the same time, we have certain Australian Government borrowings denominated in Swiss francs, and the Australian dollar value of these liabilities will increase. However, the net impact of these changes will be very small. Until the German and Dutch situations return to normal it is not possible to assess the effects on Australia’s assets and or liabilities in these two currencies. Again, however, the effects are not likely to be large. Finally, I would point out that the Australian balance of payments is, and has been for some time, in a healthy state. The changes which have occurred in the international monetary situation in recent days are unlikely to alter this position. Nevertheless, the Government will, of course, continue to watch the situation closely.

page 2151

AUSTRALIAN PROPOSALS TO NASA FOR PARTICIPATION IN EARTH RESOURCES SATELLITE PROGRAMME

The purpose of this statement is to advise of proposals now submitted toy Australia to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for participation in its earth resources satellite programme. It will be recalled that in early 1970 the then Administrator of NASA, Dr Thomas Paine, visited many countries, including Australia, inviting their participation in such of NASA’s future activities as would be of specific national interest to them. During his visit, Dr Paine gave Ministers, senior departmental officials and representatives of the Australian scientific community, a comprehensive briefing on NASA’s planned longterm activities. Following on that presentation, working groups of Departments and other government agencies were established in order to consider how Australia might best take advantage of the offer, particularly as it related to space applications projects. Each group has a lead department, that is the one that takes a co-ordinating role and provides the group with its administrative machinery. One such group is that concerned with earth resources, including agriculture, forestry, hydrology, geology, oceanography, cartography, population and urban planning, and pollution.

By mutual agreement, the lead department in the earth resources group is the Department of National Development, as a number of its branches are directly concerned. Included in the group are CSIRO and the Departments of Education and Science, Primary Industry, the Interior, the Army and Supply. This group has been most active in examining possibilities for Australian participation in earth resources survey projects. In July and August 1970 officers from the Department of National Development and from CSIRO, representing geological, geophysical, forestry and national mapping interests, paid a visit to establishments in the United States concerned with the interpretation of imagery obtained from remote sensing in order to become familiar with the ‘state of the art’. The knowledge gained on these visits proved invaluable in drawing up proposals for Australian participation in ERTS. In June 1970 NASA issued an open invitation for specific proposals for participation in the analysis and interpretation of data from the initial Earth Resources Technology Satellite project ERTS-A. This satelilte, scheduled for launch in March 1972, will be followed by ERTS-B a year later. As their names suggest, the ERTS satellites are experimental rather than operational, being aimed at developing and proving remote sensing systems. Data obtained will be tested against data derived from aircraft and ground surveys of selected ‘ground truth’ sites.

After consultation, led by the earth resources group to which I have referred, between Commonwealth departments and with some scientific groups known to have an active interest in remote sensing, comprehensive and integrated proposals have been submitted to NASA for consideration as to their acceptability for inclusion in the ERTS-A project. In effect, the proposals are for a multidisciplinary study using data relevant to earth resources obtained from the ERTS-A satellite over Australia, Antarctica, and Papua New Guinea. The proposals were submitted as from the Australian Committee for ERTS. The participating Commonwealth bodies would be: CSIRO; Bureau of Mineral Resources, Geology and Geophysics; Department of National Development; Division of National Mapping, Department of National Development; Forestry and Timber Bureau, Department of National Development; Water, Power and Geographic Branch, Department of National Development; and the Antarctic Division, Department of Supply. It is proposed also to enlist the assistance of State departments of Mines and Agriculture and other interested departments, and scientists from the universities and exploration companies in studying the imagery obtained.

The intent of the Australian proposal is to evaluate over a period of 12 months the use of earth resources technology satellite data for agricultural, forestry, geological hydrological, geographical and ice studies. It has been put to NASA that because of our range of environments from Antarctic to tropical to desert and from virtually virgin to intensely cultivated and populated, Australia is an excellent ‘laboratory’ in which to evaluate ERTS-type data. NASA has been made aware of the work done in Australia over many years in the above fields and of the expertise existing in Australia which could contribute to an in-depth assessment of the value of ERTS data. In summary, the scientific objectives of the Australian proposal are: to determine the ability of ERTS-type data to reveal large-scale structural and botanical properties of the terrain, for example, major geological features; forest identification and stratification; identification of deep ground water channels in arid country; offshore areas such as the Great Barrier Reef; crop inventories; the usefullness of ERTS in monitoring changes with time in physical and botanical properties of the terrain, for example, summer changes in the ice around the Antarctic coastline; geobotanical effect in arid areas for geological and hydrological purposes; studies aimed at differentiating between man-induced and natural environmental changes; monitoring of insect and disease attack; fire damage and other changes in forests; evaluation of the usefulness of ERTS in determining the nature of the terrestial surface, for example, mapping and interpretation of land resources, plant communities and soils; pack ice properties; forestry evaluation.

A number of primary test areas in Australia have been suggested to NASA. The satellite passes over Australian in a south, south-westerly direction, covering in each pass a strip about 100 nautical miles in width. Those corridors in which the nominated test areas occur have been identified; they range over all the States, the Northern Territory, Papua New Guinea and Antarctica. In December 1970 NASA issued a further open invitation for specific proposals for participation in the analysis and interpretation of earth resources satellite data. This invitation relates to data to be acquired by the Earth Resources Experiment Package- EREP - of Skylab. Skylab is a three-man experimental space station scheduled for launch in early 1973. NASA plans to man it with three separate crews, the first for 28 days and the other two for 56 days each. Skylab will be largely concerned with astronomy and hence will normally point away from the earth, but will be pointed towards earth on a number of orbits - about 45 in total - to enable earth resources observations to be made. As with ERTS-A, the Australian earth resources group has submitted a proposal for multidisciplinary evaluation of data acquired by

Skylab EREP observations over Australia. The group has proposed that data acquired over Australia on three orbits be evaluated with the following objectives: To determine its ability to reveal large-scale structural and botanical properties of the terrain - the same as the first ERTS-A objective; to compare EREP data with ERTS data for the same test sites and determine the effect of the greater resolution achieved in EREP data. The primary observation area for EREP is in the Central Australia region, but it is planned that data obtained during the whole of each of the three passes observing Australia should be studied - particularly where the ERTS-A study corridors are overlapped.

As already indicated, the full value and the technique of earth resources satellite information have yet to be determined. The purpose of the Australian proposals is to make a contribution to the development of a system that could well prove to be of great significance to Australia with its vast areas and relatively small population. The proposals at present envisaged do not involve the provision of any new resources in Australia, as the appropriate Australian agencies will undertake the respective evaluation tasks as part of their normal research programmes. If the proposals are accepted by NASA, there would be no exchange of funds between the parties. NASA would provide the necessary data from the satellites; Australia on its part would provide NASA with a ‘ground truth’ evaluation of the satellite data over selected areas.

Copies of these statements have been circulated to honourable senators.

page 2153

COMPENSATION (COMMONWEALTH EMPLOYEES) BILL 1971

In Committee

Consideration resumed from 19th May (vide page 2140).

Clauses 1 to 10.

Senator GREENWOOD:
VictoriaMinister for Health · LP

– When the Senate adjourned last evening I had been replying to some points raised by Senator Cavanagh. I was explaining that optical expenses may be covered by the clauses of this Bill. I say that because the definitions of medical treatment and therapeutic treatment contained in the Bill should be ade quate to comprehend optical expenses within their terms. The final point referred to by Senator Cavanagh concerned a body whose employees would be covered by this legislation. Senator Cavanagh inquired whether it could be extended by the simple fact of a prescription by regulation. He drew attention to the words ‘prescribed authority of the Commonwealth’, which mean a body corporate that is incorporated for a public purpose by a law of the Commonwealth.

Senator Cavanagh:

– The provision refers to exclusions.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I appreciate the point that Senator Cavanagh makes because the definition goes on to exclude from such bodies corporate any that are so declared to be excluded. It is not an inclusive but an exclusive provision. It appears appropriate that there should be discretion of this character so that administratively the persons to be covered can be determined. It is not a discretion which is unexaminable. It is capable of being surveyed by the Parliament because it is a regulation which is required to be tabled in the Parliament. Senator Cavanagh was proposing to make a point with regard to separate living accommodation, but I do not think he had elaborated on that point when the time allowed to him to speak expired.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I wish to preface my remarks on this Bill by expressing some dismay at the position in which we now find ourselves and to which I referred last evening. I am alarmed by the announcement of the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) today as to the possibilities of our leaving Canberra by aircraft. I realise the position facing the Senate ‘a.nd I accept the view that this Bill must be passed at a reasonable time to enable another 2 Bills to be considered by the Parliament. I would never be a party to keeping honourable senators an extra day but again I want to protest that whenever a workers’ compensation Bill comes before us, it is necessary to deal with it quickly. Now that the matter is being administered by another Department T hope that this speedy action will not be necessary on future occasions. The difficulty is that this kind of urgency places further limitations upon honourable senators. This Bill has to be finished somewhere before midday although there are sufficient questions about it to continue the debate in the Committee stage beyond that time.

I face another problem. Senator Bishop is the spokesman for my Party on workers’ compensation matters and in asking questions that perhaps he has been requested to ask he is now being restricted to those having relation to clauses 1 to 10. If we proceed on this basis other honourable senators may take up time to the exclusion of Senator Bishop who should have preference in asking questions. I suggest, therefore, that after the Minister for Health (Senator Greenwood) has replied to questions already asked, we may take the Bill as a whole in order to allow Senator Bishop to ask questions about any clauses he may wish to query. After the Minister replies to the matters raised by Senator Bishop perhaps other honourable senators could enter the debate.

I want to refer now to 2 points I raised earlier in the debate and to which the Minister has replied. The Minister’s reply last night appears at page 2140 of Hansard. I refer to the question of a de facto wife. The Minister stated, quite pertinently I think, that if no time limitation for the domestic relationship were set out in the Bill the legislation would be left open to abuse. I acknowledge this point and I think there should be some qualification in the definition. But I suggest to the Minister for his consideration that a time limit of 3 years is wrong in principle. The principle should be to establish a bona fide domestic relationship, together with the other complications that may arise as a result of that relationship, rather than to state that a person qualifies as a result of 3 years domestic relationship.

The last question to which the Minister replied last night - which reply he somewhat qualified this morning - concerns optical treatment. I said that in my opinion optical treatment was not covered. The Minister suggested last night that it was covered under the definition of therapeutic attention. Today he qualified his answer by saying that it may be covered under that definition.

Senator Greenwood:

– I would say it would be covered. I do not think there is any doubt about it. I am sorry if I used the word ‘may’ and thereby gave the honourable senator a different impression from what I intended.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– You are now of the opinion that optical treatment would be covered?

Senator Greenwood:

– I would say it is, provided that it is ordered by a medical practitioner, which is what I said last night.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– 1 wonder whether optical treatment following an injury could be necessary without being ordered by a medical practitioner. However, it may be found after claims are made that optical treatment is not covered. The Minister has expressed the belief that it would be, and any decision to the contrary would be opposed to the intention of the Parliament, and in that event the legislation might have to be amended. Having cleared up those 2 matters, I propose to desist from further questioning at this time and to suggest, Mr Temporary Chairman, that you take the Bill as a whole and give preference to Senator Bishop.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:
VICTORIA

– I was about to ask whether you would be agreeable to that. Is it the wish of the Committee that the Bill now be taken as a whole? There being no objection, it is so ordered. The question now is: ‘That the Bill stand as printed’.

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

– In view of all the circumstances, I believe that Senator Cavanagh’s suggestion is a good one. As has been stated before, we hoped that everybody would be given an opportunity to make an extensive examination of this compensation legislation because it is a long time since it was proposed. Therefore, it is unfortunate that, as we often find in respect of important industrial legislation, this legislation is being considered in the concluding stages of the session, speeches have to be curtailed and members of the Parliament who want information cannot obtain it. I mention as a preliminary to the matters that I wish to raise that the Minister knows that we met two of his officers with the idea of trying to resolve some of the differences of view about the provisions of the legislation and to obtaining information. We imagined that, as a result of the visit by the officers to the representatives of our Industrial Relations Committee, when questions were asked the Minister would be in a position to give studied replies.

We have gone over the issues to some extent today. There were some matters which we thought, because of the pressure of business, might be let go. I am referring there to provisions on which some certainty exists and which we accept. So I will content myself by making a couple of points. There is a long list of matters that we could traverse; but in my speech in the second reading debate I suggested that when the departmental officers are afforded the opportunity to do so they might go through them and send to Mr Clyde Cameron and our other representatives their observations on those matters. The first question I want to ask relates to delegations by the Commissioner under clause 24. 1 would like to know - perhaps the Minister or his officers could supply this information - what changes are proposed in the new administration as compared with the old administration. Will the delegations be the same? ls there any forecast of the time it might take to promulgate the new code and of when the new administration might be working? Does the Minister want to deal with these matters one at a time, or will I raise them all before he replies?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:
Sena.ator Sir Magnus Cormack

– If it is convenient for the Minister, perhaps Senator Bishop could raise them all in one speech and the Minister could reply in one speech.

Senator BISHOP:

– If the Minister wants to interrupt me he can do so. I have referred already to clause 25 and the need to insert in the code a provision similar to the South Australian one to the effect that injury pay should be paid within a fortnight. I trust that the matter will be considered by the interdepartmental committee. Another matter in which I am interested concerns clause 27 (2.), which inserts a new prescription. It reads:

If an injury to an employee is intentionally self-inflicted, the Commonwealth is not liable . . .

