Senate
26 November 1974

29^th Parliament · 1^st Session

DEATH OF FORMER SECRETARY-GENERAL OF UNITED NATIONS
MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS
PETITIONS
- Family Law Bill
- Family Law Bill
- Family Law Bill
- Family Law Bill
RACIAL DISCRIMINATION
- Notice of Motion
QUESTION
- QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
QUESTION
- ISRAEL
QUESTION
- ISRAEL
QUESTION
- DEFENCE FORCES: RESIGNATIONS
QUESTION
- PALESTINE LIBERATION ORGANISATION
QUESTION
- PALESTINE LIBERATION ORGANISATION
QUESTION
- DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
QUESTION
- IMPORTS
DISTINGUISHED VISITOR
QUESTION
- DEFENCE SERVICE HOMES
QUESTION
- PALESTINE LIBERATION ORGANISATION
QUESTION
- TASMANIAN AIR SERVICES
QUESTION
- AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL AIRLINES COMMISSION
QUESTION
- WOOLLEN GOODS
QUESTION
- FIRST CRICKET TEST IN BRISBANE
QUESTION
- UNITED NATIONS COMMISSION: VISIT TO COCOS (KEELING) ISLANDS
QUESTION
- TASMANIAN AIR SERVICES
QUESTION
- MEAT
QUESTION
- BALTIC STATES: REPORTED REMARKS BY PRIME MINISTER
QUESTION
- BANGLADESH
QUESTION
- PALESTINE LIBERATION ORGANISATION
QUESTION
- TELEVISION STATION FOR PILBARA REGION
QUESTION
- PALESTINE LIBERATION ORGANISATION
QUESTION
- LIBERAL PARTY
QUESTION
- BEEF INDUSTRY
QUESTION
- AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY
QUESTION
- TEXTILE IMPORTS
QUESTION
- TELEVISION SEMINAR
QUESTION
- DAIRY INDUSTRY ASSISTANCE
QUESTION
- LANE COVE POST OFFICE
QUESTION
- ECONOMIC POLICY
QUESTION
- CENTRAL AUSTRALIA RAILWAY STRIKE
QUESTION
- OVERSEAS TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
QUESTION
- KING ISLAND AERODROME
QUESTION
- AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING CONTROL BOARD
QUESTION
- DEPARTMENT OF ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
QUESTION
- EMPLOYMENT OF TERTIARY STUDENTS
QUESTION
- AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING CONTROL BOARD
QUESTION
- FOUR-WHEEL DRIVE VEHICLES
QUESTION
- OFF-SHORE OIL EXPLORATION
QUESTION
- DEPARTMENT OF ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
COMPENSATION (AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES) ACT
AUSTRALIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY ELECTRICITY SUPPLY ACT
AUSTRALIAN BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES STUDY INTERIM COUNCIL
REMUNERATION BILL [No. 2] 1974
- Second Reading
LOCAL GOVERNMENT GRANTS BILL 1974
DAYS AND TIMES OF MEETING
ELECTORAL LAWS AMENDMENT BILL 1974
- Second Reading
QUEENSLAND GRANT (BUNDABERG IRRIGATION WORKS) BILL 1974
- Second Reading
QUEENSLAND GRANT (CLARE WEIR) BILL 1974
- Second Reading
QUEENSLAND GRANT (PROSERPINE FLOOD MITIGATION) BILL 1974
- Second Reading
STATES GRANTS (SCHOOLS) BILL 1974
- Second Reading
EXPORT FINANCE AND INSURANCE CORPORATION BILL 1974
- Second Reading
NORTHERN TERRITORY (STABILIZATION OF LAND PRICES) BILL 1974
- Second Reading
INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION (FURTHER PAYMENT) BILL 1974
- Second Reading
BANKING BILL 1974
- Second Reading
TAXATION ADMINISTRATION BILL 1974
- Second Reading
BILLS RETURNED FROM THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
AUSTRALIAN FILM COMMISSION BILL 1974
FAMILY LAW BILL 1974 [No. 2]
QUESTION
- JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
LIVE-STOCK SLAUGHTER LEVY BILL 1974
- Second Reading
LIVE-STOCK SLAUGHTER LEVY COLLECTION BILL 1974
- Second Reading
INCOME TAX BILL 1974
- Second Reading
INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT BILL (No. 2) 1974
- Second Reading
INCOME TAX (BEARER DEBENTURES) BILL 1974
- Second Reading
INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS) BILL 1974
- Second Reading
AIR NAVIGATION BILL 1974
- Second Reading
AIR NAVIGATION (CHARGES) BILL 1974
- Second Reading
CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL 1974
- First Reading
ADJOURNMENT
CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL 1974
- First Reading
- Second Reading
CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL (No. 2) 1974
- First Reading
- Second Reading
CUSTOMS TARIFF VALIDATION BILL (No. 2) 1974
- Second Reading
EXCISE TARIFF BILL 1974
- Second Reading
CUSTOMS BILL (No. 2) 1974
- Second Reading
FAMILY LAW BILL 1974 [No. 2]
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
- Immigration: Sergeant Gyorgy Wollmer (Question No. 32)
- Schools Commission: Recurrent Expenditure Grants (Question No. 110)
- Department of Social Security: Appointments (Question No. 197)
- Attorney-General: Distribution of Press Releases and Speeches (Question No. 263)
- Mowanjum Aboriginal Community (Question No. 267)
- Appointments: Australian Broadcasting Commission and Australian Broadcasting Control Board (Question No. 286)
- Qantas Airways Limited: Appointment of Director (Question No. 287)
- Electoral: Appointment of Labor Party Supporters (Question No. 30 1)
- Electoral: Appointment of Labor Party Supporters (Question No. 307)
- Electoral: Appointment of Labor Party Supporters (Question No. 309)
- Electoral: Appointment of Labor Party Supporters (Question No. 310)
- Regional Councils: Expenditure of Moneys (Question No. 316)
- International Labour Organisation Meeting: Mr Grenville (Question No. 332)

– The following petitions have been lodged for presentation.

Family Law Bill

To the Honourable the President, and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully sheweth:

That whereas there is before the Senate a Bill styled a Family Law Bill, in which Bill the family is in no wise seen as a basic, or even a desirable unit of society, and whereas this Bill is said to present enlightened legislation, despite its failure to recognise the importance of the family, consisting of husband, wife and where applicable children of the union, within the traditional culture of our nation, and whereas this Bill would seem to deny the concept of responsibility within the family unit,

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled shall;

Reject this Bill as unjust and irresponsible legislation, OR defer consideration of the Bill to allow the Bill to be redrafted after consultation with all sections of the community, OR if the Senators in Parliament assembled, are determined to proceed with this Bill that amendments be made to the effect that the Parliament rejects the traditional moral and social values of the Australian people, and that marriage shall be seen as a social custom within certain sections of the community, which shall be seen, within the Commonwealth of Australia, as having no constitutional or legal standing whatsoever.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Laucke.

Petition received.

Family Law Bill

To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth, by this our humble Petition respectfully showeth:

That the existing matrimonial laws in Australia are archaic, unrealistic, and cruel and so completely at variance with modern thought as to require their immediate repeal.
That there is such urgent need for reform that there must be no delay in presenting the Family Law Bill 1974 to Parliament for debate.
That the ground of Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage be the sole ground for divorce with proof of this determined by a maximum of twelve months separation.
That dissolution of marriage must come out of the legal system with people resolving their family matters between themselves according to guidelines and with assistance of a mediator. Family Courts only to be used for enforcement as a last resort.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Rae and Senator Chaney.

Petitions received.

Family Law Bill

To the Honourable, the President and members of the Senate of Australia in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That, in modern society which accepts divorce, the law of divorce should be fair to both parties. However, we are very concerned about proposals to alter the law in the Family Law Bill 1974.

The Family Law Bill, 1974 would fundamentally change the institution of marriage itself; that is all existing and future marriages.
The said Bill does not protect the legal and social rights of women and children in the family.
) The said Bill does not provide for either the training of suitable counsellors who can assist in conciliation procedures or for suitable initiatives to be taken prior to the breakdown of marriage.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that this Bill be tabled for six months and that all sections of the community be consulted on marriage, the family and the long term effects of such a Bill upon our Australian society.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Mulvihill.

Petition received.

Family Law Bill

To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth, by this our humble petition respectfully showeth:

That the inclusion in Sub-section 54 (2) of the Family Law Bill of the Clause recommended in paragraph 67 (0 (2) of the Report of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, which will allow “any fact or circumstance “to be taken into acount when considering maintenance, completely alters the whole concept of specific guidelines as now set out in Section 54, and we oppose it.
That the removal of the work “exceptional” in Subsection 92 (2) of the new Family Law Bill will result in a high level of bitter and costly litigation in ancillary matters, which the proposed sharing of costs with legal aid available, would otherwise minimise.
That judicial discretion which allows fault in Property Settlement, the usual accusations necessitating defence in custody and access matters, as well as (a) and (b) above, will result in very much the same litigation in ancillary matters as under the present iniquitous Matrimonial Causes Act.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Chaney (2 petitions) and Senator Missen.

Petitions received.

page 2706

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

Notice of Motion

Senator CAVANAGH:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP

– I give notice that on the next day of sitting, I will move:

That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to make provision with respect to the peoples of the Aboriginal race of Australia, and the race to which Torres Strait Islanders belong, for the purpose of preventing discrimination in certain respects against those peoples under laws of Queensland.

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. In view of the Minister’s continual boasting about the quality of pay and conditions in the Services, for which the previous Government was largely responsible, I ask: Does the unprecedented number of resignations of senior officers indicate that far from being a bed of roses something is seriously amiss with the defence establishment? Is this not highlighted by the impending resignations of 2 top officers in the Royal Australian Air Force? Does the Minister deny that the cause is the Government-created intrusion of non-military personnel into areas which traditionally and rightfully are the domain of trained military men? Can Australia afford such a heavy loss of its military expertise, even at a time when the Government places low priority on defence needs?

Senator BISHOP:
Postmaster-General · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– This is an important question. I will give the honourable senator the information I have in front of me but I think that after I have tendered it I should ask the Minister for Defence whether he would like to add anything to what I have said. As to the question of resignations generally, it is true that we have maintained that the attractions which the Labor Government has provided in the form of pay, defence forces retirement benefits, annual leave loadings, re-engagement bonuses and various other things have been factors which have helped to retain satisfaction among the Services. Formerly, as honourable senators will remember, pay increases and things like that were always belated. On many occasions the Senate’s Regulations and Ordinances Committee raised objections to payments that were made retrospective in order to catch up the backlag. We did a number of things to correct that situation when we first came to office.

The October figures on the resignations of officers are not yet available. 1 am told they will be out this week. I have a report from the Minister for Defence on officer resignations in September. The number of male officers resigning and leaving the service totalled 43 in September, the lowest number since April 1974 when it was 42 and the second lowest since December 1973. Twenty-two of the resignations were from officers who were eligible for a pension under the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Scheme. As to the general question of re-organisation, at this stage I can only repeat a notification which was received in a report from the Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff Committee, Admiral Sir Victor Smith, which he gave to Mr Barnard. This controversy has reached the newspapers. Of course reporters are speculating as to what is really happening. Various reasons have been given for what has leaked out to the Press. In relation to the briefing which was given to senior officers of the Services Admiral Sir Victor Smith stated:

Except for 2 officers at one or the meetings, whose questions could have been better phrased, there was a genuine interest in what Mr White and I had to say. A newspaper report thai the briefing ended in an uproar is completely false as is the allegation that grounds for courtmartial action were firmly established.

So in relation to the 2 Air Force officers, I think I should ask the Minister for Defence to reply to that question. In relation to the Chief of the Air

Staff, I understand that his 6-year contract expires in March.

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– It is 3 years.

Senator BISHOP:

– The period expires in March. I am told that he has indicated that he does not intend to seek an extension of the period. But the information I have only partly meets what Senator Drake-Brockman has requested. I shall ask Mr Barnard to give a further answer. I shall try to get it this week. In answer to the last proposition as to whether the Services are now under civilian control, I point out that recently the Department gave figures which indicated that at the top, where these matters are considered, there is a greater proportion of Service officers than there was before the reorganisation.

page 2707

QUESTION

PALESTINE LIBERATION ORGANISATION

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-I ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs: Does the Government intend formally to recognise the Palestine Liberation Organisation? If so, what is to be the basis of that recognition?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

-The Palestine Liberation Organisation is not a state. This is one problem which is flowing right across the very delicate negotiations which are going on today in the Middle East and at the United Nations. What has happened is that at last, after all this time, at Rabat the other Arab countries have recognised the PLO as the political wing. That is the situation at the moment.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– Political wing of what?

Senator WILLESEE:

– The political wing of the Palestinian people in the Arab countries. They recognise now that the PLO has the right to speak on their behalf whereas, up to now, there has never been any clear indication, as I understand it, of the various sections. This has created a vastly new situation in the Middle East. As the Senate knows, the United Nations took the unprecedented step of allowing Mr Arafat to speak there the other day. That is the situation which has developed at the moment. The PLO is not a state because at the moment it has no definable ground such as other countries have. That is the difference between that organisation and several other countries.

page 2707

QUESTION

DISTINGUISHED VISITOR

The PRESIDENT:

– I recognise the presence in the President’s Gallery of the right honourable Lord Willis of Chislehurst, a fraternal colleague from the United Kingdom House of Lords. I extend to him a welcome to the Senate and trust that his stay in this country will be a pleasant one.

page 2708

QUESTION

DEFENCE SERVICE HOMES

QUESTION

FIRST CRICKET TEST IN BRISBANE

Senator MAUNSELL:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Is it a fact that the Prime Minister will take part in the opening ceremony of the first cricket test in Brisbane? Is it also a fact that the invitation to attend was issued by the Lord Mayor of Brisbane without the approval of the Queensland Cricket Association or the Australian Cricket Board of Control?

The PRESIDENT:

-Unless the Leader of the Government in the Senate wishes to answer that question I will disallow it.

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– The question relates to a future event. 1 do not know whether the Prime Minister will take part in the ceremony. We will have to wait and see what happens. If the Prime Minister has received an invitation, no doubt he has received it and acted on it in good faith, assuming that whoever sent him the invitation was entitled to do so.

page 2710

QUESTION

UNITED NATIONS COMMISSION: VISIT TO COCOS (KEELING) ISLANDS

Senator GEORGES:
QUEENSLAND

– I draw the attention of the Minister for Foreign Affairs to a recent visit to the Cocos (Keeling) Islands by a United Nations Commission. Has the Minister seen the report of the Commission which contains some rather sweeping conclusions? If so, does the Government accept the report of that Commission?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

-The Australian statement in the Committee of Twenty-four on the report of the Visiting Mission to the Cocos Islands was delivered by the Australian representative on 12 November 1974. On 13 November the Committee of Twenty-four adopted the draft report of the Visiting Mission, endorsed its recommendations and conclusions and approved unanimously for submission to the

Fourth Committee- that is, the Trusteeship Committee- and subsequently to the Plenary of the General Assembly, a draft consensus on Cocos. The consensus notes with satisfaction the co-operation of the administering power with the Committee of Twenty-four in regard to Cocos and its willingness to receive a further Visiting Mission and draws the attention of the administering power to the conclusions and recommendations of the Visiting Mission. Although copies of the final printed version of the draft report are not yet available, copies of the Australian statement in the Committee of Twenty-four and of the draft report in its present form are available to honourable senators in the Parliamentary Library.

page 2710

QUESTION

TASMANIAN AIR SERVICES

Senator TOWNLEY:
TASMANIA

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. Is he aware of the difficulties that were caused to the people of Tasmania by the disruption of air services during the last week? Will the Minister ask the Minister for Transport to ensure in his dealings with pilots that inflammatory statements such as ‘I don’t care how long they stay out’ are not used so that common sense and reason may prevail? Should the air war freshen, will the Minister recognise the very special needs of Tasmania and ask the airlines and the pilots to maintain services to Tasmania even if there is a stoppage of services to other places?

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

-The difficulties with air services over the weekend did not affect only Tasmanians. They affected all air travellers including a Minister who was in Queensland. I am certainly not going to tell the Minister for Transport what statements he should make on matters which concern his portfolio. He will make statements which he thinks are appropriate to the occasion. Nor do I think it appropriate for him to make representations to have one section of an organisation scabbing on the decision of another organisation. We certainly would not participate in sectionalising the matter. I think the solution to the difficulties of air travellers to and from Tasmania is to ensure that a more responsible attitude is adopted in these matters so that we can reduce the incidence of strikes.

page 2710

QUESTION

MEAT

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Agriculture. I refer him to the Hansard report of the submission made by the Australian Country Party on the question of meat prices to the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Prices at hearings held in June and July 1973. Is the Minister aware that at page 281 of the Committee transcript the Country Party drew attention to the serious shortage of red meats during the preceding years? Did this situation occur during the years of the Liberal-Country Party Government? Did not the Country Party say, at page 282 of the transcript, that Australian Government policy should be designed towards, firstly, the encouragement of beef production and, secondly, the improvement of industrial health standards? Can the Minister indicate what would have happened to beef producers if the Australian Government had adopted the advice of the Country Party and whether improved production would not have worsened the plight of rural producers and even caused bankruptcy of many producers? Has there been any improvement in health standards?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– lt is true that the Australian Country Party did make a submission to the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Prices when it was inquiring into the question of meat prices and at the time did recommend an increase in beef production in Australia. Of course, it is indicative of the degree to which not only the Country Party but I believe other sections of the Australian meat industry were quite wrong in their predictions about the future of the beef industry. I recall also that the same submission stated that there was virtually no possibility of a downturn in beef prices occurring in the foreseeable future. We have seen how dramatically that market has changed. But that error in prediction was common, 1 think, to a lot of others in the community.

The more significant part of the submission of the Country Party referred to the second point raised by the honourable senator concerning industry health standards. Of course, it was under the previous Government that the decision to establish a National Animal Health Laboratory in Australia was deferred. That question was on the table of the previous Government for a long time and it would not take a decision. This Government, when it came into office, took the decision to proceed with that National Animal Health Laboratory. One would have thought that if the submission of the Country Party was sincere, it would have taken this step while it was in Government.

page 2711

QUESTION

QUESTION

BEEF INDUSTRY

Senator SCOTT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-Does the Minister for Agriculture agree that the liquidity position of beef producers is becoming increasingly serious? If so, why has the Minister withdrawn his submission to Cabinet on the provision of carry-on finance for the beef industry? ls it correct that that submission has been withdrawn because the Minister is sceptical of the principle of providing carry-on finance for the beef industry? Is the Minister in favour of the provision of carry-on finance for the beef industry, particularly for such great beef producing areas as Queensland? Does he back the unanimous Caucus Resources Committee resolution that finance should be provided? Is it correct now to assume that because of the Minister’s decision to withdraw his submission no Government action on the provision of carry-on finance for the beef industry will be made until well into next year?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-This afternoon I will be meeting representatives of the meat industry, the Australian Meat Board and my own Department to discuss the position. I will make an announcement in due course.

page 2713

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY

Senator WALSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I ask: Has he seen a report in last Thursday’s ‘Australian Financial Review’ stating that the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development estimates the economic growth rate in its 24 member countries this year will be ‘approximately zero’? Can this highly reputable forecast be reconciled with the Opposition’s tiresome assertions that economic problems are caused by the Australian Government?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– Obviously it cannot be reconciled with the Opposition’s assertions. The Opposition is falling into the error of blaming everything that happens in this country on the Government of the day. The people of Australia are well educated to the fact that there are serious international problems. Those problems have their effect in Australia. The Opposition simply will not recognise what is the plain economic reality- that the world is experiencing very great difficulties and that Australia, judged by world standards, is doing extremely well.

Senator Webster:

– Rubbish!

Senator MURPHY:

-One of the Opposition senators says: ‘Rubbish!’ The people of Australia will not accept the Opposition while the Opposition refuses to accept reality. When it starts to accept reality and to accept that the Australian Government, judged by world standards, is managing this economy very well it may start the very long process of coming back into public acceptance.

page 2713

QUESTION

TEXTILE IMPORTS

Senator BONNER:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister for Customs and Excise. I ask: Has the Government extended the powers of the Industries Assistance Commission to enable that authority to recommend the restriction of textile imports to a more normal level, say, that prevailing in 1972-73? Has the Government widened the role of inquiry by the authority to include all textile imports? If so, when is the inquiry to take place and when can the Government expect a report on which it can take action?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

-I ask the honourable senator to place the question on notice and I will give him a prompt answer.

page 2713

QUESTION

TELEVISION SEMINAR

Senator PRIMMER:
VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister for the Media: Did the Department of the Media convene an international television symposium in Sydney last week? Can the Minister say how it was received by those who attended it and what have been its results? Is it intended to hold similar seminars in the future?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

-I thought 1 told the honourable senator last week that Mr McGrane, Federal Secretary of the PREI, had put this notion to the working party. All 1 can tell the honourable senator about the situation at present is that we anticipate making a submission to Cabinet either this week or next week in which the full scope of the organisation will be set out. As soon as possible thereafter I will tell the honourable senator what Cabinet decides. A lot of the information which he seeks about the situation will be answered tonight, I think, when he is meeting the Director-General and Mr Bert Spratt who has been appointed to the proposed Postal Commission. I am sure they will give him as much information, in a public sense, if not more, than I can give him at the present time.

Senator Durack:

-I hope so.

Senator BISHOP:

-I would be interested if the honourable senator would indicate at this stage the attitude of the Opposition to the Commission and to the Vernon report. If he has a strong point of view, now would be a good time to introduce it. A debate will take place later but if he has a point of view different from that held by people in the industry it would be a good thing, I suggest, to put it to the Government.

page 2715

QUESTION

KING ISLAND AERODROME

Senator BESSELL:
TASMANIA

– I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Transport to my question on King Island aerodrome on 17 July 1974 when I asked when the aerodrome was likely to be improved so that it would be capable of taking the Argosy freighter. Will the Minister consider giving permission for this aircraft, which has about 3½ times the cargo capacity of those currently being used, to be used on an occasional basis to help overcome the seasonal shortage of space that is almost certainly to occur during the next 3 to 4 months and is in fact currently causing concern? If the Minister is prepared to allow use of this aircraft for a limited number of spaced out flights, it is anticipated that no damage would be done to the existing runways and that this method of rationalisation would remove the need for the abattoirs to close because of inability to ship and inability to hold stocks.

Senator CAVANAGH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I know that the Minister is greatly concerned about adequate transport facilities. I do not know whether any restriction is imposed on such an aircraft on infrequent occasions, but I shall take up the matter with the Minister and seek any assistance which he can give.

page 2715

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING CONTROL BOARD

Senator WEBSTER:

-Can the Minister for the Media inform the Senate whether the ViceChairman of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board, Mr J. E. Neary, holds shares in any companies having an interest or involvement in the broadcasting and entertainment media or whether any members of his immediate family hold shares in such companies as a result of recent transfers by Mr Neary or prior issue? Can the Minister also inform the Senate of the circumstances involved in the production of stage entertainment as part of Australia’s contribution to Expo ‘74 at Spokane, Washington? Was an Australian commercial production company involved in staging this entertainment? Were tenders called by the Government for this work? Is it a fact that Australian entertainers appearing at Expo ‘74 and at several other earlier international trade fairs have been provided by management agencies or production companies with which Mr Neary has been associated?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Mr Neary was appointed to the Australian Broadcasting Control Board by this Government in, I think, June 1973. At the time of his appointment he made it plain to me and to the Chairman of the Broadcasting Control Board that any interests which he had had in any companies connected with the television industry either had been disposed of by himself or were in the course of being disposed of at that time. I well recall receiving a letter, shortly after his appointment, from the Chairman of the Broadcasting Control Board stating that Mr Neary had disposed of those interests. All the arrangements for the exposition at Spokane were organised and arranged by the Department of the Special Minister of State.

I know that prior to Mr Neary’s appointment to the Broadcasting Control Board the previous Government, in relation to earlier expositions, namely at Osaka and at Montreal, had invited Mr Neary to make arrangements to provide entertainers for Australia. When Mr Neary was appointed by this Government to the Broadcasting Control Board my colleague the Special Minister of State- I think it was Senator Willesee at that time- in making the original arrangements for Spokane sought my assistance in securing the services of Mr Neary. He was made available to the Department of the Special Minister of State on an advisory basis. It was on that basis that Mr Neary ‘s services, as a member of the Broadcasting Control Board, were made available to the Department of the Special Minister of State. I know that Mr Neary went to Spokane on behalf of the Department of the Special Minister of State to make arrangements for Australian performers to take pan in that exposition. I cannot say what other arrangements were made as a result of that visit.

– Prior to his taking up office as a member and subsequently as Vice-Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board, Mr Neary in an entrepreneurial capacity at the request of the

Lord Mayor of Brisbane and also the Chairman of Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd, Mr Reg Leonard, voluntarily made his services available free, of charge to assist in the convening of the Command Performances in Brisbane and over a period of years- eight or nine years- has raised hundreds of thousands of dollars on behalf of Queensland charities. Since Mr Neary has been appointed to the Board I know that the Lord Mayor of Brisbane, Alderman Jones, and I think the Chairman of Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd, Mr Leonard, wrote to the Prime Minister asking whether he would make available the services of Mr Neary again this year for the arranging of the performers at the royal command performance. The Prime Minister referred the matter to me. I willingly acceded and the royal command performance, again held in Brisbane, this time in the presence of the Prince of Wales, was an outstanding success and I understand raised nearly a 6-figure amount for Queensland charities. I know, because it was said in my presence, that the Prince of Wales passed congratulatory remarks to Mr Neary about the outstanding value of the performance. He is an outstanding Australian.

page 2717

QUESTION

FOUR-WHEEL DRIVE VEHICLES

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– Is the Minister for Customs and Excise aware that under the Government’s revised motor vehicle manufacturing policy the cost disabilities already suffered by Australian farmers with respect to the Government’s policies will be accentuated? Is he aware that the level of duties payable on 4-wheel drive passenger vehicles will rise- bearing in mind that they are not manufactured in Australia but are imported either in a fully assembled or knocked down condition? Will the Minister consider excluding 4-wheel drive vehicles from the additional duty as a recognition of the severity of problems facing most primary producers?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– The Leader of the Australian Country Party raises the question of 4-wheel drive vehicles. Last Saturday I had a discussion with the Minister for Overseas Trade, Dr Cairns, about this matter. His suggestion to me, to which 1 acceded, was that 1 look into this question of 4-wheel drive vehicles, including the matter which the honourable senator has raised. I am doing so. Perhaps I should not say any more than that it is being looked at.

page 2717

QUESTION

OFF-SHORE OIL EXPLORATION

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

-Mr President, on 12 and 13 November I answered 2 questions relating to the seas and submerged lands litigation which were directed to me by Senator Durack. As I indicated in my answer to the first question, I was relying on my recollection and, as I indicated when answering the second question, I was not to be seen as in any way whatever expressing criticism of the High Court. It has since been drawn to my attention that the answers read together may suggest that the High Court was asked to fix a date for the hearing of the litigation this year. Such a suggestion would not accord with what 1 am informed are the facts. Counsel for the Australian Government and the States by agreement asked the Court to fix a date for hearing early next year, and suggested the month of February. I have thought it desirable to remove any misapprehension which may have arisen as a result of my previous answers.

page 2717

QUESTION

DEPARTMENT OF ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

– I wish to correct a misapprehension that may have arisen as a result of wrong information which I may have given to the Senate. In the debate on the States Grants (Aboriginal Affairs) Bill, Senator Lawrie raised the question of the hire of aircraft to bring delegates to the meeting I held with Aboriginals at Weipa. Senator Rae also raised the question on 2 1 November.

I replied that, to my knowledge, no aircraft were hired to bring delegates to the meeting I held with the Aboriginals at Weipa. At that time I stated I would make further inquiries into the matter and am now able to give honourable senators some information and correct any confusion my previous answer may have caused.

I find that the Secretary of my Department, acting within the powers I have delegated to him, approved of the availability of funds for a total of 5 charter flights to take a total of 36 people from various areas around Weipa to participate in the meeting. The total cost of these charters was of the order of $4,600. The actual flights were as follows:

As honourable senators will know, travel is very difficult in the peninsula area and often the use of charter aircraft is the only means available. On this occasion it was considered important that the real representatives of the Old Mapoon people should be present. The circumstances were that those who had moved back to Old Mapoon were seeking urgent financial assistance from the Australian Government for the improvement of their camp circumstances. I discussed the matter with the Secretary of the Department on two or three occasions and finally concluded that rather than make such assistance available without investigaion, I should first meet the people to make sure that there was a genuine desire by some of them to return to Old Mapoon and that the traditional owners of the land were prepared for those who had returned to occupy it. From this point of view the meeting was a real success. The actual arrangements for the travel of people to the meeting were of course made by the Department.

page 2718

COMPENSATION (AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES) ACT

Senator WHEELDON (Western AustraliaMinister for Repatriation and Compensation)Pursuant to section 122 of the Compensation (Australian Government Employees) Act 1971-1974 I present the third annual report of the Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation for the financial year ended 30 June 1 974.

page 2718

REMUNERATION BILL [No. 2] 1974

Motion (by Senator Sir Magnus Cormack) agreed to:

That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act relating to remuneration determined by the Remuneration Tribunal.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

Standing Orders suspended.

Second Reading

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK (Victoria) ( 12.1 8)-I move:

Mr President, I think I should make a preparatory statement before I proceed to the substantive matter of the Bill. In 1973 there was an administrative error for which I feel in part that I was responsible, or at least I should have taken some cognisance of the fact that this administrative error had occurred. Subsequently I argued the case concerning the remuneration of the Principal Parliamentary Reporter rather forcibly before the Remuneration Tribunal presided over by His Honour Mr Justice Campbell. Unfortunately, for reasons well known to honourable senators that matter was lost sight of. However, while I have been putting together my thoughts on this matter, my memory went back to a novel, written by an eminent German author in the 1930s, called ‘The Case of Sergeant Grischa’. I mention this merely to illustrate to honourable senators how an injustice can be perpetrated not because people are involved in an attempt to rectify the injustice but simply because, in the case of Sergeant Grischa, there was a power struggle between 2 elements of the great German General Staff as to whether the unfortunate Russian prisoner, Sergeant Grischa, was going to be shot. I forget who won the case in the end, but I know that in the novel Sergeant Grischa was shot.

When honourable senators are considering this Bill at the Committee stage or even at the second reading stage I would be grateful if they would not allow themselves to be involved in considerations of other matters so that in this case the Principal Parliamentary Reporter, who seems to me to be in much the same situation as Sergeant Grischa, will not be taken out on a cold morning and dealt with. I have mentioned that the purpose of this Bill is to correct a serious anomaly and to give a measure of justice in respect of the salary applicable to the position of the Principal Parliamentary Reporter, who is the Permanent Head of the Department of the Parliamentary Reporting Staff. In statute terms this office has the status of First Division, but in my experience it has never attracted the salary of a First Division Executive department. In the past the salary has been fixed by Cabinet without, I regret to say, reference to the Presiding Officers of the Parliament for advice.

The last major adjustment was made in December 1971 after a review of Second Division salaries and the Hansard chief’s salary was fixed then at $ 1 5,879, which was equivalent only to level 2 of the Second Division. It is to be noted that the top level of the Second Division is level 6, which carries a current salary of $26,880. In 1973 the office of Principal Parliamentary Reporter was included in the Schedule to the Remuneration and Allowances Act, and in the middle of that year the Campbell Tribunal determined that the salary should be $20,000. As honourable senators will recall, the Senate disapproved the whole of that determination. The result is that the salary of the Principal Parliamentary Reporter is now the fourth highest in his own Department. In other words, 3 other officers of his Department are ahead of him. If the Public Service Arbitrator grants a substantial part of the current Third Division claim for a salary increase of 33 per cent, the Principal Parliamentary Reporter will be relegated from number 4 to number 3 1 on his own departmental payroll.

The present salary structure in the reporting section of the Department of the Parliamentary Reporting Staff is as follows: The Principal Parliamentary Reporter receives $15,983. The Assistant Principal Parliamentary Reporter receives $17,776. A Staff Leader in the Department receives $16,571. A supervisor receives $14,735. A senior reporter receives $14,123. A reporter receives $13,511. The following comparison between the salary of the Commonwealth Hansard chief and those of State Hansard chiefs shows the Principal Parliamentary Reporter in second last position, $43 above the South Australian chief. The actual rates of remuneration, for much less responsibility in the State parliaments, are as follows: In Queensland the salary is $20,01 1. In Victoria it is $19,500. In New South Wales it is $18,578. In Western Australia it is $16,892. The salary of the Principal Parliamentary Reporter in the Commonwealth Parliament is below all those rates, at $ 1 5,983. In South Australia the salary is $ 1 5,940. The State Hansard chiefs do not have the same responsibilities as the Principal Parliamentary Reporter. Their parliaments are smaller numerically; their staffs are not more than one-quarter the size of the Federal staff in busy periods; their committee and conference reporting work is almost negligible compared with that of the Federal staff, which serves 31 parliamentary committees and 18 government departments; and the days and hours of sitting are demonstrably fewer in the State Houses.

These statements I make to honourable senators are matters of record and I do not intend to take up any more of the time of the Senate with statistics and details. The salary sought by this Bill is that determined by the Remuneration Tribunal, namely, $20,000 per annum. The worsening position of the Principal Parliamentary Reporter became a source of concern to me when I was President of the Senate, as I indicated earlier. For months I racked my brains to find a solution to this problem. I see in this proposed legislation the way to correct an absurdity. No doubt the holders of a number of statutory offices set out in the Schedule to the Remuneration and Allowances Act are also at a salary disadvantage in relation to their immediate deputies, but 1 feel that none could be in such an invidious position as the Principal Parliamentary Reporter of this Parliament, who is well known to every member of Parliament.

I put this proposal strongly to the Senate, convinced not only of its simple justice but also believing that Parliament owes it to a long serving and dedicated officer of this Parliament to pass this Bill. I hope that it will do so. I know that there is much that worries the Ministry and members of Parliament at the present time, but it has been the characteristic of Parliament, as I read its history, that it will often be persuaded to put aside its concern with high and mighty affairs in order to deal with an injustice that it has unconsciously perpetrated on one of its own officers. On those grounds I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Willesee) adjourned.

page 2719

LOCAL GOVERNMENT GRANTS BILL 1974

Assent reported.

page 2719

DAYS AND TIMES OF MEETING

Senator WILLESEE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Foreign Affairs · ALP

-I move:

The arguments for this motion are well known to honourable senators. If anybody has forgotten them he should look at the Hansard record over many years and he will see that this is something that happens towards the end of a session because it seems to be beyond the wit of man to stop the accumulation of legislation. The Government has a lot of legislation to put through. The reason for asking the Senate for an extension of the hours of sitting is to get as much legislation as possible through so that the Senate can adjourn at a reasonable time before Christmas. I commend the motion to the Senate.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition

– I advise that the Opposition will not support the motion at this stage. I am well aware of the reasons for it given by Senator Willesee. He is talking about sitting on Friday of this week, the following week and the week after. There is no commitment that the Senate will rise on 13 December, irrespective of what is shown on the notice paper. I understand that the Government cannot make such a commitment. If one looks at the state of the notice paper since the beginning of the Budget session one sees that last week was almost the only week in which the Senate did not pass any Bill that was presented during the week. I say this not in criticism but as a matter of fact. If the Family Law Bill, which took up 1 or 2 days, had not intruded into the debate last week I believe that when we went home at 10.30 p.m. last Thursday the notice paper would have been almost cleaned up.

I do not suppose that many honourable senators in this place bother to read what I term my weekly statistical bulletin’ which I have put out for nearly 2 years. If one examines that bulletin, it is seen that week in and week out the situation is that say, 5 Bills have been introduced and 5 Bills have been passed or that 9 Bills have been introduced and 9 Bills have been passed. If one examines the notice paper at present, apart from the Family Law Bill- which I understand will take some time to deal with- the rest of the Bills would not necessarily occupy much of the time of the Senate. It appears as though an enormous number of Bills will be coming into the Senate but all honourable senators are aware that a number of those Bills will be dealt with in cognate debates. Whilst I understand that there are perhaps another 50 or 60 Bills to come from another place, 1 imagine that we will have cognate debates so that the number of debates might be reduced to thirty.

I do not believe that sitting the extra time on Fridays is either good for us personally or good for the Senate. I do not believe we should sit the hours suggested. By doing so we would not achieve much extra. I believe that with the normal good sense and co-operation which is shown across the chamber- providing that the Government does not introduce legislation at the last minute of which we have no warning and of which there has been no time for consideration in another place- the Government ought to be able to achieve its program by our sitting the present hours. I well understand why honourable members in the other place sit longer hours. I am also well aware that in this place, whilst we have greater opportunities for speaking and greater opportunities for asking questions, we number only half of our colleagues in the other place. For all these reasons the Opposition cannot see at this stage why we ought to start sitting on Fridays. In the last week it may be fair enough to sit on the Friday in order to complete the notice paper and to ensure that we do not come back the following week. At that stage there may be a good argument for sitting longer hours. With 3 weeks to go in this sessional period I think it is far too early to decide to sit longer hours.

Question put:

That the motion (Senator Willesee’s) be agreed to.

The Senate divided. (The President- Senator the Hon. Justin O ‘Byrne)

AYES: 26

NOES: 28

Majority……. 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 2721

ELECTORAL LAWS AMENDMENT BILL 1974

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator Willesee:
Minister for Foreign Affairs · Western Australia · ALP

( 12.39)- I move:

There is a very long second reading speech to this Bill, covering 15 pages, and there are several attachments. I seek leave to incorporate the speech and the attachments in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The documents read as follows)-

This Bill is designed to introduce several reforms of a fundamental nature to the Commonwealth Electoral Act and also to make a number of fairly minor amendments of a procedural nature. It also proposes consequential amendments of the Senate Elections Act 1903-1948, the Senate Elections Act 1966 and the Representation Act 1903-1973. Taken overall, these various proposals are intended, firstly, to allow for a speedier finalisation of federal election results; secondly; improved voting facilities for electors; thirdly, the introduction of some new or changed procedures; and, fourthly, the correction of some obvious defects in the existing electoral law. Australians can be justly proud of their electoral machinery. We have not suffered the electoral malpractices common in many other countries. However, Australian governments in the past have tended to become unduly complacent, and sometimes shirked the difficulties involved in any attempt to remedy defects in our electoral practices. This Bill amounts to one of the most comprehensive attempts ever made in this direction. The Bill is therefore far more substantial than that allowed to lapse in 1971 by the coalition government.