I think that clause has been imported from New South Wales. I am wondering why the Government did not include the rest of the New South Wales prescription which uses the words ‘if it is proven that the injury to a worker is solely attributable’. The addition of those words would give some mitigation. I make the suggestion that that point be considered. The matter of clothing has been raised already. We are not sure that clause 37, which makes special provision for medical expenses, should not include damage to clothing. I referred earlier to clause 37 (3.) and the suggestion by the Commonwealth Council of Public Service Organisations in regard to the amount now provided for alterations to aids or appliances. It has been said that this will cover breakage of hearing aids, for example, if a man breaks his hearing aid in an accident but does not suffer injury. It will be noted that the Public Service unions have pointed out that this is a very small sum in view of the amounts which would be required to modify a worker’s home if he became a paraplegic. Miss Smith, who is a noted authority on social work, has suggested that the amounts for workers with these incapacities should range from $1,600 to $2,000.

Clause 37 (9.)(b) refers to transporting a body to a morgue. A simple example of this would be the case of a railway engine driver who dropped dead on the transcontinental railway. Under this clause his body would be brought back to Port Augusta, which is the headquarters of the Commonwealth Railways. In many cases where men work in isolated places - whether they are employed by the Department of Supply, the Department of Civil Aviation or any one of many departments except the Department of the Army - the dependants of the deceased would have to bring the body back home. Very often they live in the capital cities. It may be possible to provide by regulation, as it is provided for the Army, Navy and Air Force, that the body be brought back to the home of the deceased or the home of his parents.

Clause 39 (4.) relates to specified injuries. This follows a provision in the South Australian Act which gives a lump sum percentage to employees who have serious spinal injuries, as a result of which they finish up with displaced or damaged vertebrae, requiring artificial appliances, or with bone defects. These would be specified injuries. They are not included in the schedule. In some cases provision can be made for these injuries. I believe that the South Australian Act provides, at the end of the schedule, for a percentage calculation with a lump sum payment. Certainly these people have pain and suffering. A spinal injury is a lasting complaint. I ask whether this matter has been examined.

The other suggestion which our committee thought might be considered relates to the provision in clause 42 for loss of sense, taste or smell. While we accept that the newly constituted medical board allows a more perfect deliberation than under the old system, it was found in New South Wales that the medical reviews could not determine accurately appropriate compensation under that Act in relation to this matter. In December 1970 the Government inserted a new provision which allowed 2 levels of payment in this case which are fairly easily assessed, one as a base and one as a top. One was for partial loss and one for total loss. Some consideration might be given to directing the medical boards by regulation in this case to see that everybody is provided for.

The next clause to which I refer is clause 45 (8). I am concerned about an injured person who is in hospital for a year, who has no dependants and whose weekly payments are reduced by a half if the Commissioner so determines. I understand from the departmental officers that there has been an odd case or two in which an employee because of very serious injuries has become a vegetable. In other cases where an injured worker has not dependants consideration might be given to his social environment. I doubt whether the reduction of his compensation by one half is just.

Senator Greenwood:

– It is not really one-half; it is whatever amount the Commissioner decides but it cannot be lower than one-half.

Senator BISHOP:

– -Let me put it in another way. There has been a case already in which this was suggested by the Department in circumstances of no dependency. As I understand it, one injured worker already has been reduced to the basis of not less than one-half. It seems to me that this is a very serious provision and one which warrants a great deal of consideration. I know that there is a right of appeal, but basing the clause on one or two cases seems to me to be acting prematurely. Consideration should be given to the wider aspects of the situation. Perhaps this could be one of the questions referred to the new inter-departmental committee.

Senator Greenwood:

– I understand that this applies only in the case of a person who has no dependent children.

Senator BISHOP:

– That is true. There may not be an obvious dependency but, after all, any worker without obvious dependants still has connections with the community and should not be deprived of the benefits of compensation for that reason alone, while he is in hospital. We have raised the matter of constant help which is covered by clause 48 of the Bill. We are presuming that constant help would apply to an injured worker’s wife and that should an injured worker require constant help his wife will receive $8 allowance as well as the spouse’s allowance. However, some of these aspects have been referred to already.

The final matter that I want to raise relates to the International Labour Organisation schedule dealing with occupational diseases. The Minister has indicated that the Government intends to include these in a regulation. A number of the members of our committee felt that occupational diseases might properly be put into the Act as is the case in South Australia. The ILO standards were set in 1964 as a result of Convention No. 121 so they are pretty old and not as comprehensive as they could be. There is a basic list of diseases which members of ILO - governments, unions and employees - have agreed to. I notice that the lists promulgated in certain States are more comprehensive than is the case in others. There have been references to certain industries. I suggest to the Minister that before the ILO standards are confirmed there could well be some additions to the schedule and consideration given to the Second Schedule to the South Australian Act. Senator James McClelland no doubt will know the relevant section in the New South Wales legislation which includes some more local industrial connections. One that comes quickly to my mind is in the Second Schedule to the South Australian Act. It relates to asthma and describes the situation as any process involving working in contact with or the inhalation of the dust of red pine, western cedar or blackwood; any process involving working in contact with or the inhalation of flour and dust, and so on. There are descriptions of other diseases. I suggest that it is essential that a list of diseases be incorporated in the legislation. Although it can be argued that it will give a cover for those not so nominated, it will be useful for people dealing with the Act to have the descriptions included.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Minister for Health · Victoria · LP

-Senator Cavanagh and Senator Bishop have raised a number of points. 1 will respond to as many as I was able to note, and possibly they can elicit answers to the others by further questions or in some other way. Having regard to what Senator Cavanagh and Senator Bishop have said, I think I should say that any restriction that they imposed upon themselves in terms of the questions they asked is a restriction that they accepted for themselves. We all appreciate that we are nearing the end of a session. This Bill was brought in, appreciating that there was only a limited time available for discussion, but the Opposition knew this before the Bill was brought in, and the Opposition wanted it to be brought in. Therefore if there is any restraint upon the time it is a matter to which the Opposition was privy beforehand. I think it may be said that the Government was prepared to bring this Bill in for a full debate in the next session but that the Opposition felt that the argument for bringing it in at this stage was a good one, and so did the Government. So the legislation was brought in now by agreement. It is unfair to suggest that in some way the Government is at fault because it has brought it in at this stage. I repeat, this legislation was brought in because there was a general agreement between the Government and the Opposition that a desirable piece of legislation such as this should be brought in immediately. I emphasise that it is a piece of legislation which the Opposition is not opposing and to which it has not moved, and I understand, will not move, any amendment.

Having said that 1 now turn to the matters which have been raised during the Committee stage. Senator Bishop has raised a number of points. The honourable senator wishes to know what the practice will be with regard to delegations. I am assured that there will be no radical change with regard to delegations except that as the purpose of this Bill works out there will be more matters coming before the Commissioner and, of course, there is a more elaborate and useful appeal procedure prodded for in the Bill.

Senator Bishop:

– As to the time, how long will it take after proclamation to set up the regulations?

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I think I said that the proclamation will be made when the regulations are ready and both the regulations and the proclamation are being expedited. It will then be a matter of, I presume, simple administrative procedures whereby the system will be established, and that is not likely to take any great length of time. I am assured that there is no reason why delegations cannot be operative from the day on which the Bill is proclaimed, and it is the intention that this should be so. Senator Bishop was concerned to find out more about clause 27 (2) which relates to intentionally self-inflicted injuries, for which compensation is not payable. The honourable senator will appreciate that ever since the inception of workers’ compensation legislation intentional injuries or injuries caused as a result of serious and wilful misconduct are injuries in respect of which compensation is not payable. This Bill simply asserts that there is no liability where the injury is intentionally selfinflicted. However, there could be liability if it were shown that the action of an employee was something over which he had no control, for example, if he were a person of unsound mind or was for a period a person of unsound mind and the injury resulted from an incident associated with his employment. This is another way of stating, [ suppose, that in such circumstances the injury could not be regarded as intentionally self-inflicted.

Senator Bishop wishes to know why the Bill makes no provision for compensation in respect of damage to clothing when it does make provision in a variety of ways for the replacement of aids, appliances and so on upon which a person is dependent that are damaged or in respect of which a person suffers some loss. I understand that this matter has been examined by the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) but I will again refer it to that Minister for his consideration, A fact that may be of interest to Senator Bishop is that an amendment to the Public Service regulations, operative from December 1968, provides for payment for the loss of or damage to clothing or personal effects when attributable to the service of officers and employees. Whilst that is not directly related to compensation payments it does give to a person in the employment of the Commonwealth a right to the replacement of clothing and so on if the loss or damage is attributable to his employment. It may be that that is an adequate provision.

Senator Bishop was also concerned to ascertain why this Bill does not make any provision for a lump sum payment for a back injury. It is correct that the table of specified injuries in clause 39 of the Bill does not provide a lump sum payment for a back injury as such, but as far as I am aware no State compensation Act makes any such provision. An employee suffering from a back injury is, of course, entitled to weekly payments for the incapacity and there is a provision in clause 49 of the Bill for an employee to request that the liability to make weekly payments for partial incapacity be redeemed by the payment of a lump sum. Another point raised by Senator Bishop concerns whether there should be provision to cover the cost of transport of the body in the case of a deceased employee. The existing arrangements which are applicable to public servants provide for the Commonwealth to meet the cost of the return of the body of an employee to his headquarters if he dies while away from his permanent station. The amount of S300 for funeral expenses is a substantial increase in the existing allowance.

Senator Bishop:

– The point I was making there is that the headquarters, in the case of a person who does not live at the headquarters, is not his home because it is common in the Commonwealth Service for workers to live in capital cities but to work in outside areas. So that is the issue I am raising. Whereas a serviceman is brought back to his home, in many cases the injured worker is only brought back to his headquarters.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I gather from what advice I have been able to get on this matter that ‘permanent station’ is to be interpreted not restrictively but generously and I would believe that in those areas where there is such a provision there would be no real problem.

There was also a reference by Senator Bishop to clause 45 which concerned the power of the Commissioner to reduce, in the case of the unfortunate person who is confined to hospital and is often described as a human vegetable, the payments which are to be made to him. As I read the provision it permitted the Commissioner to make a determination - which, of course, is appealable - and the determination he made would reduce the amount of payment to this person by no more than half. It is a reasonable provision to have in the Bill and I do not understand Senator Bishop as saying it has any unreasonable features but he was drawing attention to the way in which the power could be exercised and the hardship which might be caused. I think it should be appreciated that it only applies in the case of a person who has no dependants - a person who in effect is confined to hospital and to whom the payments have no real meaning. I can give figures of a case where a person is in this position. Weekly payments have been made to him of over $20,000 and of that amount there is held by the Public Trustee on his behalf $16,000. He will have no use personally for that money. In the same period the Commonwealth has paid $78,900 by way of medical expenses. When we have that situation I think it is not unreasonable to say that if a person is a human vegetable and he is just kept alive by remaining in hospital there ought to be power on the part of the Commissioner to reduce the weekly payments because they have no meaning for that person; and the power is there. It is certainly not an extensive power which the Commissioner has because he cannot reduce the weekly payment by more than 50 per cent. I would have thought in all the circumstances that this is a provision which in itself is wholly justifiable, particularly as there is a right of appeal if anyone feels that something is happening which should not be happening.

The next point which Senator Bishop raised concerned whether a wife could receive a wife’s allowance and a guardian’s allowance. I understand that the answer to that is that she may. The final point to which I advert concerns the International Labour Organisation convention. It will be appreciated that if one examines the various provisions of workers compensation legislation provision is made for a payment for a disease which a person may incur as a result of his occupation. Generally the provisions of this Bill will be more advantageous to the employee than the provisions of the International Labour Organisation convention. However, on this aspect I reiterate what I said last night: The quality of the benefits in one workers’ compensation Act is judged not by taking one clause in isolation and contrasting it with a similar provision in other legislation and lamenting the fact that it is not as good as what is contained in the other legislation, but by taking the whole ambit of the legislation, assessing it and extracting from it what are a number of benefits in that field. This is clearly demonstrated in the Bill and I think the Opposition, by its overall conduct, accepts this proposition. This workers’ compensation legislation is generous and modern and it has tremendous advantages for employees of the Commonwealth. It has features which can be used as a model by the various States which have control of workers’ compensation generally in those States.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I should like to add briefly to the remarks which I made yesterday concerning the question of lump sum payments. Yesterday I pointed out that the effect of sub-clause (14.) of clause 39, subclause (9.) of clause 45 and sub-clause (5.) of clause 46, notwithstanding the exceptions made by clauses 47 and 50, was to impose limitations on the right to a lump sum. I pointed out that this cut across the general philosophy regarding lump sums in other workers’ compensation Acts, that the right to a lump sum should be clearly, unequivocally and, without exception over and above the right to receive weekly compensation. In reply to this submission the Minister for Health (Senator Greenwood), acknowledged that what I had said was the case and he undertook to put this general proposition before the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth). By way of miti gation of the shortcomings which I had pointed out in this Bill, the Minister for Health said:

I think this is a relevant consideration, that the lump sum payments under the Bill are considerably higher than they are under the New South Wales legislation.