In this second reading speech, I will be paying particular attention to those provisions which the Government regards as being of major importance. Though reference will also be made to some of the less substantial amendments, such references, of necessity, will be brief. I shall therefore now summarise the matters dealt with in the Bill as a guide to the wide-ranging scope of the proposed amendments. These include: optional preferential marking of ballot papers; printing of party affiliations of candidates on ballot papers; registration of political parties for purposes of indentification and printing of affiliations on ballot papers; introduction of mobile polling booths at hospitals and similar institutions; drawing for positions of candidates on House of Representatives ballot papers; closing of the polls at 6 p.m. rather than 8 p.m.; requiring a candidate changing his name within 12 months prior to nominations to declare the change, and providing for the former name to be included on the ballot paper; prevention of persons enrolling or nominating for election under changed names in certain circumstances; an earlier deadline for the return of postal votes and for the return of postal votes direct to respective Returning Officer; restricting postal vote application forms to be used at an election or referendum to those specified by notice in the Gazette; prohibiting the listing of names of persons who apply for postal votes, except in certain specified circumstances; providing postal voting facilities for prisoners who have retained their franchise entitlements; increasing the amount of deposit required with nomination and varying the conditions under which deposits may be saved; preservation of the voting entitlement of Australian citizens posted overseas in the service of the Crown, and retention on the roll of the name of an elector temporarily absent from his address; precluding nomination for election to the Australian Parliament of a member of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory or the Australian Capital Territory; prevention of a person from nominating as a candidate for more than one Federal election held on the same day; protection of candidates against the issue of misleading how-to-vote cards; change in qualifications for enrolment, voting and candidature from ‘British Subject’ to status of a British Subject’; eliminating the need to state the address of author in the case of broadcasting or telecasting of political matters; the manner of announcing the name of an author of political matter on radio or television; responsibility for publication of matter or comment of a political nature in the Press between issue of the writ and the close of the poll; removal of the restriction on exhibition of electoral posters within a hall or room being used for political party meetings; provision of support staff for Distribution Commissioners; authority for alterations to the roll when a street is renamed or renumbered; lowering the permissible age of Presiding Officers or Assistant Presiding Officers to 18 years; appointment of substitute Assistant Returning Officer at places outside Australia in certain circumstances; increases in penalties for failure to enrol; the provision of fines as an alternative to imprisonment where relevant; amounts of monetary penalties to match imprisonment terms; amendment of questions to be put to voters by Presiding Officers; conversion of distances to metric measurements; use of ‘given names’ in lieu of ‘Christian names’: candidates making gifts, donations etc. prior to an election; retitling of the Act.

Several of the more significant proposals contained in this Bill are intended, either in whole or in part, to enable the final result of a federal election to be known more speedily than has been possible hitherto. One such proposal relates to the introduction of optional preferential marking of ballot papers, which will result in a speedier count for Senate elections in particular. However, this intended modification to the existing exhaustive preferential voting system is also aimed at allowing electors the maximum degree of choice in exercising their democratic voting rights.

Under the existing preferential system, each voter, irrespective of his individual wishes in the matter, is compelled to rank in order of preference all the candidates on the ballot paper, whether this requires the marking of only two squares or, as was the case in the most recent Senate election in New South Wales, no less than 73. This often means that an elector, in order to record a valid vote, is compelled to express a preference for candidates whom he may not know or for whom he has an extreme dislike. Faced with this meaningless, undemocratic requirement, many electors either intentionally or unintentionally disfranchise themselves by failing to correctly mark all necessary squares on the ballot paper. Furthermore, during the scrutiny process, the time needed to check the validity of Senate ballot papers in particular causes excessive delays in finalising the result.

The existing system of preferential voting has resulted in an average informal vote of about 10 per cent at normal Senate elections. Any voting system which leads to the disfranchisement of such a large number of electors should not be tolerated. It is therefore proposed to require an elector to mark his order of preference on the ballot paper only up to the number of candidates to be elected. However, and I cannot stress this point too strongly, an elector will retain the freedom to express a preference for as many additional candidates as he pleases. Supporters of one political party who wish to exchange preferences with the supporters of another will of course still be able to do so.

As senators will appreciate, the present system involves intolerable delays in finalising the election results. To abate this situation, the Bill contains several amendments affecting postal voting, two of which merit some comment here. Firstly, it is proposed that an earlier deadline be fixed for the return of postal votes. Secondly, it is proposed that postal votes be returned direct to the relevant Returning Officer, by the elector or his agent, rather than through an Assistant Returning Officer, some other Returning Officer or a Presiding Officer as allowed under the existing law. At present, a period of 10 days’ grace after polling day is allowed for the receipt of postal votes by the relevant Returning Officer, of votes posted direct to him. This practice presents many obstacles to any attempt to speed the count, especially for Senate elections. For instance, under the proportional representation system used for the Senate, the quota for an election cannot be determined, nor can the count commence, until the exact number of formal votes cast is known. At the recent Senate elections, the precise number of formal votes was unknown until over 2 weeks after polling day. Therefore, not a single senator could be elected until about 3 weeks. after polling day. While the proposed introduction of optional preferential marking of ballot papers will speed up the counting process, especially for the Senate, this advantage would be largely lost if it remains necessary to wait for postal votes for up to 10 days after polling day. It is therefore proposed that postal votes be returned so as to reach the appropriate Returning Officer not later than the close of the poll. As far as can be ascertained, no other country allows the admission of votes returned after polling day.

This proposed legislation also takes a significant step forward in making it easier for aged and ill persons to exercise their franchise by the introduction of mobile polling booths at hospitals, rest homes and similar institutions. This reform will, at the same time, serve to minimise the possibility of the aged and infirm being subjected to unscrupulous practices on the part of over-zealous campaign workers. Current practice provides for the establishment of a polling booth at each hospital or similar institution containing 50 or more beds, where suitable arrangements can be made with the appropriate authorities. However, these booths are confined to fixed locations and, in practice, serve only staff and ambulant patients. Thus, in order to vote, patients confined to bed must at present make an application for a postal vote prior to polling day. Under the proposed reform the Presiding Officer, by arrangement with the appropriate authority at a hospital, institution or rest home, will take the ballot box from bed to bed and ward to ward. Of course, scrutineers will still be permitted to accompany polling officials.

This Bill also makes provision for votes to be recorded at specially designated hospitals and institutions before polling day itself. Thus, the past practice of party workers invading such institutions for the apparent purpose of assisting postal voters should be largely eliminated. As the Government is particularly anxious to prevent unscrupulous persons taking advantage of aged or infirm electors, it is also proposed to prohibit the inspection of postal vote applications for the purpose of listing of names of persons who applied for postal votes at an election, except where such listing is genuinely required in connection with an inquiry into possible malpractices. The Bill contains a further provision designed to eliminate the possibility of postal voting malpractices. Under a proposed provision, the only postal vote application forms which may be used at an election will be those specified or declared to be applicable by the Chief Australian Electoral Officer. This proposal is designed to curb the current dubious practice of having thousands of postal vote applications completed months in advance of the next ensuing election, then forwarding these to electors at or about the time of the issue of writs, without any precise knowledge as to whether the persons concerned are, in fact, entitled to vote by post.

Another reform contained in this Bill which I believe will be welcomed by all electors, relates to the printing of party affiliations of candidates on ballot-papers. This measure will greatly simplify the voting process for electors, especially for the recent arrivals to this country who do not know the party affiliations of many of the candidates. The Government anticipates that one of the beneficial results of the printing of such affiliations on ballot papers will be a reduction in the level of informal voting, particularly when added to the introduction of optional preferential voting. This reform will necessitate the registration of political parties and provision is made accordingly in the Bill. For the purpose of recognition as a political party under these amendments, it is proposed that a party must have candidates officially nominated for not less than one-fourth of the vacancies to be filled at the relevant election, except in the case of an election to fill a casual Senate vacancy or a by-election for the House of Representatives. In these cases, a party must have had candidates officially nominated at the immediately preceding Senate or House of Representatives election, in accordance with the formula specified.

Another long overdue reform contained in this Bill provides for the drawing for positions of candidates on the House of Representatives ballot paper. This will remove the advantage taken by certain candidates in the past of changing their names in order to get top position on the House of Representatives ballot papers. It is also proposed that persons be prevented from enrolling or nominating under changed names in certain specified circumstances. Cases occurred recently where persons have sought enrolment as A’ (without any christian name), ‘XXX’ (without any christian name) and ‘White Australia’. In one case, a person successfully enrolled as ‘HBerrill (Surname) Stop Asian Immigration Now’ (other names) and was a candidate in that name at the recent South Australian Senate election. In order to avoid further incidents of this kind, it is proposed to incorporate in the Act a provision which makes it clear that the adoption of such names, even though they may be adopted by taking formal steps under State law, will not necessarily be valid for electoral purposes. Under the provisions of the Bill a person may be nominated for election only in the name under which he is enrolled or, if he is not enrolled, in the name under which he is entitled to enrol.

I now turn to another important area awaiting reform, one which has been highlighted by the most recent elections. I refer to the amounts of deposit required to be lodged with nominations. It is proposed to increase these amounts to a level consistent with present monetary values, namely $250 for the House of Representatives and $1,000 for the Senate. Obviously, the fixing of fairly substantial deposits is required in order to keep at reasonable level the increasing proliferation of candidates which has occurred over the past decade and which reached absurd levels in May 1974, particularly for the Senate. It is hoped that the new deposit requirements will keep this proliferation of candidates within reasonable proportions, without going so far as to deprive serious intending candidates of their legitimate democratic right to present themselves for election to public office.

Let me now refer to one further proposal of some significance. It is the proposal to close the polls at 6 p.m. rather than 8 p.m. The earlier closing of the poll will permit an earlier indication on polling night of the possible result of an election and it will also ease the burden a little on the thousands of poll workers without, I believe, inconveniencing the electors. It is already the practice in Queensland to close the polls at 6 p.m. In order to prevent any possible misunderstanding, I must stress that people who, because of their religious beliefs, are precluded from voting during certain hours will retain the right to apply for postal votes.

This Bill also clarifies the circumstances under which an Australian citizen in the service of the Crown posted overseas may retain his right to vote at Federal elections. Under the existing Act, a person loses his enrolment entitlement if he ceases to live in the subdivision for which he is enrolled. This Bill now proposes that where a person, who is qualified for enrolment, is living outside Australia as a result of a posting in the service of Australia, a State or other prescribed authority, he shall, if he has a fixed intention of living in a particular subdivision when he returns to Australia, be entitled to enrol on the roll for that subdivision, and will be enrolled in respect of his overseas address.

I now refer to another aspect of the Bill which requires some clarification. At present there is doubt as to whether or not a member of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory could, without resigning his position on that body, also stand for a seat in the Australian Parliament. The Government believes that there should be no uncertainty in this matter. Therefore, just as it has been considered appropriate in the past for a member of a State legislature to be ineligible to stand for election to the Australian Parliament, so the Government considers that it should be made quite clear that a member of the legislature of an internal Territory is likewise ineligible to nominate. Accordingly, this Bill provides that no person who is at the date of nomination, or was at any time within 1 4 days prior to the date of nomination, a member of the Legislative Assembly for the Northern Territory, or for the Australian Capital Territory, shall be eligible for nomination to the Australian Parliament.

Provision is also made in this Bill to prevent a person from becoming a candidate for two or more federal elections held on the same day. At the 1 969 elections, a person stood as a candidate for the Senate election in South Australia, as well as for the House of Representatives in the Division of Hindmarsh. Although no specific debarment is included in the existing law, it was surely never intended that a person should have the right to dual nomination and an appropriate provision is embodied in this Bill.

Some concern has been expressed in the past at the possibility of a candidate assuming the name of, say, a sitting member, primarily for the purpose of gaining some political advantage at an election and thereby causing confusion in the minds of electors. This Bill therefore makes provision so that any former name of a candidate specified in the nomination paper shall be printed on the ballot-paper, in addition to the name under which the candidate is actually nominated. This will not relate to a change of name by marriage.

Another provision in this Bill deals with gifts, donations and prizes by candidates to clubs or organisations with a specified period prior to polling day. Under the existing provisions it is an offence for a candidate to make a gift or donation to, say, a club within 3 months of polling day but he could be unwittingly in breach of the law by making a gift or donation at a time which subsequently turns out to be within 3 months of polling day. To meet this situation, it is proposed to give a candidate a defence against a prosecution if he proves that, at the time when he made the gift, donation, prize etc. he believed on reasonable grounds that the polling would not be within 3 months.

Two proposals concerning the appointment of Distribution Commissioners merit a brief reference. Firstly, given that it has not always been possible to obtain the services of the SurveyorGeneral of a State or an officer having similar qualifications for the purpose of redistributing a State, it is proposed to provide that one of the Commissioners shall be a registered surveyor, which will enable greater flexibility in the selection of a surveyor. Secondly, it is proposed that provision be made for the engagement of adequate staff to assist in the work of a distribution and that the fees and allowances paid to Distribution Commissioners and other such assisting staff be determined by the Minister.

It is also proposed that the provisions relating to enrolment and nomination be amended so that the wording ‘status of a British subject’ is substituted for the term ‘British subject’. The term ‘British subject’ is not defined in the existing Act, being governed by the provisions of the Australian Citizenship Act. Following amendments to that Act in 1969, the term ‘British subject’ is obsolete for these purposes, having been replaced by the wording ‘the status of a British subject’. While a section of the Australian Citizenship Act makes it clear that that Act applies to the Electoral Act, the continued use of the term British subject’ in the Commonwealth Electoral

Act would be inappropriate and potentially confusing.

The provisions in this Bill also revise and update many of the penalties, some of which have remained unchanged since Federation. There are a number of other provisions in this Bill which are mainly procedural in nature. Taken as a whole, these measures constitute a significant updating of the Electoral Act, and will ensure that the Act becomes an even more effective instrument of electoral administration. I seek leave of the Senate to incorporate in Hansard six Tables which are relevant to the proposed amendments to the Electoral Act. These are:

Table I- Percentage of Informal Votes recorded at Senate Elections 1 949- 1 974.

Table II- Number of Candidates in each State at Senate Elections 1949-1974.

Table III- Number of Deposits forfeited by Candidates at Senate and House of Representatives Elections 1 966- 1 974.

Table IV- Number of Postal Votes admitted to the Scrutiny at the 1972 and 1974 House of Representatives Elections.

Table V- Summary of Votes for Political Parties showing the Votes recorded, Seats won and Percentages in respect of the Senate Elections held on 18 May 1974.

Table VI- Summary of Votes for Political Parties showing the Votes recorded, Seats won and Percentages in respect of the House of Representatives Elections held on 1 8 May 1 974.

I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Withers) adjourned.

page 2731

QUEENSLAND GRANT (BUNDABERG IRRIGATION WORKS) BILL 1974

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– I move:

That the Bill bc now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted?

Senator Wood:

– No.

The PRESIDENT:

– Leave is not granted.

Senator WRIEDT:

-The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Queensland Grant (Bundaberg Irrigation Works) Act 1970 to provide additional financial assistance of $4.4m to the Queensland Government towards the cost of completing certain works in phase 1 of stage 1 of the Bundaberg irrigation project. Under the 1 970 Act, a grant of $ 12.8m was provided for the construction of Monduran Dam, which will provide the main storage of the project, Gin Gin Channel and an associated pumping station which will link the Kolan River and Burnett River sections of the project. The State undertook to finance the balance of the works in phase 1 out of its own resources, involving the construction of tidal barrages on the Kolan and Burnett rivers and water distribution systems. lt became clear by mid- 1973 that the cost of the works being financed by the Australian Government would considerably exceed the funds available under the Act and the Queensland Government submitted a request for a further grant of $4.4m. The cost increase was attributed, in the main, to the unusual and rugged nature of the terrain through which Gin Gin Channel is being constructed, to the limited experience in Australia in the design and cost estimation of the pumping equipment to be installed in association with Gin Gin Channel and to substantial increases in construction site allowances which were not envisaged when estimates for the project were finalised. The general escalation in salaries, wages and construction materials also contributed to the increased cost of the works being financed by the Australian Government.

The Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation was engaged by the Department of Northern Development to advise on the revised cost estimates.

Monduran Dam will provide a storage capacity of 584,000 megalitres and provide an assured supply of water of 128,000 megalitres annually. The dam is virtually complete, Gin Gin Channel is about 60 per cent complete and the pumping station is at an advanced stage of design. The State has completed the Kolan tidal barrage, construction has commenced on the Burnett tidal barrage and one of the supply channels is likely to be in operation by the end of this year.

Over the past year, the Australian Government has undertaken a comprehensive evaluation of the whole of the Bundaberg Irrigation Project, phase 1 and phase 2. The Department of Northern Development, the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation, various State departments and the Bureau of Sugar Experiment Stations have all contributed to this evaluation. It is now nearing completion and the Australian Government will closely examine the final report. However, to ensure that the progress of phase 1 would not be held up pending the finalisation of this report, the Australian Government offered emergency assistance to the Queensland Government in April 1974 of up to $350,000 to enable the State to carry on with essential work on Gin Gin Channel. In the event, this fund was not called on because of the slackening of progress due to the unusually wet conditions. Work on the various components of phase 1 is now in full progress.

Phase 1 of the project is aimed principally at providing a surface water supply to a large number of canegrowers in order to reduce the pressure on groundwater resources to levels commensurate with the long term yield of these valuable aquifers. It will enable other canegrowers, currently with insufficient or unreliable sources of water, to stabilise production to the capacity of their sugar assignments and it will also provide water to a number of growers at present totally reliant on rainfall. In all, phase 1 will enable the stabilisation of production on 23,300 hectares, mainly under cane and will also assure a supply of about 12,500 megalitres of water annually from ground and surface sources for urban and industrial uses in Bundaberg and the neighbouring shire of Woongarra.

Phase 2 of the project has not yet been commenced. Together with phase 1, it will almost completely protect the sugar industry in the Bundaberg region against the ravages of long dry spells at critical stages of plant growth. Those familiar with the Bundaberg region will vividly recall the enormous losses sustained by the industry during the 1964, 1965 and 1969 droughts when the 6 mills in the region between them achieved only 64 per cent of their aggregate mill peak allocations. Recent seasons have been most advantageous to canegrowers throughout Australia. Seasonal conditions have been good and sugar prices, particularly during the last year, have been very high. In fact, the present London daily price is at an all-time record level of £390 sterling per ton. But the sugar industry has a long history of widely fluctuating returns from exports. In the absence of a fully effective international sugar agreement, we must secure market outlets by way of bilateral arrangements and at the same time underwrite our supply commitments by secure levels of production.

In this context, the provision of financial assistance to the Queensland Government for the construction of key elements of the Bundaberg irrigation project and for Kinchant Dam in the Mackay sugar producing region is an important aspect of our plans for the industry.

I commend this Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Cotton) adjourned.

page 2732

QUEENSLAND GRANT (CLARE WEIR) BILL 1974

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– I move:

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Devitt)- Is leave granted?

Senator Wood:

– No.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTLeave is not granted.

Senator WRIEDT:

-The purpose of this Bill is to authorise a grant of $3m to the Queensland Government towards the cost of constructing a weir on the Burdekin River near Clare in North

Queensland. The Burdekin River basin, to the south and west of Townsville, is situated in the dry tropics of northern Queensland. It is the largest undeveloped river basin in Australia close to well-developed infrastructure with an annual basin discharge estimated at 8.6 million megalitres (7 million acre feet). Only about 3.6 per cent of the total runoff is at present committed for industrial, urban and agricultural use.

Eungella Dam on the Broken River, with a storage capacity of 131,000 megalitres ( 106,000 acre feet) and Gorge and Blue Valley weirs on the Burdekin River with a combined storage of 12,600 megalitres ( 10,200 acre feet) are the only existing surface water storages in the basin and their assured yield is fully committed. In conjunction with unregulated flow in the Bowen and Burdekin river systems, the storages provide an annual water supply for irrigation in the lower Burdekin of 83,000 megalitres (67,500 acre feet) after allowance for supplies totalling 12,300 megalitres (10,000 acre feet) for Collinsville town and power station, Goonyella coal development and stock and domestic water supplies. In addition provision of part of the unregulated flow in the Burdekin is required for delta aquifer recharge by the North and South Burdekin Water Boards to maintain sugar production in the Burdekin delta.

Associated with the vast and as yet relatively undeveloped water resource is a flood plain of considerable potential for intensive agriculture. The basin possesses highly productive sugar, rice and beef cattle industries, numerous alternative storage sites on the Burdekin River and its tributaries and significant mineral deposits.

Rainfall is the major limitation to agricultural production in the area and supplementary irrigation would secure the efficient production of a large range of crops, thereby considerably enhancing the flexibility of the agricultural economy in the region. Sugar yields on the already established cane farms in the region are among the highest in the world, a long-grain rice industry has made good progress over recent years, and the potential for establishing a viable soybean industry has been demonstrated at the Millaroo Research Station under simulated commercial conditions. Other possible enterprises of economic significance are seed beans, horticulture, maize and cattle production.

The Federal-State Burdekin Project Committee, established in 1973 on the initiative of the Australian Government, is at present assessing the potential for development of resources of the basin for industrial, urban and agricultural development, for power generation and for flood mitigation. A request from the Queensland Government for financial assistance for the Urannah Dam-Clare Weir proposal was first made in 1971 and renewed to the present Government with a high order of priority. The Department of Northern Development, with assistance from State departments and the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation, carried out a comprehensive appraisal of the proposals. The economic evaluation of Clare Weir and its associated development indicates a sound return to private and public investment on the basis of conservative assumptions on commodity prices, especially in relation to the current state of the international sugar and grain markets. No unfavourable environmental consequences are expected from the Clare Weir development and the project could bring considerable improvements in social infrastructural facilities in existing smaller centres.

The development which would be based on the availability of water from Urannah Dam is still subject to further investigations and will be considered when a final report becomes available. Although the main function of Clare Weir is, at a later stage, to regulate releases from a major storage on the Burdekin River system, it is large enough to make a significant contribution to the stability of flows in the lower Burdekin River. The Clare Weir site is located on the lower Burdekin River, 5 1 kilometres- 3 1.5 miles- from the river mouth and some 8 kilometres- 5 miles- upstream from Clare. The structure is designed to minimise siltation. It will be a concrete gravity weir founded on alluvium with an upstream concrete cut-off to bedrock. Collapsible steel shutters about 2 metres in height will be installed to provide the required storage of 15,500 megalitres- 12,600 acre feet- and to allow the passage of major floods in the river. In conjunction with unregulated flows, the weir would assure a supply of some 25,000 megalitres- 20,000 acre feet- for agricultural use on some 2,000 to 3,000 hectares-5,000 to 7,500 acres.

Clare Weir is estimated to cost $3.4m and the associated pumping, reticulation, drainage and other ancillary works $ 1.2m. Escalation over the construction period would probably bring the total cost to $5. 8m. Clare Weir represents the first significant step in a partnership with the State in the development of the Burdekin Basin. While the program of studies in progress under the supervision of the Burdekin Project Committee might eventually indicate a range of development options to meet the needs of industry, agriculture, mining, etc., Clare Weir would be an essential regulatory component of any plan for using water released from a major storage on the river system for agriculture along the lower Burdekin or for reticulation to urban and industrial areas along the coast.

Clare Weir can, in fact, be rightly regarded as a pilot scheme for future development of the vast resources of the Burdekin Basin. The full development of the resources of the Burdekin Basin will be of a long-term nature with considerable national significance for industrial and regional development. It is now over 25 years since the first bold concept of a development plan for the Burdekin Basin was conceived and had the support of the Chifley Government. Clare Weir will now provide the first impetus from an Australian Government in this direction. I commend this Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Cotton) adjourned.

page 2733

QUEENSLAND GRANT (PROSERPINE FLOOD MITIGATION) BILL 1974

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

-I move:

Again I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Devitt)- Is leave granted?

Senator Wood:

– No.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTLeave is not granted.

Senator WRIEDT:

-The purpose of this Bill is to enable a grant of up to $120,000 to be made available to Queensland for the construction of urgently needed flood mitigation works on the Proserpine River. The grant is conditional upon matching expenditure being provided by the Queensland Government and the Proserpine River Improvement Trust on the basis of 40 per cent Federal, 40 per cent State and 20 per cent local authority contributions and is consistent with the Government’s overall approach to the problem of flood mitigation.

Following the extensive and disastrous floods which occurred throughout Queensland earlier this year, the Australian Government offered to undertake investigations jointly with the Queensland Government for the preparation of a State-wide plan on flood mitigation. The Australian Government’s intention was that such a plan could form the basis of consideration for financial assistance.

The Queensland Government, in responding to this approach, indicated that one of the works which was considered most urgent involved a flood mitigation scheme for the Proserpine River. In the past, landowners along the Proserpine River have constructed levee banks to protect their properties, but the capacity of the middle and lower reaches of the river are inadequate to contain even floods which are estimated to occur once every 3 years. The town of Proserpine and adjacent rural areas are therefore likely to be flooded relatively frequently and a scheme for diverting flood waters upstream of the town has been proposed. Detailed investigations of the complete scheme are still in progress and the Minister for Northern Development (Dr Patterson) has arranged for the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation to provide expert advice on the proposed scheme.

The floods of January 1974 created an urgent situation by damaging some levee banks and greatly eroding an existing natural floodwater Break-out ‘, with the result that flooding caused considerable damage to property and crops. This has created the need for urgent restoration of the damaged works before the next wet season to prevent further widespread damage from even a minor flood.

The Australian Government has considered assistance for these restoration works as a matter of urgency to facilitate construction before the next wet season. The works are already in progress and include reinstatement of the damaged levee banks and the provision of better control at the floodwater ‘break-out’, at a total estimated cost of $300,000.

This Bill will enable the Australian Government to provide funds towards the cost of construction of these urgent works. The request for further Australian Government assistance for the complete flood mitigation scheme will be considered when the detailed investigations are completed. In keeping with the Australian Government’s positive and constructive approach towards flood damage restoration and flood mitigation, financial assistance is warranted for this project. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Cotton) adjourned.

page 2734

STATES GRANTS (SCHOOLS) BILL 1974

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I move:

I seek leave to have the contents of the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Devitt)- Is leave granted?

Senator Wood:

– No.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTLeave is not granted.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-As was pointed out by my colleague, the Acting Minister for Education (Mr Barnard) when he introduced this Bill into the House of Representatives, the main purpose of the Bill before the House is to amend the States Grants (Schools) Act 1972-1973 and the States Grants (Schools) Act 1973 to increase the level of Australian Government assistance available to both government and non-government schools in Australia. At the time it introduced the 1974-75 Budget the Government announced its acceptance of the recommendations by the Schools Commission that the programs of capital and recurrent assistance available to both government and nongovernment schools under the States Grants (Schools) Acts 1972-73 and 1973 should be supplemented in recognition of the reduced purchasing power of those grants brought about by cost increases.

The report which was prepared by the Schools Commission following its investigation of the effects of educational cost increases has been made available to this House. The Commission has measured the effects of unexpectedly high cost increases in the provision of educational facilties and services in schools in Australia upon the programs of Australian Government assistance. It has recommended additional sums to be added to grants to States so as to restore the original purchasing power of these programs. The Government has accepted the Schools Commission ‘s recommendation that the funding principles and procedures set down in the report of the Interim Committee for the Australian Schools Commission, ‘Schools in Australia’ should continue to operate for the period during which the legislation giving effect to the Committee’s recommendations operates. In adopting the Commission’s current recommendation on additional grants, the Government is leaving unaltered the principles and intent incorporated in the States Grants (Schools) legislation passed by this Parliament in December 1 973.

The present legislation makes available a further $64.47 m in recurrent grants to schools and $ 14.43m in capital grants up to 31 December 1975. Of these sums government schools will receive $35.6m in recurrent grants and $1 1.83m for capital purposes. Nongovernment schools will receive an additional $23. 67m towards recurrent costs and $2.5 lm for capital expenditure. An additional $5. 29m will be added to programs which apply to both government and non-government schools.

The Government is anxious to ensure that there is no erosion of the value of the Karmel initiatives due to increases in capital costs and salaries. What has been commenced must be brought to fruition and this Bill, with its substantial increases in recurrent and capital funds, will do just this. The present legislation will ensure that the qualitative improvements which the Government sought to achieve in schools throughout Australia when it adopted the recommendations of the Karmel report, ‘Schools in Australia’, will still be achieved and as a result every child attending a primary or secondary school in this nation will benefit. 1 commend this Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Cotton) adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 1.2 to 2.15 p.m.

page 2735

EXPORT FINANCE AND INSURANCE CORPORATION BILL 1974

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– On behalf of the Minister for Agriculture (Senator Wriedt), I move:

I seek leave to incorporate my second reading speech in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted?

Senator Wood:

– No.

The PRESIDENT:

– There being dissent, leave is not granted.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-This Bill is a major step forward in the development of facilities for Australian exporters and the strengthening of our commercial relations with overseas countries, particularly developing countries and the centrally planned economies. Under this Bill, the Export Payments Insurance Corporation known as EPIC, and established under the Export Payments Insurance Corporation Act 1956-1973, will be reconstituted as the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation to operate as an export financing institution as well as a credit and investment insurer and guarantor. EPIC has acquired an enormous range of experience in this field and it is most logical that the development of a financing institution be in close association with it. In particular, the new export bank function will facilitate the provision of export finance for medium and long term credit sales of machinery and capital equipment, and the establishment of lines of credit, especially to developing countries and state trading organisations. In performing this function, the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation will supplement, not supplant, the medium and long term export financing facilities provided by existing Australian financial institutions, principally in the trading banks. In addition, the Bill proposes to broaden the eligibility criteria of the overseas investment insurance scheme and to bring Papua New Guinea within the scope of the scheme.

The Government’s decision to amend the charter of EPIC to enable it to function as an export financing institution was announced in August 1973. It is a logical extension of the successive amendments which have been made over the years to the charter of EPIC to extend and improve the range and operation of its facilities for the benefit of Australian exporters. EPIC is already combining to some extent the functions of insurer and banker in its buyer credit and guarantee operations and has considerable experience, expertise and standing in the field of international trade and finance. The ability of exporters to obtain finance for credit sales to overseas buyers, and the nature of the credit arrangements they can offer, have assumed an increasing significance in world trading in recent years, particularly in respect of machinery and capital equipment. Most industrialised countries with which Australia competes in the export of machinery and capital equipment have special government supported export finance facilities designed to ensure that their exporters have access to medium and long term credit on internationally competitive terms and conditions. There is clear evidence that significant export opportunities are being lost in this field because of the absence in Australia of export financing facilities similar to those provided in such countries as the United States of America, Canada, Japan and Britain. For some time, Australian manufacturers have emphasised that with competition in world markets becoming more intense, facilities of this kind have become essential to enable them successfully to compete in overseas markets, particularly in developing countries and centrally planned economies. These representations have been supported by EPIC, the Trade Development Council, the Heavy Engineering Manufacturers Association and other national industry organisations.

Following a detailed review of export finance facilities in Australia and overseas, it is proposed that the export finance functions of the new Export Finance and Insurance Corporation will be as follows: (i) the provision of finance to facilitate the export of machinery and capital equipment- wholly or mainly manufactured in Australia- and associated services involving credit terms especially, but not only, in excess of 5 years; (ii) in fulfilling (i) above, lend to exporters or to overseas buyers-borrowers, particularly for business with developing countries and state trading organisations; (iii) act as agent for the Government in cases involving the ‘national interest’; and (iv) in setting its lending terms and conditions, the Corporation will seek to match, but not lead, competition from overseas government supported export finance institutions. For the purpose of the Corporation’s export finance operations, machinery and capital equipment will mean those goods and equipment which are customarily regarded as capital goods and equipment in international trade, and will include, where applicable, costs incurred and services rendered in the buyer’s country in connection with a capital project. The main provisions relating to the export finance business of the Corporation are set out in clauses 36 to 41 of the Bill.

I should emphasise that the new Corporation has been designed to take its place alongside and supplement the existing facilities provided by

Australian financial institutions. In fulfilling the functions set out above, the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation will not engage in the wide range of services normally carried out by the trading banks, such as the provision of short term export finance which constitutes the great bulk of demand for export finance. Accordingly, it is provided in the charter of the Corporation that it should only provide finance where, in its opinion, this is desirable and the finance would not otherwise be available on reasonable terms and conditions. It is also considered that the Corporation should, wherever practicable, endeavour to seek the participation by existing financial institutions as much as possible in providing export finance on appropriate terms and conditions. The safeguards written into the Bill, to ensure that the Corporation does not compete with the trading banks in their normal and traditional fields of banking services for exporters, fulfil assurances given by the Government to the trading banks on this matter. Quite extensive discussions have taken place with trading bank representatives as well as with representatives of the normal export trading organisations. I emphasise that the operations of the Corporation can be expected to create additional export business for the trading banks

The ability of the Corporation to provide export finance facilities comparable with those overseas will depend- when, as at present, domestic commercial rates are higher than the concessional rates offered by overseas government supported export banking institutions- on funds being provided at an effective cost which is less than domestic commercial rates. Accordingly, the Government considers that the Corporation should be provided with funds from the Budget at a rate of interest that will enable it to compete with overseas export finance institutions. A clear indicatation of the subsidy element involved will be shown in the annual Budget Papers. No additional capital is required to enable the Corporation to perform the functions of an export financing institution. The new Corporation will be able to use within limits the existing capital and reserves of EPIC to assist in financing exports. However, the primary source of funds will be borrowings from the Budget. lt is not possible to predict accurately the funding requirements for the export bank functions of the Corporation. However, on the basis of the functions outlined above, approximately $50m could be required progressively during the first 3 years of operation. An amount of $5m has been allocated in the 1974-75 Budget. Within the framework of the above, once possessed of its funds, the Corporation will conduct its business on sound commercial principles, that is, it will exercise normal business skill and prudence in the performance of its operations. The Corporation will determine the terms and conditions, including rates of interest, upon which loans from its funds shall be made. It will also seek to charge the highest rates of interest as are practicable, with due regard to the need to provide finance on terms and conditions comparable with those available to foreign competitors for the business involved.

The Government considers that in the initial stages of its operations, the Corporation should be required to submit concessional loan transactions to the Government for consideration. In the case of transactions with developed countries at concessional interest rates, approval to the provision of the necessary finance will only be given where the Government is satisfied that the financing of a particular transaction would be of material assistance to the establishment or maintenance of an export market, to the development of an Australian industry or to the maintenance of employment in a particular industry or area in Australia. As with the existing ‘national interest’ provisions of the EPIC Act, the Bill provides for the referral of applications for export finance to the Government for consideration in the national interest ‘in cases where the Corporation is either not authorised to accept the business on its own account or in the exercise of its commercial judgment would not do so. All propositions approved in the ‘national interest’ will be financed out of funds to be provided by the Government to the Corporation for this purpose as and when required. Such transactions will be segregated in the Corporation’s accounts from its normal commercial transactions.

I turn now to the proposed legislative amendments to the overseas investment insurance scheme. These amendments were foreshadowed by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) on 22 January 1974 in announcing a new Australian Government policy on private Australian overseas direct investment, especially in developing countries. The relevant provisions are set out in clauses 27 to 33 of the Bill. The overseas investment insurance scheme was established by amendment to the Export Payments Insurance Corporation Act in 1965. The present eligibility criteria of the scheme restrict insurance cover to those investments which provide export benefits to Australia and which assist in the production or marketing of goods in the overseas country. In addition, as the scheme now stands, investments in Papua New Guinea are specifically excluded from the scope of the scheme.

In accordance with the Government’s policy of strengthening its economic relations with developing countries, particularly in its neighbouring regions, the Bill proposes that the eligibility criteria of the overseas investment insurance scheme be broadened to cover all new worthwhile direct investments which can assist in the economic and social development of an overseas country and where it is in Australia’s national interest that insurance be given. Also, in recognition of Papua New Guinea’s expressed desire for increased Australian investment to further its social and economic development plans, it is proposed to extend the scope of the overseas investment insurance scheme to cover new eligible investments in Papua New Guinea. All new investments made on or after the 22 January 1974 will be eligible for consideration under the expanded scheme.

The Bill also provides that the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation may participate in this class of business where it is prepared to do so and subject to Ministerial approval. At present, while the overseas investment insurance scheme is administered by EPIC the decision to cover a particular investment and any contingent liability arising therefrom are the responsibility of the Government. The power to issue ministerial directions, which already exists under the present legislation, will enable Government policies, for example, on economic relations with particular countries, to be reflected in investment insurance decisions undertaken by the Corporation. In view of the responsibilities of the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation embodied in this Bill, it is considered that the Corporation should be a body corporate under the control and management of a board. As indicated in the Bill, the board will comprise a chairman, a deputy chairman, the managing director, the deputy managing director and not more than 7 other members. The members of the board will be appointed on the basis of their knowledge and experience in the fields of export, manufacture, commerce and finance.

The Bill provides for the staff of EPIC to be transferred to the new Corporation without loss of their existing rights or privileges. The Bill makes it clear that the Minister is removed from matters of day to day administration of the Corporation. The relationship between the Minister and the Corporation is clearly defined in the Bill. The relevant clauses parallel the existing provisions of the Export Payments Insurance Corporation Act. In framing the Bill the opportunity has also been taken to re-draft some of the provisions of the Export Payments Insurance Corporation Act in accordance with comparable recent statutory authority legislation. As with EPIC, the Government has been concerned to provide maximum autonomy for the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation consistent with the necessary measure of Government control over broad policy.

The measures proposed in the Bill demonstrate the Government’s positive and constructive approach to export policy and its commitment to adopting a co-operative and creative role in encouraging Australian investment overseas, particularly in developing countries. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Durack) adjourned.

page 2738

NORTHERN TERRITORY (STABILIZATION OF LAND PRICES) BILL 1974

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– I move:

I seek leave to incorporate my second reading speech in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted? There being no dissent, leave is granted. (The document read as follows)-

In introducing this new legislation affecting land prices in the vicinity of declared growth centres in the Northern Territory, the Government is seeking to provide some form of control over land prices as a part of an overall planned program of rational urban development which has particular application to Darwin. Speculative increases in land prices on the outskirts of Darwin have been evident in recent years and in the process of expansion of urban leasehold systems in the Northern Territory where the reserve price system applies, it is essential to remove the speculative content from acquisition costs so that the public can secure land eventually at reasonable prices.