Later, he said:

I think it is fair to say that the net effect is that the higher amounts payable under the Bill, plus the other provisions to which I have referred, would be more beneficial to some employees than the benefit in the New South Wales Act to which Senator James McClelland referred.

On the assumption that the Minister, when considering suggestions that come forward to him, will be interested to study the Hansard record of what has been said about these various suggestions, I should like merely to comment that it would be no comfort to a totally disabled man to be told that the lump sum which he is not getting under this Bill is twice as much as the lump sum which an employee would get under the New South Wales Act.

It is frequently lamented by injured workers that their injury, which may be as serious as, and in many cases more serious than, the list of scheduled injuries, is not included in the schedule of injuries entitling an injured worker to a lump sum. One such injury that comes readily to mind is a permanent injury to the back. In this regard I commend to the Minister, and ask him to bring to the attention of the Minister for Social Services, section 70 of the South Australian Act which reads as follows:

If the workman suffers a permanent injury not mentioned in the table set forth in section 69 of this Act– that is the schedule of injuries– and that injury results in either total or partial incapacity for work whether such incapacity is actual or potential or that injury is an injury referred to in sub-section (3) of this section, compensation for that injury shall subject to subsection (2) of this section be assessed by the court as if -

the injury were set out in that table; and

a percentage fixed by the court having regard to -

the nature of the injury; and

the employment or occupation for which the workman was suited before the occurrence of the injury and the employment or occupation for which the workman is suited after the occurrence of the injury, was set out in that table opposite the description of the injury–

Other words which are not immediately relevant follow. I ask the Minister to draw to the attention of the Minister for Social Services that section in the South Australian Act so that consideration may be given to the insertion of a similar provision regarding lump sum payments in the Bill under consideration.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Minister for Health · Victoria · LP

– I shall respond briefly to what Senator James McClelland has said. I shall certainly convey to the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) what the honourable senator said about lump sum payments and the combined effects of clauses 39, 45 and 46. The honourable senator simply elaborated one aspect of a point which he made clearly last night. On the other aspect, concerning the back injury and the reference to the South Australian provision which he made, I think it is fair to summarise the position in this way: Under the Bill which is now before the Senate a person has a right to weekly payments. He can make an application if he desires to do so, and instead of the weekly payments continuing he would receive a lump sum. That is a matter for determination. He cannot have the lump sum and the weekly payments. I think that under the South Australian provisions the position is broadly comparable.

Senator Bishop:

– No, it is not. The Minister will find that the Act is the same as the old Act. There is a 1963 judgment of the High Court which says that a person is entitled to both. I ask the Minister to put that to the Minister for Social Services.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I shall certainly put that suggestion to the Minister. That is not the impression I obtained from information which I had. I understood that only in New South Wales were there coexisting payments of a lump sum and of weekly amounts. I understood that in South Australia there was either a lump sum payment or weekly payments. But I have noted the interjection of Senator Bishop. Certainly the interjection and the import of it will be referred to the Minister. I do not think that anything else said by Senator James McClelland requires an answer from me.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

– Clause 61 (2.) provides:

The Commissioner shall also cause to be served on the claimant … a notice stating that, if the claimant is dissatisfied with the determination, the Commissioner will, on request by him, furnish to him a copy of . . . (a)…….

any certificate given to the Commissioner . . .

any document furnished to the Commissioner -

That is any medical certificate- given to the Commissioner and any document furnished to the Commissioner on behalf of the Commonwealth. This provides a departure from the previous practice. It was a departure which I applaud. It means that a person who has been injured and examined by a medical practitioner under the provisions of the legislation, and on whom a report has been made by that medical practitioner, may now obtain a copy of the report. Under the previous legislation the practice was not to supply a copy. I wish to draw to the attention of the Minister for Health (Senator Greenwood) a specific case and ask him whether special consideration may be given to it. It concerns the case of one Edward Paul Morowski who was in the Royal Australian Air Force. He made a claim in Decmber 1969 in respect of what was claimed to be an injury entitling him to compensation under the Act. On 23rd September 1970 the claim was rejected on the grounds that the medical report did not give sufficient basis for admitting the claim. On 7th October 1970 the claimant was asked for a copy of the medical report and on 11 November was advised by letter that the report was confidential and would not be supplied.

I pause to say that the situation was that this man had been refused compensation on the basis of a medical report which would not be provided to him by the persons who had caused the report to be obtained. This seemed to me to be a wrong situation. I am glad to see that the new Bill covers it. To continue this story very briefly, on 18th November solicitors acting for Mr Morowski again requested that a copy of the report be supplied and pointed out that if proceedings were instituted they believed they would then be able to obtain a copy of the report but that by supplying a copy now the necessity for and waste of money ininstituting further proceedings may be avoided. Eventually on 11th January 1970 the solicitors acting for Mr Morowski were again informed that the report was confidential and would not be supplied. In view of the fact that this amendment is being made and that this claim is still relatively current, and in the hope that the perhaps unnecessary expense of instituting proceedings can be avoided, I ask the Minister whether he will request that consideration be given to making this report available and to making an ex gratia payment to the claimant.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Minister for Health · Victoria · LP

– I have been made aware of some of the facts in this case. I understand the person concerned was a member of the air training corps and that membership of the corps is not equated with membership of the Air Force. The consequence of that is that an air training cadet has no rights as such to compensation-

Senator Rae:

– He did go to a special camp, which puts him in a special category.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– Leaving aside whether his attendance at a special camp puts him in a special category as a matter of law, in short he has no right to compensation and he has no right to obtain medical certificates or reports. The Commonwealth has accepted generally an obligation ex gratia with regard to people in these capacities who find themselves requiring compensation. As Senator Rae referred to this matter privately before raising it in the Senate, I have ascertained some of the facts. I can assure him that, firstly, the question as to whether or not an ex gratia payment is to be made and, secondly, the question as to whether or not the medical report should be released will be reconsidered by the Commissioner. It is appropriate that that reconsideration should be given having regard to the fact that the legislation now before the Senate does give to a person who has a claim for compensation the right to have medical reports released to him. As Senator Rae said, that is a change from the earlier procedure and in the case of the man to whom he refers it is appropriate that there be some reconsideration in the light of what will now be parliamentary approval of a new provision. Under the Bill the claimant to whom Senator Rae referred would, if the injury was one to which the Act applied, be covered as ohe of a prescribed class of persons, would have a right to a copy of a report and a right of appeal. As the proceedings in respect of which this man is concerned are under the existing legislation, ex gratia, it is appropriate that the Commissioner should reconsider the matter and I understand that he will do so.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I desire to raise one or two further matters. First, I think that we ought to be fair on this question regarding limitation of time for this debate. The Minister’s remarks in this regard were not a fair presentation of the position. Whoever was to blame on this occasion, workers compensation legislation is always introduced into this Parliament during the last week of a session. I agree that on this occasion any limitation of time for this debate would be a self-imposed limitation. It is necessary to restrict debate on this legislation because we have received information that we either catch an early plane or remain in Canberra. A number of people are affected.

Senator Greenwood:

– All I am concerned about is that the Government is not imposing any restriction on the debate.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– It is not doing so by virtue of moving the gag; it is doing so by virtue of the fact that on this occasion, as on many other occasions, this workers’ compensation legislation has been introduced at the end of the session.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– Order! Honourable senators on both sides of the chamber would be doing the Committee a service if they were to leave this area of disagreement and refer to the matters before the Chair.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– Yes, but certain statements have been made and the matter has to be put in its true perspective. I also agree that we must look at the Bill as a whole to see what benefits will accrue from it. Although we might say that the new Act will be preferable to the present Act, when we compare this measure with State workers’ compensation Acts we find injustices creeping in. Perhaps this is unintentional, but they are creeping in.

Although we have the Minister’s assurance that these matters will receive consideration, I believe that they should be raised on this occasion. It is not sufficient to say that the legislation will be better than the present Act and that as this Bill is not being opposed, therefore, it should simply be accepted. Again, the reason why we are not opposing the Bill is the limitation which has been placed on this debate. We have been told that if any amendments are made to the Bill its implementation will be delayed until the next session. It is for that very reason that we cannot amend the Bill.

I refer to clause 8 (2.), which states:

For the purposes of this Act, the employment of an employee by the Commonwealth includes the attendance of the employee at a place. .

An employee will be covered by the provisions of the legislation if he attends certain places which are set out in the Bill in order, amongst other things, to undergo an examination or to obtain a medical certificate for the purposes of the Bill. But if he requires a certificate for any other purpose, such as for the purpose of his employment, he will not be covered. In the Commonwealth Public Service employees may be called upon to undergo repeated medical examinations for the purpose of continuing in employment - I have in mind such people as railway drivers - and I think it is not just to exclude them. A Commonwealth public servant may have to undergo a medical examination for the purpose of obtaining a certificate for leave of absence while he is sick. That is a requirement of his employment. At the present time such an examination is not covered but 1 believe that it should be.

Where an employee is required to attend his place of employment for the purpose of collecting his wages or compensation, 1 believe that such attendance is so near to being incidental to his employment that it should be covered. It may be argued that an employee will be covered if his attendance at his place of employment arises out of or is in the course of his employment, but I am inclined to think that clause 8 (2.) limits the rights of an employee by defining the places which he may attend. If he attends other places he is not covered by the legislation.

My next point relates also to clause 8. An employee who is provided with living accommodation, as defined, is covered if the accommodation is provided by the employer exclusively for the employee but is not covered if such accommodation is what is termed separate living accommodation. Under clause 8 (5.) the employee is covered while he is in accommodation provided by the employer if it is necessary for him to remain at that accommodation - if, in fact, he is on call by the employer. One can visualise the situation of postal or railway workers who in outback places are provided with accommodation such as railway barracks. An employee is covered at such time as he is in his accommodation in relation to any accident which may be incidental to his employment. An employee who has to remain at a certain place for a call to employment is covered if the accident happens in that area.

The employee who is not covered is the one who is living in separate living accommodation. Why is there a distinction? One can visualise the provision applying in single men’s quarters and in married men’s quarters in Army camps, but one has to recognise that this provision extends beyond the Army. The employee is covered if at the time of an accident incidental to his employment he is living in accommodation provided by the employer, provided it is not accommodation that includes cooking, bathing and sanitary facilities. If the accommodation lacks these facilities, he is covered. Why should not any individual on standby be covered? Why should a man on stand-by in single men’s quarters be covered while in his quarters when a man in separate living accommodation is not covered while in his quarters?

I raise this matter particularly because there has been a more generous approach by law authorities to an interpretation of the expression ‘arising out of or in the normal course of employment’. There is a case on record in which an employee coming from a golf club in an isolated locality was injured one evening when he was hit by a train at a railway crossing. The judge held that because the accident occurred in such an isolated locality the injury was an injury arising out of employment. Therefore, there was some relaxation of the provision. In some circumstances a favourable decision can be obtained. If we exclude employees working in isolated places who are living in separate living accommodation we are defeating the previous jdugments of arbitration courts. I would welcome the Minister’s opinion on the question.

I raised the question of clause 25 in my speech during the second reading stage. I thought it covered the position about which I was concerned. I asked the Minister whether, in a case I mentioned at the time of a man who was unable to obtain suitable employment, retrospectivity would apply. I thought that this man’s situation would have been covered by the Bill, but I gathered from the Minister’s reply that 1 had made a wrong interpretation. The proposed new section goes no further than the existing section in providing for those who are unable to obtain employment due to an injury. Clause 26 states:

For the purposes of this Part, an employee shall be deemed to be totally incapacitated for work if his incapacity is such that he is fitted only for employment of a kind that is not commonly available and employment of that kind is not reasonably available to him.

I am concerned about the employee who can fill only selected occupations because of his incapacity. Such selected occupations may range from clerical work to sweeping or caretaking work. In the case I mentioned, they would have to be jobs that did not involve bending, lifting or long periods of standing. The person about whom I am concerned, I thought, would have been covered by section 26 because he is totally incapacitated and lives in an area where no such selected work is available to him. He is fitted only for employment of a kind that is not commonly available. One can visualise the reason for the New South Wales judgment in the odd lot case, which involved a paraplegic or some such person who could do only the exceptional job. The Bill does not provide for the case that I mentioned. The request for retrospectivity is of no avail because the Act has not been altered in this regard. This is an injustice.

I cite the case of a linesman in the Postmaster-General’s Department. He cannot carry on work as a linesman; he can do only light duties that do not require bending, lifting or long periods of standing. He could do cleaning up work for the PMG Department. The PMG will not re-employ him, and his compensation has been reduced because the wage he could earn at employment which is commonly available around the area in which he lives, is so much, and the difference between that wage rate and the wage rate at the time of injury is between SIO and $15. There has been a big reduction in his compensation. The fact is that he cannot get employment. The PMG, his old employer, will not employ him. He has made approaches to the Commonwealth Employment Service and to the various factories around his area. While they all employ someone in an occupation he could fill, these jobs in most cases are reserved exclusvely for the employer’s old employees who get past the stage of being able to do active physical, hard work and who are given a light job.