My colleague, the former Minister for the Northern Territory, Mr Enderby, outlined in a comprehensive Press statement on 1 5 February a co-ordinated program of urban development in the Northern Territory, including the provision of this type of legislation. At that stage, South Australia had the Murray New Town Act of 1972 operating and other States have since considered similar legislation. Because the provisions of this new legislation, which will apply only to the Northern Territory, modify some of the provisions of the Lands Acquisition Act which applies throughout Australia, it is not considered appropriate that the modifications should be brought in by way of a Northern Territory ordinance but rather they should be brought in by way of a Federal Act through this Parliament as companion legislation to the Lands Acquisition Act itself.

The purpose of this Bill is to provide legislative authority to stabilise the prices of land in the Northern Territory required, or likely to be required, in connection with urban development. This process is regarded as an important aspect of large scale acquisition by government for urban development and is designed to prevent speculative rises in the market value of land held in private ownership. The area of the greatest interest in the Northern Territory is the general area within a radius of about 96.5 kilometres of Darwin in which there is a fairly large number of undeveloped and unused 64.75-hectare and 129.5-hectare freehold blocks granted about 100 years ago when South Australia had control of the Northern Territory. Some of this freehold is still held in the names of the original grantees, some is held in the name of descendants of the original grantees while some have passed, over the years, through the hands of various purchasers at ever increasing prices. In areas surrounding other towns in the Territory the impact will not be so great in that the areas adjacent to those towns are either Crown land or are held under rural leasehold tenure such as pastoral or agricultural leases.

The Bill provides for the declaration initially of an investigation area in which persons authorised by the Minister may carry out investigations on private land to determine its suitability for urban development. The period of investigation may be any time up to a maximum of 2 years. When investigations are complete, the Bill provides that the Minister may declare a development area in which all land may be the subject of acquisition under the Lands Acquisition Act within a specified period not exceeding 10 years. Provision is made for the Registrar-General for the Northern Territory to note on all titles affected the declaration of a development area.

This will have the effect of drawing to the attention of those purchasing land that the land may be acquired by the Government for urban development.

The Bill also contains provisions which restrict development of the land- that is, new buildings or major improvements except where authorised by the Minister, or any major change in the use of the land from that use applying at the date of declaration of the development area. This is designed to curtail attempts for speculative reasons to improve the land or put it to optimum use because of the declared urban development. In the cases of financial hardship occurring, there is a provision which permits the Minister to take appropriate action for the acquisition of the land under the Lands Acquisition Act. In any development area where the Government moves to acquire property under the Lands Acquisition Act, the provisions of that Act will in effect be modified so as to provide for compensation to be paid on a basis which will have regard to-

the base value or market value of the land as at the date of declaration of the investigation area;
a value increase factor determined by the Valuer-General;
any additional improvements approved by the Minister added since the date of declaration of the development area.

The value factor or factors which will allow for normal increases or decreases in the value of land will be fixed by the Valuer-General having regard to information available and be set out in the form of a determination and lodged with the Minister. This percentage increase or decrease will be notified to the owner by the Minister and be accepted in a court or arbitration determination as the adjustment to be made to the base value at declaration, by reason of the time lapse until the acquisition date.

The normal provisions of the Lands Acquisition Act will generally apply, except that the effective date for the base value will be the date of the first declaration of the investigation area. The provisions concerning rights of appeal will still apply as regards the base value. These will be on adjustment, however, by a value factor determined by the Valuer-General to provide for a normally expected increase rather than a speculative increase resulting from knowledge of the development itself. In view of comments during debate on this Bill in the House of Representatives, to the effect that its provisions should be referred to the Legislative Assembly for the Northern Territory, I take the opportunity to clarify the reasons for the legislation being dealt with as a Federal Act. Because the provisions of the Lands Acquisition Act- a Federal Act- are being modified in clause 13 and further, because the Minister for the Northern Territory derives his powers to acquire land in the Northern Territory through the Northern Territory Administration Act, it is obvious that Federal legislation must be enacted to cover this new initiative of the Government. When the Bill was first introduced in the House of Representatives in April this year before the election, copies were provided to the then Northern Territory Legislative Council for its information. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Durack) adjourned.

page 2739

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION (FURTHER PAYMENT) BILL 1974

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– I move:

I seek leave to incorporate my second reading speech in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted? There being no dissent, leave is granted. (The document read as follows)-

The purpose of this Bill is to obtain Parliamentary approval for a contribution by Australia of up to $60,8 10,8 1 1 to the fourth replenishment of the resources of the International Development Association, or IDA as it is commonly called. As most honourable senators will be aware, IDA is affiliated with the World Bank. It was set up in 1960 because many less developed countries were not able, or could not afford, to borrow overseas on commercial terms. Indeed, a number of these countries did not even have access to international capital markets because they could not establish a satisfactory credit rating. Moreover, most of them were already burdened with high external debt repayments and had little or no capacity to service additional overseas loans at normal rates of interest with normal terms of repayment. IDA was established with the express purpose of providing loans on concessional terms to such countries.

IDA loans, or development credits as they are called, bear no interest and are repayable over 50 years with a 10-year period of grace. A small service charge of¾ of one per cent per annum is levied to cover administrative expenses. I emphasise that, notwithstanding these soft terms, the projects which IDA finances are subject to the same rigorous standards of analysis and appraisal with respect to their economic and social worth and their technical feasibility as the World Bank applies in its own lending operations. In fact, the 2 institutions have a common staff and are served by the same executive board. IDA now has more than 100 member countries which are divided into 2 broad categories. The more economically advanced countries are known as Part I members and the developing countries as Part II members.

When IDA was established in 1960, Part I member countries, including Australia, agreed to subscribe approximately US$7 50m over a 5-year period towards its initial capital stock. Australia’s share of this total was 2.7 per cent. Since then, Australia has participated in 3 separate exercises to replenish the resources of IDA involving total contributions and additional subscriptions amounting to US$750m, US$ 1,200m and US$2,400m, respectively, payable over successive 3-year periods. Our share of the first replenishment remained at 2.7 per cent but it was reduced to 2 per cent in the subsequent replenishment exercises. All of these resourceswhich have been supplemented by interest earned on investments as well as by the additional voluntary contributions which one or two Part I member countries have made to IDA from time to time and the annual transfers which IDA has received from the World Bank out of the latter’s profits in each year since 1963-64- were almost fully committed by 30 June 1 974, making it necessary for IDA to seek additional authority to enter into new commitments after that date. After lengthy negotiations, agreement was eventually reached during the annual meetings of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank group held at Nairobi in September 1973 to the effect that, subject to parliamentary approval in the various countries concerned, an additional US$4,500m would be made available to IDA over a period of 3 or 4 years commencing on 1 July 1974.

I ask leave to have incorporated in Hansard a table which sets out the prospective contributions to be made to IDA by individual member countries and Switzerland, which has not yet joined IDA, under the Nairobi Agreement.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The document read as follows)-

Senator WRIEDT:

– Honourable senators will observe from this table that Australia ‘s share of the fourth replenishment will be maintained at 2 per cent, involving us in further payments to IDA totalling the equivalent of US$90m calculated on the basis of the official New York noon rate of exchange between the 2 currencies on 27 September 1973 when the Nairobi Agreement was finally concluded. This amounts to $A60,810,811. Unlike the position under the previous replenishment exercises, there is no maintenance of value’ provision in the Nairobi Agreement. Thus, our obligations under the fourth replenishment are fixed in terms of Australian dollars and are not subject to adjustment due to fluctuations in exchange rates since then.

In deciding that Australia should participate in the fourth replenishment, the Government had a number of considerations in mind. First and foremost, IDA- like the World Bank- is an efficient institution which is capable of undertaking large scale projects and tackling complex development problems in a technically proficient way, country by country. It is by far the largest agency in the world today lending on concessional terms. To date, IDA has extended development credits totalling more than US$6,900m to 66 member countries. In 1973-74 alone, 69 new loans totalling about US$ 1,095m were approved. Needless to say, the developing countries as a whole attach great importance to a generous and early replenishment of IDA’s resources.

We are also mindful that IDA has been, and will continue to be, of particular benefit to developing countries in our own part of the world. For example, about two-thirds of all IDA lending so far has gone to developing countries in the Asian region, the main recipients being India, Indonesia, Pakistan and Bangladesh. In addition, IDA has lent a total of US$25.2m to Papua New Guinea to date. Further credits to that country are expected to be approved in future. During the discussions on the level of the fourth replenishment, it was decided that essentially the same voting power arrangements which were made under the third replenishment should continue to apply.

By way of background, I might explain that voting rights are based on ‘subscriptions’ to IDA. I emphasise this word ‘subscriptions’. By general consensus it had been decided that the additional resources put at IDA’s disposal under the first and second replenishments should not affect existing voting rights. For this reason the commitments then entered into took the form of contributions’ and no”t additional subscriptions. In response to pressures from certain Part 1 member countries which felt that they were being disadvantaged by this arrangement- for example, those which had increased their percentage shares, or had made supplementary voluntary contributions to IDA, since it was first established- it was decided to redress this situation. This was done by permitting countries to make additional subscriptions- which carry voting rights- to IDA as well as contributions under the third replenishment, the relative proportions between the two varying in each instance so as to produce the overall adjustments in voting rights desired. Essentially, the same arrangements will apply under the fourth replenishment.

Since Australia proposes to maintain its former percentage share under the fourth replenishment our relative voting strength will remain virtually unchanged. Complex calculations undertaken by the staff of IDA indicate that, of the total amount which Australia is expected to make available to IDA over the next few years, the equivalent of US$590,525- that is $A399,003 calculated on the same basis as before- should take the form of an additional subscription with voting rights. The balance will represent an additional contribution. This distinction is provided for in clause 4 of the Bill. I should also point out that the agreement governing the fourth replenishment will not become effective and the obligation to contribute new resources to IDA will not become binding on any member country unless and until members, including at least 12 developed country members, whose contributions aggregate not less than US$3,500m, give IDA formal notification that they will make the contributions authorised for each of them. Because the contribution authorised for the United States of America is US$1,500m or one-third of the total sought, this means, in effect, that the fourth replenishment will only become effective, and other countries will only be required to contribute to IDA, as and when the United States formally notifies IDA that it has taken all the necessary legislative steps to enable it to participate on the basis of the agreement reached at Nairobi last year.

Despite an early set-back, legislation authorising the United States to contribute a further US$ 1,500m to IDA under the fourth replenishment was eventually passed by Congress on 3 1 July 1974. However, further legislation is necessary to actually appropriate the funds required for this purpose. At this juncture it is not clear just when this will be enacted by Congress although it seems unlikely to be much before the middle of 1975, if then. In the meantime, the United States has not been able to give the formal notification required. It was originally planned that the fourth replenishment should become effective on or before 30 June 1974. In view of the delay which has already occurred, and remains in prospect, the IDA management has recently asked member countries which have already ratified the Nairobi Agreement whether they would be prepared to make voluntary contributions to IDA, in anticipation of the conditions of effectiveness for that Agreement being fulfilled, in order to enable IDA to continue its lending operations in the interim. A number of donor countries have already agreed to do this. In accordance with past practice, the present Bill has been drafted in a way which would enable Australia to make an advance contribution to IDA also, if the Government so decides.

I should also like to mention briefly to the Senate that our contributions to IDA are initially paid in the form of non-negotiable, noninterestbearing promissory notes which are cashed as and when the funds are required by IDA. Actual cash payments reflect the pattern of disbursements by IDA and these usually lag well behind the commitments entered into when projects are approved. By using the promissory note technique, Australia’s participation in the fourth replenishment is not likely, of itself, to have any budgetary implications in 1974-75. This Bill provides us with an opportunity to demonstrate once again our bipartisan support for IDA as an effective and efficient international development finance institution, and our willingness to help the less-developed countries to improve their standards of living in future by providing them with much needed external assistance on highly concessional terms through IDA. I need not emphasise the importance which successive Australian governments have attached to this broad objective. I therefore commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Durack) adjourned.

page 2742

BANKING BILL 1974

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– I move:

I seek leave to incorporate my second reading speech in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted? There being no dissent, leave is granted. (The document read as follows)-

The Banking Bill has 4 main purposes. The first purpose is to take full advantage of the constitutional powers of the Australian Government in relation to exchange control regulation of the financial aspects of overseas transactions. Secondly, the Bill provides for the extra-territorial application of the Banking (Foreign Exchange) Regulations. Thirdly, the Bill includes provisions that validate, for the purpose of any civil proceedings, acts or transactions already entered into, or which might be entered into in future, without the proper exchange control authority. The right of the Government to prosecute persons for breaches of the Banking (Foreign Exchange) Regulations will not be affected. The fourth purpose of the Bill is to provide a more comprehensive legislative basis for tax screening arrangements enabling exchange control approval to be withheld to proposed transactions with overseas tax havens that involve evasion or avoidance of Australian tax. Amendments to the Taxation Administration Act 1 953- 1 973 will also be introduced into the Senate for this purpose.

The present section 39 of the Banking Bill has been on the statute books for about 30 years and only minor amendments have been made to it during that time. Since the section was drafted it has been recognised that, in order to be able to give full effect to economic and financial management policies which it may be desirable to pursue in the national interests, governments need to have full legal powers to control financial aspects of all the various types of transactions which may be entered into between residents of Australia and residents of overseas countries. Under the present section 39 exchange control regulations may be made for the purposes of the protection of the currency or of the public credit of Australia or to conserve, in the national interest, Australia’s foreign exchange resources. The wording of this section and the way it is drafted have given rise to some uncertainty as to whether the section gives power to make regulations with respect to all types of overseas transactions. The proposed amendments to section 39 should ensure that regulations may be made to control the financial aspects of all overseas transactions entered into in modern economies.

The absence of a specific power over extraterritorial transactions in the existing legislation could enable avoidance of the requirement to seek exchange control approval in respect of contracts and so on with non-residents entered into outside Australia. Such contracts could be concluded contrary to Government policies. The proposed new section 39A specifically provides for financial acts and transactions of Australian residents which take place overseas to be brought within the ambit of exchange control regulations. The present Banking Act contains no provision for the granting of retrospective exchange control authorisations. In the absence of the proper exchange control authority, not only could a transaction between a resident of Australia and an overseas resident be illegal and subject to penalty under the Banking Act, it could also be null and void. In most cases where exchange control authority is not obtained the persons involved would be unaware of the need to obtain approval and, in many cases, the absence of exchange control approval would not present a problem to the parties concerned. However the fact that such contracts could be invalid could lead to people using the alleged invalidity of such transactions to renege on their debts or other obligations. This would clearly be undesirable.

Clause 5 of the Bill contains provisions which will validate- for civil purposes- acts or transactions which have been entered into without exchange control approval prior to the commencement of the Act. Section 39(6) makes provision for regulations to be made to validate transactions and so on which will be entered into in future without the appropriate approval. Validation would, however, in no way prevent a person being convicted of an offence against the Banking (Foreign Exchange) Regulations because the person failed to obtain exchange control approval. Honourable senators will recall that last December the Parliament approved amendments to the Banking Act 1959-1973 which were intended to provide a firm legal basis for arrangements which the Treasurer (Mr Crean) had earlier announced in October 1973 for the screening of exchange control applications in relation to transactions with tax havens. The amendment made at that time was drafted to deal with the situation in a short form, but experience indicates that it is necessary to set out the relevant rules in a more comprehensive way. It is also necessary to make clear in the legislation, as had been intended since the tax screening procedures were put into operation, that the effective work of considering whether there are tax avoidance or evasion implications in proposed transactions with tax havens falls on the Commissioner of Taxation, not on the Reserve Bank.

Under existing section 39(3) and (4) the Reserve Bank, which is responsible for the administration of exchange control, has the power to reject applications for exchange control approval on the ground that the transaction involves, assists in or is associated with the avoidance or evasion of Australian tax. The Bank, is, however, not authorised to refuse exchange control approval on tax grounds if the applicant produces to the Bank a statement by the Commissioner of Taxation to the effect that, in the opinion of the Commissioner, no tax avoidance or evasion is involved. The proposed new section 39B in the Banking Bill allows or, in certain cases, requires the Bank to refuse applications for exchange control approval unless the applicant produces a tax clearance certificate from the Commissioner of Taxation to the effect that the transaction is not associated with tax avoidance or evasion. In other words, the formal power in relation to tax implications of proposed transactions is to be transferred from the Reserve Bank to the Commissioner. The Taxation Administration Bill provides, inter alia, rules associated with the giving of these tax clearance certificates.

Honourable senators will be aware from comments that have been made on more than one occasion how the Government feels about tax havens and the resort that people and companies make to them. This type of activity is clearly inequitable and strikes at the foundation of the society that this Government is building in Australia. There are indications that the tax screening procedures, so far as they extend, are making a significant contribution to countering tax haven resort by Australians in the New Hebrides and other places. I ask the Senate to give a rapid passage to these measures. I commend this Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Durack) adjourned.

page 2743

TAXATION ADMINISTRATION BILL 1974

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator Wriedt:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

(2.34)- I move:

I seek leave to incorporate my second reading speech in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted? There being no dissent, leave is granted. (The document read as follows)-

In my speech on the Banking Bill I have spoken of the reasons for introducing this legislation. The explanatory memorandum circulated to honourable senators explains quite fully the scheme of the legislation and outlines some formal amendments that are also proposed by the Bill. Accordingly, and because the legislation is designed to give fresh sanction to screening procedures that have had the approval of the Parliament, I think I can be brief in mentioning the main features of this Bill.

As I indicated when speaking to the Banking Bill, a section proposed by that Bill requires the Reserve Bank, in appropriate cases, to refuse an exchange control application unless there is produced to it a tax clearance certificate issued by the Commissioner of Taxation. The Taxation Administration Bill provides rules for the giving by the Commissioner of such certificates. Under the banking legislation the Treasurer is given authority to declare that classes of transactions with persons in tax havens are to be subjected to tax screening. If a proposed transaction falls within such a class, or if the Reserve Bank considers that an exchange control application should be subjected to screening, the Bank is to require the applicant to obtain from the Commissioner, under the Taxation Administration Act, a tax clearance certificate before it grants exchange control approval.

The Commissioner will be entitled to refuse to issue a clearance certificate if the applicant does not satisfy him that the proposed transaction will not involve, assist in or be associated with the avoidance or evasion of Australian tax. For this purpose, the Bill in effect declares that transactions motivated by an aim of securing a tax benefit or advantage fall into the category of tax avoidance or evasion. However, the Bill authorises the issue of a clearance certificate where it is judged that the need to protect the revenue against avoidance and evasion does not warrant refusal of a certificate. Should the Commissioner decline to issue a tax clearance certificate he is to advise the applicant accordingly and the applicant will have rights of formal objection against this refusal. If the Commissioner does not then issue a certificate the applicant may have the matter referred to a taxation board of review set up under the income tax law. There will be a right of appeal to the High Court on any question of law involved in a decision of a board of review. In short, there will be rights to independent review of the Commissioner’s decisions under this Bill, as is the case under other legislation administered by the Commissioner. Other parts of the Bill contain necessary provisions for the maintenance of secrecy by taxation officers in their handling of applications for tax clearance certificates and for obtaining relevant information. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Durack) adjourned.

page 2744

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

The following Bills were returned from the House of Representatives without amendment:

Aboriginal Loans Commission Bill 1974

States Grants (Aboriginal Assistance) Bill 1 974.

page 2744

AUSTRALIAN FILM COMMISSION BILL 1974

Bill returned from the House of Representatives with amendments.

page 2744

FAMILY LAW BILL 1974 [No. 2]

In Committee

Consideration resumed from 2 1 November:

Proposed new heading ‘Part IIIa- The Family Court of Australia’.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Webster:
VICTORIA

-The Committee is considering amendment No. 23 by Senator Murphy relating to the insertion in the Bill of new Part No. IIIa. It refers to the ‘Family Court of Australia’. The question is that the new heading, Part IIIa, ‘The Family Court of Australia’ be agreed to.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– I rise only because I indicated an attitude and expressed myself at length when the matter was last before the Committee. I would have thought that the Attorney-General (Senator Murphy) would have been here to respond. I think the considerations relating to the Family Court are quite substantial considerations. They relate not only to certain constitutional problems but also to whether or not a Family Court can provide the service and the facilities for persons who are involved in matrimonial causes with adaptations that the existing State system can provide.

My hope was that the Attorney-General would be prepared to explain why, in contradistinction to the initial attitude he adopted when the first version of this Bill was before the Senate, he has now responded to the suggestion of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs and desires to have a Family Court. It may be that one of the members of that Committee- I think there are only two of them in the chamber at the moment- could likewise proceed to give reasons why they prefer a Commonwealth Family Court as distinct from State Family Courts.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

– I propose to say a few words on this matter because undoubtedly the creation of the Family Court, whether it be Federal entirely or State and Federal, is of great interest to the members of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, lt was, of course, a major part of the recommendations that that Committee put forward- that there certainly should be a family court taking up all the jurisdictions which were otherwise spread in a great mass of courts, in different ways, and which were a constant cause of jumping from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and the cause likewise of cost and of frustration for litigants.

I do not propose to speak at length on this subject. I have mentioned it, of course, at considerable length in my second reading speech. I do not propose to repeat the remarks I made in my second reading speech but I want to make one comment. Senator Greenwood, when speaking on this matter on 2 1 November proceeded to say:

A second aspect which I think is important is that a Commonwealth Family Court would in essence be another name for a Commonwealth Superior Court with all the arguments against a Superior Court being able to be argued against a Family Court.

I reject that argument. I do not think the Commonwealth Family Court means in any way the same thing as a Superior Court. Apart from anything else the proposal for a Superior Court, which I strongly oppose, is a suggestion that we would merely put a certain part of the jurisdiction into one section of the Superior Court which would be called the ‘Family Law Division’. It might be given certain powers and certain facilitiesthe sort that we would like to see given to all parts of the Family Court. But there is a great distinction between that and what is proposed now by the Committee report.

Apart from anything else one of the proposals of the Superior Court Bill was that judges could be interchangeable between divisions of the Court and that they could move from one division- Family Law- into another division. That is completely contrary to the concept which the Committee had of a Family Court because what is designed is that the people who will be appointed to a Family Court will be those who have a special touch for that sort of work. They will be people who, both by training and interests, are concerned with this type of work. They would not be interchangeable with judges who might be quite suitable in other areas of law. Consequently, this, to my mind, bears no resemblance to the idea of a Superior Court. True, the language in setting up the court is similar because the language in setting up any sort of court is similar. But the concept which is involved in this matter is quite different. It is well known to the Senate that I and other members of the Committee propose to seek the creation of not only a Commonwealth Family Court but also of State courts that will operate along with the Commonwealth courts. I do not propose to go in detail into the way in which that will work or into the details of our amendments.

Senator Greenwood:

– But is that not the fundamental question? How can they work together?

Senator MISSEN:

-They can work all right. I am quite sure of that. I am quite sure that if we do set up 2 lots of courts, one working mainly, of course, in the appeal area and the other mainly in what we might call the footwork area- that is judges who go around the countryside, doing the hard work. They will be limited by age so that, on the whole, they will be younger judges- the system will work well. Whatever system is set up will, of course, require the judges of the system to work in order to make it effective. Therefore, one cannot expect in legislation to find it spelt out word for word. One must rely on the fact that the establishment of courts to which judges are appointed, who are particularly interested and. capable in that area, and judges who want to make it succeed, will mean courts which will work.

The concept of co-operative federalism has been stressed by the Liberal members of the Committee in particular. That requires us to have the uniformity which a Federal Family Court will bring because it will bring together on appeal and in other ways the concepts which are desired to be found in family courts. We will find, I think, that that will be needed. At the same time we will need an involvement of the States in this matter. I do not propose, as I said earlier, to argue at length on this subject. I want to say that I certainly support the concept of a Family Court being created as proposed in this Part. I hope that this Senate will see the wisdom of adding to that the State concept which the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee recommended and mentioned in its report. I hope that both these provisions will go through the Senate. So far as the heading is concerned, it would be a shock to the nation because what the nation desires is evident from polls that have been taken and from correspondence. If a family court is not set up as a new concept, as a new court moving into a new field, it will be complete defeat for this Bill. I support this Part of the Bill.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesAttorneyGeneral · ALP

– As I indicated in the Senate on 1 7 September 1 974 I proposed to put before the Senate certain clauses for the setting up of the Family Court of Australia. Part IIIA, clauses 1 7a to 1 7t, contains these provisions.

I fully endorse paragraphs 33, 34 and 35 of the Standing Committee’s report and, in particular, the concept of the Family Court as a ‘helping court’. Paragraphs 38 to 46 of the report set out the type of Court which should be created. I have taken up with my colleague, the Minister for Social Security (Mr Hayden), the recommendation in paragraph 43 which has my full support.

In October 1973 the New Zealand Law Society’s Committee on Divorce and Matrimonial Relief said:

A calculated attempt must be made to improve the image of our matrimonial courts. As an elementary matter of public relations, parties to a matrimonial dispute must carry away the best possible impression. To them their case is unique. They must be given the experience of feeling that their intimate personal affairs arc receiving the best possible attention by the best qualified people, by a court that will listen carefully and courteously but will where necessary exert its authority, and by a court which has the weight of public confidence behind it . . . We believe that the time has come for it to bc made absolutely plain that the law, the lawyers, and the courts, seriously acknowledge the outstanding social and public importance of this branch of the law.

I would think that the Australian public would endorse those remarks.

It is obvious that the quality of justice in family law matters should be even-handed across Australia. Litigants in the smaller States should not suffer because of non-specialised courts or lack of supportive services. Clearly this is one area where an Australian law should be administered by an Australian court. In development and expansion the Court should be enabled to look to the executive arm of one governmentnot seven- for the necessary finances, appointment of judges and other personnel, legislative changes and supportive services. I will not go further into the matter except to say that a separate Family Court away from the ordinary court buildings will provide a better atmosphere for the resolution of family problems. The judges of the Family Court will need to be men and women of compassion who have a deep understanding of the subtleties of human conduct and marital relationships. The Court will need to work closely with other social security agencies in the community. I believe, along with Senator Missen, that the concept of an Australian Family

Court already has been widely accepted in our community. I believe such a Court will provide justice, compassion and help and put Australia in the forefront of family law reform. Along with others in the community I have been observing what has been happening in the courts dealing with matrimonial causes, and have been observing a number of cases reported in the newspapers. One cannot help feeling that some of those cases have been dealt with in almost the worst possible way, and certainly not in the manner in which these family affairs ought to be handled. I hope the Committee will endorse the heading of this part and therefore the concept of the Family Court.

Senator CHANEY:
Western Australia

– I address myself to the question asked by Senator Greenwood and which has been adverted to by previous speakers. Senator Greenwood asked why we wanted a Commonwealth Family Court instead of having merely State Family Courts. I reply to that question by saying that if the Committee accepts the idea that it is desirable that there should be a Family Court to administer this area of law, the fact is that the only court that this Parliament can definitely establish is a Commonwealth court. All that can be done if we want to retain a State court structure is to invite the States to set up courts which will be vested with jurisdiction. If the States choose not to accept that invitation the Parliament is left with the proposition- this is if we went along with what Senator Greenwood said- that we are going to allow matrimonial causes to be administered by courts other than family courts. I would find it difficult to accept that proposition. Therefore I would say, in answer to Senator Greenwood, that the situation is that we need to set up a Commonwealth court if we are to be certain that we are going to be able to have a Family Court. But I would agree with him that it is desirable, that these courts, if possible, be State courts. Therefore I commend to the Committee the later amendment put forward by Senator Durack, Senator Missen and myself which will hold out to the States the invitation to establish a court which can be invested with this jurisdiction.

Senator WOOD:
Queensland

-After listening to this debate as a layman, I think the points brought forward by Senator Chaney, following upon what Senator Greenwood said, probably represent the ideal. To set up a special Commonwealth court throughout the nation to deal with this type of work would involve a terrific amount of work and expenditure in putting up buildings and arranging for courts to traverse the whole of Australia. If the matter can be handled through the States which already have a set up of this kind there is no reason why, if it is properly set out, it cannot be worked through the States in a much more economic and probably in just as effective a manner as it could be done by the Australian Government. The points raised, and possibly the amendment moved by Senator Durack and others, may represent the ideal solution so far as this Bill is concerned.

Senator BAUME:
New South Wales

– During the second reading debate I. made a comment about the place of family courts and Senator James McClelland indicated by way of interjection that some of the things I was hoping family courts could achieve probably had no constitutional head of power. I think that is correct. What were concerning me at that time were matters relating to juvenile delinquency and cases of that kind which ideally should be within the ambit of a family court. If one looks at the structure of family courts throughout the world, the best of them seem to take in not just matrimonial causes but many other matters affecting children. All legal matters affecting children are dealt with in this kind of court in the best kind of atmosphere. If there is a constitutional limit to what can be done by the Commonwealth I think we have a pretty strong argument for inviting the States to be involved in the setting up and operation of family courts. We have a strong argument for inviting the States to come in on a partnership basis and invest the court with these other matters. I would like the Attorney-General (Senator Murphy) to consider this point and answer it. There are other matters which should be dealt with in family courts but this can only be done if the States are involved on a partnership basis.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– I would like to add to what Senator Baume has said. I think that by a happy example he has hit on the kernel of this problem. I visualise the development within Australia of what I choose to call family courts but they would have a wide range and adjudicate not only on matters arising out of the family relationship; they also would have the function of providing advice and counselling in regard to family matters. It also would be a centre somewhat along the lines of a citizens advice bureau to which people would be able to go and seek advice on a host of matters. Perhaps I could put the matter in a different way. Years ago, possibly centuries ago, in rural and smaller localities the church fulfilled a role for people who saw in the church the centre of their civilisation and advice of all descriptions was given to people who were prepared to accept the advice of their priest or clergyman. That is no longer possible because it is the pattern of a departed age. But I feel that we have not put anything in its place. I think a family court is really a useful centre pin upon which a lot of advice facilities for the community at large will develop. That is a concept with which I cannot imagine the Attorney-General (Senator Murphy) disagreeing. But the real problem arises as to whether the Commonwealth has the power constitutionally to set up such a family court with or without those additional facilities. I feel quite certain in my mind that the Commonwealth does not have power for the vast range of activities which are contemplated by this Bill.

I stress what I have said before, that there is no consolation in being able to say some years hence that these points were adverted to in the course of the Senate debate1 on the Family Law Bill and those who were cautious find that they were right, if that should happen to be the case. There will be enormous problems in the intervening period. I have read and re-read what the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs said about this matter of a family court. I find, with all respect to members of that Committee, that the argument and the logic are confused because it seems to me that the concept of a family court is well expressed. It is to be a Commonwealth Family Court. Then there is a recognition that because of the constitutional limitation that judges must be appointed for life, there are problems which the Committee wants to overcome.

Then it appears to me that there is the development of a concept of State family courts. How the two are to live together is not explained in the report of the Committee. This has not been explained by the Attorney-General. I say with respect to the Attorney-General that in the Bill he does not attempt to rationalise both these concepts. He accepts only the concept of a family court. I do not think it is good enough for Senator Missen to say that he is quite certain that a Commonwealth Family Court and the State family courts will work together and to assert that proposition without explaining how they will work together. True it is that a lot of things are not to be spelt out in legislation. But certainly, as far as court structures and functions are concerned, it is obligatory upon Parliament to lay down the functions of a Commonwealth Family Court and the functions of a State Family Court.

Anticipating some of the amendments which have been proposed, it appears that there is an enormous overlapping. I think that that matter has to be considered. I do not know whether the Attorney-General has had his attention drawn to the latest edition of the ‘Melbourne University Law Review’, volume 9, of September this year. In that journal there is an article by Professor Finlay on the family court concept in the light of the absence in the original provisions of the legislation of such a family court. I think it is fair to say that the tenor of Professor Finlay ‘s article was one of criticism of the omission of a family court from the original legislation. Whether he would be happy with what is now proposed is a matter upon which I do not know his views. It would be interesting to hear. But he said, appropos some of the problems which he anticipated -

Senator Murphy:

– I am told that he wrote to one of my advisers and said that he was ecstatic.

Senator GREENWOOD:

-That may be so, but I think that possibly it was initial enthusiasm without reflection on what he had earlier written. I propose to quote some of the things which he wrote. I refer to page 583 of the Review where Professor Finlay stated:

The tentative picture of a new ‘Family Court’ which emerges, however, is somewhat confused.

He is talking here about the family law division of the Superior Court which was the original concept proposed.

Senator Missen:

– That was under the previous Bill.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– Yes. He wrote this before the current Bill was introduced. He stated:

Apparently the Superior Court whose work at first instance is to be the routine task of granting decrees of dissolution in undefended divorce proceedings will have attached to it the sophisticated apparatus that a Family Court should have.

I interpolate that from my recollection that is what the Attorney-General said was a fair substitute for a family court and that was why he did not, in his first Bill, establish a family court. Professor Finlay’s article continues:

On the other hand the courts dealing with the really contentious aspects of family conflict seem likely to remain the state courts of summary jurisdiction. These courts, while they continue to operate in often overcrowded conditions, in antiquated buildings and in an environment not always conducive to the careful consideration of important decisions affecting the intimate lives of citizens must remain as the Commonwealth finds them. The Bill does nothing to ameliorate their conditions. It is not suggested that it could. The Commonwealth has no constitutional power to appoint officers to State courts. But it could appoint officers of its own who could bc available to these courts. This has not been done. Neither can the Commonwealth restructure state courts and of course the Bill docs not attempt to do so. But the Commonwealth could make financial grants to the States, and it could make them subject to conditions. In this way the Commonwealth could encourage the setting up of family courts on a co-ordinated basis at State level. It is pleasing to note that an opening exists in the Bill which could lead to such a development.

I think it is fair to say that as a result of the amendments that opening has now been closed. But the professor goes on to state:

Anyone looking for a ‘Family Court’ will therefore be disappointed. Not only will the probable division of labour between the Superior Court and courts of summary jurisdiction be in inverse relationship to the intricacy of the respective subject matters with which they will be dealing, but important areas of family law will, for constitutional reasons remain outside the scheme.

Drawing support from what Professor Finlay has said I emphasise that he recognised this constitutional limitation upon this concept of family law which the Bill is not prepared to recognise. He goes on to state:

Thus adoption remains a matter for State laws and State Supreme Courts. while affiliation orders and maintenance of illegitimate children, as well as their custody and the payment of incidental expenses to their mothers continue to be matters for State summary courts, with appeals to State Supreme Courts.

I know that the Bill asserts a jurisdiction for this Family Court in matters of adoption and the guardianship, custody or maintenance of children. There must be grave doubts as to how far the Commonwealth has power, particularly in the light of what Professor Finlay says. He talks about the problems relating to testator family maintenance. He uses the same example which Senator Baume used of juvenile courts and the fact that they cannot be within the area of the Family Court. I believe that all of these factors are indications of some limitation upon the efficacy of a Commonwealth Family Court on a constitutional basis and in the area of jurisdiction.

Quite apart from that I think that the point made by Senator Wood is so transparently obvious that it ought to have weight in terms of what is to be preferred. To set up a Commonwealth Family Court and to visualise that as the court in which all these problems will be resolved must surely mean that people in country areas will be given the same facilities as people in city areas. To set up alongside existing State courts and State administrative offices a host of Commonwealth buildings with Commonwealth officers, Commonwealth judges all appointed for life and a host of other persons is, I think, to embark upon an enormously costly experiment in which the Commonwealth cannot hope to provide the type of service which the State courts and the State system will provide. In that respect the argument is relevant to the argument against the Superior Court. Why a Commonwealth Family Court with lesser jurisdiction than the Superior

Court was supposed to have is preferable or is in some way justifiable where a Superior Court was not, as some people are urging, is to me incomprehensible.

Surely the concept is to provide that access to the courts whether for family matters or for other matters is reasonable and easy for the citizens. This proposed amendment will not make it easy and reasonable for the citizens.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

– I was proposing not to refer to Professor Finlay ‘s article at this stage on the substance of this matter because we are now dealing merely with the title of this new part of the Bill. As to this excellent article titled ‘Family Law, Family Courts and Federalism’, Senator Greenwood has read many excellent parts of that article but he neglected the conclusion. The Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee is entirely in agreement with the idea that you cannot reform the summary courts and get them sufficiently into the position where they can deal properly with these matters. What Professor Finlay has said is correct. One might conclude from what has been said that Professor Finlay ‘s conclusion was that there should be only one court- the State courts- whereas that is entirely wrong. On page 587 of his article he deals with a proposal which was in the Bill at that time, namely for a superior court, and he goes on to say:

The appropriate solution may lie in the creation of a specialised court at intermediate county or district court level. Such courts could be established as state family courts and invested with all matters of family law within both federal and state power.

The Superior Court of Australia could be entrusted with appellate jurisdiction in family matters within federal power, leaving only appeals in state family matters to be dealt with by State Supreme Courts.

I must say that I cannot agree with him that we should have 2 different streams of appeal. He contemplated at that stage that there would be a superior court to deal with appeals and also State courts. He then goes on to say in words with which 1 entirely agree:

The establishment of a system of state family courts administering predominantly federal law would have a twofold effect. It would firstly be a practical way of achieving a unified structure within the federal system, bringing the jurisdictions together by a community of interest inherent in a common subject matter, lt would also be a way in which the States could bc given a feeling of playing a meaningful part in the federal system, acting together under a Commonwealth law in a spirit of ‘co-operative federalism’.

Senator Greenwood:

– That is not what this amendment proposes. It is precisely the opposite.

Senator MISSEN:

-What the Committee is proposing is entirely consistent with that. Professor Finlay also says on the same page that there is a need for co-ordinating the two. But Senator Greenwood ignores the fact that Professor Finlay insists that there must be 2 different sets of courts. One was a Federal superior court but since then we have got rid, I hope, of the suggestion of a Federal superior court in this context. We have a federal family court proposed under this new Part and State courts proposed along the lines that Professor Finlay has advocated for some considerable time.

Three members of the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee advocate State courts and this is contained in the report as a suggestion. It is the only suggestion in the report but, of course, it does not bind the 3 Labor senators who are perfectly free to take a different view. However, the suggestions made are consistent. Professor Finlay obviously recognises the need for a Federal court and I think that should be made clear.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesAttorneyGeneral · ALP

– The amount spent on justice in this community is very slight indeed. We in this country tend to neglect it in the civil sphere, in the criminal sphere especially, and most of all in the area of family law. I do not think anyone should be concerned about the almost trivial price one would have to pay if this proposed legislation can achieve a useful result in these family matters. All those who have been expressing great concern for the preservation of the family ought to be in support of the proposal to establish a family court to deal with those matters. Listening to what was put by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Senator Greenwood) I gathered that substantially he was saying: ‘Let us leave things as they are and deal with family matters in much the same atmosphere as you deal with other matters’. He complained about having other courts and not using the same buildings. I suppose that one of the things a family court would want to do would be to get right away from the area of the other courts. Perhaps one could use offices. One could imagine a family court in a building which was away from the criminal and civil courts and away altogether from that atmosphere without us having even to build new premises. I think we would not want to have this new system administered in the same courts as civil and criminal justice is being administered unless that were necessary. That is where we differ and I am afraid we will probably continue to differ.

I was asked about matters which were not capable of being dealt with by the family court. There are very few of them. For example, juvenile delinquency is certainly an important matter but nowhere is there unanimity on whether matters of juvenile delinquency should be covered. A deliberate decision was made after a lot of consideration not to deal with juvenile delinquency matters although in those matters a person is entitled to a proper trial. In any event this is a large step forward and that is enough without having to tackle the question, which has not proved easy of solution elsewhere, whether we should combine juvenile delinquency with other family matters. Turning to the other areas referred to, it is really only a question of dealing with those who fall outside the concept of marriage, that is, the illegitimate or ex-nuptial children and the matters which concern them in the area of the States. My understanding is that there would be fairly ready agreement to enabling the Commonwealth to exercise power in this area. One would think that if there were any reason prevailing in the States they would be agreeable to transferring this area to the competence of this legislature. Other matters such as the testator’s family maintenance matters, are traditionally, even in the States which have made some progress in dealing with family matters, not dealt with in a family atmosphere but in equity courts. Certainly that is so in New South Wales and these cases may be regarded only marginally as family matters.

There is every reason why we should take this step now under consideration and it is only those who want to hold us back and who are satisfied with things as they are who are opposed to it. I do not want to stir up another dissertation on this matter. It has been widely discussed. I think the concept is widely accepted so may I suggest that we vote on the title of the part.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– I thought that we were debating the title because it was a convenient opportunity to discuss the concept. I hope when we deal with the precise clauses that the particular matters relating to these clauses may be raised. But there are two or three matters I desire to advert to which have not been raised so far. I leave aside the question raised by Senator Missen and invite him to reconsider the passage he read from Professor Finlay ‘s article because clearly what Professor Finlay is there saying, and also says in the final paragraph of the article, is that he looks for a State family court as part of the co-operative federalism which he believes is important. He refers to ‘a State family court administering Federal law’, which is the argument which I feel ought to prevail. This proposed new clause of the Bill establishing a Commonwealth family court is not what Professor Finlay is there looking to.

Senator Missen:

– But he does say in his last sentence that it could be seen as a essential part of the system.

Senator GREENWOOD:

-Oh, yes. I imagine that he never visualised that there would be a family court set up by the Commonwealth. I would have thought it would have struck him right at the outset as having constitutional problems which he would not have thought would have been so easily passed over as, in fact, they have been passed over. Maybe I did not read the passage correctly but doubtless at some stage he will clarify his views or clarify mine. The one point which I think is not resolved is how we will overcome what the Committee recommends as avoiding the problem of elderly judges. The report of the Senate Committee stated in a passage I read during the second reading debate that it was concerned with the effect on the creation of a family court and the appointment of judges and of section 72 of the Commonwealth Constitution which, in general, requires judges of the family court created by Parliament to be appointed for life. The Committee does not believe that it is desirable that judges of this court should adjudicate when of advanced years. That is one aspect of the problem.

The second aspect is that judges of the Federal courts exercise a judicial power. I understand that much of the work which the Family Court, as set up by the Commonwealth, is proposing to do will not be within the concept of an exercise of judicial power. Questions must therefore arise as to how far activities which are not determining rights between citizens are an exercise of that judicial power. Another point arises in the later clauses where there is a provision which in effect states that the Governor-General may, by proclamation, exclude all jurisdiction of the State courts. I appreciate that in its early stages the idea is that State supreme courts will probably be used and that State courts of summary jurisdiction will also be used. As this concept of a Commonwealth Family Court develops so matters will go into that Family Court. But at a point in time it is envisaged that the State supreme courts will not be entitled to exercise any jurisdiction in any of these areas which are currently matters of supreme court jurisdiction. Likewise State courts of summary jurisdiction will not be able to exercise jurisdiction. One visualises therefore that hosts of matters which are commonly the preserve of courts nearest to the citizen will have to be taken to some Commonwealth court whenever a judge or a magistrate is available and wherever it is. I cannot see that that will aid the concepts which are behind this legislation.

I understand also that this concept of a Family Court, coming as it does as an amendment at a late stage- it is only within the last fortnight to 3 weeks that the amendment for this Family Court has been circulated- has not been worked out in co-operation with State or Territory judges. I believe, from what I have been told, that this will envisage some 40 per cent to 50 per cent of the work which is currently exercised by the State supreme courts moving into the Family Court area. A matter of this character ought to be the subject of some intensive consideration- far more consideration, I think, than the matter has been given so far. I can only regret that we are apparently letting this pass without a lot of the really difficult aspects of its implementation being considered or being regarded by the AttorneyGeneral as warranting consideration. I invite him again, if he would, to address himself to the point which Senator Baume raised and which I raise and which I think is an important matter- the matters which ought to be the concern of any Family Court will not be able to be the concern of any Family Court. What is the ground or justification for the dichotomy.

Senator Murphy:

– I have already spoken to that.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Proposed new heading agreed to.

Proposed new clause 1 7a.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesAttorneyGeneral · ALP

– I move:

Proposed new clause agreed to.

Proposed new clause 17b.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

-I understand the Attorney-General (Senator Murphy) proposes to move an amendment in the following terms:

Insert the following new clause:- 17b. (1) A court, to be known as the Family Court of Australia, is created by this Act.

The Court is a superior court of record.

3 ) The Court consists of a Chief Judge, the Senior Judges and the other Judges from time to time holding office in accordance with this Act.

An amendment is proposed to proposed new sub-clause 1 7b (3) by Senators Button, Chaney, Durack, Everett, James McClelland and myself. Therefore I move:

Proposed new sub-clause (3 ) at present reads:

The Court consists of a Chief Judge, the Senior Judges and the other Judges from time to time holding office in accordance with this Act.

Very often one finds in Acts of this nature a provision stating how many judges can be appointed, how many senior judges there will be and how many other judges there will be. It is understandable that this cannot be done with a court of this nature. It is not as yet certain as to what its size will be, what parts there may be to it and what appointments it will need to make. Therefore it is understandable that the numbers should not be set out in a specific way at present. However, it is the opinion of the members of the Senate Committee that there ought to be some continuing control in this Parliament of the size and the development particularly in the critical initial stages of this Act being brought into operation. So this amendment has been sought by members of the Committee. We feel that this legislation should be brought back to the Parliament on occasions when members are to be appointed so that the Parliament will have an idea of how the operation is going and how many members there will be, because the numbers could be very extensive or very few.

I draw attention, because it is relevant, to a subsequent amendment I propose to move on behalf of 3 members of the Committee in relation to a proposed new sub-clause (4) providing for the actual operation of those regulations, It will provide that regulations should not be made under which appointments are made and which can subsequently be disallowed by one of the Houses of the Parliament. That would be entirely unfortunate in its effect because the regulations would have operated to appoint judges who then would still be members of the court. So that is the effect of the second amendment. It is the feeling of members of the Committee that the implementation of the Bill and the appointment and numbers of judges and the proportion of them should be matters within the purview of this Parliament, particularly during the period when the Bill is coming into operation.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesAttorneyGeneral · ALP

. and such number of Senior Judges and other Judges not exceeding six in number.

-I move:

I do not desire to speak to it.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesAttorneyGeneral · ALP

– I think that what has been put by me and by Senator Everett really tells against this amendment. The sense of the Parliament can make itself felt upon those who have the responsibility for making the appointments. In considering the amendment here I think that it may unnecessarily stultify us, and I propose to vote against it. I think that the argument has been clear enough on it.

Senator DURACK:
Western Australia

– 1 regard this amendment and the previous one as very important. I regret that for other reasons I was not in the chamber when the Committee discussed the previous amendment, the result of which now is that the AttorneyGeneral can proceed to establish the Federal Family Court with a chief judge and 6 other judges, but he must prescribe by regulation what other judges will be necessary. I believe in most circumstances that the proper way for Parliament to set up a court is actually to prescribe the number of judges that will be necessary. In fact the Act would limit quite specifically the number of those judges. Even if more judges are required from time to time, the Attorney-General of the day would inform the Parliament. Additional judges would be appointed only for good reasons. I think that is the time-honoured control that Parliament has always kept over both the Executive and the judiciary.

Senator Wood:

– That is, to do it by legislation.

Senator DURACK:

-Yes. I think we must always maintain that control over the Executive. Let us face it; the appointment of judges is a very great exercise of patronage by the Executive. It is an area over which the Parliament should keep a very strict control. Here we have a situation in which it is very difficult, because of the creation of a new court, to decide how many judges will be necessary. The question of how many judges will be necessary is linked also with the question of State Family Courts, if they are created, and so on. Therefore, I believe it is most important that this Parliament should keep an eye on the number of judges appointed to this court. 1 put my case mainly on the general principle that Parliament should keep control over such an important matter as the number of judges that may be appointed.

We are prepared to make an exception here to enable it to be done by regulation, because we do not at this stage really have the knowledge to insert the number of judges that may be required. It is an absolutely necessary corollary that we have this additional amendment which requires that regulations will not take effect until the Parliament has been sitting, apparently, for 7 days. Otherwise Parliament will be presented with a fait accompli. If the regulations which create additional judges can be made, the appointments can be made and then the Parliament cannot undo those appointments that have been made by disallowing the regulations. In my opinion it is absolutely vital that this amendment be passed. The whole principle is to enable the Executive to have a little more latitude, but we certainly must keep that ultimate control.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

-I think the position as stated initially by Senator Durack is of tremendous importance. Under the clause to which we have just agreed the Parliament is given a power to appoint 6 judges or a power to appoint 100 judges. I do not recall any other legislation that has been passed by this Parliament in which the number of judges has not been specified. I think there are currently 9 judges of the Australian Industrial Court. There are currently 7 judges of the High Court of Australia. There are currently 3 judges of the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court. There are currently 2 judges of the Northern Territory Supreme Court. This is a situation in which there can be an unlimited number of judges. As Senator Durack said, the power of patronage is unlimited. There ought to be control. I can imagine the Attorney-General (Senator Murphy), when he was in Opposition, urging that the Parliament keep control over the Executive, whatever be the character or colour of that Executive. I urge him to recall his words on earlier occasions and to accept that there ought to be some control over the Executive.

Senator Murphy:

– I have accepted that.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be added (Senator Missen’s amendment) be added.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Senator J. J. Webster)

AYES: 37

NOES: 21

Majority……. 16

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

New clause 1 7b, as amended, agreed to.

Proposed new clause 17C.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesAttorneyGeneral · ALP

– I move:

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– There is one point here on which I seek some clarification. I feel, in the light of what has been said, that sub-clause (4) of proposed new clause 17C ought to be omitted. Proposed new clause 1 7C provides for the appointment, resignation and removal of judges. It also provides that the judges be styled, in true legalistic manner, ‘The Honourable’. The proposed sub- clause (4) states that a person who is a judge of the Family Court may be a judge of another court or other courts. That seems to me to be totally inconsistent with the concept which has been argued for by those who urged the Family Court some time ago. As I understood the argument- I think it was either Senator Missen or Senator Murphy who expressed it- the ideal is to have a judge who is not versed in and concerned day by day with other matters of litigation. That, it is said, is the vice of the present system and what is wanted are judges of the Family Court who will concern themselves totally and exclusively with Family Court matters. That was urged very strongly as a reason why we should have a Commonwealth Family Court, against arguments which I raised that the State Family Courts system ought to be preferred.

Now we find in this proposed sub-section a provision that a judge of the Family Court may hold office as a judge of another court or of two or more other courts created by the Parliament. It provides, of course, that he should draw only one salary and one allowance. That is reasonable. I feel that the proposed sub-clause (4) ought to be omitted.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesAttorneyGeneral · ALP

– This provision was inserted really for the sake of economy, to which Senator Greenwood drew our attention earlier. Only judges suitable to be Family Court judges would be appointed to the Family Court, but if such a judge were in some isolated area, or in the case of some kind of emergency, he might be able to deal with a bankruptcy notice or something like that and thereby save the community money. It is not intended that regular judges from these other jurisdictions would be judges of the Family Court but it may be that the Family Court could deal with some of the other matters. This would perhaps serve the convenience of citizens and also save expense.

If Senator Greenwood wants to tie the Government to the words ‘totally and exclusively deal with Family Court matters’ 1 will not press for the inclusion of sub-clause (4) of proposed new clause 17C. That was the intention of the sub-clause. There is some sense in it. But if Senator Greenwood wants to carry the matter to the extreme, the sub-clause will be omitted. If Senator Greenwood is now so agreeable to the concept of the Family Court that he does not want the slightest blemish on the concept, I am pleased. I will be pleased to abandon the notions of convenience and economy, and to abandon the sub-clause if he indicates that that is still his wish.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– This is an historic occasion, on which I find myself in agreement with Senator Greenwood against the Attorney-General (Senator Murphy). I appreciate that there was an innocent intention in framing sub-section (4) of proposed new section 17C in this precise form, but lawyers are familiar with the damage that can be done when intentions that are held at the time of framing legislation are not adverted to by future Attorneys-General or by people in charge of the administration or implementation of an Act. I fear that a sort of dilution of functions which is against the spirit of an exclusive, separate Family Court could occur in the future no matter what was the intention of the draftsman in framing this sub-section. I feel strongly that the judges of the Family Court should be exclusively judges of the Family Court, with no other functions at all. For that reason I support the deletion of the words which would confer functions on judges of the Family Court other than those of the Family Court.

Senator LAUCKE:
South Australia

– I wish to express my support for Senator Greenwood ‘s proposal also.

Senator Murphy:

– May I intervene and, to save further persuasion on the matter, seek leave to withdraw sub-clause (4) of proposed new clause 17C.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Webster:

-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. The question is:

That proposed new clause 1 7C, as amended, be inserted in the Bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Proposed new clauses 17d, 17Eand 17f.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesAttorneyGeneral · ALP

– I move:

Insert the following new clauses: 1 7d. ( 1 ) The Chief Judge is senior to all other Judges of the Court.

The Senior Judges have seniority next to the Chief Judge according to the dates on which their appointments as Senior Judges took effect.

Where, by reason of the fact that two or more commissions of appointment took effect on the same day. the foregoing provisions do not determine seniority between the Senior Judges appointed by those commissions, those Judges have such seniority in relation to each other as is assigned to them by the Governor-General. 1 7e. Whenever-

the Chief Judge is absent from Australia or from duty; or

there is a vacancy in the office of Chief Judge, the next senior Judge who is in Australia and is available and willing to do so shall perform the duties and may exercise the powers of the Chief Judge. 1 7f. (1 ) The Chief Judge shall receive salary at the rate of $3 1,450 a year and an annual allowance at the rate of $ 1, 750 a year.

Each Senior Judge shall receive salary at the rate of $29,250 a year and an annual allowance at the rate of $1,250.

Each other Judge shall receive salary at the rate of $25,000 a year and an annual allowance at the rate of $ 1, 200 a year.

The salary and annual allowances of the Judges accrue from day to day and are payable monthly.

A Judge shall be paid such other allowances as are prescribed.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– What are the salaries of the judges related to at the present time? Are those related to existing salaries or do they assume -

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesAttorneyGeneral and Minister for Customs and Excise · ALP

– Yes. They are existing salaries.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Proposed new clauses agreed to.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesAttorneyGeneral · ALP

– I move:

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

-I refer to the oath or affirmation of office. I understand there are 2 significant changes in regard to the oath or affirmation which a judge of the Family Court has to take. My belief is that a judge of a Federal court, of a Territory court, or of a State court is required to take 2 oaths or 2 affirmations. One is the oath or affirmation of allegiance and the other is the oath or affirmation that he will well and faithfully serve as a judge of the court. That is the position with regard to the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court and though I can be corrected by someone who has closer knowledge of the matter, my belief is that it is the pattern forjudges of other courts- and so it should be. The judges are Her Majesty’s judges. They owe allegiance to the Crown as do members of Parliament and all other officers who are charged with responsibilities which are part of our constitutional frame.

I do not know why the oath of allegiance has been left out here. I believe the oath of allegiance should be restored. I do not know whether the Attorney-General (Senator Murphy) can explain the omission or state whether it is an oversight or whether he has some purpose in mind. Likewise, I feel that there ought to be in the form of the oath or the affirmation an adherence to the language of the other oaths or affirmations which are taken. It will be noted that in clause 17g the oath or affirmation is in the following form:

I, , do swear that I will well and truly serve in the office of the (Chief Judge, Senior Judge or Judge, as the case may be) of the Family Court of Australia and that I will do right to ail manner of people according to law, without fear or favour, affection or ill-will, So help me God.’

Normally the oath or affirmation, as I understand it, is in the following form:

I, . , do swear thatI will well and truly serve Her Majesty the Queen, her heirs and successors according to law.

Those words are being left out and I do not know why. It is a pattern which I feel ought to have an explanation as to why the omission is taking place. The oath of allegiance is to a person. It always has been as a part of the -

Senator Murphy:

– It is a tradition of the office.

Senator GREENWOOD:

-As I understand it, the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court Act has the requirement that the oath of office is to ‘well and truly serve’ a person. I looked at it the other day. This is the pattern in this case. I am not sure where the oath of allegiance comes in. I imagine that could be inserted. 1 desire to move an amendment. I move:

I also ask why has the oath of allegiance been left out? I would seek also to have that included. It may be an omission which can be easily rectified.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesAttorneyGeneral · ALP

– This seems to be an appropriate oath or affirmation of office. If one looks at the Constitution it indicates that the judicial power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in courts such as these. The notion that somehow they are royal judges is one which belongs to the 19th century. I know some judges who have left the bench used to talk about being royal judges. But they are not royal judges, they are judges of the Commonwealth. If Senator Greenwood wishes to put in an oath of allegiance in its usual form, he can move ah amendment. Let us put it in. The statement is clear enough, lt is relevant to modern times when taking an oath or affirmation for the person to use the words well and truly serve in the office of the Chief Judge, Senior Judge or Judge of the Family Court of Australia and do right to all manner of people according to law, without fear or favour, affection or ill-will, So help me God’. The honourable senator is keen to have an oath of allegiance included. All the people who have been in this kind of office have already taken an oath of allegiance, perhaps when they were barristers. I do not know how many times one has to take oaths of allegiance. Apparently it is every time you move. It hardly seems appropriate.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I think the noes have it.

Senator Greenwood:

– Divide.

Senator LAUCKE:
South Australia

- Mr Chairman, can I get this matter clear? I understand that the Attorney-General has agreed that if this proposed new clause is passed he will later return with an amendment which will include what Senator Greenwood seeks to have incorporated.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesAttorneyGeneral · ALP

– This is an oath to exercise office without fear or favour and so forth and I think it is appropriate. In addition, since Senator Greenwood has requested that there be an oath or affirmation of allegiance, I undertake to bring the matter forward so that the oath or affirmation of allegiance also will be required of the judge before he enters upon his office.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– I understand that the Attorney-General has said that if this amendment we are being asked to vote upon is carried he will bring in also a motion to institute an oath of allegiance.

Senator Murphy:

– Yes.

Senator GREENWOOD:

-Therefore I am hopeful that this amendment will be carried. The corollary of the Attorney-General’s statement is that he gives no undertaking if this is defeated.

Senator Murphy:

– No. If the amendment, proposed new clause 1 7g, is carried I will bring in an oath of allegiance and add it to the Bill.

Senator GREEN WOOD:
QUEENSLAND

-But this is the other oath with which we are concerned and the Attorney-General has not indicated his attitude to my amendment except by his statement ‘no’ when I called for a division. My argument to the Committee is that we have a form of oath which every judge takes that he will well and truly serve Her Majesty the Queen or His Majesty the King in a certain office. That is not the language of the oath or affirmation here being required. My amendment seeks to ensure that the words ‘I will well and truly serve Her Majesty the Queen’the customary form, the traditional oath or affirmation- are included as part of the words of the oath which everyone takes. Therefore if there is a vote ‘no ‘ when the amendment is put and it is declared that the noes have it, I will seek a division.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesAttorneyGeneral · ALP

– I move:

That consideration of proposed new clause I7G be postponed.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Proposed new clauses 17h to 17t- by leavetaken together.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesAttorneyGeneral · ALP

– I move:

Insert the following new clauses: ‘17H Sittings of the Court shall be held from time to time as required at the places at which the registries of the Court are established, but the Court may sit at any place in Australia. ./7, (1) The original jurisdiction of the Court may be exercised by one or more Judges.

The jurisdiction of the Court in an appeal from a court of summary jurisdiction may be exercised by one or more Judges.

The jurisdiction of the Court in an appeal from a Judge of the Court or of the Supreme Court of a State shall be exercised by a Full Court.

Where, after a Full Court (including a Full Court constituted in accordance with this sub-section) has commenced the hearing, or further hearing, of an appeal and before the appeal has been determined, one of the Judges constituting the Full Court dies, resigns his office, or otherwise becomes unable to continue as a member of the Full Court for the purposes of the appeal, then the hearing and determination, or the determination, of the appeal may bc completed by a Full Court constituted by the remaining Judges, if at least 2 Judges remain, or, with the consent of the parties, by a Full Court constituted by the remaining Judge or Judges and an additional Judge or Judges.

A Full Court constituted in accordance with subsection (4) may have regard to any evidence given or received, and arguments, adduced, by or before the Full Court as previously constituted.

The Court constituted by one or more Judges may sit and exercise the jurisdiction of the Court notwithstanding that the Court constituted by one or more other Judges is at the same time sitting and exercising the jurisdiction of the Court. 17k. ( 1 ) The Family Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine-

) appeals referred to in section 7 1 ; and

b) appeals from judgments of the Family Court, constituted otherwise than as a Full Court, in the exercise of jurisdiction otherwise than under this Act.

The Family Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine appeals under section 73 except where the Supreme Court of a State has jurisdiction to hear such appeals.

Subject to section 73, in an appeal the Court shall have regard to the evidence given in the proceedings out of which the appeal arose and has power to draw inferences of fact and. in its discretion, to receive further evidence upon questions of fact, which evidence may be given by affidavit, by oral examination before the Court or a Judge or in such other manner as the Court may direct. 1 7l If the Judges constituting the Court for the purposes of any proceedings are divided in opinion as to the judgment to be pronounced, judgment shall be pronounced according to the opinion of the majority, if there is a majority, but, if the Judges are equally divided in opinion-

in the case of an appeal from a judgment of the Family Court constituted by a single Judge, or of the Supreme Court of a State- the judgment appealed from shall be affirmed; and

b ) in any other case- the opinion of the Chief Judge or, if he is not one of the Judges constituting the Court, the opinion of the most senior of those Judges, shall prevail. 1 7m. (1 ) The Family Court has jurisdiction in-

matrimonial causes instituted or continued under this Act;

proceedings instituted or continued under the Marriage Act 1961-1973, other than proceedings under Part VII of that Act:

matters arising under a law of a Territory concerning

the adoption of children;

the guardianship, custody or maintenance of children; or

payments of a kind referred to in section 85; and

matters in which jurisdiction is conferred on it by a law made by the Parliament.

Subject to such restrictions and conditions (if any) as are contained in the regulations, the jurisdiction of the Family Court may be exercised in relation to persons or things outside Australia and the Territories. 17ma. (1) A power or function exercisable under the

Marriage Act 1961-1973 by a Judge or magistrate as defined in sub-section 5 ( 1 ) of that Act shall be exercisable by any Judge ofthe Family Court who is appointed by the AttorneyGeneral to be a person authorized to exercise that power or function, and that Act applies in relation to the exercise of a power or function in accordance with this section as if references in that Act to a magistrate or Judge included references to a Judge of the Family Court so appointed.

A request may not be made under section 17 of the Marriage Act 1961-1973 for a rehearing of an application that has been dealt with by a Judge of the Family Court.

The Governor-General may, by Proclamation, de clare that a power or function referred to in sub-section ( 1 ) is exercisable in accordance with this section to the exclusion, in whole or in part as specified in the Proclamation, of the exercise of that power or function by Judges or magistrates as defined in sub-section 5 ( 1 )of the Marriage Act 1961-1973. 1 7n. To the extent that the Constitution permits, jurisdic tion is conferred on the Court in respect of matters not otherwise within the jurisdiction expressed by this Act or any law to be conferred on the Court that are associated with matters (including matters before the Court upon an appeal) in which the jurisdiction of the Court is invoked or that arise in proceedings (including proceedings upon an appeal) before the Court. 1 7P. ( 1 ) The Court has power, in relation to matters in which it has jurisdiction, to make orders of such kinds, and to issue, or direct the issue of, writs of such kinds, as the Court thinks appropriate.

Without limiting the generality of sub-section (1 ), the Court may issue, or direct the issue of, writs and orders of such kinds as are prescribed. 1 7q. Subject to this and any other Act, the Family Court has the same power to punish contempts of its power and authority as is possessed by the High Court in respect of contempts of the High Court. 17r. (I) The Governor-General shall cause such Regis tries of the Court to be established as he thinks fit.

Unless and until the regulations otherwise provide, the Principal Registry shall be located in Sydney. 17S. ( 1 ) The Attorney-General may appoint such officers of the Court as are referred to in this section and such other officers of the Court as are necessary.

The officers of the Court have such duties, powers and functions as are provided by this Act and the regulations and such other duties and functions as the Chief Judge directs.

There shall be a Registrar of the Court and such

Deputy Registrars of the Court as are necessary.

There shall be a Marshal of the Court and such Deputy Marshals of the Court as are necessary. (5)TheMarshal-

is charged with the service and execution of all writs, orders, decrees, warrants, precepts, process and commands of the Court that are directed to him; and

shall take, receive and detain any person who is committed to his custody by the Court, and shall discharge all such persons when directed by the Court or required by law.

A Deputy Marshal may, subject to any directions of the Marshal, exercise or perform any of the powers and functions of the Marshal.

The Marshal or a Deputy Marshal may authorize such persons as he thinks fit to assist him in the exercise of any power or the performance of any function.

There shall be a Director of Counselling and Welfare, and such other counsellors and welfare officers as are necessary. 1 7t. (1 ) Subject to this Act, the practice and procedure of the Court shall be in accordance with the regulations.

In so far as the provisions applicable in accordance with sub-section ( 1 ) are insufficient, the Rules of the High Court, as in force for the time being, apply, mutatis mutandis, so far as they are capable of application and subject to any directions of the Court or a Judge, to the practice and procedure of the Court.

In this section, “practice and procedure” includes all matters with respect to which regulations may be made under this Act. ‘.

Proposed new clauses 17h to 17r- by leavetaken together and agreed to.

Proposed new clause 1 7s.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesAttorneyGeneral · ALP

– I move:

Having heard what Senator Greenwood said I want to say that I think he has exaggerated the position a little. I understand that the principle he invokes is not one which has been pursued, particularly in this jurisdiction. We have a Matrimonial Causes Act 1959 which was introduced by the then Attorney-General, Sir Garfield Barwick. That Act has operated from then until now. What does it operate under? It operates under regulations.

Senator Greenwood:

– I know.

Senator MURPHY:

– The honourable senator says ‘I know’. That is not the impression given to this Committee.

Senator Greenwood:

– And it has been a highly controversial matter right through.

Senator MURPHY:

Senator GREENWOOD:

-That is a scrutiny which ought to be preserved, just as there is a power in the Parliament- if both Houses agree- to remove a judge for misbehaviour. Again that is a proper scrutiny. Of course it is consistent in each case with the gravity of the situation to determine the type of parliamentary oversight which should be allowed. I do not recall any occasion that I have been in the Senatethe Attorney-General has been here longerwhere any rule of court has come before the Senate by way of a motion for disallowance. That is not the thing which is required to be done. But the fact is that the power is there and that is where the power should lie. My point is that to create a family court which is to have the character of flexibility about it, to give to the judges a competence to deal with matters as they arise and to require that there be regulations is, I think, to limit the judges’ operation.

I shall accept that there ought to be occasions when the judges’ operation is limited. But let the limiting factor be not regulation which the executive makes but the rules which the judges make. They can alter the rules so much more speedily and consistently with the type of flexible operation which the Family Court necessarily requires. I do not think it is satisfactory to refer to the Federal Court of Bankruptcy, the existing Matrimonial Causes Act or the Conciliation and Arbitration Act to show that because there are regulations in those cases there ought to be regulations generally. The other courts of the land have rules made by judges. That ought to be the type of control of procedure which is applicable in this case. To test the feeling of the Senate I move:

In due course that means that in the definition section of the Bill a definition will be inserted that it is the rules made by the judges of the court. But we are going back to the definition section and that can be dealt with then. I urge upon the Attorney-General that to require regulations in this area is to put a proscription upon the operation of a Family Court which is inconsistent with all the virtues which are claimed for it.

Senator EVERETT:
Tasmania

-As far as Senator Greenwood ‘s amendment is concerned, I am at a loss to understand what has happened compared with the situation which existed in the 1959 Matrimonial Causes Act. Reference has been made to the Act briefly before but I think that the section ought to be read in full. Section 127 of the existing Act states: ( 1.) The Governor-General may make rules, not inconsistent with this Act, for or in relation to the practice and procedure of the courts having jurisdiction under this Act . . .

I am not aware that any complaint was ever made over 15 years in relation to the rules under section 127. Indeed, without checking one imagines that Senator Greenwood when he was Attorney-General was the author, no doubt on advice, of documents signed by the GovernorGeneral which prescribes rules under the very power which he now says ought not to reside in the executive.

Senator Greenwood:

– I well remember one occasion.

Senator EVERETT:

-Yes. I am at a loss to understand what has happened since 1959 in relation to this matter. Secondly, in respect of leaving this to judges, I well remember the trouble that was caused by some judges, admittedly at Supreme Court level, in early 1973 when the Attorney-General had taken certain steps by regulations in relation to costs and other matters and a struggle emerged in one State as to whether certain proceedings were to take place in private chambers or in public chambers. The absurd position prevailed where some judges interpreted their powers as authorising proceedings in private chambers and some took the other view and held them in public chambers. That happened and this is a clear-cut provision whereby these matters have the force of regulation and where they are so germane to be actual legislation, as many of them are, what is wrong with following the precedent of the previous Liberal-Country Party Government and leaving this to the Executive.

Senator CHANEY:
Western Australia

– I speak in favour of proposed new clauses 17s and 17T against the proposed amendment by Senator Greenwood. I do so basically for the reasons already put forward by Senator Everett, but I add to them that the practices and procedures of this court will be of particular importance if we are to meet the ambitions that I think Parliament has for the Family Court. I think it is particularly necessary that the Parliament be responsible for overseeing the regulations under which the procedures will be governed. I think that is the appropriate way for the matter to be dealt with.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

-I likewise agree with the view expressed by Senator Everett. I suggest also that if we carry the amendment to be moved much later for the creation of a family law council, and I am confident that we will, that will be a council which will have judges and a lot of organisations represented on it and it would be inappropriate to consider such important things as changes of regulations that will come up being taken to the judges from that council. It would be more appropriate if they came to the Parliament from the Council. The judges would be some of many people on that council and I think it is appropriate in those circumstances that those rules should be made by the Executive and subject to the scrutiny of Parliament.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I add one further thought. It is absurd to suggest that what is in these clauses amounts to the exclusion of judges from any participation in the making of regulations. Although the Parliament is to have the overseeing of these regulations and the control over the general policy of the regulations, surely it is absurd to imagine that if any judge, arising from his experience in running his court, saw the need for a regulation he would not have the ear of the Attorney-General of the day and would not have his suggestions taken into account. The suggestion seems to be implicit in what Senator Greenwood says that those administering the courts from day to day would have no say whatsoever in the making of regulations. He must know from his own experience that that is an absurd proposition.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

-I recognise that it is pointless to persist against the phalanx of the Committee and its objection to any amendment to this particular clause, but I regret that consideration has not been given to the points which have been raised. The attitude of sticking to something which is put forward without meeting arguments is regrettable. Senator Everett raised a point but he surely overlooked the fact that under the 1959 Act the jurisdiction was vested in the State Supreme Courts and there were 6 Supreme Courts around the Commonwealth together with Territory Supreme Courts. To create a broad rule-making power in those judges was to endeavour to bring together judges from right around the country and that, of course, had its own problems. Each Supreme Court had its own rules of procedure and to that extent the practice was readily applicable to this jurisdiction.

Senator Everett:

– But the Governor-General still was given the power to make rules in respect of practice and procedures and it was only to the extent that they were not made that State rules applied.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I appreciate that. The Governor-General having the power meant that it was vested in the Executive and there was a clear case when vesting the State courts with jurisdiction to have some regulation-making power which was a subordinate legislationmaking power.

Senator Everett:

– Rule-making power, not legislation-making power.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– It was not feasible to have rule-making power as we are accustomed to having it. Under this Bill we are creating a court which will consist initially of 6 judges well able to make its own rules because they would come together to make the rules which were necessary but I believe that by ensuring that they comply with regulations as to procedure we are making this court a servant of the Executive. No matter how much we strive to cover this up to give effect to purposes which the Parliament now has in mind it will become a creature of the Executive and that, I think, is demeaning the court.

Question resolved in the negative.

Proposed new clause 1 7S agreed to.

Proposed new clause 17t.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesAttorneyGeneral · ALP

– I move:

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

-I rise not to move an amendment because it was indicated what the attitude would be to any prospective amendment in the consideration of the last clause, but to emphasise that where we have in sub-clause ( 1) the words ‘Subject to this Act, the practice and procedure of the Court shall be in accordance with the regulations’, it accentuates a vice which I think the Senate would be wise to avoid.

Proposed new clause agreed to.

PART IV-JURISDICTION

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesAttorneyGeneral · ALP

– I move:

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Clause 18

1 ) Subject to this Part, a person may institute a matrimonial cause under this Act-
1. in the Superior Court; or
2. in the Supreme Court of a State or a Territory.
) Subject to this Part, the Supreme Court of each State is invested with federal jurisdiction, and jurisdiction is conferred on the Superior Court and on the Supreme Court of each Territory, to hear and determine-
1. matrimonial causes instituted under this Act;
2. matrimonial causes continued in accordance with section 9; and
3. proceedings instituted under regulations made for the purposes of section 83, 86 or 87.
Subject to this Part, the courts of summary jurisdiction of each State are invested with federal jurisdiction, and jurisdiction is conferred on the courts of summary jurisdiction of each Territory, to hear and determine-
1. matrimonial causes, not being proceedings for principal relief, instituted under this Act:
2. matrimonial causes, not being proceedings for principal relief, continued in accordance with section 9; and
3. proceedings instituted under regulations made for the purposes of section 83, 85, 86 or 87.
Jurisdiction under this Act in a matrimonial cause instituted under this Act is not conferred on a court of a Territory unless at least one of the parties to the proceedings is, at the date of the institution of the proceedings or the date of the transfer of the proceedings to the court of the Territory, ordinarily resident in the Territory.
Jurisdiction under this Act in a matrimonial cause continued in accordance with section 9 is not invested in or conferred on a court other than the court in which the matrimonial cause was instituted or to which it has been transferred under sub-section 19 (6) or section 23.

Amendments (by Senator Murphy) agreed to:

In sub-clause (1), paragraph (a), leave out ‘Superior’, insert ‘Family’.

In sub-clause (5). leave out ‘Superior’, insert ‘Family’.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

-I move:

I have no doubt as to the outcome of this amendment, but I desire to place it before the Senate because it seems to me the only sensible way in which one can really raise the issue of whether there are to be State family courts. The jurisdiction at present is to be in the family court of the Commonwealth or in the Supreme Court of a State, and there is no provision under which State family courts could even be given jurisdiction. If there is to be jurisdiction this is the clause under which it should occur. Accordingly I have moved the amendment. There is a necessary further amendment which I will move, if by some chance this amendment were carried, vesting the Supreme Court and the family courts with Federal jurisdiction. There is no provision in the Bill or in the contemplated amendments which would enable State family courts to be created and this is why I propose this amendment.

Senator Murphy:

– This has already been debated.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

-I refer to the remarks of Senator Greenwood and, so far as the proposed amendment for a State court is concerned, the amendment which is submitted by Senators Chaney, Durack and Missen. Proposed new clause 20 states that reference in terms of proposed new section 18, among others, to the Supreme Court of a State shall be taken as in relation to State Courts. So, the matter is covered so far as our amendment is concerned. I oppose this amendment.

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

– What you are suggesting is that it be stood over until we deal with the other one.

Senator MISSEN:

– No, it is not necessary to stand it down. We can bring it in later.

Question resolved in the negative.

Sub-clause agreed to.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesAttorneyGeneral · ALP

– I move:

This formal amendment enables the Family Court to deal with interstate enforcement of affiliation orders. This power will be needed in the Territories where the jurisdiction of courts of summary jurisdiction has been phased out. Hopefully its necessity will be short-lived. Once the Australian Parliament has power to deal with ex-nuptial children throughout Australia proposed section 55 will no longer be needed.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Webster:

-I ask the Attorney-General to bear with me for a moment. I suggest that Senator Greenwood’s amendment should be moved before Senator Murphy’s amendment.

Senator Greenwood:

– I did circulate an amendment. It is certainly consequent upon the earlier amendment being accepted. The earlier amendment not having been carried it is not necessary to move my further amendment.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Sub-clause, as amended, agreed to.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesAttorneyGeneral · ALP

– I move:

After sub-clause (6) insert the following new sub-clause:- (6a) The Governor-General may, by Proclamation, fix a date as the date on and after which proceedings under this Act may not be instituted in or transferred to a court of summary jurisdiction in a Slate or Territory or in a part of a State or Territory specified in the Proclamation and a court of summary jurisdiction shall not hear and determine any such proceedings so instituted in, or transferred to, that court on or after that date.”.

This clause enables the phasing out of courts of summary jurisdiction particularly in the cities. The proposed phasing out is in accordance with the recommendations of the Standing Committee.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– This again is another clause the import ofwhich I am sure has really not been the subject of consideration. It is, of course, an amendment which is introduced to a Bill which has been in circulation for some time and which did not even contain it. Because of what it will do I think that it is so important that it ought not to be regarded as something which passes without any comment or without warranting comment. It gives a power to the Government, by Governor-General’s proclamation, to fix a date after which matrimonial causes shall not be heard in courts of summary jurisdiction. Under the definition of matrimonial cause, if this were the proclamation that was made, the hearing of matters in courts of petty sessions anywhere in the country which arose out of marital relationships would be denied.