A serious injustice is inflicted by the Act and something should be done about it. The Act should be altered. An amendment to this clause is justified. The Australian Labor Party feels that its claim is so strong that it could succeed in obtaining an amendment on this question. However, this would mean adjourning this whole legislation to the next sitting of the Parliament. The other matter 1 wish to to raise relates to clause 32.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

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

Senator Bishop:

– I rise to allow Senator Cavanagh to continue.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– The

Minister has the right of reply.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Minister for Health · Victoria · LP

– I would like to reply to the matters which Senator Cavanagh has raised, but if the honourable senator wants to continue he may do so after 1 have finished. Senator Cavanagh raised a number of points. I think he suggested in regard to the definition of what constitutes employment that it is proper that a person be regarded as being entitled to compensation if certain injuries occur to him on occasions which he wants to deem as part of his employment. He suggested, for example, that if a person is on his way to get a medical certificate to explain why he is not at work he should be able to have that journey regarded as part of his empolyment. 1 think that is taking the matter far beyond what is reasonable. There has to be a limit to workers’ compensation ligislation and that limit must be what is reasonable incidental to the empolyment One might as a matter of philosophy try to extend that concept and say that a person should be able to receive workers’ compensation irrespective of where or how he receives an injury. But society has not reached that stage.

Employees’ compensation legislation is confined to injuries which are associated with or incidental to the employment. If the proposition which Senator Cavanagh has raised were to be accepted in its entirety, a person who decided to have a day off and who happened to suffer an injury, might well say: ‘I was knocked down by a car when I was going down the street.’ If he was not scrupulous he would also say: ‘I was on my way to the doctor’s to get medical certificate’. The courts are replete with examples of people who try to put something over, and I think provision is necessary, particularly where public money is involved, to prevent as far as possible, abuse of the system. I think that is a fair rejoinder to the points that Senator Cavanagh made.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Surely if a person is returning from’ a doctor he has established that the claim is legitimate, has he not?

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I would have thought that the situation would certainly be legitimate and an answer to the point I made by way of rejoinder. If that be the case in my opinion though I cannot say certainly it would be brought within clause 8. Sub-clause (7.) of that clause reads:

This section shall not be construed as limiting by implication the generality of any other provision of this Act.

Under sub-clause (4.) certain things are deemed to be reasonably incidental to the employment. I imagine that one would have to look closely at the circumstances. But without looking at this aspect closely - I have not had the time to do so - I would have thought that there would be a reasonable prospect that a person coming back from having got a medical certificate and being knocked down would be able to say that that was reasonably incidental to his employment. As a matter of common language, I would have thought that it was.

The other point that Senator Cavanagh made was that a person should be covered if he goes to collect his workers’ compensation payment. I believe that he is covered. Clause 8 (2.) (f) provides that a person is deemed to be in employment if he is at a place in order to receive any moneys that are due to him under the terms of his employment and in pursuance of his employment or any agreement or arrangement between him and the Commonwealth.

Senator Bishop:

– That is the amendment suggested by the ACTU and the Council of Commonwealth Public Service Organisations.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I thought it came from the Australian Labor Party.

Senator Bishop:

– It did indirectly.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– The point is that it was put in to cover this precise point which Senator Cavanagh is now saying is not covered by the Act. I do feel that it is taking time unnecessarily to I make this point when the honourable senator’s own Party has adverted to it at some stage in the last 12 months, and the Government has responded by having the clause put in.

Another point I make concerns whether or not the provision relating to separate living accommodation is one which does or does not create an injustice. As 1 understand the position, a person is not entitled to workers compensation if he is injured in his home. On the other hand, if a person is at work or doing something at a place which is incidental to his work and he suffers an injury he is covered. ‘Separate living accommodation’ is an expression used to distinguish that which is comparable with a home. It has to be exclusive to the person who is occupying it. It must have bathing facilities, sanitation facilities and cooking facilities; so it is, as it were, that person’s home. If a person is injured in that area which is called ‘separate living accommodation’ this area is to be equated to his home and therefore the injury is not incidental to his employment. A person who is in an Army barracks and who has to be there because it is part of his employment is there because it is incidental to his employment. This is why any injury such a person receives is compensable.

The other point to which Senator Cavanagh referred was proposed new section 26. He said that some obligation should be placed on the employer, if an employee suffering a partial incapacity is limited to certain types of work, to provide those types of work for the employee. I know that that is a provision which by and large is in the New South Wales legislation. But I think that it is an unreasonable provision because it imposes an enormous obligation upon an employer who is just not equipped to provide some sort of employment for an injured person which is not within the scope of his business reasonably to warrant. I think it is equally undesirable because it provides no incentive or willingness to the employee to look after himself and to try to find a job. He can just sit back under the provisions of the New South Wales legislation and say: Tt is up to the employer to find me a job. If he cannot find me a job I am to be paid full compensation. Therefore, why should I do anything?’

Only last year this attitude was very trenchantly criticised by the Report on the Inquiry into the Feasibility of Establishing a System for the Rehabilitation of Injured Workers in New South Wales which was conducted by Judge Conybeare. He suggested that this type of provision should not be inserted.

Senator Bishop:

– But under your code at the present time if a worker cannot obtain suitable employment or common employment he is entitled to workers compensation.

Senator Cavanagh:

– No, he is not.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I leave aside what might be called this difference of opinion which I think could better be satisfied within the Labor Party Caucus. May I refer to what Judge Conybeare said? It is apropos the type of section that Senator Cavanagh would like to see inserted. Referring to the New South Wales legislation, Judge Conybeare said:

In my opinion, the section has had the effect of producing a positive disincentive to rehabilitation, and far from promoting or ensuring rehabilitation, its effect has been merely to assure more money for one class of partially incapacitated workers, which was probably its clandestine objective.

Judge Conybeare went on to say that he remained unconvinced that justification existed for the provision. If any honourable senator wishes to find out more about that he or she can read it at pages 64 and 65 of the report of the inquiry. 1 think it is a reasonable provision which gives statutory recognition to the practice which has been applied by the courts.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I realise the problem concerning the time and I will conclude my contribution to this debate by making these points: I am not satisfied with the answers given by the Minister for Health (Senator Greenwood). Nevertheless, I hope that the assurances that he has given can be accepted by the Commissioner when he is appointed. Despite what Judge Conybeare may have said in his report, as quoted by the Minister, I do not accept the proposition that anyone prefers to receive workmen’s compensation at a level lower than his full employment pay scale. I am concerned with the case of the individual who is fit for selected occupations only in which he cannot obtain employment. The case that I quoted concerns a man who has sought employment and who has a list of the factories at which he has tried to obtain it. He could be employed readily by the Postmaster-General’s Department. It is not a fact that the employer has not employment opportunities available to this man. The Postmaster-General’s Department has employment opportunities for him but it will not employ him.

I want to make some brief remarks about clause 32(4.) which covers intermissions in employment. Clause 32(4.) states:

Where, on a day on which an employee has engaged in his employment, the employee makes a journey to or from his place of employment during an ordinary recess in his employment, the journey shall, for the purposes of sub-section (1.) of this section, be deemed to be a journey to or from his employment by the Commonwealth, as the case may be.

I take it that this covers journeys made during lunch periods in which employees journey to and from the place of employment for the purpose of purchasing their lunch, playing cricket and so on. The courts have made great progress in this direction in that they have accepted most of the incidents that have occurred during an employee’s lunch break as arising out of the course of employment. In the case of Oliver versus the Commonwealth in which a workman received an eye injury while playing cricket during his lunch period, the court upheld that the playing of cricket was a normal practice in the employment and the workman was awarded compensation.

In the light of that judgment which concerned the playing of cricket, does the clause which I have read to the Senate modify the position which applies at present and which gives a workman an entitlement to compensation under law? At present the playing of cricket is accepted to be a normal part of an employee’s lunch hoar and if an injury is sustained during this period the employee is entitled to compensation. However, will section 32(4.) restrict what is at present covered during this period off from work? It is obvious that under the proposed subsection an employee going to and from the shop for his lunch would be covered. But the question I raise is whether he is covered while he is at the shop. An employee who travels across the road to a park to play or watch a game of cricket during his lunch period is obviously covered going to and from the game. But under the proposed sub-section will he be covered while he is at the game of cricket? Al the moment when judgments are made on such cases the court says: ‘If it is sufficiently incidental to his employment he is covered’. Do we take away the accepted decisions of law as they apply today by putting limitations on employees by implementing clause 32(4.)? T would like the Minister’s opinion on this.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I briefly intervene to correct one impression that may have been wrongly conveyed. It could be that I misunderstood the Minister for Health (Senator Greenwood).

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– Order! To which clause is the honourable senator speaking?

Senator MULVIHILL:

– I am referring to clause 26. I refer to the suggestion that the Conybeare report has all the answers to this problem. I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that when the Senate Standing Committee on Healh and Welfare was dealing with physically handicapped persons, Mr Reynolds, the compensation officer of the New South Wales

Labour Council submitted that although there were good features in the Ontario and New York systems - I think he referred to what was said by Paul Kruger at the end of the Boer War - the trade unions should take the best of the past and build on that.

I simply convey to the Minister that when the Health and Welfare Committee completed its report the key words of that report were ‘without prejudice to existing rights’. The inference was made that it is better not to be too generous with compensation so as to get a unit back into the work force. The trade union movement does not accept that in its full form. It agrees with some of the revolutionary proposals espoused by Judge Conybeare but it does not give a blank cheque to them. I relate what I have just said to the remarks of Senator Cavanagh.

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

– I have just been reminded by telegram of the position in relation to Norfolk Island. It will be remembered that the Opposition made a request that consideration be given to including in the ordinances for the Territories the standards which have been adopted in the Commonwealth workers’ compensation code. I understand that this request has been considered by the Minister. In the past it has been common practice for ordinances of the Australian Capital Territory, the Northern Territory and Papua New Guinea to be related largely to the Commonwealth Employees’ Compensation Act. 1 have been reminded by a telegram from a representative of Norfolk Island that although in 1965 an application was made and a petition lodged with the Minister to have workmens’ compensation applied to that Territory, this has not yet been done, nor has any ordinance been effected to give expression to a common code. I raise this matter at this stage in the hope that the Minister may direct the attention of the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) and his Department to this fact.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria, Minister for Health · LP

– With regard to the last point raised by Senator Bishop, the honourable senator will be aware that the Legislative Council of Norfolk Island is a body which regards its own legislative functions very seriously and which has a tremendous degree of autonomy. I am unable to say what the position is with regard to workers’ compensation provision for Norfolk Island or what the attitude of that Council would be, but certainly these are matters which will be kept under consideration.

With regard to what Senator Cavanagh has said, I should think that sub-clause 32 (4.) to which he referred indicates quite clearly that when a person is on a journey during his lunch hour he is covered for workers’ compensation. When a person is engaged in a sporting activity, as I understand it the position is what the law has always been. The honourable senator will remember Oliver’s case which established that a person who was playing I think, cricket, on the premises during his lunch hour was covered. That was a decision of the High Court and generally the purport of that decision has been regarded as overruling any previous dicta of the High Court ruling otherwise. As I understand it that is the position which applies at the moment, and from such experience as I can recall that provision has been interpreted very generously and liberally in favour of the employee.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

Motion (by Senator Greenwood) proposed:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Senator CANT:
Western Australia

– I rise to speak on the third reading of the Bill because of the arrogant and impetuous statements made by the Minister for Health (Senator Greenwood) in reply to the debate on the second reading. It is well known that in the spring session of 1962 a workers’ compensation Bill was brought down to amend the rates of workers’ compensation applying throughout the Commonwealth and that the Australian Labor Party, through Mr Clyde Cameron, had prepared a whole heap of amendments to the legislation in an endeavour to make it satisfactory to the workers in industry. At that time, at the request of the late Mr Harold Holt, the amendments were stood over to be brought in by the Government in the autumn session of 1963. They have now been introduced, S years later. Yet when the Opposition is prepared to co-operate in order to get the legislation passed in the dying hours of this session of Parliament - and bear in mind that the early closing of this session has been criticised severely throughout Australia and even in other parts of the world - the Minister has the effrontery to come into this place and to taunt the Australian Workers Union because it has not moved amendments to the Bill.

Senator Greenwood:

– The Australian Labor Party is the body represented in this place.

Senator CANT:

– Did I say Australian Workers Union? 1 am sorry. Anyway, that organisation has just as much interest in the Bill as anyone else and it represents many employees in the Commonwealth service. The first statement of the Minister to which I wish to refer appears on page 2130 of yesterday’s Hansard. The Minister said:

We have heard from members of the Opposition a somewhat hollow story. It is’ quite remarkable that a piece of legislation such as this which has been introduced by a Liberal-Country Party Government has the full support of the Opposition.

That sort of statement will not stand up, even in the light of a later assertion by the Minister, which I will quote in a moment. He went on:

I think it is remarkable that the Government, having introduced a measure of this sort, should be assured by the Opposition that the measure is being supported and that no amendments will be moved. That in itself is as striking a testimony as could be afforded to the intrinsic value and merit of this legislation.

The fact that the Australian Labor Party put forward six speakers on this Bill, as the Minister acknowledges, to draw attention to its weakness contradicts the Minister’s arrogant statement that we are satisfied with this legislation. We are not satisfied with it. I could go through it and point to many provisions where the whole concept of workers compensation legislation is reversed.