I instanced on an earlier date that if an assault took place between a husband and wife one would normally feel that that involves the criminal law and that the main concern of the wife is to have the husband bound over to keep the peace or in other ways restrained. That is where normally, as I understand it from earlier days in practice, the wife would seek the assistance of the local constable or the clerk of the court and appropriate steps would be taken quickly. This amendment is giving power to bring that situation to an end and to say that all matters of that character must be taken to some other court and that persons will not be able to institute them in the ordinary courts of the land where they are normally to be taken. One may say that if we are to have a Family Court ultimately that must be the result, but it seems to me to have a curious ring about it that people may go to one court and be met not with an answer on the merits but simply with the rejoinder that they are in the wrong court and have to go to another court.

That duality of jurisdiction, I think, is something we do not want to see on the Australian scene.

I cannot understand why the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Murphy) cannot leave the option open so that people who want to utilise the provision of the Family Court can do so and people who want to go to the summary court, the court of petty sessions, may likewise do so. It is up to the people to make their decision.

Senator Murphy:

– Which party? You are saying leave it up to them.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– Well, leave it up to aggrieved party to choose the forum to which that party will go. If there is objection by the defendant of course it is, as always, for the magistrate to decide whether or not- as we know in our own jurisdiction- there is a more convenient forum or a more convenient court. I think this is a provision which will enable people in the metropolitan areas to have all the advantages of a Family Court, supposing the court develops as is proposed and people in the rural areas will be denied those facilities. If I might say so, it is an unfortunate discrimination.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

– I welcome very much the phasing out of the summary proceedings. I have had a long experience of them too and I have long thought that this was a pretty poor way to deal with very important matters of a marital nature.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– So does Professor Finlay.

Senator MISSEN:

-Yes, Professor Finlay does. I have in my hand an excellent article by a Miss Dorothy Kovacs, a senior teaching fellow at Monash University. The article is entitled: Maintenance in the Magistrates’ Courts: How Fares the Forum?’ I shall quote a part of that article. Honourable senators should read this article because it refers to all areas, not only the effectiveness of the orders that are made and the enforcement of them, but also the way in which they are made, the lack of proper care to counselling and so forth. The author says at one stage:

The fault here may lie with the law itself, rather than in the institution entrusted with its administration. Nevertheless, as long as it remains the law it may pertinently be asked whether a magistrate with little training and no time may reasonably be required to apply it. His dilemma is complete when parties appear, as they often do in this jurisdiction, without legal representation, so that the harassed magistrate hears no argument on the law. The result is that many decisions will be made on the basis of a poor understanding of the legal issues involved, and that to a great extent these errors will pass undetected.

In fact there is a promise in this particular part of the Act that these will be phased out, of course, by proclamation, not immediately. The Standing Committee was quite aware of the fact that particularly in distant parts of some States it will take some time for family judges to be involved entirely in the area. I would say this part is a highly desirable one. The sooner it is brought into full force the better.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Clause 1 8, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 19

1 ) The jurisdiction of the Superior Court under this Act shall not be exercised except in accordance with Proclamations under this section.
The Governor-General may, by Proclamation, fix a date as the date on and after which the jurisdiction of the Superior Court under this Act may bc exercised in respect of all proceedings, or a class or proceedings, in such States and Territories as are specified in the Proclamation.
A party to proceedings instituted or continued under this Act that are at any time pending in the Supreme Court of a State or Territory, being proceedings that could, at the date of the application under this sub-section, have been instituted in the Superior Court, may apply to the Superior Court for an order transferring the proceedings to the Superior Court, and the Court may order accordingly.

Amendments (by Senator Murphy )- by leave- taken together and agreed to:

In sub-clause ( I ) leave out “Superior” and insert “Family”.

In sub-clause (2) leave out “Superior” and insert “Family”.

In sub-clause (6) leave out “Superior” (wherever occurring) and insert “ Family “.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

-I would hope that the Attorney-General might address himself to clause 19 sub-clause (3). This is a clause which is like the one he has just had inserted in clause 18 with regard to restraint upon proceedings in courts of summary jurisdiction. It is a provision under which by proclamation a date may be fixed as the date on and after which proceedings may not be instituted in the Supreme Court of a State or a Territory. That, I appreciate, is consistent with what is being done in regard to Courts of Petty Sessions. It is fair enough I suppose that you shut out the Supreme Court from hearing these matters but what worries me- I would ask the AttorneyGeneral to explain what he has in mind- is why conditions are attached. Apparently, as the final words of clause 19 sub-clause (3) indicate, the proceedings may be instituted or transferred where specified conditions are complied with, and the proclamation may be expressed to apply only to proceedings of specified classes and may be expressed to apply only to the institution of proceedings in particular registries. What is the intention or purpose in having a power to pick and choose what matters and what courts will be available?

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesAttorneyGeneral · ALP

– It may be that the transfer would, using it in that broad sense, need to take place bit by bit. For example, in Queensland it may be that in the northern areas one can transfer it there and there may be certain conditions. It may be that some particular matters are subject to some court or judge being available and so forth. You may be able to have an orderly transfer. There is nothing more or less than simply providing for an orderly transfer. It may be that instead of simply blocking off geographically, the institution or the transfer may be made only in certain defined conditions. It is thought that this may be an appropriate way to do it. It is as simple as that.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– The statement that this will provide for an orderly transition represents an objective with which no one would cavil, but why is it necessary to have a specific provision that the transfer can apply only where specified conditions are complied with? I have the impression that a fair interpretation of this clause would give to the Government, the Executive, the power to deal specifically with particular proceedings. In other words, the proceedings of A against B may be transferred or instituted only where specified conditions are complied with. That may be stretching the interpretation to a point where one might say, ‘it would never happen’, but as the Attorney-General knows, that is not the proper criterion upon which to assess whether particular amendments to legislation are worth while. I believe it has that interpretation and I do not think he has indicated why those particular words are there. Is it possible that this clause could be looked at along with the other postponed clauses with a view to ascertaining whether the provisions are too wide and might be cut down in some way?

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesAttorneyGeneral · ALP

– If one keeps on postponing clauses I suppose one will achieve in a different way the objective of not proceeding with the matter. The clause has been looked at. It seems to be a suitable one for an orderly transfer. There is reference in it to classes of proceedings and so on. After all, this deals with family matters. Surely the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is not going to suggest that there is some great Government conspiracy that we are going to do something to some husband or wife or that the whole power of proclamation and so forth will be used in some improper way. It is intended to provide for an orderly transfer of proceedings. If the power is to be used, we know it must be used in a bona fide manner for the purposes for which it is granted and with due regard to the rights of persons affected by the exercise of the power. Those are the conditions which are implied into the exercise of this power as with other powers. It is simple enough. They are facultative. The word may’ is used. The conditions would be used only for the purpose of orderly transfer.

Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 20.

The jurisdiction of a court of summary jurisdiction shall not be exercised in proceedings with respect to the property of the panics or of either party to a marriage, or with respect to the custody or guardianship of, or access to, a child of a marriage-

if there arc pending proceedings with respect to the same matter in the Superior Court or in the Supreme Court of a State or Territory: or
if an order of the Superior Court or of the Supreme Court of a State or Territory is in force in relation to that matter, unless the exercise of the jurisdiction of the court of summary jurisdiction is permitted by the terms of that order.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesAttorneyGeneral · ALP

– I move:

Question resolved in the affirmative.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I have notification of a clause to be added after clause 20. There is now no clause 20, so it will be proposed new clause 20.

Proposed new clause 20.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

-I move:

This is an amendment which the Liberal members of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs at least, consider of great importance to the operation of this Bill. The amendment inserts the provision forecast in debate today and before, of the opportunity for State Family Courts to be created to operate and to have Federal jurisdiction conferred on them. Perhaps I should first go through the amendment to explain the significance of the parts which we want to have adopted by this Committee. Subclause ( 1 ) of clause 20 reads, in part:

. the Australian Government shall take steps with a view to the making of agreements with the governments of the States providing for the creation of State courts to be known as Family Courts, being agreements under which the Australian Government will provide the necessary funds for the establishment and administration of those courts.

It is recognised that the power over matrimonial matters is a very substantial Commonwealth power and I think it is right that the Commonwealth should exercise the financial responsibility in respect of the administration. The procedure has been rather incongruous in past years, with the States having to maintain certain courts. Often maintenance matters have to be pursued in those courts because the Commonwealth authorities require women who are deserted to take proceedings and the State incurs the expense. It is suggested that whatever we do, it ought to be a continuing Commonwealth financial responsibility. It is suggested therefore that agreement should be entered into by the Commonwealth with the States to enable the setting up of courts which will then get Federal jurisdiction conferred on them under this clause.

The other sections of this amendment bring into operation the other parts of the proposed new clause which confer jurisdiction, which is Federal jurisdiction, on the State courts when they then operate. Sub-clause (4) provides conditions under which it is proposed that only the Commonwealth should grant this recognition, that only it should accept the foundation of such courts, because it is desirable that there be retained a considerable uniformity in the way in which the principles of this legislation are to be carried out. The 3 conditions set down are that the Attorney-General should have the right to approve of the appointment of State judges to this Court–

Senator Greenwood:

– That is without any precedent, is it not?

Senator MISSEN:

– I am sure it is without precedent. I am sure that a lot of new things are without precedent, and that never frightens me. I do not take that as any argument against what is proposed. In fact, I see great merit in this proposal, quite apart from other reasons. We will probably see appointments that are going to be pretty free of any political touch about them. It is not going to be suggested that they have not been well thought out, when we take into account the fact that both the State and Federal governments have to consider the qualifications of the person appointed and both have to be in agreement about the appointment. I do not imagine that this would cause a great deal of trouble.

It is also suggested that one of the conditions should be that judges who are appointed should by reason of training, experience and personality be suitable persons to deal with family law. Of course, that is something that is already to be laid down in the Bill itself with respect to the Federal Family Court. Perhaps the most vital matter in regard to the creation of State courts is that the judges appointed to them will not serve beyond the age of 65 years, because I think it has generally been agreed in debate that in this field of the law it is highly desirable that judges should be limited in age. The last condition which we suggest is that there should be seen to be full use being . made of counselling and welfare facilities, so that it is not just the Family Court of Australia; the State courts should have equal access to those facilities. Thus, while there is cooperative action between the Federal and State courts, they are using the same type of facilities that are available.

-Yes, with your help, I am confident that he would. The other thing that concerns me particularly about this proposal is that it involves the whole concept of a Family Court, for which people in this community have been waiting anxiously, with a whole hassle of delays and a whole hassle of different situations which would arise from State to State, as my colleague Senator Everett said. These things are all very confusing for individuals in this community who are concerned about one thinghaving their matrimonial problems resolved with the maximum of speed, the maximum of dignity and the maximum of justice particularly to children involved in matrimonial disputation. If that sort of thing is to go on for a long time, as I believe it would if this amendment were carried, the result would be purely one of confusion for individuals in the community who are concerned.

What we would have would be a situation in which the money for the Family Court was provided by the national Government, the whole concept of the Family Court was provided by the national Government- indeed, by the Senateeverything was provided by the national Government except the sop to this motion of cooperative federalism- misguided as it is in this context- that we should say that there should still be State family courts. I appeal to the Senate not to let this legislation be confused in that way, to step forward in the concept which was set out in the Committee’s report, for a new start in matrimonial law and administration in creating a new entity not interchangeable with existing courts.

Senator DURACK:
Western Australia

– 1 support the amendment moved by Senator Missen. I would like to deal with some of the arguments that have been advanced against it by Senator Everett and Senator Button. The position is that unfortunately State parliaments and governments have, as I think Senator Everett has said, been rather slow in introducing reforms in this field of family law and family law administration. However, there are 2 examples, of which I know, of family law and family law administration which are already in existence. There may be others but the prime example is the Family Court of South Australia.

Members of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs will recollect that it was a judge of that court- Judge Burnettwho I think probably persuaded the Committee more than any other witness, of the value and importance of a Family Court exercising jurisdiction under this type of legislation. It seems clear that the Family Court of South Australia is a well conceived, well staffed and well run institution.

In Western Australia moves were made many years ago- not to the same extent as in South Australia- to establish a court at magistrates’ level which deals in the metropolitan area of Perth exclusively with family matters under a State law. Admittedly, in other parts of the State, this jurisdiction is exercised by magistrates amongst their ordinary general jurisdiction. In Perth there is specialised jurisdiction and although the courts are not as well staffed and assisted as is proposed in this Bill there have been the rudiments of a family court. It seems to me that if in the States family courts existed as they do in South Australia then we in this Parliament would be investing those courts with jurisdiction under this Act. I do not think the proposals would then be contained in this Bill- proposals which are so strongly supported by Senator Everett and Senator Button- to set up a purely Federal Family Court. The reason I believe that a move has been made to include in this Bill the provision for a purely Federal Family Court is that there are not existing courts in other States. As I have said, the only proper Family Court exists in South Australia. The amendment moved by Senator Missen enjoins the Australian Government to make arrangements with State governments to set up these courts. All we are trying to achieve is an exercise in co-operation between the Federal Government and the State governments whereby the model of the South Australian Family Court can be adopted- with perhaps some modifications, if necessary- by negotiation and agreement in all the Australian States. By such process of negotiation we would achieve an ideal arrangement and, as I have said, if such an arrangement existed at the moment we would not be speaking about setting up a purely federal Family Court. We would be investing those courts with jurisdiction under this Bill.

The major purpose of this amendment is to endeavour to set up such courts in the States, by negotiation and agreement. I see no reason why this ideal cannot be achieved. Senator Everett spent most of his time saying how difficult it is to achieve agreement. But the South Australian model is so obviously successful that I would be very surprised indeed if the States AttorneysGeneral were so intransigent that they would not agree to follow it up. That is what I believe should be done. The purpose of this amendment is to see whether steps can be taken in order to come to some agreement whereby such courts could be set up.

We have not had Family Courts in Australia as yet, apart from those in South Australia and the smaller model in Western Australia. Surely a delay of a few more months, perhaps, or even a year in order to see whether this can be achieved is not unreasonable. Nobody would lose anything during that period. The existing courts that are exercising jurisdiction in this field- the Supreme Court and the Magistrates’ Courts in the States- will continue to exercise that jurisdiction. The Federal court, I would imagine, will be mostly spending its time on appeal work.

I thought that Senator Everett introduced a red herring into this debate by claiming that there would be some sort of superior and inferior courts and jurisdictions. Is he suggesting that State justice is inferior to Federal justice? This is a very strange and, I think, rather offensive proposition. I think the State Supreme Courts have had a very fine record in this country in the administration of justice. I believe that many people I know would prefer to receive appointments to State Supreme Courts than to some new Federal court which has not yet proved its record in the administration of justice. I believe the idea that there will be some superior and inferior jurisdictions is a total red herring.

Greenwood came to his peroration he said that he was going to support the amendment but it was only lukewarm support. It might have been lukewarm for him but it was cold comfort for me. I must confess that at that stage, despite the lawyers, I was still concerned as to what side of the ship I was going to make my stand, on the starboard side or on the port side. I listened to Senator Durack ‘s contribution and, while it will not be cold comfort, I think that on the balance of the arguments up to this point of time at any rate I would stay with the amendment, but I am hoping that there will be some more contributions from the legal eagles. Perhaps then I will be confirmed in my views.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesAttorneyGeneral · ALP

– I do not agree with the amendment proposed by Senator Missen. Senator Everett has set out many of the arguments against it and I might refer briefly to them. The Family Court needs a single direction, a concept of helping out and a developed team work between judges and ancillary staff, including counsellors and welfare officers. The State judges, because of their position, will not be able to be part of that teamwork. They will not be answerable to the Chief Judge and will not form any part of that direction. The State and Federal judges cannot form a composite court and even if they occupy the same building they have to sit separately. The concept we are developing here is of a Federal law with Federal regulations, to be paid for by the Australian Government out of funds appropriated by this Parliament. The Family Court itself is to consist of judges appointed in the normal way through the Australian Government. The extra element that is proposed to be added to this concept will not mesh with it. I suggest with all respect to those who support the amendment that it is introducing an element of clumsiness. The public could become confused about it.

One of the difficulties with the existing legislation is that we have a Federal Act administered by State courts and it has been unsatisfactory. This Parliament has not concerned itself as much as it should have with the administration of the Act because the administration was in the hands of State courts. The State Parliaments have not concerned themselves with the administration of the Act because, although State judges were administering it, it was a Federal Act. These are reasons why there has been a great deal of neglect of this legislation over the years with not the proper attention being given to it that should have been given to it. This amendment would have the effect only of carrying on that unfortunate tradition by having the judicial administration split in this way, so although there is a welcome step towards the family court there would be added to it this kind of State court machinery. I really think that it is quite undesirable and I suggest that the Senate should not introduce this element. Since 1901 it has been contemplated that this was a Federal legislative subject. If we had suggested then to those who were contemplating this legislation that if a court was to be set up under Federal legislation it be done in this way they would have been astonished. It is said that because it is a precedent that is no good argument against it but 1 suggest that it is not a desirable precedent and I ask this Committee not to accept the proposal.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Webster:

-! call Senator Durack. I am sorry, I call Senator Chaney.

Senator CHANEY:
Western Australia

- Mr Chairman, I am flattered to be mistaken for Senator Durack. I am glad that this time the Attorney-General (Senator Murphy) spoke between me and Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson because the last time that Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson asked for clarification I spoke and he then announced himself more confused than ever. 1 trust that the intervention of the Attorney-General will help me to get my point across. I think there is common ground in this debate to the extent that it is generally agreed we ought to have a family court which will administer the law in this area. I think it is also common ground that if that family court is to succeed it will wind up exercising not only Commonwealth jurisdiction but also some areas of State jurisdiction. It is in that context that we have to look at the amendment moved by Senator Missen and supported by me. If the States and the Commonwealth can come together on this concept of a family court I think in the future it will be far easier for the States to ensure that this one family court in the States is given all the appropriate jurisdiction, both State and Federal.

Again it is in that context that I do not have any difficulty with the points that seem to worry Senator Greenwood so much. The idea of an appointment by the States which requires the approval of the Attorney-General, while it might be without precedent, is really not so difficult to comprehend when looked at in that context. The situation is that the appointees will be exercising jurisdiction in fields which will be the concern of both the State and Commonwealth, so why should not the 2 jurisdictions get together and agree on appointees being people who are appropriate, assuming that they can agree on the common concept of a family court. In fairness to those supporting this amendment I point out to the Attorney-General that he is in the situation where if a State will not co-operate with him and go along with the idea of a family court within these guidelines, he will be free to go ahead and develop his Commonwealth court. The point is that there is a sanction on the States to require them to co-operate. In turn there is some fetter on the Attorney-General in that he does not have the unfettered power to create an unlimited number of judges to the court. So I think we have a situation where both the Commonwealth and the States will be forced to come together and to co-operate in the production of the Court. If they do not Senator Murphy will have his way, his Court will be created and it will be a totally Commonwealth court.

With respect to the retirement of judges at 65 years of age again I think it is common ground that we do not want judges on this particular Court who are geriatric. We take that view because it is the rare man who can get into real old age and still maintain the sort of understanding that we want to permeate this Court. It is no use pointing to exceptions like Senator Wood, who might say that they are over the retiring age being proposed, because the exception does not prove the rule. I would say, for the reasons I have put forward, that the concept we are putting forward is quite sound. Although I can sympathise again with the call by Senator Greenwood for something more clear cut, I say to him that it is one thing to have a nice clear cut piece of legislation when it is being put forward as a Government measure which can be totally compatible with a government’s philosophy or approach to the matter, but this happens to be a non-Party Bill.- There happen to be a variety of views around this chamber as to the way the thing should operate. The fact of the matter is that I hope we will wind up with something which is neither exactly as Senator Murphy would have wished it nor exactly as Senator Greenwood would have wished it but perhaps something which represents a reasonable middle ground that all can support. The fact is that both the States and the Commonwealth will be under sanctions to produce the sort of court that we all agree is wanted.

Senator Button quoted paragraph 38 of the Senate Standing Committee’s report which he and I had some very small part in producing. It was pointed out to him, by way of interjection, that he had failed to draw attention to paragraph

1 take a little of the time of the Senate to refer to that paragraph. It states:

The Committee has not conceived its duty to be to solve this problem -

The problem of establishing a family court- which is however a matter of essential importance to the Australian Government. However one possible solution to this problem is along the following lines, namely that the Australian Government immediately approach the various State Governments to seek their co-operation as follows -

There follows a series of criteria which in the broad are along the lines which are put forward in Senator Missen ‘s amendment. Senator Button had the temerity to chide Senator Missen and those supporting this amendment with some sort of doctrinal or doctrinaire approach to this matter. He suggested that perhaps we were motivated by some romantic attachment to the concept of federalism. 1 have made my position clear on this matter. I have a romantic attachment to the concept of federalism, but I suggest that those members of the Committee who felt able to put this forward as a possible solution to the problem and are now recanting from it are indicating perhaps they are activated by some doctrinal romantic attachment to the concept of centralism. Quite frankly 1 think Senator Button’s contribution to the debate was, unusually, of no assistance to honourable senators who were genuinely trying to find some solution to the problem.

Senator Everett’s contribution was to damn the proposal as futile, wasteful and confusing. He damned it outright and not with feint praise as did Senator Greenwood. Again I ask the Senate to consider Senator Everett’s comments in the light of the facts as to what we have already approved in this Bill. We have not yet approved a vast Family Court of Australia which will sit as some big brother up against little State courts which will have some lower status. What we have approved is the appointment of 6 judges. I hope that, if Senator Missen ‘s amendment is accepted, if the States approach this matter in a spirit of co-operation and if the AttorneyGeneral approaches this matter in a spirit of cooperation, 6 judges might be as many as would be needed. In fact we would then have a system of family courts around Australia which would be State courts and the Family Court which we have approved under clause 17 of the Bill would simply be required as an appellate court, as a court perhaps to fill gaps where the States were not able to provide facilities. The whole idea of having a wasteful twin hierarchy of courts is a figment of Senator Everett’s imagination as the legislation stands at present. All that we are committed to is the appointment of quite a small Federal court. If Senator Missen ‘s amendment is accepted we can have within the States the creation of family courts which fit the pattern the Committee seems to be agreed is required but which exercise virtually the whole of the jurisdiction within each of the States subject only to the appellate jurisdiction of the Family Court “of Australia.

As far as the proposition that was put forward by the Attorney-General is concerned, that the State judges would not be part of the team, I remind him of the support that he received from some of the proponents of this amendment for the control of the regulations being retained by him. I suggest that, with his control over the appointment of judges, there is ample power for him within the provision that we are putting forward to ensure that the States go into this matter in good faith to create the sort of team that he wants. I am sure that all members of the Committee would agree that the Family Court of South Australia is an example of the sort of court that we are anxious to see established around Australia. It may need its jurisdictions extended, varied and so on in some areas, but the approach is basically the sort of approach about which we have all been talking. I suggest that those people who say we cannot achieve through State courts the objective that we have set ourselves are allowing themselves to be befuddled by a doctrinaire approach to the matter. I suggest that, in an area where we do want the States ‘ cooperation to get the remaining areas of jurisdiction vested in the Family Court, the sort of proposal which is put forward by Senator Missen deserves support.

I do not support the idea that this is a clumsy and confusing idea. If in fact the State courts are established and are able to handle the bulk of the work there need be no confusion in the minds of members of the public as to where they go. If there are shared premises and the Federal court is performing fairly limited functions there need be no confusion in the minds of either the public or the practitioners. I say this is a reasonable solution in an area where some compromise is required. We should not compromise the basic concept of the Family Court. I think the good faith of Senator Missen and those of us who have supported this amendment is demonstrated by our support for the various amendments to clause 17 that were moved by the AttorneyGeneral. We have put it within his power to get the court he wants if the States will not cooperate. We are asking him to give the States the opportunity to co-operate and to provide the court with a basis which I am sure will be more totally satisfactory.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

-I desire to say a few words in reply to some honourable senators who have spoken. Senator Chaney, I believe, has dealt very effectively with other honourable senators. Senator Everett made 5 main points. One was perfectly correct. It is true that State court judges will not sit on the full Federal court because they cannot be in a Federal and State court at the same time. Of his other 4 points, two were sheer pessimism and two were clearly wrong. He has in mind that the wages of the judges might be lower if they served on State courts and therefore they would not want to serve on such courts. That has already been dealt with. I suppose he would, logically and consistently, draw attention to the fact that under this Bill the Federal court itself will consist of senior judges and ordinary judges on different salaries. Perhaps he ought to suggest that they will have a different attitude. I do not think that we will find that this is so. Judges in different courts will have clearly a common responsibility and interest in these affairs. The Court will attract decent judges. I have sufficient faith in the people around the community to know that there are people of capacity to fill the positions.

Senator Everett ‘s other point of pessimism was to suggest that legal aid would not be applicable equally to the State courts that are operating under this legislation. I have heard nothing from the Attorney-General (Senator Murphy) to suggest that. I think it is an unworthy suggestion. I think the Commonwealth recognises what its responsibilities are, and they are considerable in the provision of legal aid in matrimonial matters. I have no reason to think that there would be a differentiation between State and Federal courts in this regard or against the people who are litigants in State courts.

The first of the 2 matters that were clearly wrong was the suggestion that we would have 2 concurrent streams of appellate jurisdiction that there could be appeals in 2 different directions. What Senator Everett forgot when he mentioned that was that there is a provision in clause 71 of this Bill which relates to the appeal position. Under that clause appeals from the Supreme Court go to the full Family Court and the provisions of sub-clause 3 of my amendment make it clear that references in the various clauses, including clause 7 1, to the Supreme Court of the State are to be taken as references to the Family Court of the State. Consequently appeals will go from the new State Family Courts to the new full

Federal Family Court. So there is nothing whatsoever in that suggestion. That was a red herring of the worst degree.

His other suggestion that State Courts would not be able to exercise various jurisdictions that were federal likewise would not hold up an examination if in fact Federal jurisdiction were conferred on these State courts. I find it extraordinary that, having had so long in which to consider objections to this provision, he should come down with such a weak group of objections. After all, paragraph 37 of the report of the Standing Committee, which was not read, sets out the one possible solution put forward by the Committee of the way in which Federal and State jurisdictions could apply. Members of that Committee have spoken in the debate. It is true that the Liberal members of that Committee had the greater enthusiasm for this solution. There is no other solution proposed apart from one sole Federal court with judges remaining until they die. They would continue unless we can change the Constitution. This is all that can be suggested.

Senator Murphy:

– A proper pension scheme has worked in the United States.

Senator MISSEN:

-The Attorney-General has said that a proper pension scheme has been in operation. It is a scheme whereby federal judges may be induced to leave their posts and to take the pension. If they do not, they will be much worse off. It is my opinion that such a scheme would not succeed and that constitutionally you will not be able to deny the judges their life appointment by inducing them or forcing them to accept appointments by making their pension rights very bad if they do not accept retirement at 65 or 70 years of age. I hold no great confidence that that type of scheme will succeed in achieving the effect that the AttorneyGeneral has suggested.

I turn to Senator Greenwood who gave, he said, lukewarm support to our scheme. If it is lukewarm support I would hardly like to experience the cold water if he were to throw it around. I recall that Senator Greenwood asked me to consider, over dinner, various proposals. Of course we have considered these proposals for some months, and therefore there is no difficulty in giving an answer to them. He put the proposition that there is no provision to allow parties to go to the South Australian Family Court and to utilise it. Of course there is a proposal. The proposal- this is set out in paragraph 37 of the Standing Committee’s report- is that it would be very easy for a State Court to be set up in South Australia because it has the existing mechanism.

But it will obviously require something in the way of legislation. The South Australian court it set up merely by administrative arrangements. There is no legislation creating that Family Court. It is obviously necessary, in the terms which we have put in this amendment, for the South Australian Court to be established by State legislation. What will make this easier is the fact that it is already existing as a very suitable and well operating body but it obviously ought to have State legislation behind it.I am surprised that Senator Greenwood thinks that it ought to be just utilised without that legislation being carried into effect.

Senator Greenwood also did not like the idea in this amendment, that the approval of the Australian Attorney-General should be sought for the appointment of State judges. He suggested that instead consultation would be all that would be necessary. We all know, do we not, that consultation means nothing? If you merely say that you have to consult the Attorney-General before you make the appointment then you can consult and do whatever you like.

Of course the real point to this is that the Commonwealth, in our view, will in the future pay the costs- we hope- in respect of all this legislation and the operation of the scheme and therefore it has the right to ensure that suitable judges are being appointed in line with the whole of the principles which our report and this Bill enshrine. Therefore I believe that approval is something which is satisfactory and should be expected. He said to us: ‘Well, you should not require the States to force judges to retire at 65 years of age. The States should say whenever they wish them to retire’. There we see the very essence of a scheme solely involving State courts with judges retiring at different ages and without any uniformity. That is the very way in which one would lose the essential unity and purpose of this scheme. I put to the Senate that all those questions have been considered and none of them is relevant or necessitates any amendment to the proposal we have put up.

The Attorney-General has said that since 1901 we have contemplated federal legislation. We contemplated it but it took 58 years before it actually came into operation and then those in power dared not go as far as they would have liked. I suggest to him that the Commonwealth now can impose and create a court of great significance but it ought not do so at the expense of riding over the States and depriving them of any interest in the continuance of this scheme.

We feel that the amendment that has been presented here today is one which will give the States a real opportunity. If they do not take it, then the Federal Attorney-General has a right to proceed and appoint judges. But I hope that this Committee will recognise that in this compromise situation, in this arrangement with two forms of courts operating I am sure in cooperation and with the same common purpose, it will be found to be a successful method of working this Bill.

Question put:

That the proposed new clause 20 (Senator Missen’s amendment) be inserted.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Senator Webster)

AYES: 31

NOES: 25

Majority……. 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

New clause 20 agreed to.

Clause 2 1 agreed to.

Proposed new clause 2 1 A.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesAttorneyGeneral · ALP

– I move:

In regard to paragraph (a), I understand that Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson intends to move to add the words ‘as the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others voluntarily entered into for life’. In regard to paragraph (b), the Committee will recall that those words ‘the natural and fundamental group unit of society’ are the ones which appear in the Convention on Civil and Political Rights and also in the Universal Declaration of Rights, and I am sure that their inclusion in this Bill will receive a certain amount of approval throughout the community. I stress that they are here in the central part of this enactment where the principles to be applied by the court are set out.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON (New South Wales) (8.35)-Mr Chairman, I wonder whether we could deal with my amendment at the same time as we deal with Senator Murphy’s amendment because I think that we have a degree of unanimity in this matter?I am suggesting that in proposed clause 21a. at the end of paragraph (a) add the following words: ‘as the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others voluntarily entered into for life’. Honourable senators will observe that my amendment is different from the circulated amendment which read: ‘which, according to law in Australia, is the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others voluntarily entered into for life’. We canvassed this matter when I endeavoured to have these words included in the interpretations clause. At that stage my amendment was defeated on the basis that it was not the appropriate place for it. I think it is something that we have to have regard to now. I understand that we will agree on the voices to add those words to Senator Murphy’s amendment.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The only way of dealing with this matter would be either for Senator Murphy to seek leave to add those words to his amendment or for Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson to move his amendment. The question that I have before me at the present time is that the proposed new clause moved by Senator Murphy be inserted.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– I move:

The CHAIRMAN:

– The question is that the words proposed to be added by Senator Anderson’s amendment be added.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Proposed new clause 2 1 A, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 22.

1 ) Subject to this section, proceedings under this Act shall be instituted by application.
A respondent may, in an answer to an application, include an application for any decree or declaration under this Act.
Where a decree nisi of dissolution of marriage or of nullity of marriage has been made, proceedings of a kind referred to in sub-paragraph (c) (i) or (ii) of the definition of matrimonial cause’ in sub-section 4 (1) (not being proceedings seeking the discharge, suspension, revival or variation of an order previously made in proceedings with respect to the maintenance of a party) shall not be instituted after the expiration of 12 months after the date of the making of the decree or the date of commencement of this Act, whichever is the later.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesAttorneyGeneral · ALP

– I move:

Both those amendments are in accordance with paragraph 32 of the Standing Committee’s report. The first amendment would permit applications to be made after 12 months from the decree nisi but only in cases where the court is satisfied that hardship can be shown if leave is not granted.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 23 agreed to.

Clause 24.

1 ) Where proceedings are instituted in a court of summaryjurisdiction with respect to-
1. a ) the custody or guardianship of, or access to, a child of a marriage: or
2. property of a value exceeding $1,000, and the respondent, in an answer to the application by which the proceedings were instituted, seeks an order different from that sought in the application, the court shall, unless the parties agree to the court hearing and determining the proceedings, transfer the proceedings to the Superior Court or to the Supreme Court of a State or Territory.
Before transferring proceedings under sub-section (1 ), the court may make such orders as it considers necessary pending the disposal of the proceedings by the court to which they are to be transferred.
Where proceedings arc transferred to a court in pursuance of this section, that court shall proceed as if the proceedings had been originally instituted in that court.
Without prejudice to the duty of a court of summary jurisdiction to comply with this section, failure by such a court so to comply does not invalidate any order of the court in the proceedings.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesAttorneyGeneral · ALP

– I move:

Amendment 65 is consequential upon the establishment of the Family Court and merely replaces a reference to the Superior Court with a reference to the Family Court. Clause 24 provides that certain proceedings for custody or access or in respect of property worth more than $ 1,000 instituted in a court of summary jurisdiction must be transferred to a higher court if they become defended, unless the parties agree that the matter be heard in the lower court. Amendment 66 is a clarifying one to ensure that a court of summary jurisdiction has a discretion to transfer such proceedings on its own motion, notwithstanding that the parties are willing for that court to hear and determine the proceedings. It may be specially desirable for a custody case to be transferred if the lower court lacks the necessary ancillary staff. Sub-clause 24(2) enables the summary court, before transferring proceedings as required, to make orders pending the disposal of the proceedings in the higher court. Amendment 67 would enable a court of summary jurisdiction in a contested custody case, before transferring the proceedings, to order the parties to attend a conference with a welfare officer pursuant to clause 41. This would enable the conference which would help the parties resolve their differences to be held at an earlier date than if it had to be ordered by the higher court. The effect of clause 24 generally has already been indicated, and I need add only that sub-clause (3) provides for the hearing of the transferred proceedings in the higher court. Sub-clause (4) preserves the validity of any order made by a summary court in proceedings that should have been transferred.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 25 agreed to.

Clause 26

1 ) An application under this Act by a party to a marriage for a decree of dissolution of the marriage shall be based on the ground that the marriage has broken down irretrievably.
Subject to sub-section (3), in a proceeding instituted by such an application, the ground shall be held to have been established, and a decree of dissolution of the marriage shall be made, if, and only if, the court is satisfied that the parties separated and thereafter lived separately and apart for a continuous period of not less than 12 months immediately preceding the date of the commencement of the hearing of the application.
A decree of dissolution of marriage shall not be made if the court is satisfied that there is a reasonable likelihood of cohabitation being resumed.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Webster:

-We will now deal with clause 26- Dissolution of marriage. This clause is obviously one of the more important clauses of the Bill. Copies of 5 separate proposed amendments have been circulated to honourable senators. To facilitate the orderly consideration of the clause and of the amendments the Chair suggests for the consideration of honourable senators that the amendments might be dealt with in the following order: First, the amendment proposed by the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Murphy) which is listed as No. 38 on the Attorney-General’s list of amendments which was circulated prior to the consolidated list being circulated. It is suggested that this amendment be dealt with first as it is the Government’s proposal in relation to its own Bill. It is suggested that the amendments proposed by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson, Senators Durack and Chaney, Senator Laucke and Senator Baume be considered in that order. Is any honourable senator opposed to this proposed method of dealing with clause 26 and the proposed amendments?

Senator DURACK:
Western Australia

- Mr Chairman, I think the order should be as you stated, except I believe Senator Laucke ‘s amendment should be dealt with before the amendment to be moved by Senator Chaney and me because it includes the fault grounds as they exist in the present Matrimonial Causes Act, as does Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson ‘s amendment.I think they ought to be cleared up before we come to the question of a sole ground.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON (New South Wales) (8.45)- On that point, I agree that it is proper that the amendment of the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Murphy) should be disposed of quickly. My amendment brings us back to the second reading debate. I will be brief because we have already canvassed the matter. The amendment brings us back to the question of the critical no-fault ground for divorce or whether regard should be paid to the grounds in the Matrimonial Causes Act. I think we should dispose of that following the Attorney-General’s amendment and progressively come down to whether the period of separation should be 3 years, 2 years or one year.

The CHAIRMAN:

– We will deal with the amendments in the following order: Firstly the Attorney-General’s amendment and then the amendments by Senators Sir Kenneth Anderson, Laucke, Durack and Chaney and Baume.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesAttorneyGeneral · ALP

– I move:

This is a simple amendment, but it is of some consequence. The provision had been that proceedings could be commenced before the relevant 12 months had expired. However that did not mean that a court could give a divorce before the expiration of that 12 months. That period would still have had to elapse. A number of views to the contrary have been expressed. The reasoning behind it has been partly met by the provision of what we described previously, in effect, as a notice of breakdown. It is spelled out and dealt with a little differently, but in effect the distress signal brings into operation the reconciliation and counselling procedures. In the interests of having the Bill passed, I am agreeable to altering this in accordance with the wish of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, that is, to propose that the 12 months must elapse before the filing of the application for dissolution. I would think there would not be any real opposition to this.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

-This amendment stems from an unanimous recommendation of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. Members of the Committee felt that whatever period might be determined as the period of separation it ought to be one that had been created and was already in existence before divorce proceedings started. I say this mainly on the basis that people should not be encouraged to leave premises, start proceedings for divorce and then not be willing to pull back from those proceedings when they later changed their mind. The Standing Committee felt that there ought to be a clear period. That period would be applicable to whatever period the Committee of the Whole finally decides on. I commend the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON (New South Wales) (8.49)-I move:

This issue was canvassed fully in the second reading debate and I do not propose to speak on it at any great length. All honourable senators would be aware of the diametrically opposed points of view held by some honourable senators in relation to this Bill. It has euphemistically been called a Bill for the no fault dissolution of marriage.

My amendment seeks to put the onus of responsibility on the court to show that a marriage has irretrievably broken down and cannot be repaired and that the parties cannot be brought together again. My amendment proposes that the court should have regard to all the circumstances which have brought about the failure of the marriage, such as the conditions of the marriage and the grounds for divorce which are inherent in the present Matrimonial Causes Act. The court must look at all those things before it implements the provisions of the Family Law Bill in relation to the dissolution of marriage.

In my speech in the second reading debate I referred to a statement made by a number of people in high office in the community- I do not propose to mention their names again- people from religious groups in the community, notably in New South Wales, at least one Queen’s Counsel in New South Wales and a number of other members of the legal profession. They have said that clause 26 of the Bill is objectionable because its effect is to permit divorce at the will of one party, without any objective test that the marriage has in fact irretrievably broken down. They have also suggested that adultery should be included as a separate ground. I have not included that suggestion in my amendment because 1 believe that the court would have to look at that condition as well as at other conditions of a marriage to be satisfied that it has inevitably and irretrievably broken down. I am not a lawyer but 1 understand that there are about 14 conditions including desertion, brutality and bestiality. I made my point in relation to those grounds when I spoke in the second reading debate.

This Bill provides that one party to the marriage can say that there is to be a separation. This could happen within a period of days of the marriage being carried out either through church procedures or by civil registration. One party can say, without any ground except incompatibility, that he or she will separate from the other party. Under the amendment of the Attorney-General (Senator Murphy), which has now been agreed to, a period of 12 months separation can provide the ground for the dissolution of the marriage. Without going through all the argument again I suggest that the judgment that honourable senators have to make- and, when the Bill is disposed of here, that members of the other place will have to make- is whether that in itself is a complete and absolute ground for dissolution of marriage, which marriage has been carried out in good faith between one woman and one man on the basis of a contract for life. That is the concept of marriage in the law as it stands, and was the concept even before the operation of the present Matrimonial Causes Act. But in this Bill we are departing from that concept in its entirety. We are simply saying that there does not have to be any proof of grounds or any justification.

Simply because one of the parties, who have married and have taken the solemn vows, decides that he or she does not want to go on with it and wants a separation, under this provision of the Bill he or she will have the right to the dissolution of the marriage and to all that stems from it, such as maintenance and custody of the children of the union. Those matters will be dealt with later on. I will not canvass them now. I will come to the question of whether the period of separation should be 1 year, 2 years, or 3 years. That is only a subsidiary part of the amendment.

What the amendment purports to do is to say that the court must be satisfied that there are grounds by which the procedures of this Bill can operate. Inherent in that would be the grounds that the court has to be satisfied -

Senator Poyser:

– You would be bringing in fault?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– It is bringing in fault. Senator Poyser says that there should not be fault. He should not try to interrupt me when I am making my speech. He is capable of putting his own point of view when he is ready. As I said at the start- perhaps the honourable senator was not listening- this is the very essence of the difference of the views as put by the Attorney-General and by the hierarchy of almost every church organisation in Australia. Thousands of people hold the view that I am putting in the amendment, that marriage entered into in good faith is a contract and should not be allowed to be dissolved in the fashion proposed by this Bill. If one enters into a civil contract- say, for buying stock or doing anything by contractthe law says that there has to be some basis for breaking the contract. The situation we have here is that one of the parties can say: ‘I do not like the other party to the contract, therefore I intend to separate. Because I do not like the colour of the hair of my husband or something or other we are going to have a dissolution. ‘ To me and to an overwhelming number of people in the community that is an objectionable provision. There is no point in going on because we have already voted, I think, on this question of fault and non-fault.

The ultimate purpose of the amendment is that it brings in a period of not less than 3 years. Other amendments have been circulated which refer to a 2-year period and others which refer to a 1-year period. I think that we can dispose of my amendment on the basis of the fundamental principle. If my amendment is not agreed to then we can discuss the other variations. An amendment will be moved by Senator Laucke which I think has real merit in its application and, indeed, an amendment will be moved by Senator Baume which also has application to this question of the period of time. The real thrust of this amendment is that there should be grounds for divorce and the court has to be satisfied that there is grounds for divorce. The marriage should not be allowed to be dissolved on the basis of a decision of one of the parties without there being some grounds which the court is satisfied are bona fide.

Senator BAUME:
New South Wales

- Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson’s amendment contains 2 main propositions one of which relates to a clause involving fault and one of which relates to a period of time. I find it difficult to agree that the period of time should be 3 years. I would like to suggest that part of my proposed amendment has to do with matrimonial fault, lt might be convenient to argue the case now and not re-argue that part of the case later on. I am intervening only to discuss the question of matrimonial fault as Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson has raised it. I would start off by saying that the Bill purports to do away with fault. I have had the opportunity, as have all honourable senators, to read the reports of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs and also to read the transcripts of evidence which were made available to us. It is quite clear that conduct remains relevant even with this new Bill. I should like to quote from part of the report to illustrate my point. On page 25 of the report of the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs appears the following statement:

The provisions of the Bill do not abolish all consideration of so-called ‘fault’. In particular, in the provisions which deal wilh the right of a spouse to maintenance, the Court is required to take into account a number of matters which involve detailed facts relating to the marital relationship.

Paragraph 58 on the same page states:

Moreover in respect of custody proceedings the conduct of the panics is relevant to the determination ofthe issue.

It is quite clear that this Bill does not eliminate the element of conduct. If honourable senators believe the report of the Committee, it does not eliminate fault. To say that fault is absent from this Bill is not correct. There has been an attempt to remove fault from the area of dissolution but it does not follow that one could say that this is a no fault Bill. I found the proceedings of the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee of considerable help when I was examining this question of where we stand with regard to matrimonial fault and trying to make up my mind.

If honourable senators examine what the Committee considered in evidence they would find a lot of detail relevant to this matter. I remind the Committee that on 1 1 September 1974 when Mr Watson gave evidence to the Committee- I quote from the transcript of evidence taken on 1 1 September 1974, page 15- he stated in his written submission: .-

As to (g) there are those who argue that there should be an immediate ground of divorce to deal with intolerable spouses. They remind mc that in July, 1972 1 advocated such a ground . . . I do not entirely abandon this ground. However I realise the conflict in philosophy by putting it into the present Bill.

Mr Watson goes on to say that on balance he is inclined to reject the idea of matrimonial fault as part of dissolution but makes the point that he has some ambivalence. Further in that transcript of evidence at page 37 Mr Watson is reported as follows:

I have advocated that there should be an immediate ground of what I would call ‘intolerable conduct’. In other words, where the conduct is intolerable, the party should be able to get out of it. So let me read what I have written here because it is a problem which I think is a real problem.

He then read that part of his written submission to which I have referred earlier. Mr Watson again makes the point during his evidence that he does not entirely abandon that ground. On page 38 he is reported as saying:

Whilst I am still ambivalent on the question. I would recommend that the present ground be given a trial.

The consultant advising this Committee had considerable ambivalence about whether or not there was a place for a ground involving matrimonial fault. I would like the Committee of the House to accept that it is not a black and white matter- it is not a simple matter to determine. It is obviously a matter which gave the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee considerable concern and which exercised it for a considerable time. That Committee recognised the need for some kind of immediate action. My colleagues who have spoken in relation to this point have brought my mind back to the injunctive provisions in this Bill by saying that this will provide adequate and immediate relief for people.

I am not entirely persuaded that that is so. I still believe that there is a case which says that some people may be worse off for not having available to them the immediate ground. So I looked further into the evidence presented to the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee. I looked to find exactly what had been meant when Mr Watson spoke about an immediate ground. Mr Watson was asked what kind of other proof of irretrievable breakdown he would accept. On page 57 of the transcript of evidence of 1 1 September 1 974 he stated:

We build in, perhaps, a tripartite thing which is basically intolerable conduct and secondly involves a certain period of separation- probably 6 months at least- and which thirdly involves mandatory counselling.

Mr Watson goes on to discuss this in some detail. He discusses the ground of intolerable conduct a little further on and as may be seen at page 60 of that evidence he stated:

It is intolerable conduct and it has to show 6 months’ separation, or some period of separation and has to be subject to mandatory counselling.

Mr Watson further states that he is not entirely happy with mandatory counselling. The Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee went as far as looking at a provisional draft for a possible second ground. I will not bore the Committee by reading it now. The Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee was sufficiently concerned and uncertain about this matter to go into it in great depth and detail to examine just what place matrimonial fault had. Some of the members of that Committee themselves were uncertain. Senator Missen, as may be seen at page 42 of the transcript of evidence, when trying to examine this question of whether there should be an extra ground based on matrimonial fault to give immediate relief- that is what the objective of a fault ground is- said: . . the suggestion is surely not that a new ground be established but a new method of proof of irretrievable breakdown not just 12 months’ separation, but a second means of proof, namely, that over a period of perhaps 12 months there has been an intolerable situation?

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

– In the judgment of the court.

Senator BAUME:

-Well, perhaps. But Senator Missen was saying something terribly important. What we are looking for is not the establishment of fault or blame: we are looking for the means by which we can show that there has been irretrievable breakdown. One of the central arguments to which we return again and again is that there is a certain lack of logic in asserting that there is only one way to arrive at the conclusion that a marriage has broken down irretrievably. Senator Missen went on to say: ls not the real problem, which you do not advert to here, (hai under the present Bill you may not be able to prove separation in any real sense, you have a small family, in a small house, living obviously, apparently together, and even what has been written into the Bill at the present time which says that you can have separation under the one roof, but you have no real separation? Are you not left with a situation, it seems to me. where people must fail in their divorce applications, unless you have a further means of proof in this case?

The Committee went on to deliberate a lot further but Senator Missen has stated the kind of dilemma that concerns a lot of us; that in fact people may be losing something which is available to them at present under the Bill being proposed. Mr Watson, in replying to Senator Missen ‘s statement, stated, according to page 43 of the transcript:

I think there is a great deal in what you have said, and 1 have indicated my ambivalence in this in all fairness. I have tried to get round it by drafting into section 90 and section 14 a way to practically handle the situation. But I think you still have, with respect, a very good point.

He went on to say that he would personally like to try the Bill for 12 months to see how it worked. Senator James McClelland, the Chairman of the Committee, tried to clarify what Senator Missen had asked for by saying, as reported at pages 44 and 45:

. what Senator Missen has put in but which does not really involve fault, if you could say: Could you have the test that one spouse found the conduct of the other spouse intolerable? Now the reassertion of that fact by one of the spouses does not involve any inquiry as to whether the spouse complained or was guilty of fault.

But if the conduct was intolerable as between the 2 parties- they are my own words- Mr Watson went on to say that he would go along with this. He also indicated that there was a stage during the drafting of the Bill when the AttorneyGeneral had asked Mr Yuill and Mr Watson to have an alternative proof available to the Committee. So we have from the members of the Committee considerable concern that it is not possible to eliminate fault and that there are real grounds for concern that a single method of proof may disadvantage some people.

I understand that the Committee eventually reached an alternative view and I understand that the Attorney-General holds an alternative view. I respect their bona fides and I respect their opinions but I am not certain that they are right. I am not certain that that small group of people who would benefit from having a second form of proof available are necessarily going to be better off. I think they may be worse off. The argument against allowing in this kind of provision has nothing to do with the argument we are putting forward. I think few people would disagree that a second method of proof would be useful. The concern, as I understand it, is related to potential abuse of such a provision if it was there. So to prevent the abuse, we are going to deny to certain people a possible means of relief in matters of dissolution.

I think we need to examine the place of a second ground. I think it would be of benefit to a small but real number of people, whether we take the present provisions of the divorce law, whether we take the English provisions, or whether we take some other grounds of behaviour which indicates some way in which a court may decide that there has been intolerable conduct, ‘intolerable’ used not in a blaming sense but in a sense that the relationship between the 2 people is no longer viable. I do not care what kind of second ground we use but 1 think many people deserve an opportunity for a second mechanism, a method of proving irretrievable breakdown of marriage.

Having said all that, I indicate that 1 would like to see us vote on this question of a second ground. If the vote is unsuccessful, when it comes time to consider my amendment I will not insist on proceeding with that part of it which deals with fault. I will look at the vote on Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson’s amendment and Senator Laucke ‘s amendment and decide from that point that if the Committee is going to reject any idea of a second ground I will accept that verdict. I thought it appropriate to speak at this stage.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

– I would like to follow the very lucid explanation which Senator Baume has made of this point by saying that he very accurately quoted me and my agonising in the Committee on this subject. I do not think he quoted from the Committee something which is said on this particular subject:

On ultimate balance the majority of the Committee is of the opinion that it would not be desirable to amend clause 26 (2) in order to cover such cases which they consider will normally be the subject ofthe exercise ofthe court’s jurisdiction under clause 90.

It is right that there was a great deal of agonising on this question in the Committee and I suppose I was the last to be converted to the view that there should not now at this stage be a second ground, and that certainly was subsequent to the Committee report being presented. I hold the view, on ultimate balance at the present time, that there is not a case for a second ground, an immediate ground, of divorce. I say that for a variety of reasons. I had the fear that if there was not an immediate ground, and if there was a long period of separation as the other ground, there may be injustice to some people who are living in rather intolerable circumstances. It was my feeling that this probably would require some further ground. I must say 1 am convinced now, as I was at all stages, that one year is a sufficient period and that people who will be suffering those intolerable circumstances are sufficiently protected by clauses like clause 90 and by the right to go before the court for ancillary relief before then. I am not saying that this may work out in practice to be entirely so. I hope that if this is not so the members of the Family Law Committee which is to investigate this matter will be the people who should put up a proposal if it changes thought. I am satisfied that the removal of fault from the determination of grounds is a pretty important matter and that it will greatly reduce the amount of bitterness and hatred and the litigation period. I have always thought that in the case of ‘this is an unnecessary area in which to fight’ you cannot eliminate what you may call the conduct of the parties, certainly in the areas of custody and, 1 think, in maintenance.

There are occasions when the position and even the conduct of the parties must be considered.

The Committee was strongly of the view that fault should be removed as far as possible. Irrespective of whether it is suggested that the person behaved in a way that another person could not reasonably be expected to live with him or her, the difficulty is that the proposed clause is very vague in its language and it is very difficult to know just how it would be applied. Senator Baume ‘s amendment refers to misconduct that is grave and weighty. Again it is difficult to know where to go. What is the type of proof required and what evidence is to be used to prove that fault? One could imagine many contested divorces. There is another problem also. If there is to be any real possibility of reconciliation succeeding there must be some time for that to operate. If a party can go immediately before a court and start proceedings for a divorce, I think the opportunity for a successful reconciliation is greatly restricted.

Taking all these things into account, and recognising the force of the arguments which both speakers have expressed, I am reasonably satisfied now that there should not be an attempt to go into one of these new and vague grounds or methods of proof. We may be proved right or wrong. The situation is not irretrievable in the sense that it will not be possible to change this legislation. It may be easier to change it in the future. Very few people may suffer any disadvantage by not having the second ground but a lot of people may suffer if we reintroduce the fault ground into this section of the Bill.

Senator LAUCKE:
South Australia

-I indicate that I am attracted by the amendment moved by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson. I shall be supporting it. It incorporates fault grounds. My amendment, which I propose to introduce later if this amendment is not successful, sets out quite definitely fault ground as it exists in the Matrimonial Causes Act at the present time. But should the amendment moved by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson be acceptable to the Committee I shall be content at that stage not to pursue my proposed amendment.

Senator DURACK:
Western Australia

– Like Senator Missen I have been very concerned for a long time as to whether there should be not only a ground based on a period of separation but also some immediate ground of divorce. I first toyed with the idea, when I was very attracted to the abolition of the fault grounds, that we could have a ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage which could be proved by an immediate application to the court but after a period, whether it be 1 year, 2 years or 3 years, it should be conclusive that the marriage had irretrievably broken down. In other words, the immediate ground which Senator Baume has said he favours in principle should be available as an irretrievable breakdown of marriage.

However, I have finally come to the conclusion that as long as we have a ground which is other than a simple period of separation- whatever that period may be- we inevitably get into the area of fault. There will be no way of avoiding an investigation into the fault of one or probably both parties. Even if the argument before the court is whether the marriage has irretrievably broken down- this does not ostensibly raise fault grounds- I still think that people will be involved in essence in a fault argument. Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson’s amendment used the words:

. that the applicant cannot reasonably be expected to live with that party . . .

I believe that that introduces even more clearly a fault ground because undoubtedly any investiga tion of what one party can reasonably be expected to put up with is introducing fault concepts.I notice that Senator Baume ‘s proposed ground is: ‘Conduct sufficiently grave and weighty to justify termination of the relationship’. Whatever type of language is used it is inevitable that there will be an investigation of fault. Over the years we have found that it has been difficult enough to get a definition of cruelty and an application of the law as it stands on cruelty in any particular case. Over the years there has been a great deal of law on this subject. But if we move away from that body of law as to what has amounted to cruelty and if we start using words like ‘grave and weighty conduct’ or conduct by which one cannot reasonably be expected to live with the other’ we are moving into an area where the decision which may be given by a court will be totally uncertain, erratic and in many cases capricious. This is apart altogether from my feeling that we should not be leaving any room for a fault ground.

Apart altogether from that aspect I have canvassed in my mind every conceivable way of expressing fault grounds. To me it seems inevitably to lead to the question of fault being canvassed. Let us turn for a moment to the argument that some people will suffer injustice if they do not have the availability of an immediate ground of divorce. As I have said, if there is an immediate ground it will be fault of some kind or another, whether it is certain or uncertain. But what is the real demand for an immediate ground for divorce? In my experience as a practitioner in this field- although it is some years ago now- the immediate concern of people who come to a lawyer is protection, maintenance and custody of the children.

At that stage they are not interested in a divorce. It is only later when they have settled down and probably- to be perfectly cynical- when they have met somebody else whom they want to marry that they start talking about divorce. What people immediately want when a marriage breaks down is the availability of a quick resolution of the problems of protection. It might be a case of a wife who has been beaten up by her husband. Let us face the situation that there are plenty of cases like that. Do not get away with the idea that in this day and age that does not happen quite often. There are these cases where the wife needs protection. She does not want a divorce. In fact, in my experience when one suggests to people that they apply for a divorce they say: ‘Heavens, the last thing we want to be talking about is getting married again.’ They want protection. Of course, if there are still children they want maintenance for the children and for themselves and custody of the children. I believe that the Bill as drafted clearly provides them with a type of protection and with maintenance and custody provisions. With due respect to Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson and to Senator Baume I just cannot see and understand the argument as to why an immediate ground of divorce is necessary.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON (New South Wales) (9.28)- Against the background of our second reading debate and the exciting interest which has been conveyed by the Committee tonight I think I should make it clear that a decision will need to be taken in the context of the voices. In the background of what happened earlier I will not be calling for a division but at least I will call to have my view recorded in the records of the Senate in relation to my amendment. It may well be that if, as is obvious, the amendment is defeated I will give significant support to the amendments to be moved by Senator Laucke and Senator Baume to the point where those amendments are not inconsistent with one another.

It is inherent and it is fundamental to my amendment that the court has to be satisfied that there has been behaviour by one of the parties to the contract such that the applicant cannot reasonably be expected to live with the other party and that there has therefore been irrevocable breakdown of marriage. I do not need to canvass those grounds again. They have all been canvassed extensively here. As we go through the amendments that will arise later the points made by Senator Baume show that in this legislation and acknowledged by the Committee which gave its blessing to this no fault concept, there is demonstrably a fault concept. Later on in respect of clauses 51 and 56 which deal with maintenance of the issue of a marriage this question of the rights of the issue and of responsibility will emerge. Because we have already canvassed it extensively in the second reading debate and as no other honourable senators wish to speak, the obvious thing to do, subject to what the Attorney-General (Senator Murphy) may say, is to put the amendment to the test.

Senator DAVIDSON:
South Australia

– One is a little hesitant to enter into this complex situation but I refer to what I said in the second reading debate on the matter of retaining the fault ground. One criticism of retaining the fault ground has come from people who have expressed concern about the effect that retention of a fault ground has on the re-marriage of divorced persons. This issue, while it may not enter immediately into the matter before the Committee at the moment, is at least something which arises from it. There are exceptions to this concern about the re-marriage of divorced persons because we have in this situation what is described as an innocent party. I am somewhat at a loss to discern clearly in my own mind what is an innocent party. Under the present Act a secular courts’ finding as to who may or may not be the guilty party can be a subject for argument. Perhaps it is too simple an answer to the complex question of who is the guilty party and who is the main contributor to the breakdown of the marriage. Therefore the matter of fault arises. In the amendment which Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson moved earlier tonight he refers to it being established to the reasonable satisfaction of the court that the other party to the marriage has behaved in such a way that the applicant cannot reasonably be expected to live with that party, but that behaviour to which Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson refers may or may not have been the fault in this particular situation.

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

– It is for the judgment of the court, of course.

Senator DAVIDSON:

– It may, as the honourable senator has said, be subject to the judgment of the court but there are a number of complex factors relating to this situation which lead me to the conclusion that, while I appreciate the arguments that the honourable senator has put forward, at least at this stage I am unable to support his amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

– 1 ask that my affirmative vote be recorded.

Senator Laucke:

– I too ask that my affirmative vote be recorded.

The CHAIRMAN:

-That will be done.

Senator LAUCKE:
South Australia

– I move:

In this amendment I have set out clearly the grounds of fault. I will read the clause as it would appear with the inclusion of the words I propose to add and the deletion of the words I propose to delete. It would read:

1 ) An application under this Act by a party to a marriage for a decree of dissolution of the marriage shall be based on the ground that the marriage has broken down irretrievably.

That sub-clause remains. Then it would read:

subject to sub-section (3), in a proceeding instituted by such an application, the ground shall be held to have been established, and a decree of dissolution of the marriage shall be made, if, and only if, the court is satisfied that the parties separated and thereafter lived separately and apart for a continuous period of not less than -

At this point the remaining words of this subclause are deleted and I propose to insert: three years immediately preceding the date of the commencement of the hearing of the application, or 12 months if either-

there are no children of the marriage who have not attained the age of 18 at the date of the application, and the respondent consents; or
the respondent has been found by the court to have committed one or more of the offences stated in the Matrimonial Causes Act 1959-1971 as grounds for the dissolution of marriage.

The amendment provides that the period shall be 12 months if the children are above the age of 18 years and 3 years if the children are under the age of 18 years unless one of the fault grounds which now appear in the Matrimonial Causes Act- and there are 14 of them defined in it clearly- is proved against the respondent. There is no indecision or difficulty in determining what the grounds of fault are. They are specifically set out in the Matrimonial Causes Act. I have no need at this stage to list them. I point out that in Canada there is a fault ground, in California there is a fault ground, and in the English legislation passed in January 1971 there is only one ground for divorce, and that is that the marriage has broken down irretrievably, but that English law requires that the breakdown be established by the proof of one of 5 stipulated sets of facts which must be proved to the court. So the English law of 1 97 1- that is the most recent legislation- clearly sets out 5 fault grounds.

This legislation that we have before us, and this provision particularly, would be the most advanced, if I can refer to it in that way, in the western world in terms of easy divorce, as far as I can determine. 1 believe that there should be at base the requirement for a court in the light of certain actions or situations to determine whether a divorce should or should not be granted under certain conditions. The fault grounds in the English law are these: That the respondent has committed adultery and the petitioner finds it intolerable to live with the respondent; that the respondent has behaved in such a way that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent; that the respondent has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of at least 2 years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition; that the parties to the marriage have lived apart for a continuous period of at least 2 years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition and the respondent consents to a decree being granted; that the parties to the marriage have lived apart for a continuous period of at least 5 years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition. This English legislation is said to be among the most advanced legislation in the world and has been found to be acceptable with these fault grounds incorporated in it. My amendment provides for the retention of the grounds in’ our Matrimonial Causes Act in certain conditions. 1 feel that this is clear cut, it is direct, it is definite, and it is protective of the institution of marriage as we have known it through many years, ft does not debar divorce as it provides for rather prompt divorce in certain situations. I regard the amendment as quite a reasonable proposition to put before the Senate for its consideration. I believe it is an improvement on the one ground that was proposed initially- the acceptance of 12 months separation as irretrievable breakdown of marriage. If that ground exists people can obtain a divorce. So I have pleasure in moving my amendment.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

-I am afraid that I find this amendment more difficult even than the last because there are various things in it which are different and which, I think, would make for a very unreasonable law. This is a provision that the period of separation shall be 3 years. It would be longer, of course, than the present requirement of 2 years which, although we call it desertion, really is separation in the way in which the courts interpret it. So, the amendment will involve a longer period of separation. I point out that the period is 3 years, or 12 months in other circumstances, immediately preceding the date ofthe commencement of the hearing and that is the amendment we have just thrown out. I would think that is probably just a matter of a discrepancy.

I draw the attention of the Committee to 2 things. In the first place the period will be 3 years or, if there are no children and there is consent, 12 months. I strongly urge the Committee not to introduce the idea of consent into our divorce legislation. This would be highly unwise in any event and it provides an excellent blackmailing means for a party to a marriage. If a wife can say to her husband that he has to wait 3 years for a divorce, but if she consents he can get a divorce in 12 months, there is something there that will be worth a lot of money. There is a bargaining factor. There is an opportunity for the parties then to make decisions based upon the amount of money the husband, or the wife, will pay to get an earlier divorce. I urge the Committee not to put into the grounds for divorce any aspect of consent.

The second ground is curious as well. It would reintroduce the 14 grounds that have been attacked up and down the Committee and up and down the country for years. It would introduce adultery, desertion and so forth. What is more, if people read the Family Law Bill they will not find the grounds within it. They would have to turn to a repealed Act before they could find the grounds. They would have to look at all the ancient law which has developed under these grounds to determine what their rights will be. I suggest that this would introduce all the elements of fault back into the law and it would provide, as I have already said, these 2 very different periods. The English law has been quoted. The English Act, on the view of most observers, is a disaster. It did not provide for irretrievable breakdown. It resurrected and created some 5 new grounds comprising a mixture of fault, consent and various other things. I think the last thing we should do is to try to imitate the English law. I oppose the amendment.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesAttorneyGeneral · ALP

– I oppose the amendment because it introduces the proven elements of fault, I think, in a very unsatisfactory way.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON (New South Wales) (9.44)- As would be expected, I support the amendment. I am fascinated by what Senator Missen said about the question of consent. As I interpret the Bill as it is before us, it contains an absolute inherent implication of consent for the dissolution of marriage. It is true that it can be done unilaterally, but it could be equally done by consent of the parties. It can be done with consent after the first day of marriage, in point of fact. So that argument does not impress me. Senator Laucke ‘s amendment goes far deeper in fact than my amendment, which was defeated, proposed to go. It provides for grounds for dissolution.I support that. He also makes provisions for a 3-year period as a variation if the children of the marriage are not more than 1 8 years of age. Whilst I have some reservations in relation to the matter, in light of my point of view, I will cast my vote for the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

– I ask for my affirmative vote to be recorded.

Senator Laucke:

– I also ask that my affirmative vote be recorded.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Webster:

-That will be done in both cases.

Senator DURACK:
Western Australia

In sub-clause (2). leave out’ 12 months’, insert ‘2 years’.

In my speech on the second reading stage of the Bill I advanced the basic reasons which Senator Chaney and I have for suggesting that the period of separation should be 2 years instead of one year as provided in the Bill. I shall go over those reasons again. We are accepting, of course, the fact that the no-fault ground of divorce should be the one and only ground of divorce. The Committee has now rejected any suggestion of the introduction of fault, whether it be directly or indirectly. I think we are left now with the one issue of whether the sole ground of divorce should be separation for a period of separation ofone year or 2 years. Although, as I have said, I favour completely the no-fault basis of divorce, I believe that the purpose of a divorce law must be, as everybody agrees, one which will buttress marriage. I take that to mean the law will provide such impediments to easy divorce as will cause people, both before they have entered into marriage and after they have entered into it, to have very serious regard to the nature of the responsibilities they are assuming, not only to their children but also to each other and indeed to society. It is quite clear that our society, as I have said, whether it be Christian or not, still regards marriage as the basic unit of society. It still regards marriage, at least as an ideal, as a union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

Indeed I believe it is most significant that earlier in the Committee stage today we adopted Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson’s amendment which quite clearly incorporates in this Bill that basic concept that our community has of the nature of marriage. Therefore we cannot accept a period of separation which would be so short as to amount to a complete repudiation of all those basic concepts. For arguments sake we will assume a period of separation of one month, 3 months or 6 months. I think it would be obvious that such periods of separation would be really totally contrary to those conceptions which have already been incorporated into this Bill. In my view the period of 12 months is not sufficiently long to provide that buttress for marriage which has been said to be the basis of good divorce law. Having regard to certain features of the Bill, namely, that the parties can in fact reside even in the same house and provide for each other a few household services, they could become reconciled for a period of up to 3 months and it is possible under this Bill to add together periods of separation both before and after such reconciliation. When one has regard to those factors it seems to me that 12 months is really a very short period of time. We have to be satisfied that whatever period of separation we choose it must establish clearly that the marriage has broken down. It would be very difficult to say that a period of separation of 12 months would clearly establish that fact. There seems to be a good deal of evidence from experts in this field who have found in their experience that people going through the turmoil of marriage breakdown may well be separated for a period longer than 12 months but are ultimately reconciled.

It is important in making such a very fundamental change in our marriage and divorce laws that we proceed very carefully and very cautiously and not introduce too revolutionary a change in the one step. It seems to me that to abandon as we are the fault concept and to incorporate as an alternative a non-fault ground as the sole ground for divorce, we should be particularly careful to ensure that we do not go too far. If we went overboard to the extent of making the period of separation 3 months or 6 months it would be obvious to us all that we were going too far. In my opinion, and I believe in the opinion of a large section of the community whose views I have heard or heard of, a period of 12 months is too short. That is why I have brought forward this amendment for the period of separation to be 2 years. I can conceive that maybe that is going a little too far, but I just have the feeling that 12 months is too short a period of time. It does seem to be unrealistic to talk about any period between 12 months and 2 years and that is why I have settled on 2 years.

The arguments which I have heard against this proposal have, I think, already been canvassed in this place. People say that that is too long to have to wait after a marriage breakdown and that the period should be shorter and that there should be a more immediate ground. I have already dealt with that and, as I have said, from my own experience when people separate and a marriage breaks down they are not really thinking about divorce immediately. It is only later that they think about divorce. In any event there is always a considerable period of time which elapses after separation during which court proceedings and negotiations are taking place. I do not think it would matter very much if the period of separation was extended by another 12 months. From the point of view of society’s attitude towards divorce law it is most important that there should be a very substantial and realistic period of separation before it is possible to obtain a divorce.

I come back to my original argument that we must have a divorce law which does make people think before they enter into marriage. In other words, they should not, as marriage service says, enter into marriage lightly and inadvisedly with the idea that they can very easily get out of it. That of course would be bad divorce law. Furthermore, when a marriage seems to be going wrong the couple think that they will have to separate for a period of only 12 months and then they can get a divorce.

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

– Continuous separation.

Senator DURACK:

– It is not a continuous period. Under the Bill 2 periods can be added together to make the 12 months.

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

– It does not say that in clause 26.

Senator DURACK:

– No, but it does in another clause. If when a marriage starts to go wrong people can say, ‘We do not have to put up with this, we can easily separate and get a divorce’ again that divorce law is not doing its job because I think the divorce law should be such as to make people think seriously about the question of divorce. They should not believe that they can get a divorce easily. If they realise that they cannot get a divorce easily that is an important factor to weigh in their minds when considering whether they will separate and break up the marriage. I know that there are many other considerations. People do get very concerned about these things on purely personal levels. I am not saying that we have to hold something draconian over their heads. But I think there are a multitude of factors that should be brought to their attention in these circumstances, and certainly one of them is the ease or the difficulty of getting a divorce if in fact they do separate.

For all those reasons I believe that it would be too great and too rapid an advance for us to proceed to introduce as a sole ground for divorce separation for a period of 12 months. It would be much safer for us and we would be more careful in our approach as legislators to this very vital and fundamental aspect if, as I have said, we adopted as the ground a period of 2 years separation. These things are not rigid. We are going to have an opportunity of seeing how this legislation works out. We are going hopefully to have a Family Law Council which will keep these matters under close watch and advise the Parliament in regard to the way the proposed Act is operating. But for a start, and embarking upon what is a very revolutionary divorce law reform, I think we have gone far enough in abandoning the fault aspect. If we try to go too far at this stage we may be causing great harm to the community and particularly to its attitudes towards marriage. For those reasons I have moved the amendment.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Anybody who has been listening closely to the debate over the past days would be well aware now of the provisions relating to this amendment. It may be very convenient for the Committee to attempt to get a vote on this shortly. Do you wish to speak, Senator Davidson? I see you seeking the call.

Senator Davidson:

– Yes, Mr Chairman.

Senator Murphy:

– I think there has been an arrangement to report progress at this stage to permit some Bills to be introduced I hope that we will be able to return speedily to the Committee consideration and conclude this tonight.

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

– Can the Attorney tell us whether we will return to this Bill tonight in time to deal with this clause?

Senator Murphy:

– Yes.

Consideration interrupted.

Progress reported.

Motion (by Senator Murphy) agreed to:

That further consideration in Committee be made an order ofthe day for a later hour this day.

page 2795

QUESTION

JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE NORTHERN TERRITORY

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

- Mr Acting Deputy President, I bring up the report of the Joint Committee on the Northern Territory relating to constitutional developments in the Northern Territory, together with the minutes of evidence.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Senator McLAREN:

– I ask for leave to move a motion that the Senate take note ofthe report.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Devitt)- Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Senator McLAREN:

– I move:

I have pleasure in presenting to the Parliament the report by the Joint Committee on the Northern Territory on ‘Constitutional Development in the Northern Territory’. The implementation of the recommendations of this report could be the first step in the granting of a degree of autonomy to residents of the Territory. The first words of evidence given to the Committee were ‘the constitutional development of the Northern Territory represents a complex and unique problem’. These words proved to be only too true and the complexity of the inquiry required much thought and deliberative effort by the Committee.

The Committee sought evidence from as many organisations and individuals as possible. It visited as many Territory centres as possible and most of the evidence, in fact, was taken in the Territory. The Committee also divided into subcommittees and visited 15 Aboriginal settlements in the Territory. About 100 witnesses gave evidence and the Committee wishes to thank all those people who made the effort to prepare submissions and appear before it. Because of insufficient time and the complexity of the inquiry the Committee was not able to advise the Government on electoral matters in time for the conduct of the recent election for the Legislative Assembly. However, the Committee, after its own investigations, endorses the changes made by the Government for those elections.

The Committee proposes that all ‘State-type’ legislation continue to be introduced into the Legislative Assembly. However, the Committee recommends that, in respect to those Executive functions retained by the Australian Government, the Governor-General be vested with the power to make regulations to be used only when agreement has not been reached on the legislation after the fullest consultation between the national and Territory executives. Constitutional development is a step by step forward movement and the next step in this process in the Territory is the granting of some executive responsibility to the Legislative Assembly.

The Committee does not recommend the transfer of responsibility for all ‘State-type’ functions to. the Territory Executive but proposes that functions of local significance be transferred as soon as possible and that, for the time being, functions of national concern be retained by the Australian Government. The proposals of the Committee are, in effect, that all ‘State-type’ functions be transferred to the Territory Executive, except that major functions such as rural land, mining, education, health, companies and the Supreme Court be retained by the Australian Government and other major functions such as roads, ports, fisheries, national parks and the police be shared. To implement the granting of executive responsibilty as proposed, the Committee has made recommendations on funds to be made available to the Territory Executive, on the role of the Administrator and on the Public Service.

The Committee recognises that the recommendations it makes will be the basis for immediate negotiations between the Australian Government and the Territory Executive. Furthermore, it points out that the Territory Executive should, as circumstances change, negotiate with the Australian Government for the transfer of additional functions. The Committee cannot stress strongly enough the need for consultation, co-operation and co-ordination between the National and Territory Executives particularly in respect to ‘State-type’ functions retained by the Australian Government. Without such consultation, co-operation and co-ordination the success of the transfer of Executive responsibility to the Legislative Assembly is extremely doubtful. The Committee also considers it fundamental that the Territory Executive deal only with the one Australian Government Minister who would have the executive responsibility for all ‘Statetype’ functions retained by the Australian Government. This Minister, of course, would need to consult with his colleagues in the Australian Government. Mr Acting Deputy President, I ask for leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2796

LIVE-STOCK SLAUGHTER LEVY BILL 1974

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

-I move:

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The document read as follows)-

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Livestock Slaughter Levy Act 1 964- 1 973 to provide for the extension, for a further period, of 2½ years from 1 January 1975 to 30 June 1977, of the special levy on livestock slaughterings imposed initially in January 1969, to provide finance for the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation for scientific research in connection with the processing of beef, mutton and lamb. Apart from the extension of the period of the levy, all other provisions will continue unchanged. The initial proposals for this levy were submitted by the Australian Meat Exporters Federal Council and fully supported by the Meat and Allied Trades Federation and the Australian Meatworks Federal Council. These organisations suggested a continuation of the levy for a further 7 years, but my Government feels that as the Industries Assistance Commission has been asked to report on the question of rural research and promotion of rural products by 5 July 1976, the levy should be continued for a further period of 2½ years only, pending receipt of the Commission’s recommendations.

The service and investigation section of the CSIRO has used funds obtained from the levy, together with a matching Australian Government contribution, to assist meatworks in many fields including meat quality control, sanitation and hygiene, preservation and processing and utilisation of meat, schools on ageing of meat, storage and packaging; all of which are of increasing importance in the meat trade. The section has also published reports and information in the form of newsletters on its work and findings. Section 17 of the Meat Research Act 1960-1968 requires that an annual report be made to Parliament on the operations of the Act and the use of the funds. Funds from the levy, on current estimates, provide finance to allow a continuity of operations over the period in question. In accordance with the Government’s wish to use the term ‘Australia’ rather than ‘Commonwealth’, the opportunity has been taken to amend the Act in this respect. Also due to metric conversion minor weight amendments have been made. I commend the Bill to the honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Laucke) adjourned.

page 2796

LIVE-STOCK SLAUGHTER LEVY COLLECTION BILL 1974

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– I move:

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The document read as follows)-

The purpose of this Bill, which is complementary to the Livestock Slaughter Levy Bill, 1974, is to amend the Livestock Slaughter Levy Collection Act, 1964-1973, due to the adoption of the metric conversion system and the change in the name of the Department of Primary Industry to the Australian Department of Agriculture. The dressed weight of cattle specified in the Bill remains the same except that the weights are converted to 90 kilograms and 100 kilograms respectively. Representatives of industry have agreed to these changes. I commend the Bill to honourable senators as a necessary adjunct to the Livestock Slaughter Levy Bill 1974.

Debate (on motion by Senator Laucke) adjourned.

page 2796

INCOME TAX BILL 1974

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion Senator Wriedt) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

-I move:

That the Bill be now read a secondtime.

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The document read as follows)-

This Bill declares the rates of income tax payable for the 1974-75 financial year. The main features of the Bill are a new personal tax scale, reduced rates of company tax and a surcharge on property income. The new personal tax scale will result in lower tax for all persons except those with quite large incomes- the greatest reductions will be at the lower and middle income levels. For example, the tax payable on a taxable income of $4,000 will be reduced by $188.30 or 3 1.0 per cent from the tax at last year’s rates and at a taxable income of $6,000 the reduction will be $259.90 or 20.6 per cent. The combined effect of the new rates and the rebate for low income earners with dependants will be to reduce very substantially, and in some cases extinguish, the tax otherwise payable by these persons. For example, a taxpayer with a wife and 2 children, with a taxable income of $2,732, after allowance of dependants and other deductions will be freed from tax. For 1973-74 his tax would have been $302.17. The tax payable by a taxpayer with a taxable income of $4,000, after deductions for a wife and 2 children, will be $303.52 for 1974-75, compared with $608.30 for 1973-74-a reduction of over 50 per cent. Revised tax instalment deductions taking into account the changed rates of tax announced in the Budget Speech have applied since 1 November. These will be further changed as from January 1975, so that, from January, pay packets will, in addition, reflect broadly double the cuts that are being made in the rates announced in the Budget. The new rate scale will also be reflected in provisional tax in respect of 1974-75 incomes.

The Bill also proposes a tax surcharge on property income included in the 1974-75 taxable income of an individual or the net income of a trust estate. The surcharge will not apply, however, where the taxable or net income is $5,000 or less. The surcharge will be based on the amount of tax on property income calculated by reference to the average rate of tax applicable to the whole of the taxable income. The rate will be 10 per cent where the taxable income is $5,500 or more and there will be shading-in rates applying in the range $5,001 to $5,499. The effect of the surcharge will be quite moderate. In the case of a person with taxable income of $ 10,000, onequarter of which is from property, it will add only $69.50 to ordinary tax of $2,780. Despite the surcharge this person will pay less tax for 1974-75 than would have been payable on the same taxable income for 1973-74.

For the 1974-75 financial year the special rebate of tax for aged persons is to be a basic amount of $130. It will be recalled that the rebate was introduced as a transitional measure last year, as part of the package of measures associated with the commencement of phasing out of the age pension means test. It has now served its transitional role, but it is to be phased out gradually. While less than that allowed last year it will, when coupled with the reduced rates of tax applying to lower incomes, result in aged persons entitled to it paying less tax in 1974-75 than on equivalent 1973-74 incomes. The rebate will free from tax persons of age pension age for the whole of 1974-75 whose taxable incomes are $2,358 or less. For 1973-74 the corresponding amount was $1,921.

The Bill proposes that for the 1974-75 financial year the general rate of tax payable by public and private companies in respect of 1973-74 incomes will be 45 per cent. The proposed rate for public companies is2½ per cent less than for the 1973-74 financial year, and the Budget proposal to increase the rate for private companies to 47½ per cent is not being proceeded with. The rate of tax payable by co-operative companies and non-profit companies other than friendly society dispensaries on taxable income in excess or $10,000 will also be reduced from 47.5 per cent to 45 per cent. Other company tax rates will be the same as those that applied last year. The rate of tax payable in respect of the 1974-75 investment income of a superannuation fund that does not invest a specified proportion of its assets in public securities will be reduced from 47.5 per cent to 45 per cent, thus preserving the link between the rate of tax payable in these cases and that payable by mutual life assurance companies. Explanations of technical aspects of the Bill are contained in the memorandum I have had circulated. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Greenwood) adjourned.

page 2797

INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT BILL (No. 2) 1974

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– I move:

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Devitt) -Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The document read as follows)-

This Bill will give effect to taxation proposals announced in the Budget Speech and one or two other such proposals. The rebate of tax for low income earners entitled to concessional deductions for dependants is one feature of the Bill. It is proposed that where, because of the lower rates of tax payable by these people, their tax saving from deductions for dependants is less than 40 per cent of the amount of the deductions, a rebate will be allowed to bring the saving up to 40 per cent, or to the tax otherwise payable if that is less. By way of illustration a man supporting a wife and two children is entitled to maintenance deductions of $832. If his taxable income were $5,000 his tax saving from these deductions would ordinarily be $266.24. The rebate will increase the saving by $66.56 to $332.80. His tax for 1974-75 will be $613.44, that is $303.86 less than the 1973-74 tax of $917.30.

The Bill also proposes amendments to the depreciation provisions to make it clear that expenditure on facilities used in child care centres provided by employers for children of their employees are to qualify for depreciation deductions on the same basis as facilities provided for employees. The concessional deductions available for the maintenance of dependants are to be widened by the Bill so that, for 1974-75 and subsequent years, deductions will be available for the maintenance of dependants who are not residents of Australia.

A major purpose of this Bill is to give legislative effect to the Government’s undertaking to introduce a scheme of income tax deductions for interest paid on home loans. The scheme will provide worthwhile relief from interest charges for low and medium income borrowers. The new scheme will apply to housing loan interest due and payable on and after 1 July 1974. Its basic features have already been outlined on a number of occasions and are explained in detail in the memorandum I am circulating on these and other provisions of the Bill. The Bill also gives effect to an announcement made by the Treasurer (Mr Crean) last March that the income tax law would be amended to exempt from tax interest derived by a credit union from loans to its members. Credit unions will continue to be taxed on income other than interest on loans to members, for example, from rents and outside’ investment of funds not immediately required for their normal lending operations. A further amendment in the concessional deduction area to be made by the Bill will reduce the maximum deductions for education and selfeducation expenses from $400 to $150.I do not have to stress the substantially increased direct expenditures that the Government is making on education.

I refer now to an amendment proposed as part of the Budget which affects life assurance companies. A life assurance company is allowed a deduction based on a proportion of ‘calculated liabilities’. This deduction, which is in the nature of a concession, in effect, frees from tax a basic 2 per cent return on policy holders’ funds, and this ultimately goes to policy holders in tax free form. If a company’s holdings of public securities rise above or fall below the 30/20 investment ratio the deduction is varied upwards or downwards. The basic allowable proportion of calculated liabilities was reduced from 3 per cent to 2 per cent in the 1973-74 Budget, and will be reduced to 1 per cent by this amendment as a further step towards ensuring that life assurance transactions, viewed as a whole, bear a fairer share of overall taxation.

New provisions are to be inserted by the Bill to reduce the difficulties mentioned in the Budget Speech regarding taxation of the value of certain fringe benefits. Following a concept applied in Canada, one of the new provisions will, in effect, place on a fringe benefit provided by way of private use of a motor vehicle a minimum annual value equal to 12 per cent of the first $6,000 and 24 per cent of the balance of the original cost of the vehicle. Another new provision will require the value of benefits received under a stock option or share purchase scheme to be measured at the time of the exercise of the option or on the transfer of the shares rather than as at present, when the rights are acquired. The third of the new provisions will disallow deductions for fees paid for membership of a sporting or social club. This provision will also disallow deductions for expenditure relating to leisure facilities such as boats, ski lodges, holiday cottages unless a genuine and substantial business need for the facility is established.

The Bill also proposes some technical amendments concerned with the allowance in tax assessments of our residents of a credit for Papua New Guinea tax on income derived there. The amendments, which were foreshadowed in an announcement made by the Treasurer last year, are consequential upon the introduction of a dividend withholding tax by Papua New Guinea in August 1 972 and will ensure that appropriate credit is allowed for that tax. Minor amendments are proposed to the relief provisions of the income tax law. One will increase from $100 to $200 the amount in respect of which applications for relief can be dealt with by the Commissioner of Taxation. The other will empower the Relief Board to determine, without prior reference to a member of a Board of Review or the Chairman of a Land Valuation Board, applications for relief where the liability is $2,000 or less, instead of $ 1 ,000 or less as at present.

Several important amendments to the special provisions of the income tax law relating to capital expenditures of mining enterprises are contained in the Bill. As indicated in the Budget Speech, these provisions have resulted in many highly profitable companies paying relatively little tax over an extended period. The Bill will withdraw- for 1974-75 and subsequent yearsthe 20 per cent tax exemption on income from the production of certain minerals, including copper, bauxite, nickel and beach sands. Deductions will not in future be allowable for capital expenditure incurred on company formation and capital raising. Capital expenditure on the development of a mine or oil field, on the provision of community facilities adjacent to a mine or field, or on the purchase of mining rights or information will be deductible henceforth over the estimated life of the mine or field. Where the estimated life is longer than 25 years the allowance will be one twenty-fifth of the undeducted capital expenditure. Capital expenditure on facilities for the transport of minerals will be deductible for income tax purposes over 20 years instead of 10 years. However, in relation to any of those expenditures to be made by 30 June 1976 under the contracts for the supply of goods or services entered into prior to the Budget announcement, deductions will continue to be allowable under the present provisions of the law.

Exploration expenditure incurred by general mining companies in 1974-75 and subsequent income years will be allowable as immediate deductions up to the level of income derived in any year from general mining and associated activities in the same way as petroleum prospecting and mining companies are allowed immediate deductions against income from petroleum and similar expenses. Prospecting and other activities carried out by general mining companies on the continental shelf will be regarded as having been carried out in Australia, consistent with the taxation treatment of petroleum operations carried on at off-shore locations. As I mentioned earlier I am circulating a comprehensive explanatory memorandum on the Bill to honourable senators. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Cotton) adjourned.

page 2799

INCOME TAX (BEARER DEBENTURES) BILL 1974

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– I move:

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Devitt)- Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The document read as follows)-

The purpose of this Bill is to increase the basic rate of tax payable by a company under section 126 of the Income Tax Assessment Act on interest paid on bearer debentures where the company does not disclose the names and addresses of the debenture holders to the Commissioner. The rate at present is that applying to a taxable income of $16,786, which is about 39 per cent. Designed as it is as a sanction against a practice which involves tax avoidance this rate is now inadequate. The opportunity is being taken to increase it. For interest paid or credited on or after the date of commencement of this Act, the rate of tax will be 55 per cent. It will thus be the same as will in future apply in respect of property income of certain trusts to which special rates are applied because they are regarded as instruments of tax avoidance. The technical aspects of the Bill are explained in the memorandum that I have had circulated. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Cotton) adjourned.

page 2800

INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS) BILL 1974

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– I move:

I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Devitt)- Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The document read as follows)-

This Bill will amend the Income Tax (International Agreements) Act in 2 respects, one minor and the other substantial. The minor amendment is quite technical and is necessary because of the proposed surcharge on property income for 1974-75. It will provide a means of taking the surcharge into account in calculating the amount of Australian tax on particular income. This calculation has to be made in order to determine a limit for double taxation credits for foreign tax so that they do not exceed Australian tax on foreign income, and to establish the rebate to be allowed where the Australian tax payable by a non-resident on Australian income is limited under an agreement.

The substantial amendment will give the force of law to a comprehensive double taxation agreement with the Federal Republic of Germany which was signed in 1972. The agreement will not, however, become actually operative until 30 days after it has been ratified by both countries and instruments of ratification exchanged. The agreement is comprehensive and, by and large, it accords in practical effects with other such agreements to which Australia is a party. I should, however, refer to a particular matter that is dealt with somewhat differently in this agreement.

Under the agreement with the Federal Republic, withholding tax on dividends will generally be limited by each country to 15 per cent. The Federal Republic has, however, a system of taxing company profits which involves much lower rates on distributed profits than on undistributed profits. If, in a case of direct investmentthat is, where foreign holding is 25 per cent or more- the Federal Republic limited its tax on dividends to 15 per cent, the situation would be wide open to exploitation. As in other agreements to which it is a party therefore, there is in our agreement with the Federal Republic provision for that country to impose its withholding tax in direct investment cases at a higher rate. The rate agreed is 25.75 per cent. This means that under the agreement, the combined company and withholding tax rate on profits leaving the Federal Republic as dividends in direct investment cases will be 43.98 per cent. The corresponding Australian rate based on the proposed company tax rate of 45 per cent will be 53.25 percent.

As I have said, other provisions of the agreement are largely conventional in nature. Explanations of them are spelt out in some detail in the explanatory memorandum which I am circulating with the Bill. There are 2 things I should add. One is that, due to the delay that has unavoidably occurred in giving force to it, the agreement will have retrospective effect to the 1971-72 income year in Australia and the 1 97 1 calendar year in the Federal Republic. The other is that I am sure all honourable senators would regard the new agreement as further evidence of the harmonious relations that exist between the Federal Republic and Australia. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Cotton) adjourned.

page 2800

AIR NAVIGATION BILL 1974

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP

– I move:

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Devitt)- Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The document read as follows)-

Frequently since attaining office this Government has drawn attention to the vast gulf between the cost of providing, operating and maintaining our aviation infrastructure, and the revenue received for the use of the various facilities. In 1973-74 the cost to provide, operate and maintain Australia’s airport and airways systems amounted to $ 140m. Only $75m or 54 per cent of that amount was recovered. The Australian taxpayer, rather than the users, was called upon to meet the $65m deficit. This Government intends to substantially increase the rate of recovery from the users and, indeed, already has embarked on such a program.

There is absolutely no justification for continuing the heavy subsidy support ofthe general aviation industry which makes heavy demands on aviation facilities and on the funds to provide and maintain them. Special aerodromes for general aviation aircraft, Archerfield, Bankstown, Jandakot, Essendon, Moorabbin and Parafield have been provided in all capital cities- by the taxpayer. Last year, these aerodromes alone cost $10m to operate and maintain. In addition, facilities have been provided at other aerodromes largely for general aviation aircraft, things like light aircraft aprons and taxiways, traffic control and flight service units, communications and fire units. Yet our total recovery from the general aviation industry including air navigation charges, commercial revenue and aviation fuel tax amounted to less than $4.5 m, a recovery rate of only 44 per cent. The Government sees no reason why all sectors of the aviation industry should not pay their way at least to the extent of the 80 per cent recovery target set by the Government.

In 1960 the then Liberal-Country Party Government adopted a long term policy for ultimate full recovery of costs of air transport facilities provided by Government. However, no target date for acheiving the objective was set. This Government decided last year to set a target date and to accelerate the cost recovery program, lt was then announced that an 80 per cent recovery rate was to be attained by 1978. In the first year following the announcement the recovery rate was increased from 49 per cent to 54 per cent. This was achieved, with the co-operation of industry, by both increasing revenue within the statutory limitations where they apply and by a more efficient allocation of resources through a vigorous pruning of costs wherever possible. By continuing to pursue this policy the Government will achieve a balanced, co-ordinated transport system. Resources will be properly allocated on the demonstrated needs of the community and a system will be developed in which each transport mode performs the role best suited to it. In this way the maximum benefit will accrue to the nation. While this policy caters for 80 per cent recovery of the costs attributable to the provision, operation and maintenance of the airport and airways systems attention has also been focused on the cost to the Government of providing the many other services for which no charge is made. Therefore, consistent with the cost recovery policy and also with the broader policy that the user should pay, the Government has recently decided to introduce fees and charges for a wide variety of other services provided to the aviation industry by the Air Transport Group of the Department of Transport.

The Air Navigation Bill 1974 enables the Air Navigation Act to be amended to provide authority for fees and charges to be imposed through the Air Navigation Regulations. The actual charges have not yet been determined but will be tabled in the Parliament as amendments to the Regulations before implementation. It is intended that they be introduced during the 1 974-75 financial year and that full recovery of the cost of these services be attained within 3 years. The full commercial cost to the Department of providing the services is estimated at more than $6m for this financial year. The services for which fees and charges are to be imposed may be described generally as being for applications or examinations for the grant, issue, renewal or variation of licences, certificates, approvals, permits, registrations or exemptions under the regulations. As would be expected this general description embraces various types of differing services which are too extensive to fully describe. This country has sustained an enviable air safety record over a long period. Much effort and financial resources have been expended by the Department to achieve this. For instance, considerable effort has been directed to ensuring that proficiency is attained and maintained by both pilots and operators. It is now proposed to charge for services provided in the issue of flight crew and air service licences. Similarly, it is proposed to introduce charges for the many services provided in respect of airworthiness matters. These charges will include application fees for such services as the issue or variation of certificates of registration, the issue or renewal of certificates of airworthiness, the issue of certificates of type approval in respect of a type of aircraft or aircraft component.

Authorities intending to erect buildings on Government aerodromes are required to first obtain the Department’s approval to ensure that siting considerations are met and that the proposed building meets both structural and architectural standards. It is proposed that applicants for such approvals be required to pay a fee in a similar manner to the building permit fee imposed by local councils. In the case of aerodromes owned and operated by local authorities, private individuals or business undertakings, a licence is issued by the Department before the aerodrome can be made available for public use. The issue of the licence is preceded by consultation concerning the standard of aerodrome and inspection of the site to determine that the Department’s standards have been met in order to ensure that the aerodrome is suitable and safe for the proposed operations, lt is proposed to charge for this service. It is intended, of course, to charge for many other services provided by the Department, the specific services mentioned are illustrative only. It is further intended that the full commercial cost of providing these services will be recovered.

Another significant effect of this Bill is to change the definition of ‘state aircraft’ and to make several related changes. The purpose of these changes is to enable civil aircraft registered in Australia which are being flown by members of the Defence Forces in the course of their duties to continue to be subject to the Air Navigation Regulations.

In recent years privately owned civil aircraft registered in Australia under the Air Navigation Regulations have been hired on a number of occasions by the Army, Navy and Royal Australian Air Force for relatively short periods. These aircraft have been flown by members of the Defence Forces in the course of their duties for such purposes as flying training and surveys. In accordance with the Air Navigation Act 1920-1973 these aircraft are ‘state aircraft’ as defined and, except where the Act makes an express reference, are not subject to the Act. Difficulties have arisen, and would continue to arise, in such circumstances. Particular problems have involved maintenance, pilot licensing and investigation of accidents. For instance, the Defence Force has been expected to institute its own maintenance procedures for hired aircraft. Notwithstanding this, on the return of the aircraft to civil operations, its airworthiness could be in question due to the possible consequences of its time spent beyond the control of the Act and the Regulations.

Therefore, it is most desirable that the provisions of the Air Navigation Regulations should continue to apply to civil registered aircraft which are under the temporary control of the

Defence Force by virtue of a contract of hire or charter and are being flown by members of the Defence Force in the course of their duties. On the other hand, honourable senators may be assured, if an aircraft is hired or chartered by a part of the Defence Force for a lengthy period, or if for any special reason it is desirable that it should not be subject to the provisions of the Air Navigation Regulations while under hire or charter, the registration of the aircraft can be cancelled on the application of the owner. The aircraft will then be under the complete control of the Service department concerned. The opportunity has also been taken to substitute, in the Air Navigation Act and the Airports (Surface Traffic) Act, references to ‘Director-General of Department of Civil Aviation’ by ‘Secretary to the Department of Transport’, and ‘the Commonwealth’ by ‘Australia’. I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Senator Cotton) adjourned.

page 2802

AIR NAVIGATION (CHARGES) BILL 1974

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP

– I move:

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Devitt)- Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The document read as follows)-

The Air Navigation (Charges) Act imposes charges on the operators of aircraft for the use of aerodromes, airways facilities, meteorological services and search and rescue services provided, operated and maintained by the Australian Government. The purpose of this Bill is to increase the rates of Air Navigation Charges, and to make other changes in the Act which the Government feels to be desirable.

In 1973-74, the cost of providing, operating and maintaining air navigation facilities and services throughout Australia amounted to $140m. Revenue received from the users of those facilities and services totalled $75 m. Of this amount, $33 m came from air navigation charges paid by aircraft operators, $11.5m from hangar and building rentals and terminal concession charges and the like, and $30.5m from aviation fuel taxes. This left a deficit between revenue and expenditure of $65 m, a deficit which the Australian taxpayer was called upon to bear. Put another way, the Australian taxpayer was asked to pay more than $6 for each passenger who travelled by air within, to or from Australia.

In 1960, the then Liberal-Country Party Government adopted as a long-term objective the eventual full recovery of the cost of air transport facilities provided by the Government. That Government set no target date for achieving its objective, either in full or in part. Last year, this Government decided to accelerate the cost recovery program. It decided on a policy aimed at raising the then unsatisfactory rate of recovery- something like 49 per cent- to 80 per cent by 1978. This, despite recent speculation that the timetable has been stepped up to achieve the recovery aim by next year or the year after, is the Government’s clearly defined 5-year target. In progressively increasing these we are not being unfair. In the marine field we have a total cost recovery policy on navigation aids. Last year, this Government succeeded in raising the recovery rate to 54 per cent. There is still a long way to go.

Basic to this approach, and equally applicable to all transport modes, is that the user and the beneficiary should pay. The Government cannot accept that the general taxpayer must subsidise people who travel. To this end, the Bill provides for an increase of 15 per cent in air navigation charges. These higher charges will become effective from 1 December 1974. They are payable across the board’, that is, by all operators, domestic and international, making use of our facili-.ties and services. General aviation makes heavy demands on aviation facilities and on the funds to provide and maintain them. Special aerodromes for general aviation aircraft, Archerfield, Bankstown, Cambridge, Essendon, Jandakot, Moorabbin and Parafield, have been provided in all capital cities- by the taxpayer. Last year, these aerodromes alone cost $10m to operate and maintain. In addition, facilities have been provided at other airports largely for general aviation aircraft, things like light aircraft aprons and taxiways, traffic control and flight service units, communications and fire’ units.

In 1954, there were 168 airline aircraft in Australia. By 1974, this number had fallen to 138. In sharp contrast, in the same period, the number of general aviation aircraft increased from 677 to 4,012. The. airlines flew some 265,000 hours iti 1954, and the same in 1974-a reflection of greatly increased productivity through the operation of larger and faster aircraft. But hours flown in general aviation increased almost ninefold, from 145,000 to 1954 to 1.3 million in 1974. About 30 per cent of this represents private and business flying. Light aircraft movements at most airports throughout Australia have increased more rapidly in the last 20 years than airline movements. Last year, Tamworth had about 7,000 airline movements, and 30,000 light aircraft movements, Canberra had 21,000 airline movements and 42,000 light aircraft movements. General aviation places an exceptionally heavy demand on our airways and airport facilities. The Government believes that the contribution which general aviation makes towards the cost of those facilities should be more closely related to the demands which this section of the aviation industry places upon them.

Honourable senators might be surprised to learn that at Sydney Airport, for instance, an estimated cost allocation for 1973-74 shows that the domestic airlines contributed some 77 per cent- $9.7m- of the costs attributable to their own operations, international airlines also contributed some 77 per cent- $1 1.1m- towards the cost of their own operations; whereas general aviation only contributed some 0.4 per cent towards the cost of their own operations at that centre. I might add that the general aviation cost in this context was calculated on the basis that it was the minimum unavoidable increment to cater for these aircraft at Sydney airport- such things as general runway costs and interest and depreciation were not included.

Accordingly, the cost was the lowest cost that could reasonably be calculated. Despite the large expenditure on facilities for general aviation, all the Government recovered last year from general aviation operators was about $5m- just half of what it cost to operate and maintain the general aviation airports at the capital cities alone.

It is proposed, therefore, to increase the charges payable by general aviation operators. The charges in respect to general aviation aircraft weighing less than 9,000 kilograms will be increased by an additional 50 per cent over and above the basic 15 per cent increase in air navigation charges. Aircraft above 9,000 kilograms on which higher additional charges were imposed last year, will not be subject to this increase. At the same time, the amount of remission granted on aircraft not ordinarily kept at government aerodromes, or aerodromes in receipt of government financial assistance, will be increased from one-third to one-half of the charges payable. A small but active element is emerging in general aviation which places few demands on the aviation infrastructure. I refer to aircraft enthusiasts who have a hobby concerned with historical aircraft. Owners of private aircraft of an historical nature, used for pleasure and not for the purpose of personal transportation may apply to the Department for special consideration in regard to the level of their charges. I am referring to those few historical aircraft that are kept on the register from time to time and which would only fly some 20 to 30 hours in any year.

Whilst on the subject of special groups, I should add that the 1 5 per cent across the board increase that I mentioned earlier does not apply to very small aircraft with weights less than 500 kilograms. However, the 50 per cent increase does apply. It is proposed to impose additional charges on foreign-registered aircraft used for private or aerial work purposes in Australia. These aircraft will be subject to an additional charge, over and above the basic 15 per cent increase in air navigation charges, of 50 per cent and 25 per cent respectively. No additional charges are proposed for aircraft in the international charter category.

The proposed increases in air navigation charges are expected to yield an additional revenue of $3m in the remainder of the current financial year, and $6m in a full 12 months. This estimate takes no account of traffic growth, which may be expected to result in a higher additional revenue. Certain other changes in the Air Navigation (Charges) Act are proposed. They will have no significant effect on revenue, but are desirable to facilitate the administration of the charging system.

It has been suggested that the Government’s cost recovery program, and its effect on air navigation charges, is forcing domestic air fares upward. While this could be true to some extent, it should be noted that increases in air navigation charges have been no more than 1 5 per cent at the most a year. In any case, only 2.8 per cent of the recent domestic fare increase can be attributed to increases in air navigation charges and 7.5 per cent to fuel tax. Some 78 per cent of the latest fare increase represented nothing more than a response to the significant wage increases affecting the airlines.

We should not exaggerate the cost burden of air navigation charges on air travel, domestic or international. Air navigation charges paid by

Trans-Australia Airlines amounted to about $6.7m in 1973-74; its total costs exceed $150m. In percentage terms, air navigation charges represented some 4 per cent only of the airline’s total cost. Perhaps the following simple illustration will place these charges in their proper perspective. If air navigation charges were reduced by half, the cost of a journey between Sydney and Melbourne could be reduced at the most by about 70c, and of a journey between Sydney and San Francisco by $9- at a cost to the taxpayer of $ 16m.

It is often claimed that Australian air navigation charges are amongst the highest in the world. Let there be absolute clarity about this: Our charges are all-inclusive. Charges in many countries are not. Landing charges are only one of several charges and taxes, payable by the airlines and their passengers, which affect the cost of operating to and from other countries. For example, on top of the landing charge for a Boeing 747 of $A449 at Honolulu there is a communications charge of $53 Australian, a passenger holding area charge of $25, a baggage claim area charge of $13, a Customs overtime charge of $48, plus a United States transportation charge (paid by passenger) of $3 per head. These costs could total $1,096. At San Francisco where the landing fee for a Boeing 747 is $216, the communications charge is $3 1, passenger holding area charge is $109 plus amortisation and interest on capital expenditure made there by Qantas of $193, a baggage claim area charge of $41, Customs overtime $137, United States transportation tax of $3 per head plus a San Mateo County Property tax of $ 1 34. These costs could total $1,369. This compares with an airline terminating in Sydney which is charged a total of $2,9 12.

May I say that Australian air navigation charges are based on a consistent pricing structure for both domestic and international airlines. Further, there is absolutely no discrimination between the treatment given to our own international airline and any other international airline, or between any international airlines. The increased charges for which this Bill provides are a further step towards the eventual recovery of 80 per cent of the costs involved in maintaining our aviation infrastructure. But increased revenue is not the Government’s sole concentration in this area. The Government is rigorously pruning every cost associated with that infrastructure. The Department of Transport is critically reviewing all of its Air Transport activities with a view to effecting economies wherever they can be made in consultation with the airlines, the general aviation industry and representatives of the various employee organisations concerned. In addition the provision of services at the less busy provincial centres is being examined in order to effect further cost savings. As an example, flight service units have been withdrawn from Flinders Island, Woomera and Mangalore at a saving of about $60,000 a year. In addition fire services have been withdrawn from Mangalore, Derby, Narromine and Broken Hill at a saving of $ 1 00,000.

The Department of Transport believes that to justify the retention of these costly facilities, the airports where they are located should cater for certain minimum traffic demands. In the case of fire services and rescue facilities, it believes that, as a minimum, aerodromes should be served by F27 aircraft, should handle at least eight regular movements a day and cater to at least 25,000 passengers a year. In the case of flight service units, the aerodrome should accommodate at least 12,000 aircraft movements a year. Naturally there are other factors which will influence any decision to withdraw such existing facilities at aerodromes that do not meet these basic minimum requirements. The gap is being narrowed from the cost side. The Australian community will no longer have to bear the cost of inefficient allocation of resources.

The Government will achieve a balanced, coordinated transport system with proper allocation of resources based on demonstrated community needs. It will achieve a system in which every transport method performs the role for which it is best suited, to provide the maximum benefit to the nation. I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Senator Cotton) adjourned.

page 2805

CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL 1974

First Reading

Debate resumed from 20 November on motion by Senator Murphy:

That the Bill be now read a first time.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– I have waited as a number of Bills have been introduced upon which, on the occasion of the first reading, one may have addressed oneself to matters relevant or irrelevant to the Bill. I did so because I appreciated the circumstances in which the Government desired to get a number of these Bills on the notice paper. This first reading debate has now been adjourned for some time, and I wish to utilise the opportunity to speak on the first reading of this Bill.

Senator Poyser:

– Which Bill?

Senator GREENWOOD:

-The Bill which is currently an order of the day and which is for debate. I rise on a matter which I think is of immense public consequence and will become of greater public consequence as the weeks go by. Victoria is facing a state of prospective conflict which ought to concern everyone who is interested in the preservation of democracy in this land. The Victorian Government’s authority is being challenged, not by constitutional processes, not through the courts, not in the Parliament and not in the ballot box, but by extraconstitutional means. The power of industrial blackmail is endeavouring to elevate the authority of a few union leaders above the authority of the elected and responsible members of the Parliament. It is, or it has all the indications of being, a classic case of legitimate power and authority being challenged by those who hold private power, in this case not by a few powerful landholders or by a few important companies but by a few trade union leaders who have influenced and persuaded a trades hall council and now the State Parliamentary Labor Party to an action which seeks to undermine the authority of the Government of Victoria.

Senator Cavanagh:

– What are you talking about? What action?

Senator GREENWOOD:

-This instance is no different from the classic examples which our history provides of those who claim special privileges and special powers attempting to prevail over lawful and legitimate authority. In this case it is a union power attempting to prevail over the power of the people. If” Senator Cavanagh is seeking to know specifically of what I am talking, it is the indication initially by about 5 unions, then 7 unions, then 15 unions and then the Trades Hall Council that they would prevent the Newport power station in Victoria being built.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Do you know the facts?

Senator GREENWOOD:

-! know a lot ofthe facts and those facts indicate to the hilt the points which I have been making. There has scarcely been any occasion on which the Parliament’s authority has been more challenged by direct confrontation than by the attitude which the unions are adopting at the present time. The issue is whether the decision of the Government, backed by the unanimous vote of the Parliament, to construct a power plant at Newport is to be overridden by the decision initially of a few trade union leaders who in most cases have not even consulted their membership and who, in any event, even if the membership had been consulted and had supported them, have no right to place themselves in the role of government.

I ask the Senate and I ask anybody who is prepared to look at the issues in this case to analyse what is involved. The need to plan for greater power to be available to industry and to people later this decade and for the balance of the twentieth century is surely unchallenged. But whose responsibility is it to plan for that need? It is the responsibility of the elected Government and the elected Government in Victoria some 10 years ago, through its State Electricity Commission, commenced the investigation ofthe power needs of Victoria to meet peak loads and to meet the overall requirements in the latter part of the 1970s through into the 1980s and so on for the balance of this century. For 5 years intensive investigations were carried out, and those 5 years’ investigations led to a report by the State Electricity Commission which was presented to the Parliament of Victoria for consideration. After the presentation of that report there was an Act of the Parliament- an Act for the establishing of the Newport power station- the State Electricity Commission (Newport Power Station) Act of 1971. That Act was passed on the initiation of the then Government of Victoria headed by Sir Henry Bolte, supported by the Labor Party Opposition and voted for unanimously, without a dissentient, in the Parliament.

Subsequent to the establishing of the Act and the commencement of the construction an Act was passed by the Parliament of Victoria providing for an Environment Protection Authority, an independent body over which the Minister had no power of direction and which had the obligation to pass judgment upon whether government decisions and government proposals were consistent with environmental protection. It was the Government of Victoria which requested the Environment Protection Authority to conduct an inquiry into whether the Newport power station should be built. The Authority had the initiative and it could have made the decision itself, but before it made any decision the Government requested the Authority to undertake the investigation. The Authority did so. The result was that in 1973 the Environment Protection Authority reported that under certain conditions, which the Authority said it could enforce and would enforce, the power station could proceed, be licensed and, as the report of the Authority said, be a compatible neighbour.

Subsequently, because there were some people who dissented from the Authority’s report, an appeal was taken to 2 places. An appeal was taken by third parties- by interested conservationists- to the Environment Protection Authority, and from that Authority an appeal went to the Environment Protection Appeal Board. That hearing by the Appeal Board was heard throughout a period of, I think, some 29 days in the middle of 1974. On 24 July of this year a favourable decision for the power station project to proceed was given. I think it is relevant to refer to the decision of the Environment Protection Appeal Board because this proposal, costing $145m in 1971 and now costing a sum vastly in excess of that, has gone through the parliamentary procedures and through all the environment protection procedures which a Parliament has laid down. They are certainly rigorous procedures in Victoria. It has come through with a decision that under conditions which can be enforced this particular project ought to be sited at Newport. The Environment Protection Appeal Board said in its judgment:

The contribution of all witnesses to the available store of knowledge is very great and no doubt much of this evidence will form the subject of papers and theses and text book writings in the future.

In the present appeals, the third parties have focused public attention on the proposed power station in a manner which has called upon the Commission to justify to the fullest extent its proposed activity and to demonstrate that such activity will present no threat to the environment or to public health.

That the Commission was forced so to do should result in a public awareness that the power station is not to bc feared under the very stringent conditions of operations which have been imposed under the licences.

The Board concluded:

In the result the third party appeals will be dismissed and appeals by the Commission upheld in each case by directing that the licences issue with the conditions varied as agreed between the Authority and the Commission.

The water licences call for no further comment but with regard to the air licence, the variations involved are reasonable.

A modification is made to Condition No. 2 -

Then that modification is set out. The judgment continues:

The Board is satisfied that the proposed amendments are reasonable and that adherence to the revised conditions will not have any adverse effect on the environment.

The Authority and the Commission have further agreed between themselves on a modification to the permissible maximum quantities of oxides of sulphur in the flue gases when the boilers arc fired entirely by oil . . .

The Board is satisfied that adherence to these amended standards will meet the requirements of the Authority in having no adverse effects on the environment.

One could read- I have it here if anyone wants to see it- the full judgment of the Environment Protection Appeal Board and see from it that there is absolutely no risk either to the environment or to public health in Victoria, in the Board’s judgment, if the conditions are observed. That is the requirement, of course, in all public health provisions- that the requirements be observed.

These questions, which in this case were decided by the Parliament and then through the environment protection procedures, are questions which ultimately are Parliament’s responsibility. In a democracy the balancing of the various competing views which might be evident on any particular issue is charged to government. In our society that is a government which is responsible periodically to the people. No group of people, no matter how deserving they might claim to be or how public spirited their plea might be, has the right to put its judgment and its voice in the place of the judgment of the people as demonstrated through the elected government. That is what is being done in Victoria, and it promises to be a conflict which ought to arouse the interest and the concern of everybody who desires the preservation of our democratic system.

Senator Button:

– What do you want to do about it?

Senator GREENWOOD:

-Those of us who are concerned are making the people of this country aware, and if we have to start in this chamber with the Government of this country let us make the effort here. The plea is now being made by the unions through the Australian Labor Party in the hope that there will be a decision at the Federal Conference of the Labor Party next year for direct support of the whole Labor movement for what the unions are doing. The Constitution of this country requires that the Commonwealth Government shall provide assistance to the executive government of a State if it is confronted with a situation which is called in the Constitution ‘domestic violence’. What is involved in what is now threatened in Victoria is something which we ought not to regard as outside that area, because the statements of some of the union leaders have been so threatening that one can only hope that when the Government is challenged the people will know what the issues are and will be overwhelmingly on the side of the people of this country and democracy. What sort of power, where the power plant should be located, what should be its energy, its fuel, its size, its cost and so on, are all matters upon which different opinions may be held but the resolution of those opinions is a matter for the Parliament. Our society requires that these matters ultimately be decided by or through agencies which derive their authority from Parliament.

Parliament is the ultimate authority upon which the people must finally rely.

Debate interrupted.

page 2807

ADJOURNMENT

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! In conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I formally put the question:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Question resolved in the negative.

page 2807

CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL 1974

First Reading

Debate resumed.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– I indicated that the decision of the Parliament has been vindicated by the procedures of the Environment Protection Authority. That Authority had the opportunity to hear witnesses and to hear the points of view of those who had objected to the location of the plant at Newport.

Senator Poyser:

– That is a lot of nonsense.

Senator GREENWOOD:

- Senator Poyser is a member of the Victorian Labor Party which had the opportunity to go before these various bodies to express its protest and to ask the Environment Protection Authority and the Environment Protection Appeals Board to consider the various matters upon which it is now relying but no attempt was made to do so.

I think it was on 23 November 1972 that the Premier of Victoria indicated that the matter would be referred by the Government to the Environment Protection Authority. It was on the day following that a union ban was placed upon the construction of the power station and that is the union ban which is still prevailing. It is not the only ban now because others have joined in. This represents a concerted attempt by a number of unions which are concerned only to have a direct confrontation with the Victorian Government to assert their authority and to indicate it is in the hands of the unions that power lies. A number of unions said that they would black ban the project. This was after the decision of the Environment Protection Appeal Board some 2 or 3 months ago. At the time that that statement was made the Victorian Premier properly said that the unions attitude represented a defiance of parliament and the elected government. He said: It is a question of who is running Victoria. ‘

Leaving aside the totally unreasonable stance of any group which claims to exert a private power to determine how public authorities should act, there are a number of matters relevant to particular points raised by the unions which ought to be mentioned. The unions claimed that the power station ought to be resited. This is an issue which was considered by the State Electricity Commission in preparing its report after 5 years investigation. Any attempt at resiting would involve a cost which I have been assured would be in excess of $100m and this would delay the project further for several months. Why change the site from an area in which, on the expert advice that our Commission in Victoria received, it is a perfect proper development?

It is said now, although it was not said originally, that the project will result in a wastage of natural gas. This was not one of the early considerations raised. It is an eleventh hour proposal which was not previously publicly supported. The facts simply are that the amount of natural gas which would be used over the next 20 to 25 years until the turn of the century would represent about 10 per cent of the available known natural gas resources at the present time. It is quite unreasonable whatever might be the theoretical arguments to say that there would be a diminution of the supplies of natural gas to other persons who would be using it.