I invite the Minister’s attention, for example, to clause 28 which provides that the loss of an artificial part must arise both out of and in the course of the employment. That is a complete reversal. That provision was taken out of workers compensation legislation very many years ago. There has been a lot said about the South Australian workers compensation legislation. The provision to which I have just referred was removed quite recently from the South Australian legislation, and also from the Tasmanian legislation. Generally speaking, such conjunctive terms have not been incorporated in workers compensation legislation throughout the world for many years. Much of this legislation is not satisfactory. At page 2131 the Minister is reported to have said:

I know that some members of the Opposition -they are in a decided minority-

We do have regular Caucus meetings at which we discuss the legislation introduced by the Government, but I did not know that the Government had someone at those meetings who could determine whether a minority or a majority was satisfied with the legislation. Perhaps we should have a look around our Caucus room to see whether it is bugged. Perhaps the Central Intelligence Agency has been there and is helping the Minister to get information out of our Party room as to the degree of support for legislation. This is the sort of statement that the Minister makes. He went on:

I know that some members of the Opposition - they are in a decided minority - have endeavoured to explain away the fact that no amendments will be moved by claiming that in some way the passage of the Bill would be delayed if amendments were moved. AH I can say is that many Bills have been before the Senate during the last fortnight to 3 weeks. Some of them have involved matters of major significance and others have contained matters of not so great significance in which the Opposition has generally concurred. Nevertheless they have moved their amendments and the amendments have been defeated -

Loud praise, because the amendments were defeated. Some of them might have been constructive, but the Conservative Government did not want to accept them. The Minister continued: although on one or two occasions amendments have been carried. But that is an indication that there was no apprehension about the outcome of the legislation to which those amendments were moved. Nevertheless, this is used by some who do not speak for the majority of the Opposition as one reason why amendments are not being moved on this occasion.

That is another arrogant statement by the Minister. It was agreed within our Caucus that we would not move amendments to this Bill mainly because of the delay of 8 years in trying to get something in this field out of the Conservative Government - something that would be beneficial to the people and not prehistoric. We wanted to get improvements as soon as possible. It may be that at a later time we will move amendments to this legislation, even if we have to do so by a private member’s Bill. It is quite arrogant for the Minister to stand in his place and draw attention to these things in the dying hours of the sessional period when his own leader, the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson), asked for and accepted the co-operation of the Opposition in getting measures passed. There is no doubt that we could have kept this parliamentary session going. 1 am quite willing to stay here for another week to examine this legislation minutely. I am not in any hurry to get away but some other people have commitments which they made in anticipation of completion of the Government’s legislative programme. To cap the lot - this makes me very angry - the Minister rose yesterday and made a statement which appears at page 2135 of Hansard. Senator O’Byrne interjected and said to him:

We are not opposing this Bill, you know.

The Minister then said:

It is interesting to hear Senator O’Byrne, 4 to J hours after the debate commenced, saying that his Party is not opposing the Bill, when from his side we have heard no fewer than 6 speakers all saying that they are not opposing the Bill but addressing themselves to it.

Should they not address themselves to the Bill? Should they accept just what comes along? Even though they do not oppose legislation should they not criticise it and try to draw attention to omissions and commissions so that the next time that the Miniser considers workers compensaion matters he will have some guidance from those who represent the workers? Should that not happen? Is that not part of the democratic system of government? Do we want some sort of dictatorial government in this place? Is this what the Minister is angling for? Is he saying that there should be one voice and one voice alone heard in this place?

Senator Mulvihill:

– Fascism.

Senator CANT:

– I do not know whether it is Fascism. All I am saying is that it is a dictatorial system of government. The sooner the Minister realises that the Australian people will not stand for a dictatorial system of government the better off this place will he. The Minister then went on to say:

T am the only speaker from the Government side -

I point out that Senator Rae had spoken a little earlier - who has responded. 1 am replying to questions which were asked of me and to which it was expected I would reply. Senator O’Byrne’s remark is typical of the humbug -

These are the Minister’s words - that has characterised much of the goings-on of his Party in the Senate this week.

The Minister speaks from a privileged position. He attacks the workers’ representatives and the workers themselves from a privileged position. I remind him that the workers of this country are the people who keep him in the affluent position he is in today. They are the producers of the wealth of this country today. The Minister and others of his ilk appear in the courts of this land and argue about legal interpretations. There will be many interpretations of this legislation. It is the workers who keep the Minister and others in his profession in employment in this country. It does not become the Minister to come in here and make statements of that sort when the Opposition is trying to co-operate with the Government.

If the Government wants to do something constructive towards the running of this Parliament it will remove the Minister from any area of influence and contact with the public and put him in a backwater where he cannot insult the people of this country. That is what he did yesterday in making an arrogant reply in this Parliament in the debate on the motion for the second reading of this Bill. The Minister does not have to write down what I say because it will be in Hansard. The Government needs the co-operation of the Opposition in order to carry on the functions of this Parliament. We can strangle it by the use of the Standing Orders. We can stop the Government from performing its duty by using the forms of this place. If the Leader of the Government wants the cooperation of the Opposition in order to carry on the work of this Parliament he had better put a pretty tight rein on those in privileged positions who represent the Government.

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

– I wish to participate briefly in this debate because during the various discussions on this legislation I have made a similar complaint to that made by Senator Cant. The accusation that Senator Greenwood made against the Opposition - namely, that we were not moving amendments because we were satisfied with the Bill - was quite wrong. I have pointed out to him that in the other place the model Bill which was put forward by the honourable member for Hindmarsh, Mr Clyde Cameron, and which had been worked on not only by members of the Australian Labor Party’s Industrial Relations Committee, the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Council of Commonwealth Public Service Organisations but also by some officers of the Parliament, in fact was moved as an amendment, and it contains more beneficial provisions than the code introduced into the Parliament by the Government.

As regards the position of the Opposition in the Senate, it is very evident, as Senator Cant has said, that the submissions of all the people concerned have been restricted because we are in the closing stages of this session. We could have gone on for quite some hours, or even days, in discussing this legislation. It is a very important piece of legislation. It will cover about 400,000 Commonwealth employees as well as some other employees. In addition, as hat been pointed out, it has been promised since 1964. I agree with Senator Cant that Senator Greenwood in his general attitude on this matter, which is a very important piece of industrial legislation, has been most provocative. We find that unreasonable contention is developing on legislation which would progress better if Senator Greenwood answered the questions in a deliberate way.

The first point I want to make about that is that we met the Minister for Social Services, Mr Wentworth, and made submissions to him in respect of a number of amendments. Some of them have been introduced in the present code and arc now before the Senate. The others are under consideration. In addition, as Senator Greenwood well knows because we sought his permission, we met 2 representatives of the department that will be handling the administration of this legislation. Having given them the relevant information, we expected that when the legislation was being considered in Committee studied replies would be given to the questions that we asked and those replies would go on the record. But, instead of that, as honourable senators will have noticed, Senator Cavanagh, myself and other senators have had to canvass in depth matters which might easily have been determined quickly. In addition, Senator Greenwood has brought his own legal interpretations into the consideration of the legislation.

We accept, and so do the unions, this compensation legislation as an urgent piece of legislation which is long overdue. That has been well established. The trade union movement spent thousands of dollars on its investigation of the code, as it did on its investigation of the March 1970 code which was introduced and found to be faulty. For that reason, I would have expected that, rather than the Government adopting a critical attitude, it might have respected the viewpoints of senators and ensured, as I hope Senator Greenwood will do now, that the matters that have been raised are given very serious consideration. I include in that the suggestion of putting the matter before a parliamentary committee.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Minister for Health · Victoria · LP

– in reply- I appreciate as well as any other senator the need for common sense and co-operation to govern the consideration of legislation that is before the Senate. Nevertheless, as I have said in the past, this is a political chamber and if people are to play politics in this chamber the right to play politics is not to be confined to members of the Opposition. I appreciate that this legislation has gone through the House of Representatives expeditiously and through this chamber expeditiously because the Opposition has not opposed it - indeed it has supported it - and because it has not moved amendments. But what I have said is that it is incorrect to say that the Opposition’s amendments are not moved because moving them would delay the legislation in some way. As I have indicated, in the past week other legislation has been before the Senate which was of concern to the Opposition, just as it was of concern to the Government, and in respect of which the Opposition was prepared to move amendments. It did not move amendments to this Bill. When I said, as I think I am entitled to say, that the Opposition agrees with the Bill 1 was essentially basing my viewpoint upon what the spokesmen for the Australian Labor Party in this area said about this Bill when it was before the House of Representatives. I quote what was said by the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron), who was the major speaker for the Opposition on this Bill. One might understand the one reference I make, because he is a South Australian. He said:

This Bill is now the second best piece of compensation legislation in the Commonwealth. Only the South Australian Act surpasses it.

If, therefore, there is some suggestion that the Bill lacks those qualities which Senator Cant suggested that it lacks, then it seems to me that he is speaking inconsistently with the viewpoint that was expressed by the spokesman for the Australian Labor Party on this matter.

I repeat that this is modern, generous workers’ compensation legislation. It is a model which the States of the Commonwealth can look at. It represents earnest endeavours by the Government and its advisers who have devoted a lot of time to it. Moreover this point should not be forgotten - this Bill was introduced into the House of Representatives some 14 months ago. It was introduced with the clear statement by the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) who introduced it that the Government was prepared to look at amendments which were put forward. A lot of amendments were put forward by the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the unions, the Australian Labor Party and other people who are interested. That is a proper way to deal with legislation. No justifiable criticism can be levelled at the Government for the way in which it has dealt with the legislation, even if it has meant that the Bill has taken 14 months longer to come into force.

Many of the suggestions from the Labor party and the union movement have been incorporated in this legislation. It is incorrect to say, when such consideration has been given to the legislation and we have the attitude of the Opposition in supporting the measure - no vote at all having been taken on any issue in the legislation - that the Opposition is not supporting it. I listened with interest to what Senator Cant said. I regret that I may have given the impression in the way I have spoken or in the attitudes that I have adopted, that I am arrogant. Certainly it was not my intention. Certainly it is not my intention to deny the value of co-operation, nor is it my intention to do anything which would prevent my securing it.

If statements are made for political advantage by the Opposition and those statements are capable of being countered by the Government then I believe it is my responsibility to counter them, and that is what I have been doing. I disagree entirely with Senator Cant’s statement that a dictatorial attitude has been adopted by the Government, that it wants only one voice and no other voice to be heard. There is no warrant at all in anything that has happened in this chamber in the last week for a statement of that character to be made. There has been ample opportunity for everybody who wanted to speak on this Bill and any other Bill which has been before the Senate over the past fortnight to speak as they pleased. It is churlish of Senator Cant to suggest that a dictatorial approach is being adopted. If one examines the record and recalls one’s own experience in this place, one will see that there is absolutely no way of justifying the statement. For the advantage of an easy phrase and a cheap headline, I think Senator Cant does his own examination and consideration on a factual basis no credit at all.

I agree with him that it is the workers of Australia who keep this Government in power. They have kept this Government in power for over 20 years and I think they will continue to keep it in power because, as is illustrated by this employees’ compensation legislation, consideration in depth has been given to measures. When a measure like this is finally produced it is legislation of which the Government can be proud. I say in conclusion that I for one and, I think, Government members as agroup will not be intimidated just because -threats are made to us that if we are not nice to the Opposition there will not be co-operation. If the Opposition is prepared to play politics and to play it hard, then we on the Government side likewise are prepared to say what has to be said and to assert our rights in the same way as members of the Opposition assert what they regard as their rights. I know that they are prepared to do that. While seeking co-operation, the Government will be equally concerned to put before the people of Australia what it believes to be the true position on any issue.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 2171

UNITED STATES NAVAL COMMUNICATION STATION (CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES) BILL 1971

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 11th May (vide page 1646), on motion by Senator Greenwood:

That the Bill be 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 2171

AIR ACCIDENTS (COMMONWEALTH LIABILITY) BILL 1971

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 11th May (vide page 1646), on motion by Senator Greenwood:

That the Bill now be 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 2171

ANGLO-AUSTRALIAN TELESCOPE AGREEMENT BILL 1971

Second Reading

Consideration resumed 11th May (vide page 1647), on motion by Senator Greenwood:

That the Bill now be 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 2172

SEAMEN’S COMPENSATION BILL 1971

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 11th May (vide page 1647), on motion by Senator Greenwood:

That the Bill be 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 2172

SUPERANNUATION BILL 1971

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 12th May (vide page 1743), on motion by Senator Wright:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator DEVITT:
Tasmania

– Might I suggest that this Bill and the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Bill 1971 be dealt with in a cognate debate as they are related matters. They may be taken separately in the Committee stage.

Senator Wright:

– That course is acceptable to me.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Bull) - There being no objection that course will be adopted.

Senator DEVITT:

– The 2 Bills now under discussion are closely related to each other in that they each deal with the subject of portability of pension rights. The word ‘portability’ has become widely used in recent times and it is fairly common in the field of superannuation with which we are now dealing. Portability rights confer on a person by law the right to take with him an accrued pension entitlement from one area of employment to another area of employment. The purpose of the 2 Bills is acceptable and desirable because the provisions of the Bills will facilitate the movement of personnel with expertise and ability from one form of employment to another. Employees will be able to take with them the skills which they have acquired in employment into another area of employment in which those skills may be of much greater value than they are in the field in which the employees serve at the present time. One would naturally agree that it is desirable that a person should serve in employment where he gives greatest benefit and where his employers derive the maximum advantage but it is also important that a person should obtain the best return for his services. The Superannuation Bill covers the civilian aspect and also embraces those people who contribute to the Provident Fund. The Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Bill relates to members of the 3 branches of the armed Services.

I point out that there are some peculiarities in relation to the various provisions for pension benefits for members of the armed Services. In passing I remind honourable senators that although we are under some pressure due to the lack of time remaining for this session the Joint Select Committee on Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Legislation is examining matters relating to the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Fund. An extensive area of that Fund has already been canvassed. I would also . remind the Senate that the Kerr Committee, which has been set up by the Parliament, is examining the other aspects of pay and conditions in the Services. So that one would imagine that throughout the whole field of the defence forces in relation to superannuation benefits, pay and allowances and things of that kind, these committees will ultimately furnish to the Parliament detailed reports covering these aspects of the matter. But, as I say, there are peculiarities. For instance, other ranks in the armed Services qualify for pensions on the completion of 20 years service and there are limited benefits on the basis of periods of service which are somewhat less than that.

So far as officers of the armed Services are concerned there is a pension which relates to the retirement age of a person. This relates to the rank of that person in the different branches of the Service. I think they start at something like age 45 and go up to age 60. So pensions have to be based on an approach to this question of years of service based upon rank and so on. As I say, I have dealt with the substantia) distinctions between the 2 measures although basically the objective of the 2 Bills is to facilitate the movement of personnel. The Provident Fund itself is embraced within the provisions of the Superannuation Bill, and that provides for a lump sum benefit to a person who does not qualify by reason of some medical deficiency for the pension at the end of his service in whatever branch of the civilian service he serves.

The whole intent of the 2 measures is, of course, to preserve the accrued rights of a person for superannuation or pension entitlement at the conclusion of his period of service. Perhaps it would serve my purpose if I were to mention that the former Treasurer, Mr Bury, at the time the Bill introduced in the other place, circulated a quite comprehensive explanatory memorandum detailing the concept of these 2 measures. I will quote from it because this will save my going into greater detail about the intention of the 2 Bills. It stated:

A person contributing to one of these schemes - and that is the superannuation scheme or the defence force retirement benefits scheme- who changes his employment with the Commonwealth and is required to contribute to another Commonwealth superannuation scheme, will be able to gain credit in the new scheme for his accumulated interest or stake in his former scheme, including the Commonwealth’s share of that interest or stake.

That is, the Commonwealth interest is not interest in the terms of something that develops on the basis of a sum of money but is an overall comprehensive interest in the whole scheme. The memorandum continues:

In addition, a person who moves to public employment with the States, including State Universities will be able to preserve his superannuation rights. As well, a person with 20 years Commonwealth service who leaves to engage in private employment will be entitled to a preservation benefit. A person joining a Commonwealth scheme with a right to a preservation benefit from another scheme, including a private scheme, will be able to pay the amount of the benefit into the Commonwealth scheme and obtain credit for it.

So honourable senators can see that this is a comprehensive provision certainly designed to facilitate the movement of people into various areas of employment where their skills and abilities would best serve the interests of the various positions. This is, as I say, what is known as portability. Persons who have particular skills and expertise can travel from Commonwealth scheme to Commonwealth scheme, from Commonwealth scheme to State scheme - this also includes employment in the universities - from Commonwealth to private employment and from a private scheme to the Commonwealth. The rights which a person has built up in these areas which he is leaving will be portable and will be carried over into the new scheme. Of course, there has to be some adjustment. There are some administrative details which would necessarily have to be worked out to fit in with a particular scheme, and if I have interpreted what I have read in the Bill correctly there is a right for a person to make the necessary adjustment to accommodate to the provisions of the scheme to which he is moving.

The distinction between the normal superannuation scheme and the DFRB scheme is, as I said, one related largely to administration. One would expect that were there not these peculiarities in the system so far as the DFRB scheme is concerned one measure could have covered both situations. As I have said, in the armed Services eligibility for other ranks is based on a 20-year term and officers qualify when they reach the retirement age.

Incidentally a point arises in relation to the qualifying period at which a, person may elect to have those preserved rights carried over. Whilst members of the Opposition support these measures and regard them as proper and good, we believe that the time may well have arrived when the 20-yea.r qualifying period before one can exercise an elective right should be reduced. At the Committee stage I will be moving an amendment to provide for this. I ask honourable senators to bear in mind what I say because I do not want to traverse the ground in the Committee stage. It is our view, based upon modern approaches to questions of this kind, that the time may have arrived when, instead of lumbering along behind public opinion and the generally accepted current concept in schemes of this kind, we should be looking for a 10-year qualifying period rather than the 20-year qualifying period which is provided in the Bill.

I do not want to go into great detail on this aspect but I believe that the Parliament of the nation should be a trendsetter in these things. The Parliament should be coming up with new ideas and should not be lumbering and floundering along at the rear of public opinion, because this does not do much for the institution of the Parliament. We should have a. modern outlook and should be looking to the future in these things. If benefits are to be conferred on the community at large by way of such provisions we should be promoting them and setting the standard rather than gasping, puffing and blowing in pursuit of public opinion as we so often seem to be doing. We do not seem to be looking to the future. We do not seem to be modern in our outlook, and I seriously suggest to the Senate that this is an instance where we can exercise the sort of judgment and give the lead which the people of Australia look to us to provide. We should be able to say that we are up with modern times end even perhaps ahead of public opinion on these things. What I propose is a concept that will come to be accepted in time. My remarks have been in the nature of a general comment on the 20-year entitlement period.

Although the great minds of this country in the past have put forward the concept of national superannuation or national insurance with the object of providing some security for a person on his retirement, there are still grave deficiencies in this respect in Australia. Australia is in the situation where about only SO per cent of the members of the Australian work force - I will not argue about a few per cent here or there - belong to some sort of retirement benefit scheme, superannuation scheme or insurance cover which provides for their needs when they finish their active working lives. We must take into account the fact that the age for retirement generally is lower. Any person contemplating what he will do after he retires from active working life must have regard to increased longevity, which we have come to expect and which is confirmed by records and statistics and realise that there may be a long period at a significant time in his life, when there will be cause for great alarm as to what the future may hold.

A person who has not been able to make provision under a retirement scheme or by some other means - this situation would apply primarily to tradesmen and other members of the work force in the community who because of the wage level and other factors have not been able to obtain a cover - will find this a matter of increasing concern because, generally, people have come to expect higher living standards. It is a fact of life that when one retires from normal active employment and goes on to the social services pension - I am talking in rather general terms - there is a reduction of about 60 per cent in one’s income; the income drops to about one-third.

Senator Wright:

– Please be reminded that the purpose of this Bill is to deal with Commonwealth public servants for whom a superannuation scheme has existed since 1922.

Senator DEVITT:

– I understand that. In fact 1 have directed my main comments to that point. But after all we are dealing with the question of superannuation and retirement benefits. I am making general observations and I hope the Minister will bear with me, I think I am not being blatantly outspoken about the situation. This is a tremendously important element in any consideration of what happens to people at the end of their active working lives. I am most concerned about difficulties and economic hardship facing people in the Australian work force. They can happen to people who do not qualify under the terms of this Bill. Over the year Australia has been promised a national superannuation scheme or a national insurance scheme. This has caught the imagination of the Australian people. An undertaking to consider seriously the question of a national superannuation scheme has been a quite significant element in voting attitudes at elections. But do not let us flounder along in the rear as we seem to be doing. I put it to the Government that the time is opportune for serious consideration of this question. I want to see, as I think everybody in Australia would want to see, some scheme implemented to avoid what is happening now. At a point of time in persons’ lives incomes drop so significantly that families are having a dickens of a job to make ends meet. The serious question facing the community is: What are we going to do at the end of our working lives? As I say, the Government has quite a good reputation in relation to the Public Service and the defence forces, because well over 70 per cent - what is the figure?

Senator Wright:

– Five-sevenths.

Senator DEVITT:

– No, I am not talking about the subvention. I am talking about the proportion of Commonwealth public servants who are covered by a pension entitlement of some kind. I am concerned about members of the Australian work force who have no such cover. We favour the propositions which are before us. We believe that they will significantly help in a situation about which we have all been concerned. One may be critical of the fact that it has taken so long to reach this point. 1 come back to what I said about huffing and puffing in the rear of public opinion all the time rather than being up with it or being a trend setter. I remind the Senate that during the Committee stage I shall be moving for a reducion of the qualifying period. My Party wants that period reduced from 20 years to 10 years.

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK (Victoria) (12.45) - I want to raise 2 or 3 points on behalf of a group of Commonwealth public servants who are affected by the Superannuation Bill. I ask the Minister for Works (Senator Wright) to be kind enough to reply to me in relation to the matters 1 raise. The group on whose behalf I am concerned consists of scientists employed by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. I suppose a scientist does not become effective until he is between the ages of 27 and 35. He may be employed by the CSIRO on a research project at the age of 30. He has no portability of his pension until he is 50. If I am generous, I could say that the years between 30 and 40 are when he does his most effective research work and perhaps makes discoveries of great importance. The rest of his work is, therefore, a corpus of knowledge which he has attained as a result of his scientific research and discoveries. He may wish to, and properly should, move into the area of applied research by going into industry so that industry can benefit directly from the knowledge he has gained as a scientist inside CSIRO, and as a scientist in the Government service. Indeed, science is valueless unless it is carried into the area of applied research. Therefore the officers of CSIRO quite properly consider that the qualifying period for portability of their superannuation . should be reduced from 20 years to 10 years. I have heard no rational explanation from any Minister as to why it should be 20 years.

For the benefit of honourable senators I will now quote some statistics. In Belguim - there is no law relating to this but it is compulsory in insured schemes - the qualifying period for portability is 5 years, in Canada it is 10 years, in Denmark 5 years, in Finland immediately, in France immediately, in the Netherlands 5 years, in Norway immediately, in Sweden immediately and the United States, South Africa and West German governments are currently considering the period of 10 years. In Victoria, which is one of the most, if not the most, advanced States in Australia, the qualifying period for portability is 10 years. There has been no rational explanation offered to me as to why, particularly for scientists, the Commonwealth Government should not make the qualifying period for portability 10 years. If CSIRO is to be an effective instrument of technology in Australia, we must to a maximum degree encourage scientists to use their knowledge in applied science. The Organisation is one of the breeding grounds of scientists and they should’ be able to move out of it, certainly at the age of 40 years when they have an effective life in applied science still in front of them, into the area of private industry. When they do so they should be able to carry their superannuation rights with them. I would like the Minister to reply to the matters I have raised.

Senator LITTLE:
Victoria

– The Australian Democratic Labor Party is interested in the subject which was raised by Senator Sir Magnus Cormack and, indeed, has had talks with the people employed as scientists in the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. We agree with their contention, not so much because they should be able to move out into private employment but because they should be allowed to broaden their knowledge and so be of more value to the community. They should be able to broaden their experience in other areas of scientific research, and they should not be tied by a superannuation scheme to any one job. We take this argument even a step further and say that the general application of this idea would be good.

There is no real value in a superannuation scheme that, because of the threat of lack of portability, ties a person against his will, to a job with which he has become disenchanted or dissatisfied when he wishes to try to move into some other area. It is far better in our view to allow such an employee to move into the other area. Ho may come back to his former employment quite satisfied and revitalised. Surely this is better than having somebody with a chip on his shoulder because he had to wait another 10 years before he could take his superannuation rights with him into some other area of employment in the same field which has become perhaps more attractive to him. For this reason, although we have had little chance to examine the full effect of the proposed amendments, we feel very much disposed to the point of view that 10 years is a much more suitable period than 20 years which has up to now been quite acceptable to the community in general. These schemes are somewhat modern in origin but there is no reason why we cannot find areas of improvement. We think that reducing the qualifying period would be a very great improvement to the Bill.

One aspect I notice in the Superannuation Bill has come as quite a surprise to me; I do not know whether it has to other honourable senators. I had no difficulty in reading these Bills in toto. I see that the Superannuation Bill refers even to ourselves. Proposed new section 119a (2.) states:

For the purposes of this Part, the membership by a person of a House of the Parliament of the Commonwealth or of a State shall be treated as if it were employment of the person by the Commonwealth or by that State, as the case may be.

As the Minister and his advisers would be much closer to this Bill than 1 am, l should like him to explain to honourable senators just what are the implications in that clause of the Bill. Does it mean that at last there is portability between the parliamentary retiring funds of State and Commonwealth parliaments or between the various State parliaments? Lack of portability between parliamentary retirement funds has acted to the detriment of individuals over a long period of time. Some people serve in both the Commonwealth and State parliaments. Indeed, some years ago because of a recount in an election in Queensland, a man who was known to me was debarred from receiving the benefits of a parliamentary retirement fund, although he had served for a period in both the Commonwealth and the State parliaments. I think everybody would agree that he was justly entitled to at least some benefits from the contributions which he had made to both parliamentary retirement funds; but this was not the case because his service had been mixed between both the State and Federal parliaments.

This man appeared to have won a vital seat in an election, and if he had taken his seat in the parliament he would have served the necessary period to become eligible to receive the benefits of the parliamentary retirement fund. But on a recount it was found that he had not won the seat, so he lost his chance to qualify for the benefits of the parliamentary retirement fund, although he had nearly reached the qualifying period for eligibility in both the Commonwealth and State parliaments. It is possible that somebody has served periods of 7) years in both Commonwealth and State parliaments, accumulating a total service of IS years in the service of the nation, but has still failed to qualify to receive any benefits from a parliamentary retirement fund, other than a refund of his contributions. Being a member of parliament is a particularity hazardous occupation, as far as permanency is concerned. So I should like the Minister, through his advisers, to give us some clarification of what is meant in proposed new section 11 9a (2.).