If there were to be a resiting of the project new procedures would have to be laid down. There would have to be new hearings by the Environment Protection Authority. Doubtless, there would be appeals to the Environment Protection Appeal Board and the question of land acquisition might well be involved. As well as the matter being delayed extra cost would be involved. These are considerations of considerable weight but when added to the basic question of the right or authority of the union movement to take this action, they are an indication of the unreasonableness of the stand which is taken. It is very significant, in view of the political affiliations of those who control these unions, to note the original 5 unions concerned in this matter. They are the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union, the Electrical Trades Union of Australia, the Furnishing Trades Society- one might wonder what particular interest that society has in a power station at Newport- the Plumbers and Gasfitters Union, and the Federated Engine Drivers and Firemen’s Association of Australasia. Of course, a number of building unions have now joined in. It is a question now of the whole Trades Hall Council with, I understand, one exception voting in favour of the proposal.

I think it is relevant to recall that Dr Cass as the Minister for Environment and Conservation had originally said that he felt the Environment Protection Appeal Board had reached a decision which it was difficult to understand. He subsequently recanted and on 7 October he said there was little more that could be demanded of the State Electricity Commission in taking more precautions against air pollution than it had already taken. I think it is relevant also to consider some of the statements which were made to indicate how the Opposition’s position has changed from -

Senator Cavanagh:

– Have it incorporated, Senator.

Senator Murphy:

– Can the honourable senator not do this tomorrow on the adjournment?

Senator GREEN WOOD:

-If the Government wants to adjourn, fair enough.

Senator Murphy:

– Does the honourable senator really have to do this tonight?

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I understood it was the Government which negatived the adjournment motion. I understand the point Senator Murphy is making. One initial attitude was reported in the ‘Australian’ on 3 1 July of this year. The State President of the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union said that his Union’s ban would remain unless substantial changes were made to the conditions of the licence. He said the Union did not want the station built at Newport where it would be a threat to the health of Melbourne residents. Unless the State Electricity Commission and the Environment Protection Appeals Board considered substantial changes to protect the people the ban would remain. That was an indication, at that stage, not only of the confrontation procedure but of the fact that it was health which was the relevant consideration on which the unions were acting. Now, of course, the position is totally changed because it is said that natural gas would be used.

The position was well stated, I think, in an editorial on 3 1 October in the Melbourne ‘Age’, just as this issue was developing. I do not often quote that paper in terms of approval but if one can find an occasion when words that have been used express what is clearly in one’s mind, it may have approval -

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Are you going to write to the Australian Journalists Association about this one?

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I will be interested to hear what suggestions Senator Douglas McClelland makes. The editorial states:

Now 15 unions have refused to build the Newport station although they say they will co-operate in a project on a suitable alternative site. The Premier (Mr Hamer) is right to describe their action as a defiance of Parliament. It is not the province ofthe unions to run the State, lt would be a miscarriage of accountability if the unions were allowed to dictate to the Government the terms of how power was supplied, where it came from and under what conditions.

One can see how this is working in with a general pattern of seeking power when I recall to the Senate the statement made by the Victorian Secretary of the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union at a University of New South Wales seminar in Sydney last Thursday. I think this statement is an indication of the attitude which the union movement is adopting, and which Mr Halfpenny in particular is promoting, and which the Victorian Labor Party is going along with. This newspaper report states:

Trade union power should bc directed at challenging ‘the very basis of society’, the Victorian Secretary ofthe Amalgamated Metal Workers Union. Mr J. Halfpenny said yesterday.

Mr Halfpenny forecast increasing moves by the trade union movement to take away power from its political ally, the Australian Labor Party.

Many sections of the community are now becoming concerned about the alienation of people from decision-making in our society”. He said that the destruction ofthe capitalist system would bc in the interests of a better community, with industrial harmony and job satisfaction.

More and more the trade union movement will take power back from its political wing because of the emerging worker challenge to the value of society’, Mr Halfpenny said’.

It is in that context that this particular proposal ought to be viewed. The Victorian Government is to be commended for undertaking a massive publicity campaign, by newspaper and television advertisements, to inform the people of Victoria, and I hope a wider audience throughout Australia, of what is about to happen in Victoria. 1 believe every opportunity ought to be taken to emphasise that there is a threat to the position of Parliament, to the position of an elected Government and the whole institution of democracy in this country. The union position is one of arrogant assumption of power- they are right and the Government is wrong. The Government’s decision to act as Parliament has authorised, and as the independent hearings have disclosed, is regarded by Mr Halfpenny as a confrontation. He regards the Government’s decision as provoking direct confrontation with the unions but it is the unions which are directly and provocatively confronting Parliament and the people, lt is this issue to which 1 believe it is in the interests of all people in this country to have regard and to ensure that when this challenge does come, as it is developing at the present time, this Parliament is found on the side of the Victorian Government and upholding law in that State.

Senator STEELE HALL:
South AustraliaLeader of the Liberal Movement

– I want to say in a few brief words that I agree with the assessment that Senator Greenwood made of the problem. But like others within his Party he continually, at great length, sets out the problem but offers no specific worthwhile cures for it. We have listened for something like half an hour, or close to it, to an exposition of that problem once again- an exposition which may very well have been given in 1946, 1949, 1955 or 1974. His exposition went not one whit further in proposing to this House and this Parliament a solution to that problem. I think it would well behove Senator Greenwood to bring up some definite and specific proposals from his Party rather than waste the time of this House telling all of us what we know. I suggest that if his Party on our side of politics wants to do something useful it might come out with some very firm unequivocal statement of what it is going to do about secret ballots for strike decisions and about the implementation of parliamentary disciplines in the election of union officials. My Party remains quite firmly and simply committed to the establishment of parliamentary democracy and the disciplines of parliamentary democracy in the union movement, as they should apply in this House. That is an unequivocable simple statement of policy. Senator Greenwood appears to have got nowhere except to have bored us with a 25-minute exposition of the problem. I agree with him as far as he took the matter. One would agree with the Victorian Government’s dilemma and its attempts to overcome it. But for heaven’s sake, if Senator Greenwood wishes to address the House at great length I hope that the next time he will have some solution.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesAttorneyGeneral and Minister for Customs and Excise · ALP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time. 1 ask for leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The document read as follows)-

The Customs Tariff Bill now before the Senate proposes amendments to the Customs Tariff 1 966- 1 973. The Bill, which operates on and from 1 July 1974, introduces complete new Schedules to the Customs Tariff. The new Schedules contain tariff changes arising from the 25 per cent tariff reduction introduced on 19 July 1973 and the adoption by the Government of recommendations made in reports by the Tariff Board, the Special Advisory Authority and the Industries Assistance Commission. All of the changes in the Bill were implemented by Customs Tariff Proposals and have been in operation for some time. In view of the magnitude of the Bill and the numerous reports involved, I do not propose at this stage to detail at length the contents of each of those reports. However, I have had prepared a comprehensive summary setting out the nature of the changes in duty rates and the origin of each of the amendments contained in the Bill. This summary is now being circulated to honourable senators and I feel sure will be of assistance to them during the ensuing debate.

The Bill also covers changes to the Schedule of goods included in the New Zealand-Australia Free Trade Agreement together with changes resulting from the revised and expanded system of tariff preferences for imports from developing countries which came into effect on 1 January 1974. In addition several minor changes of an administrative nature are incorporated in the Bill. I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Senator Greenwood) adjourned.

page 2810

CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL (No. 2) 1974

First Reading

Debate resumed from 20 November on motion by Senator Wriedt:

That the Bill be now read a first time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Second Reading

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesAttorneyGeneral and Minister for Customs and Excise · ALP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a secondtime. 1 seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The document read as follows)-

This Bill to amend the Customs Tariff 1 966- 1 973 comprises four schedules. The First and Third

Schedules contain tariff changes arising from decisions by the Government on recommendations made in reports by the Tariff Board and the Industries Assistance Commission. The Second and Fourth Schedules provide for the increases in Customs duties on potable spirits and manufactured tobacco products which formed part of the Government’s budgetary program. The increases in the latter Schedules relate to imported goods and are complementary to similar increases made in Excise duties on locally produced goods.

All of the changes in the Bill were implemented by Customs Tariff Proposals and have been in operation for some time. I have had prepared a comprehensive summary setting out the nature of the changes in duty rates and the origin of each of the amendments contained in the Bill. This summary is now being circulated to honourable senators. I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Senator Greenwood) adjourned.

page 2810

CUSTOMS TARIFF VALIDATION BILL (No. 2) 1974

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesAttorneyGeneral and Minister for Customs and Excise · ALP

– I move:

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The document read as follows)-

This Bill is supplementary to Customs Tariff Bill 1974 which I have just introduced. The commencement date for the amendments to the Customs Tariff 1966-1973 as provided for in Customs Tariff Bill 1974 is 1 July, although the amendments were in operation for some time prior to that date. Collections of duty in accordance with those amendments were previously validated up to 30 June 1974, with the exception of amendments contained in Customs Tariff Proposals Nos 6 and 7. It is therefore necessary to now formally validate collections of duty under Proposals Nos 6 and 7 during their period of operation before the commencement of Customs

Tariff Bill 1974. Accordingly, Custom Tariff Validation Bill (No. 2) 1974 is introduced to validate collections of duty under Proposals Nos 6 and 7 until 30 June 1 974. 1 commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Senator Greenwood) adjourned.

page 2811

EXCISE TARIFF BILL 1974

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesAttorneyGeneral and Minister for Customs and Excise · ALP

– I move:

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The document read as follows)-

This Bill amends the Excise Tariff 1921-1973 in accordance with Excise Tariffproposals No. 1 ( 1974) introduced into the Parliament on 23 July last and Excise Tariff Proposals No. 2 (1974) introduced on 17 September 1974. The changes contained in Excise Tariff Proposals No. 1 ( 1974) gave effect to measures which increased the excise duties on potable spirits and manufactured tobacco products, and operated on and after eight o’clock in the evening on 23 July 1 974. The changes proposed in Excise Tariffproposals No. 2 ( 1974) operated on and after eight o’clock in the evening on 17 September, 1974 and increased the excise duties on brandy as a further stage in removing the duty differential between brandy and other potable spirits. A summary of the changes is being circulated. I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Senator Greenwood) adjourned.

page 2811

CUSTOMS BILL (No. 2) 1974

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesAttorneyGeneral and Minister for Customs and Excise · ALP

– I move:

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The document read as follows)-

This Bill provides for the amendment of the Customs Act in three respects- rules of origin for goods from New Zealand; rules of origin for goods from developing countries; valuation provisions for imported goods.

The rules of origin for goods from New Zealand are being changed by agreement between the two countries. The present legislation provides for three alternative qualifying criteria for goods partly manufactured in New Zealand: (i) not less than one-half of the factory cost is represented by New Zealand and /or Australian labour and materials; (ii) for goods of a class or kind not manufactured in Australia, not less than one-quarter of the factory cost is represented by New Zealand and /or Australian labour and materials; (iii) not less than three-quarters of the factory cost is represented by New Zealand and /or Australian and /or United Kingdom labour and materials.

The amendment relates to the second and third criteria. The second will be replaced by a criterion which would allow the Minister to determine the New Zealand and /or Australian proportion of the factory cost to be a figure above or below the one-half provided in criterion (i), as he deems appropriate. The third criterion is to be deleted since it is clearly no longer in our interests that goods should qualify for New Zealand preference by reason of their United Kingdom content. Parallel legislation will be introduced by the New Zealand Government, providing the same rules for Australian goods entering New Zealand. This portion of the Bill is specified to come into operation on a date to be fixed by proclamation. The present intention is that the new rules of origin will come into effect in each country on 1 July 1975. The amendments to the rules of origin in relation to goods from developing countries are merely textual changes to align the wording of the Customs Act to that of the Customs Tariff.

The amendment to section 154 is designed to remedy a deficiency revealed by a recent High Court decision. The section specifies the method of valuing imported goods as the basis of ad valorem customs duties. It provides that the value for duty shall be the higher of the current domestic value in the country of export or the actual money price paid by the Australian importer. The provision for the use of the current domestic value serves as a protection against under-valuation where the money price paid is influenced by association or by some special arrangement between the buyer and seller. It is defined as the amount for which the seller of the goods to the purchaser in Australia is selling or would be prepared to sell for cash, at the date of exportation of those goods, the same quantity of identically similar goods to any and every purchaser in the country of export for consumption in that country.

It has always been believed that the wording of this section allowed the construction of a current domestic value in all cases where the goods are the subject of a sale. The effect of the judgment is to restrict severely the number of cases in which the current domestic value may be constructed where the seller of the goods to Australia is not selling identically similar goods to any and every purchaser in the country of export. The purpose of this amendment is to allow the continued administration of the provision in the way intended when it was introduced in 1922. Honourable senators may recall that I announced last month that the Australian customs valuation system was being reviewed. This amendment to section 154 will not affect the review; it is designed merely to allow the Department to continue to administer the present valuation system effectively while the review is proceeding. A summary of the clauses to the Bill is being circulated to honourable senators. I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Senator Greenwood) adjourned.

page 2812

FAMILY LAW BILL 1974 [No. 2]

In Committee

Consideration resumed.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Webster:

-I believe it is intended to complete clause 26. I ask honourable senators to give their attention directly to that clause of the Family Law Bill. The

Committee was examining clause 26 and the amendment which was moved by Senator Durack.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– For the information of the Committee, the Family Law Bill being a Bill in which the party disciplines are not operating, I simply ask as to the extent to which there is knowledge that this Bill was being proceeded with at this hour?

Senator Murphy:

– I mentioned that at 10 o ‘clock.

Senator GREENWOOD:

-This has taken a number of people by surprise. I know that on the Opposition side a number of honourable senators are interested in clause 26.I am reasonably confident that their absence from the chamber is due to the fact that they had no apprehension that the Bill was coming on at this hour. I think it is unreasonable that this should happen. I ask: Is there an arrangement which was made with anybody? I do not propose to tread on corns if an arrangement was made between my Leader and the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Murphy). If there is no such arrangement I think the matter ought to be reconsidered.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesAttorneyGeneral · ALP

– I indicated at the time we broke off discussion that we would seek to have the Family Law Bill brought on again. The motion was actually that further consideration of the Bill in Committee be made an order of the day for a later hour this day. But I do not want a suggestion that somebody is being prejudiced. I think that if Senator Greenwood had been here and listened and perhaps if he had not made his contribution in the previous debate there would be very little excuse for anybody thinking that the matter was not being proceeded with. I suggest that progress be reported.

Senator Wood:

– Is it suggested that these people have gone home? They might still be here. As far as I was concerned Parliament was still sitting.

Senator MURPHY:

– I suggest that the Committee further consider the Bill on the next day of sitting.

Progress reported.

Senate adjourned at 10.54 p.m.

page 2813

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Immigration: Sergeant Gyorgy Wollmer (Question No. 32)

Senator Mulvihill:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

What form of security screening was employed when former Hungarian Air Force Sergeant, Gyorgy Wollmer, applied to the Australian Embassy in Saigon Tor permanent residence in Australia.
Who approved of the departure, in Sergeant Wollmer ‘s case, from the normal protracted screening that is imposed on all migrants seeking to enter Australia.

Senator Willesee:
ALP

– My Department has been informed by the Department of Labor and Immigration to the effect that:

Sergeant Wollner (Wollmer) was assessed against the usual criteria.
The decision was given is accordance with the delegations normally exercised.

Schools Commission: Recurrent Expenditure Grants (Question No. 110)

Senator Chaney:

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

1 ) Did the Interim Committee for the Australian Schools Commission allow a factor for inflation in the recurrent costs of education in Government schools; ifso, what was the factor between 1973 and 1974 and between 1974 and 1975 used in compiling the ‘Schools in Australia’ Report.
Is the escalation of expenditure referred to in Paragraphs 6.45 and 6.54 of the Report based on an assumption that there would be an increase in recurrent costs of 10 per cent in the non-Government sector of Australian education.
Has there been an actual increase in recurrent costs in State schools in Australia between January 1973 and January 1 974; ifso. what was the percentage increase.
Has there been any further increase between 1 January 1974 and 30 June 1974; if so, what was the percentage increase.
If a disparity exists, or is found to exist, between any inflation factor used in compiling the ‘Schools in Australia’ Report and the inflation of recurrent costs since its compilation, will the Government make an appropriate adjustment to grants for recurrent costs of education, as set out in Table 14.3 ofthe Report, so as to restore value to the grants; ifso, what adjustment.
Is inflation of recurrent costs in schools reducing the value of grants to non-Governmet schools below that which would have applied if the 20 percent under the States Grants (Schools) Act 1972 had been continued.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

1) to (6) On the basis of recommendations made by the Schools Commission, the Government has decided to provide a sum of $64.47m to supplement recurrent expenditure grants to schools throughout Australia. Legislation to this end is currently before the Parliament. The Government’s action is intended to maintain the value of recurrent grants to government and non-government schools and will ensure that the achievement of program objectives are not impaired by a reduction in the purchasing power ofthe original grants. For further details of the Government’s decision and its basis I refer the honourable senator to the schools Commission Report to the Government, entitled ‘Supplementary Funds for Programs administered by the Schools Commission (August 1974)’ which I tabled in the House of Representatives on 18 September 1974, to my related media release of 18 September, and to my statement of 26 September to the Parliament, ‘Government Programs 1974-75 ‘, in the context of the Budget Debate.

Department of Social Security: Appointments (Question No. 197)

Senator Baume:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

How many appointments have been made to the Department of Social Security since 2 December 1972.
In what classifications were those appointments made.
What is the total annual salary cost of the appointments.
How many of the appointees will be transferred to the proposed Health Insurance Commission when it is formed.
How many ofthe appointees will become redundant when the new Commission is formed.

Senator Wheeldon:
Minister for Repatriation and Compensation · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

1 ) The Department of Social Security was established on 19 December 1972. From 19 December 1972 to 3 October 1974, the net increase in the Department’s operative staff was 1466 which included nearly 500 Health Insurance and benefits staff transferred from Department of Health. In the same period, there were some 3021 new staff appointed to the Department but, in many cases, these appointments were made to offset normal staff wastage.
The majority of the new appointments were to the Clerical and Clerical Assistant classifications. Other staff were recruited to the following classifications: keyboard operators, social workers, therapists, nursing staff, doctors, psychologists, librarians, programmers, journalists and other miscellaneous Fourth Division classifications (e.g. labourers, etc.).
The approximate expenditure incurred on salaries as a result ofthe net increase in the Department’s staff since 19 December 1972, is as follows:

On an annual basis, the estimated expenditure on salaries in respect of these appointments would be:

$2.6m.
$4.8m.
$628,000. Total $8,028,000.
1. On 19 September 1974, some 21 staff of the Department were transferred to the Health Insurance Commission.
2. None.

Attorney-General: Distribution of Press Releases and Speeches (Question No. 263)

Senator Greenwood:

asked the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice:

1 ) To how many persons are copies of press releases, speeches, etc, of the Attorney-General forwarded on a regular basis.
Who compiled the list of such persons and what categories of persons are included.
Who determines the material to be included in each despatch to persons on the list.
Why are senators and members of the House of Representatives not included in the list of such persons.

Senator Murphy:
ALP

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

1 ) Copies of press releases and speeches of the AttorneyGeneral arc sent to 1,660 people or organisations.
Officers of the Information and Public Relations Branch, Attorney-General ‘s Department.

Categories include-

1 ) Press, Radio and Television Organisations.
Australian and State Government Departments.
Major Australian and Overseas Libraries.
Law Societies and Associations.
Publishers of Legal Materials.
Political Parties.
Australian and State Courts.
Members of Legal Profession.
Law Reform Commissions.
Trade Unions and Associations.
Women’s Organisations and Civil Liberties Organisations.
Religious Organisations.
Overseas diplomatic missions.
Some Overseas Departments of Justice and Attorney-General.
Persons requesting the service.
Press releases and speeches arc sent to all those on the mailing list. News organisations, Law Societies and Associations and publishers of legal materials on the priority list receive weekly distribution. Others on the list receive press releases and speeches monthly. The system is being kept under review to make sure that the appropriate material is sent to organisations interested in the particular topic.
Press releases and speeches are available to all senators and members who request to bc put on the mailing list. The names of senators and members have not been included on the list automatically because it would duplicate the service 01 thc Ministerial Document Reproduction Unit which supplies all senators and members with copies of Ministerial press statements and speeches.

Mowanjum Aboriginal Community (Question No. 267)

Senator Keeffe:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:

Did a firm of consultants. Clarke, Gazzard and Flower, put forward a plan for re-housing the Aboriginal Community at Mowanjum.
2 ) Did the plan provide for the construction of houses on part of an easement for the overland telegraph line; if so, was the new site within 1 ,000 feet of project extensions to the local airport runway.
Have the plans been cancelled.
Was the firm of consultants paid approximately $7,000 in fees for a plan which was unworkable.

Senator Cavanagh:
ALP

– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows: ( 1 ), (2), (3) and (4) The previous Minister for Aboriginal Affairs approved on 10 July 1973 a grant for $6,875 to the Mowanjum community to retain Clarke, Gazzard and Flower to plan the redevelopment of the Mowanjum village in the general area of the present site. The consultants and the Mowanjum community were aware, before January 1974, that the Department of Transport proposed to extend the air-strip in such a way as to create a possible noise nuisance in the area being considered for new housing. At the requests of the Aboriginal Housing Panel, Professor D. Freeman spent approximately 6 weeks at Mowanjum consulting with the community on a number of matters including its attitude towards the location of the new housing. It has been made clear to the community that its choice of site is not restricted to the present location at Mowanjum, and the community has been asked whether it wished to relocate, but until recently it expressed its wish to remain at Mowanjum. Study of the site had proceeded on this basis under the direction of Clarke, Gazzard and Flower at a cost of $6,875 as set out below: -In September the community learned of the possibility that a Defence Services base would be established near the airstrip and the proposed location of the housing development. As a result of this information, the community appears to have reversed its decision on the location of the new housing and has stated that it now wishes the new development to take place some distance away. I understand that the community has come to an agreement with the Derby Shire Council in respect of land on the Mount House Road. This site will require further studies before development begins but a substantial part of the work carried out with the original grant of $6,875, including $2,000 for house design and some of the work done in relation to water and electricity supplies will be applicable to the new site.

The consultants and the community became aware only recently of the easement for the telegraph line, as the easement is not shown on surveyors drawings. The telegraph line is, however, not located on this easement and, if it were, would .have affected the location of only 2 or 3 houses. Redrawing of plans to relocate these house-sites would have been a simple matter.

Appointments: Australian Broadcasting Commission and Australian Broadcasting Control Board (Question No. 286)

Senator Withers:

asked the Minister for the Media, upon notice:

1 ) What was the date ofthe appointment of (a) Professor R. Downing, (b) Mr W. L. C. Davies, (c) Mr J. Neary and (d) Mr K. Jacobsen, to the Australian Broadcasting Commission and the Australian Broadcasting Control Board.
) What positions do these people hold.
What arc the terms of their appointments.
What salary and allowances are paid to each person.
What additional staIT and facilities have been provided for each person.
What is the estimated cost of such staff and facilities since the appointment of each ofthe persons referred to in (I).

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

I ) to (4) All ofthe aforementioned appointments were made in accordance with the terms and conditions as published in each case.
1. Nil.
2. Sec (5) above.

Qantas Airways Limited: Appointment of Director (Question No. 287)

Senator Withers:

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

1 ) On what date was Mr J. A. Egerton appointed to the position of Director of Qantas Airways Limited.
What are the terms of his appointment.
What salary and allowances does he receive.

Senator Cavanagh:
ALP

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

1 July 1973.
Three years until 30 June 1976.
He receives a salary of $2,600 per annum and travelling allowance while on duty at the rate of $34 per 24 hour day when an overnight stay is involved.

Electoral: Appointment of Labor Party Supporters (Question No. 30 1)

Senator Withers:

asked the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation, upon notice:

1 ) Which persons appointed since December 1972 from outside the Australian Public Service to Boards, Commissions and Statutory Authorities under the Minister’s responsibility arc members of the Australian Labor Party or who. prior to the 1972 election, publicly advocated the return ofthe Labor Government.
What salary and allowances are paid to each such appointee.
What, if any, additional staff and facilities have been provided for each such appointee.
What was the cost of such staff and facilities in the years ending (a) 30 June 1973 and (b) 30 June 1974.
What is the estimated cost of such staff and facilities for the year ending 30 June 1975.

Senator Wheeldon:
ALP

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

I ) to (5) I draw the honourable senator’s attention to the Prime Minister’s answer to Question No. 302 (Senate Hansard of 3 1 October 1 974, page 2 198).

Electoral: Appointment of Labor Party Supporters (Question No. 307)

Senator Withers:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice:

1 ) Which persons appointed since December 1972 from outside the Australian Public Service to Boards, Commissions and Statutory Authorities under the Minister’s responsibility are members of the Australian Labor Party or who, prior to the 1972 election, publicly advocated the return of the Labor Government.
What salary and allowances are paid to each such appointee.
What, if any, additional staff and facilities have been provided for each such appointee.
What was the cost of such staff and facilities in the years ending (a) 30 June 1973 and (b) 30 June 1974.
What is the estimated cost of such staff and facilities for the year ending 30 June 1 975.

Senator Murphy:
ALP

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

The Prime Minister answered this question in reply to Question No. 302. 1 have nothing to add to that reply.

Electoral: Appointment of Labor Party Supporters (Question No. 309)

Senator Withers:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Services and Property, upon notice:

1) Which person appointed since December 1972 from outside the Australian Public Service to Boards, Commissions and Statutory Authorities under the Minister’s responsibility arc members of the Australian Labor Party or who, prior to the 1972 election, publicly advocated the return of a Labor Government.
What salary and allowances are paid to each such appointee.
What, if any, additional staff and facilities have been provided for each such appointee.
What was the cost of such staff and facilities in the years ending (a) 30 June 1973 and (b) 30 June 1974.
What is the estimated cost of such staff and facilities for the year ending 30 June 1975.

The Minister for Services and Property has provided the following answers to the honourable senator’s question:

I ) to (5) I refer the honourable senator to the Prime Minister’s statement on 23 August 1974 (House of Representatives Hansard p. 1213) where he referred to the fact that the government does not know in each case what occupations were followed by Australian Labor Party candidates after the 1972 elections. This position also applies in respect of people who advocated the return of the Labor Government before that election.

Electoral: Appointment of Labor Party Supporters (Question No. 310)

Senator Withers:

asked the Minister for the Media upon notice:

Which person appointed since December 1972 from outside the Australian Public Service to Boards, Commissions and Statutory Authorities under the Minister’s responsibility arc members of the Australian Labor Party or who, prior to the 1972 election, publicly advocated the return of the Labor Government.
What salary and allowances are paid to each appointee.
What, if any. additional staff and facilities have been proviced (breach such appointee.
What was the cost of such staff and facilities in the years ending (a) 30 June 1973 and (b) 30 June 1974.
What is the estimated cost of such staff and facilities for the year ending 30 June 1 975.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

1 ) to (5) Sec Senator Murphy’s answer to Question No. 302 on 31 October 1974 (Senate Hansard, page 2198), provided by the Prime Minister.

Regional Councils: Expenditure of Moneys (Question No. 316)

Senator Baume:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

Does the Department of Social Security observe all the provisions of the Audit Act in accounting for expenditure of moneys through Regional Councils established under the Australian Assistance Plan.

Senator Wheeldon:
ALP

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

The Department of Social Security strictly observes all the provisions of the Audit Act. Treasury Regulations and Treasury Directions in making payment to Regional Councils for Social Development established under the Australian Assistance Plan. In addition. Regional Councils are required to comply with the conditions attached to the Australian Government grants made to them and these arc set out in a document titled Australian Assistance Plan- Guidelines for pilOt Program which has been distributed to all Councils. Among other things, the Guidelines state that Councils need to have a constitution and to bc either-

incorporated under iiic relevant Companies Act or Ordinance: or

registered under the appropriate Associations Incorporation Act or Ordinance in the Stale or Territory in which they are domiciled and, therefore, be bound also by the provisions of that legislation.

International Labour Organisation Meeting: Mr Grenville (Question No. 332)

Senator Primmer:

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

1 ) Was Mr J. Grenville, the Federal Secretary of the Clerk’s Union, a member of a recent delegation to a meeting of the International Labour Organisation.
Was Mr Grenville a member of one of the International Labour Organisation’s commissions and the only person from all ofthe participating nations to vote against a resolution condemning the Government of Chile.
Could the status of Mr Grenville at the meeting be construed in a way which would suggest that he was representing the Australian Government at this gathering.
How did Mr Grenville come to bc appointed to the delegation.

Senator Bishop:
ALP

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

1 ) Yes. The meeting concerned was the 7th Session ofthe ILO Advisory Committee in Salaried Employees and Professional Workers attended by tripartite delegations from 24 countries including Australia which met in Geneva in September 1974. Mr Grenville was one of the 2 worker representatives in the Australian delegation. The other members of the Australian delegation were 2 government and 2 employer representatives.
To my knowledge Mr Grenville was not a member of any ILO commission. However, I understand that as a worker representative he took part in meetings of the workers’ group, an unofficial grouping consisting of worker representatives attending the Advisory Committee. 1 am told that the workers group adopted a resolution concerning Chile. I am also informed that the chairman of the workers group sought leave from the chairman ofthe Advisory Committee to read that resolution to the Advisory Committee. This was granted but there was no discussion or vote on the resolution in the Committee since il was not related to its agenda. For this reason, the text of the resolution does not appear in any of the records of the Advisory Committee’s proceedings. However, I understand that the chairman of the workers’ group subsequently passed the groups’ resolution to the ILO Director-General. I should make it clear that the proceedings of the workers’ group arc not open to government or employer representatives nor are they part of the formal proceedings of the Committee. Consequently the group’s deliberations and the manner in which votes are taken are not a matter of public record from which I can indicate how Mr Grenville might have voted on the resolution.
No.
The worker delegates for all ILO industrial and analogous Committee meetings to which the Australian Government is invited to send a tripartite delegation arc selected in accordance with the provisions of the ILO Constitution under which Member States ‘undertake to nominate nonGovernment delegates and advisers chosen in agreement with the industrial organisations, if such organisations exist, which are most representative of employers or workpeople, as the case may be, in their respective countries’ (Article 3:5). In pursuance of this obligation I seek nominations for worker representatives from the Australian Council of Trade Unions, drawing attention to the need for the nominees to be drawn from workers organisations having a substantial membership in the industry or occupational grouping concerned. Mr Grenville was nominated by the ACTU as a worker representative at the meeting in accordance with this established arrangement. 1 might add that the expenses of non-government representatives attending this Advisory Committee were borne by the 1LO.

Seas and Submerged Lands Litigation

Senator Murphy:
ALP

– On 12 and 13 November last 1 answered two questions relating to the seas and submerged lands litigation. These questions were directed to me by Senator Durack. As I indicated in my answer to the first question, 1 was relying on my recollection and, as I indicated when answering the second question, I was not to be seen in any way whatever as expressing criticism ofthe High Court.

It has since been drawn to my attention that the answers read together may suggest that the High Court was asked to fix a date for the hearing of the litigation this year. Such a suggestion would not accord with what I am informed are the facts.

Counsel for the Australian Government and the States by agreement asked the Court to fix a date for hearing early next year, and suggested the month of February. I have thought it desirable to remove any misapprehension which may have arisen as a result of my previous answers.

Aboriginal Conference at Weipa: Transport of Delegates

Senator Cavanagh:
ALP

– On 21 November 1974, Senator Rae asked the following question, without notice:

My question is directed to the Minister Tor Aboriginal Affairs. Since the debate last Thursday, with the further time available since then, has the Minister any additional information he could give to the Senate as to whether the Department of Aboriginal Affairs paid Ibr the air transport of persons who attended the recent Weipa conference? The matter was referred to during the debate last Thursday in the Senate. At that time the Minister said that the Department had not paid for anything other than through a VIP flight. I ask whether the Minister has any further information in relation to that mailer Ibr the Senate. 1 ask further: Have any steps been iii ken to stop further Aboriginal conferences arranged through the Department of Aboriginal Affairs?

On 21 November 1974, I replied that, to my knowledge, no ‘planes were hired to bring delegates to the meeting I held with the Aboriginals at Weipa. At that time I stated I would make further inquiries into the matter and am now able to give honourable senators some information, and correct any confusion my previous answer may have caused.

I find that the Secretary of my Department, acting within the powers I have delegated to him, approved of the availability of funds for a total of five charter flights to take a total of 36 people from various areas around Weipa to participate in the meeting. The total cost of these charters was of the order of $4,600. The actual flights were as follows:

As honourable senators will know, travel is very difficult in the Peninsula area and often the use of charter aircraft is the only means available. On this occasion it was considered important that the real representatives of the Old Mapoon people should be present. The circumstances were that those who had moved back to Old Mapoon were seeking urgent financial assistance from the Australian Government for the improvement of their camp circumstances. I discussed the matter with the Secretary of the Department on two or three occasions and finally concluded that rather than make such assistance available without investigation, I should first meet the people to make sure that there was a genuine desire by some of them to return to Old Mapoon and that the traditional owners of the land were prepared for those who had returned to occupy it. From this point of view the meeting was a real success. The actual arrangements for the travel of people to the meeting were of course made by the Department.

Redcliff Petrochemical Project

Senator Murphy:
ALP

– On 12 November 1974 (Hansard, page 22 12) Senator Steele Hall asked me, as Minister representing the Prime Minister, a question, without notice, concerning the proposed Redcliff Petrochemical Complex, and in particular its emission standards. The Prime Minister has now supplied the following information for answer to the honourable senator’s question.

The Australian Government has not yet determined the position it will take regarding financial assistance to this project. The honourable senator can bc assured, however, that in making its decisions the Government is taking into account all the environmental implications of the project, including the recommendations of the Redcliff Environmental Inquiry.

Taxation Concessions: Gifts to Independent School Building Funds

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– On 29 October 1974, Senator Guilfoyle asked me the following question, without notice:

I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister Ibr Education. I refer to a report in the ‘Australian’ of 25 October which suggests that the removal of taxation concessions Ibr gifts to independent school building funds is under consideration, ls the Minister able to offer an assurance thai there is no foundation for the report? Does the Government understand the very damaging effect on the building programs of the non-government schools which would result from such a proposal?

I said at the time that I had not seen the report but that I would take up the matter with my colleague, the Minister for Education, and obtain a reply for the honourable senator.

I have consulted the Minister and he has drawn my attention to a reply (House of Representatives, 30 October 1974, page 2798) given by the Treasurer in the House of Representatives to a similar question asked by the right honourable, the Leader of the Opposition, on this matter. In his reply the Treasurer pointed out that no general assurances can be given about tax provisions and that in the present Budget no change was made in the situation. He also stated that what happens in the future with any tax provision is a matter open to review from time to time. The Minister for Education has asked me to refer the honourable senator to the Treasurer’s remarks.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 26 November 1974, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1974/19741126_senate_29_s62/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate26 November 1974

DEATH OF FORMER SECRETARY-GENERAL OF UNITED NATIONS

Senator WILLESEE:Minister for Foreign Affairs · Western AustraliaMinister for Foreign Affairs · ALP

MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS

Senator MURPHY:Attorney-General · New South WalesLeader of the Government in the Senate · ALP

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

Family Law Bill

Family Law Bill

Family Law Bill

Family Law Bill

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

Notice of Motion

Senator CAVANAGH:Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

QUESTION

ISRAEL

Senator WITHERS:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator WILLESEE:ALP

QUESTION

ISRAEL

Senator MULVIHILL:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator WHEELDON:WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

QUESTION

DEFENCE FORCES: RESIGNATIONS

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator BISHOP:Postmaster-General · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator Drake-Brockman:

Senator BISHOP:

QUESTION

PALESTINE LIBERATION ORGANISATION

Senator YOUNG:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator WILLESEE:ALP

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

Senator WILLESEE:

QUESTION

PALESTINE LIBERATION ORGANISATION

Senator YOUNG:

Senator WILLESEE:ALP

QUESTION

DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS

Senator SIM:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator WILLESEE:ALP

QUESTION

IMPORTS

Senator GUILFOYLE:VICTORIA

Senator MURPHY:ALP

DISTINGUISHED VISITOR

The PRESIDENT:

QUESTION

DEFENCE SERVICE HOMES

Senator DEVITT:TASMANIA

Senator Drake-Brockman:

Senator CAVANAGH:ALP

QUESTION

PALESTINE LIBERATION ORGANISATION

Senator MARRIOTT:TASMANIA

Senator WILLESEE:ALP

QUESTION

TASMANIAN AIR SERVICES

Senator GRIMES:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator CAVANAGH:ALP

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL AIRLINES COMMISSION

Senator GREENWOOD:VICTORIA

Senator CAVANAGH:ALP

QUESTION

WOOLLEN GOODS

Senator MELZER:VICTORIA

Senator WRIEDT:Minister for Agriculture · TASMANIA · ALP

QUESTION

FIRST CRICKET TEST IN BRISBANE

Senator MAUNSELL:QUEENSLAND

The PRESIDENT:

Senator MURPHY:ALP

QUESTION

UNITED NATIONS COMMISSION: VISIT TO COCOS (KEELING) ISLANDS

Senator GEORGES:QUEENSLAND

Senator WILLESEE:ALP

Senate
26 November 1974

Senator WILLESEE:
Minister for Foreign Affairs · Western AustraliaMinister for Foreign Affairs · ALP

Senator MURPHY:
Attorney-General · New South WalesLeader of the Government in the Senate · ALP

Senator CAVANAGH:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP

Senator WITHERS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator WHEELDON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator BISHOP:
Postmaster-General · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

Senator SIM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

Senator GUILFOYLE:
VICTORIA

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

Senator DEVITT:
TASMANIA

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

Senator GRIMES:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

Senator GREENWOOD:
VICTORIA

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

Senator MELZER:
VICTORIA

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · TASMANIA · ALP

Senator MAUNSELL:
QUEENSLAND

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

Senator GEORGES:
QUEENSLAND

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

Senator TOWNLEY:
TASMANIA

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

Senator POYSER:
VICTORIA

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

Senator MISSEN:
VICTORIA

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

Senator McINTOSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator BAUME:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

Senator SCOTT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

Senator WALSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

Senator BONNER:
QUEENSLAND

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

Senator PRIMMER:
VICTORIA

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator RAE:
TASMANIA

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

Senator COTTON:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

Senator DURACK:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator BISHOP:
ALP