Senator PROWSE:
Western Australia

– I wish to comment on the Superannuation Bill in as brief a way as possible. The Bill stems from a study made of the question of portability and pensions by Sir Leslie Melville in 1967. It was introduced into the House of Representatives last year and quite recently very substantial amendments were made to it. I find that proposed new section 119a under Part XA is a very lengthy insertion into the Bill. It contains long and difficult clauses. I think they are difficult for a layman to read and to interpret. Because of the complexity of the Bill, I believe that considerable anomalies and difficulties will arise in its interpretation.

This matter has been brought to my attention by a friend who gave me some instances which illustrate that there are grave doubts about the meaning of certain clauses of the Bill, whether in fact the Bill as written will achieve the purpose of giving this right of portability of pensions to public servants and others, and whether they will in all instances enjoy the freedom of movement which it is suggested is the purpose behind the Government’s move in introducing the Bill. One case is that of an officer who had completed 16 years in the Commonwealth service and who was for 4 years on the senior academic staff of an Australian university. As an employee of the university he was a member of a superannuation scheme established by the university. The officer wishes to move to a more senior academic post in a university, but because of grave doubts whether the scope and application of the proposed legislation will preserve his accumulated superannuation rights the officer is remaining in the Commonwealth service. Thus the community, the university and the person concerned have to forego the great advantage which the Government intended should be achieved by this legislation. If, at this stage, this is the observation of an officer who is concerned and who has read the Bill as carefully as he can and has this doubt in his mind, surely the Government should be prepared to examine the machinery of the legislation as it goes into operation.

I believe that in the other place there was a suggestion that in about 2 years’ time, the Government might be prepared to consider amendments. I trust that the Minister for Works (Senator Wright) can assure us that the Government will not wait that long if amendments are found necessary and that it will proceed as found desirable to rectify shortcomings or anomalies if they are shown to exist in the legislation. I have further notes, which I will leave with the Minister because I do not want to delay the Senate at this time, but I trust that he can give an assurance that the Government will continue to try to make this Bill achieve the purpose that it sets out to achieve.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It is not my intention to speak at length on this Bill because I think the case on behalf of the Opposition has been put very capably by my colleague, Senator Devitt. I believe that the Senate should give serious consideration to the amendment that has been foreshadowed by my colleague - namely, that the portability provision should apply after 10 years’ service rather than after 20 years’ service, as is the Government’s present proposal. The Bill is of great import ance not only to Commonwealth and State public servants but also to others who are contributing to private superannuation schemes. Commonwealth public servants might wish to change employment and thus have to contribute to private schemes or, on the other hand, private citizens might wish to enter the Commonwealth Public Service and thus have to contribute to the Commonwealth scheme. I draw the attention of the Minister for Works (Senator Wright) to what appear to me to be 2 deficiencies in the present Act. I refer the Minister to proposed new section 1 19r which states:

The Treasurer may, by instrument under his hand published in the Gazette, declare a superannuation scheme specified in the instrument to be an eligible superannuation scheme for the purposes of this Division.

From my perusal of the legislation, there is no definition in the Act or the Bill of what an eligible superannuation scheme is. As far as I can see, the only obligation is for the Treasurer to publish in the Commonwealth Gazette the names of the eligible schemes that he declares. I believe that this will be a great bar to portability for many Commonwealth public servants. As I see it, many public servants, when negotiating to move from Commonwealth employment to other employment, will be completely in the dark as to whether in that second field of employment, where there is a superannuation scheme, they will be allowed to carry with them their superannuation entitlements. I suggest to the Minister that guidelines should be laid down and published so that officers of the Commonwealth, when considering whether they want to transfer to other employment, can weigh in their minds and take into account the benefits or otherwise that might accrue if and when they decide to change their employment. I also refer the Minister along the same lines to proposed new section 119q, which states: (1.) The Treasurer may, by instrument under his hand published in the ‘Gazette’, declare employment, whether within or outside Australia, by a person, or by persons included in a class of persons, specified in the instrument to be public employment for the purposes of this Division.

As I see it, within the Bill there is no definition of ‘public employment’. I ask the Minister to explain whether ‘public employment’ would rope in and take into account the various local government superannuation schemes. Does it mean that Commonwealth-

Senator Wright:

– Is the honourable senator not considering employment outside Australia?

Senator DOUGLAS MCCLELLANDNo. The proposed new section refers to employment both within Australia and outside Australia, lt refers to public employment but there is no definition in the Bill of the term ‘public employment’. Whilst public employment is understood to mean employment wilh State instrumentalities, docs it include employment also with local government organisations and public utilities? Does it include employment in hospitals and organisations of that nature? There is great room for further consideration of this Bill. As the Australian Commonwealth Officers Association has said, the real worth of the preservation legislation is unknown and the rights of contributors cannot be ascertained with any degree of certainty. Too much administrative discretion rests with the Federal Treasurer. This is a very vital matter affecting, not only some 500,000 Commonwealth public servants, but also many hundreds of thousands of other Australians who operate under State superannuation schemes, local government authority superannuation schemes and private superannuation schemes. This Bill certainly is an attempt to bring about some portability at long last, and in that respect we support it, but we believe that the period of 20 years service as laid down in the present Bill is far too restrictive to enable effective portability to take place. We therefore say that the Bill should be amended to provide for portability to take place after 1 0 years service.

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– in reply - In dealing with these 2 Bills, the Superannuation Bill and the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Bill, we have been reminded by those who have spoken in the Senate that the 2 Bills have a joint purpose, that is, to enable officers either coming to or going from these schemes to carry with them certain rights with regard to superannuation. The terms upon which those rights can accompany the officer in and out of the Public Service are sufficiently set forth in the second reading speech and in the legislation, and there is no need for me to canvass them again. But there are one or two matters that I have been invited to comment on by speakers who have addressed the Senate. I refer first of all to the reference by Senator Sir Magnus Cormack to the scientific officers of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and his query as to why there should not accrue to them a transfer value or a deferred benefit on going out of the service without having served for 20 years.

Senator Devitt:

– He gave that as an instance to illustrate his general proposition that it ought to match schemes in other parts of the world.

Senator WRIGHT:

– 1 did not understand that to be so. If I am in error I will be corrected by Senator Sir Magnus Cormack. I understand his query to be on behalf of a specific section of Commonwealth employees, namely, scientists in the CSIRO. The point I want to make quite firmly is that they may have special factors that affect them. What has to be realised is that the Opposition’s amendment would reduce the 20-year qualifying period to 10 years not only in the case of scientists but in the case of all public servants. I wish to be quite brief and as clear as possible in my reply.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– What applies to one group also applies to another, such as engineers.

Senator WRIGHT:

– It may apply with equal force to engineers but to say that it applies generally to clerks and typists and all the other classifications in the Public Service is a proposition too universal to accept on the consideration that has been given by the interjector or by me. If I may now continue my reply to Senator Sir Magnus Cormack, I wanted to say that whereas some special features may apply to scientists - one would readily agree with the honourable senator’s suggestion that until the scientists reaches the age of 30 to 35 years he has probably not pursued his research to the degree where he is fully competent for applied science - the very reason why superannuation is given, a reason that has been maintained without exception until this Bill was introduced, is to maintain that degree of confidence in the relationship of service that would induce the officer to go on giving service during the employment part of his life. If we employ a scientist during the time he is qualifying himself for fully useful service by way of research, that is just the time when it is quite fair that he should go to other employment if he so wishes. But it is not fair that we should provide advantages for him out of the public treasury; that having been employed throughout the period of research he should then go with a purse full of superannuation from the Treasury to private employment, taking with him his research and his superannuation, and by his research entitle himself to the enhanced emoluments of outside service.

The reason why the Bill provides for a 20-year qualifying service is to prevent too great an exodus of experienced and specialist public servants from the Commonwealth service and weakening it to such a degree that it would not be as efficient as formerly. That is the principle involved. 1 have listened with great interest to Senator Sir Magnus Cormack’s references to other countries. Nobody would expect me to accept them on a brief statement without an examination, firstly, of the social services in which they are embedded and, secondly, of the superannuation schemes of which they form part.

Senator Little and Senator Devitt put forward the proposition that the general period of qualification should be reduced from 20 years to 10 years. I do not think anybody would agree with the proposition, except in special circumstances, that the Public Service should suffer an undue weakening by having no qualifying period for the outgoing officer who takes his full superannuation entitlement with him. There may be special circumstances in the case of scientists, engineers and other specialists, but to make it a general proposition would be to damage the whole Public Service to such a degree that instead of superannuation fulfilling the purpose for which it was provided, it would fulfil the contrary purpose. My colleague, Senator Prowse, rose to draw attention to the complexity of the legislation both in its statement in the speeches and in the text of the Act. No-one would agree with him more readily than I. Without the assistance of officers of the Department, I would not pretend to understand any one clause. But when he asks whether the Government would adopt a reviewing attitude to the legislation earlier than after the lapse of a 2-year period, I would reply that I would be very surprised indeed if the Government would not be ready to consider any amendment in regard to individual anomalies which may crop up at any time. I would be very surprised indeed if the Government would not stand ready to make amendments to the legislation at any time, even if it be at more frequent intervals than 2 years, although it is stated that from experience it is considered that 2 years is a reasonable time to allow to pass before undertaking a really general review of how the Act is working in fulfilling its purposes.

Senator Douglas McClelland directed attention to 2 aspects of the legislation. One aspect was in regard to the expression eligible scheme’ which is to be identified by a written declaration of the Treasurer in the ‘Gazette’. It is quite obvious that when it is intended to pay out benefits that have accrued in a scheme it is essential that the terms of those other schemes be considered to see whether the rights that accrue to an incoming officer are acceptable under the Public Service superannuation scheme. That is not only essential from the point of view of the protection of the public interest, but it is also essential from the point of view of the protection of the interest of the superannuation fund member in his fund.

In regard to the question of public employment to which Senator Douglas McClelland also referred, I would like to say this: Public employment is not defined but the Bills provide that the Treasurer may by instrument under his hand published in the ‘Gazette’ declare employment by a person or persons specified in the instrument to be public employment. Generally, the declaration for public employment will include a wide range of full time employment in the public sector such as:

  1. Employment by the Commonwealth;

I do not need to give details of that;

  1. Employment by the States.

I need not enumerate their instrumentalities.

  1. Employment by Territories of the Commonwealth;
  2. Employment by bodies corporate established by or under laws of the Commonwealth (or a Territory) or a State; included will be employment by such bodies as statutory authorities under Commonwealth-State laws, the Joint Coal Board, universities and local government authorities such as municipal councils, county councils and shire councils.
  3. Employment by incorporated bodies in which the Commonwealth (or Territory) or a State has a controlling interest - Included in this group will be: Qantas and Commonwealth Hostels.
  4. For persons employed under the High Commissioners’ Act who contribute under the Superannuation Act, employment by the United Kingdom Government or in Bodies Corporate established by United Kingdom laws will also be public employment.

I thank the Senate for giving its attention to the Bill so briefly and concisely. I now ask the Senate to give its support to the Bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator DEVITT:
Tasmania

– I propose to move my requests for amendment en bloc.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– Is the Committee agreeable to that course being followed? There being no objection, we will proceed in that way.

Senator DEVITT:

– The amendments refer to clause 20, which reads, in part:

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

Part Xa. - Preservation of Rights of Certain Contributors and Former Contributors. 1l9w. - (1.) Where a person makes an election under section one hundred and nineteen u of this Act and -

he becomes employed in public employment within the period that is the prescribed period in relation to him but a transfer value is not payable in respect of him under the last preceding section; or

he does not become employed in public employment within that period but at the time when he ceased to be a contributor to the Fund or to the Provident Account he had completed twenty years’ eligible employment, deferred benefits are, subject to this Division, applicable in respect of the person. (2.) Subject to section one hundred and nineteen zb of this Act, deferred benefits that are applicablein respect of a person become payable on the day immediately following the earliest of the following dates: -

where the Board is satisfied that the person has, by reason of invalidity or of physical or mental incapacity, become incapable (otherwise than temporarily) of performing duties of a kind suitable to be performed by him having regard to the duties performed by him in the employment in which he was employed immediately before he ceased to be a contributor to the Fund or to the Provident Account and the duties performed by him in employment (if any) in which he was employed after he ceased to be such a contributor -

if, at the date that the Board is satisfied was the date on which he became so incapable, he was not employed in public employment - that date; or

if, at that date, he was employed in public employment - the date on which that public employment terminates;

if-

at the date of his death he was employed in public employment or had completed twenty years’ elibible employment; or

at that date he was over the age of sixty years and, at the date when he attained that age, he was employed in public employment, the date of his death;

if the person, by notice in writing given to the Board, selects a date for the commencement of the payment of the deferred benefits, being a date not earlier than the date on which he attains the age of sixty years or the date on which the notice is given - the date so selected; and

the date on which the person attains the age of sixty-five years. (3.) Paragraph (a) of the last preceding subsection does not apply in relation to a person unless -

at the date that the Board is satisfied was the date on which he became incapable of performing the duties referred to in that paragraph, he was employed in public employment or had completed twenty years’ eligible employment; or

at that date he was over the age of sixty years and, at the date when he attained that age, he was employed in public employment. (4.) For the purposes of the last two preceding sub-sections, a period of public employment in which a person became employed after he ceased to be a contributor to the Fund or to the Provident Account shall be deemed to be a period of eligible employment of the person. (5.) Deferred benefits are not payable unless -

an application in writing has been made to the Board requesting payment of the benefits; and

the applicant has furnished to the Board any information that is necessary to enable the Board to determine whether the benefits are payable. (6.) Subject to the next two succeeding subsections, where a person in relation to whom paragraph (a) of sub-section (1.) of this section applies and who, at the time when he ceased to be a contributor to the Fund or to the Provident Account, had not completed twenty years’ eligible employment ceases to be employed in public employment before he attains the age of sixty years and the deferred benefits applicable in respect of him have not become payable under subsection (2.) of this section, then -

if a deferred benefit by way of a pension has previously been paid to him by reason of paragraph (a) of sub-section (2.) of this section - the deferred benefits that were applicable in respect of him cease to be so applicable; or

in any other case - those deferred benefits cease to be applicable in respect of him but this Act has effect in relation to him as if the election by him under section one hundred and nineteen v of this Act had not been made. (7.) The last preceding sub-section does not apply in relation to a person if the sum of the periods of eligible employment in which the person has been employed and the period of the public employment in which he was employed after he ceased to be a contributor to the Fund or to the Provident Account, as the case may be, is not less than twenty years. (8.) In the aplication of section eighty-five of this Act to a person to whom paragraph (b) of subsection (6.) of this section applies, the period in respect of which the compound interest referred to in that section is payable includes the period that commenced on the day after the person ceased to be employed in public employment. 119x. - (1.) Subject to paragraph (b) of subsection (6.) of the last preceding section, where either of the last two preceding sections applies in relation to a person, any benefit that, but for this Division, would be payable to or in respect of the person under this Act by reason of his resignation or discharge is not payable except where that benefit is payable by virtue of the operation of this Division.

Where-

a payment has been made under section eighty-five of this Act to a person who has ceased to be a contributor to the Fund or to the Provident Account; and

after the payment was made, the person makes an election under section one hundred and nineteen u of this Act, the election does not have any effect unless an amount equal to the amount of the payment is paid to the Fund or to the Provident Account, as the case may be, within seven days after the date of the election or within such further period as the Board in special circumstances allows. 119y. - (1.) Where a person (other than a person who, at the time when he ceased to be a contri- butor to the Fund or to the Provident Account, had completed twenty years’ eligible employment) who has made an election under section one hundred and nineteen u of this Act (not being an election that the person became entitled to make by reason of the operation of sub-paragraph (ii) of paragraph (b) of sub-section (1.) of that section) is not employed in public employment at the expiration of the period that is the prescribed period in relation to him, then, unless -

the sum of the periods of eligible employment in which he has been employed and the period of public employment (if any) in which he was employed during that prescribed period was not less than twenty years;

I move:

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendments:

In proposed section119w (1.) (b), leave out twenty’, insert ‘ten’.

In proposed section 119w (2.) (b), leave out twenty’, insert ‘ten’.

In proposed section119w (3.) (a), leave out twenty’, insert ‘ten’.

In proposed section 119w (6.), leave out twenty’, insert ‘ten’.

In proposed section119w (7.), leave out twenty’, insert ‘ten’.

In proposed section 119Y (1.), leave out twenty’, insert ‘ten’.

In proposed section 119y (1.) (a), leave out twenty’, insert ‘ten’.

I want to make some comments on the motion, because the Minister for Works (Senator Wright) devoted a good deal of time during his reply at the second reading stage to the 20-year period of eligibility. What we are proposing is that a request be made for an amendment. The Senate cannot move an amendment because sums of money would be involved in any reduction of the eligibility period to 10 years, as many more people would be entitled to benefits.

I took it that one of Senator Wright’s principal objections to any freeing up of this provision was that it could lead to a loss of valuable people from the Commonwealth Public Service. Surely portability cuts both ways. Surely it is a question of a person going to the position where his talents can command the best return to him. If the Commonwealth Public Service provides these sorts of conditions, surely with the portability that will be provided by this measure people will move from other areas of employment into the Commonwealth service to fill any gap that might occur. I think that the Minister’s objection lacks any real substance, and I ask honourable senators to dismiss it from their consideration. I turn to what was said on behalf of the Australian Democratic Labor Party by Senator Little, who supported this reduction.

Senator Little:

– In relation to scientists employed by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation.

Senator DEVITT:

– The honourable senator mentioned the CSIRO. He also mentioned that he was in some doubt about some other provisions in the measure. I see no provision in the measure which would accommodate the honourable senator’s proposition. In view of all the circumstances, and as my amendments will be in the form of requests if agreed to, I can see no reason why the Democratic Labor Party should not support my motion. The only deduction that I will be able to make if the DLP takes the opposite view when voting on my amendment will be that that Party is putting the interests of the Parliament ahead of the interests of the people whom this Bill sets out to help. To do that would be to put the cart before the horse. This Parliament is here to work in the interests of the people and if necessary we should bring back the House of Representatives to consider the matter. Therefore I dismiss as a valid argument what has been said by the DLP in support of the Government’s proposition. 1 would also like to allude to the observations that were made by Senator Sir Magnus Cormack about this matter. In many parts of the world eligibility commences after 10 years of service and in many instances before 10 years, even sometimes immediately. So I cannot accept as valid the argument that merely because we have raised this issue in this chamber at this time the Government has not had an opportunity to have a look at the whole ramifications of the scheme.

Senator Wright:

– The whole question has been examined most thoroughly.

Senator DEVITT:

– That is right. So there is no excuse for the Government to say that it has not had an opportunity to consider the implications and ramifications of our proposition and to say that it ought not to do what other countries have considered to be the correct practice, that is, to reduce the period of eligibility.

My amendment relates to the Superannuation Bill. The arguments I have put forward in respect of this Bill apply equally to the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Bill. I do not propose to speak on that Bill. I shall merely submit my amendment to the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Bill to a vote in due course.

Senator Little:

– Mr Temporary Chairman

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Sir Magnus Cormack:
VICTORIA

– The Bill before the Committee is an amending Bill. Should the Committee proceed to carry the amendments as outlined and circulated they become requests to the House of Representatives. If they become requests to the House of Representatives they come into the constitutional area where the Senate may not amend proposed laws imposing taxation or proposed laws appropriating revenue or moneys for the ordinary annual services of the Government in such a way as to increase the proposed burden or charge on the people. I put the amendments as circulated to the Committee. 1 put the question: That the request be agreed to. AH those in favour say aye, those against say no. Is a division required?

Senator Little:

– Mr Temporary Chairman, I rose to speak on this question. I thought you were only explaining the position to the Committee, but then you proceeded to put the question.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– My remarks related to the proposition before the Committee and were made for the purpose of enlarging the minds of honourable senators before they voted.

Senator Little:

– I wish to speak to the amendment.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– I call Senator Little.

Senator LITTLE:
Victoria

– The Democratic Labor Party has considered this legislation from the point of view of the representations that were made to us and, we presume, to the Government. Obviously they were made to Senator Sir Magnus Cormack, if not to the Government as a whole. In relation to the specific area which we examined we thought there was a very good case. The amendments moved by the Australian Labor Party were distributed only this morning and we have not had an opportunity to examine in depth what they would mean if they were applied to the whole measure now before the Committee. The Bill will improve portability, although the qualifying period is far too long. Because the measure improves portability we are in favour of it and are not prepared to reject it at this stage or even to delay its passage. The legislation can be very important to many people immediately. Before agreeing to the Labor Party’s amendments we would need to have more time to consider the effect of their insertion ‘in the Bill and to know what a reduction of the qualifying period would mean to all Commonwealth employees. We are not in the habit of making hasty decisions on matters that are of importance. Had we been informed of this proposition even 24 hours ago we would have had some opportunity to examine it. We have not been able to examine it and for that reason we are not prepared to accept it at face value merely because it happens to coincide with our view on one section of the Public Service. We have made that view known to the Minister and to the Government. We are encouraged by the fact that obviously the view is supported by at least one Government supporter, Senator Sir Magnus Cormack. I believe that if the Government investigates this question of portability it will find that in other parts of the world scientists and other people engaged in highly technical fields have a lower qualifying period for portability than is prescribed in this legislation. We look forward to the Government putting this right at some future date.

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– I rise merely for the purpose of making clear that the qualifying period of 20 years or 10 years applies only in the case of a Commonwealth servant who goes out to private industry. It has no application to a Commonwealth servant who goes out to some other Commonwealth service, to a State service or into other public employment. I repeat that it applies only to private industry. In those circumstances it is considered that in its application to the whole of the Service the reduction of the period from 20 years to 10 years could involve the Commonwealth in a one-way traffic risk. It is for that reason that the requests moved by Senator Devitt are opposed by the Government.

Question put -

That the requests (Senator Devitt’s) be agreed to.

The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Senator Sir Magnus Cormack)

AYES: 19

NOES: 23

Majority . . . . 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Requests for amendments negatived.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

Bill (on motion by Senator Wright) read a third time.

page 2183

DEFENCE FORCES RETIREMENT BENEFITS BILL 1971

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 12 May (vide page 1744), on motion by Senator Wright:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator DEVITT:
Tasmania

– I have circulated 8 requests for amendments to this Bill. They relate to clause 7, which reads in part:

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

Past Vic. - Preservation of Rights of Certain Members and Former Members. * * * 82zb. - (1.) Where a person makes an election under section eighty-two z of this Act and -

he becomes employed in public employment within the period that is the prescribed period in relation to him but a transfer value is not payable in respect of him under the last preceding section; or

he does not become employed in public employment within that period but at the time when he ceased to be a member he had completed twenty years’ eligible employment or had attained the age of sixty years, deferred benefits are, subject to this Division, applicable in respect of the person. (2.) Subject to section eighty-two ZG of this Act, deferred benefits that are applicable in respect of a person are payable as from the day immediately following the earliest of the following dates: -

where the Board is satisfied that the person has, by reason of invalidity or of physical or mental incapacity, become incapable (otherwise than temporarily), at a time when he was employed in public employment or after he had completed twenty years’ eligible employment, of performing duties of a kind suitable to be performed by him having regard to the duties performed by him in the employment in which he was employed immediately before he ceased to be a member and the duties performed by him in employment (if any) in which he was employed after he ceased to be a member -

if, at the date that the Board is satisfied was the date on which he became so incapable, he was not employed in public employment - that date; or

if, at that date, he was employed in public employment - the date on which that public employment terminates;

if, at the date of his death, he was employed in public employment or had completed twenty years’ eligible employment - that date; (3.) For the purposes of the application of paragraphs (c) and (d) of the last preceding sub-section in relation to a person, the following periods are periods of service for pension: -

a period of service of the person as a member that would be a period of service for pension apart from this Division;

a period of public employment in which the person was employed after he ceased to be a member; and

a period occurring after the person has completed twenty years’ eligible employment. (4.) For the purposes of the last two preceding sub-sections, a period of public employment in which a person became employed after he ceased to be a member shall be deemed to be a period of eligible employment of the person. (5.) Deferred benefits are not payable unless -

an application in writing has been made to the Board requesting payment of the benefits; and

the applicant has furnished to the Board any information that is necessary to enable the ‘Board to determine whether the benefits are payable. (6.) Subject to the next two succeeding subsections, where a person in relation to whom paragraph (a) of sub-section (1.) of this section applies and who, at the time when he ceased to be a member, had not completed twenty years’ eligible employment ceases to be employed in public employment and the deferred benefits applicable in respect of him have not become payable under sub-section (2.) of this section, dien, those deferred benefits cease to be applicable in respect of him but this Act has effect in relation to him as if the election by him under section eighty-two z of this Act had not been made. (8.) Sub-section (6.) of this section does not apply in relation to a person if the sum of the periods of eligible employment in which the person has been employed and the period of public employment in which he was employed after he ceased to be a member is not less than twenty years. 82zd. - (1.) Where a person (other than a person who, at the time when he ceased to be a member, hud completed twenty years’ eligible employment) who has made an election under section eighty-two z of this Act is not employed in public employment at the expiration of the period that is the prescribed period in relation to him, then, unless -

the sum of the periods of eligible employment in which he has been employed and the period of public employment (if any) in which he was employed during that prescribed period was not less than twenty years;

I move:

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendments:

In proposed section 82zb fi.) (b), leave out twenty’, insert ‘ten’.

In proposed section 82zb (2.) (a), leave out twenty’, insert ‘ten’.

In proposed section 82zb (2.) (b), leave out twenty’, insert ‘ten’.

In proposed section 82zb (3.) (c), leave out, twenty’, insert ‘ten’.

In proposed section 82zb (6.), leave out twenty’, insert ‘ten’.

In proposed section 82zb (8), leave out twenty’, insert ‘ten’.

In proposed section 82zd (1), leave out twenty’, insert ‘ten’.

In proposed section 82zD (1.) (a), leave out twenty’, insert ‘ten’.

Question resolved in the negative.

Requests for amendments negatived.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

Bill (on motion by Senator Wright) read a third time.

Senate adjourned at 1.32 p.m. to a date and time to be fixed.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 20 May 1971, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1971/19710520_senate_27_s48/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant