29th Parliament · 1st Session
The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Justin O’Byrne) took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.
page 135
– I present the following petition from 1 7 citizens of Australia:
To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:
1 ) That Parliament should reject the Bill currently before it to establish an Australian Government Insurance Office.
That while there is a need to establish in Australia a Natural Disaster Fund to provide compensation for property damage and other losses resulting from disasters such as earthquakes, floods and cyclones, such a Fund can be established, as in other countries, using the medium of the existing private enterprise insurance offices.
That a plan for such a Fund was submitted to the Treasury in October 1974.
That no reasons for the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office other than the desire to provide non-commercial disaster insurance and Australian Government competition with private enterprise have been given by the Government.
That there is already intense competition between the existing 45 life assurance offices and between over 260 general insurance companies now operating in Australia, and that further competition from a Government Office would only bc harmful.
That the insurance industry is already faced with
a ) the effects of inflation,
b ) increased taxation on life assurance offices,
the effects of recent natural disasters,
other legislative measures already in train or in prospect by the Government, e.g. The National Compensation Bill, National Superannuation Plan.
That as taxpayers your petitioners are greatly concerned at the huge costs (far more than the $2m initial capital and loan funds which it is proposed will be allocated) of establishing an Australian Government Insurance Office.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will reject the Bill.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
– As the petition exceeds 250 words I ask that leave be given for the petition to be read by the Clerk.
-Is leave granted? There being no dissent, leave is granted.
Petition received and read.
-I present the following petition from 1 2 citizens of Australia:
To the Honourable President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:
That present and proposed development of limestone mining at Precipitous Bluff, tin mining at Coxs Bight, woodchipping in the remaining native forests and damming of South West rivers to produce power, will significantly affect the wilderness quality of South West Tasmania necessitating extensive road systems and damaging irreparably one of the last great wilderness areas of the world.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate will protect this national heritage by refusing Australian Government financial assistance to any project which will further alienate this wilderness.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
Petition received and read.
-I present the following petition from 1 5 citizens of Australia:
To the Honourable President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:
That present and proposed development of limestone mining at Precipitous Bluff, tin mining at Coxs Bight, woodchipping in the remaining native forests and damming of South West rivers to produce power, will significantly affect the wilderness quality of South West Tasmania necessitating extensive road systems and damaging irreparably one of the last great wilderness areas of the world.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate will protect this national heritage by refusing Australian Government financial assistance to any project which will further alienate this wilderness.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
Petition received.
– I present the following petition from 36 citizens of Australia:
To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The humble Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:
That Parliament should reject the Bill currently before it to establish an Australian Government Insurance Office.
That while there is a need to establish in Australia a Natural Disaster Fund to provide compensation for property damage and other losses resulting from disasters such as earthquakes, floods and cyclones, such a Fund can be established, as in other countries, using the medium of the existing private enterprise Insurance offices.
That a plan for such a Fund was submitted to the Treasury in October 1974.
That no reasons for the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office (other than the desire to provide non-commercial disaster insurance and Australian Government competition with private enterprise) have been given by the Government.
That there is already intense competition between the existing 45 life assurance offices and between over 260 general insurance companies now operating in Australia, and that further competition from a Government Office would only be harmful.
That the insurance industry is already faced with
the effects of inflation,
increased taxation on life assurance offices,
the effects of recent natural disasters,
other legislative measures already in train or in prospect by the Government, e.g. the National Compensation Bill, a National Superannuation Plan and Improved Commonwealth Public Service Superannuation.
That as taxpayers your petitioners are greatly concerned at the huge costs (far more than $2 million initial capital and loan funds which it is proposed to be allocated) of establishing an Australian Government Insurance Office.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will reject the Bill.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
– As the petition exceeds 250 words, and I would like it read, I ask that leave be given for the petition to be read by the Clerk.
-Is leave granted? There being no dissent, leave is granted.
Petition received and read.
-I present the following petition from 85 citizens of Australia:
To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The humble Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:
1 ) That Parliament should pass the Bill currently before it to establish an Australian Government Insurance Corporation.
That an Australian Government Insurance Corporation will benefit all Australian women and men by offering equal opportunity for employment and insurance cover.
That there is a need to establish in Australia National Interest Insurance so that cover is available against natural disasters.
That the Australian Government Insurance Corporation will fairly compete with the general and life insurance companies thereby benefiting the industry and the policy holders.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will pass the Bill.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
Petition received and read.
– The following petitions have been lodged for presentation:
To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The humble Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectively showeth:
That the insurance industry is already faced with
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will reject the Bill.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Sheil, Senator Chaney, Senator Withers, Senator Walsh, Senator Cavanagh, Senator Martin and Senator Mcintosh.
Petitions received.
To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectively showeth:
That the insurance industry is already coping with
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate will reject the Bill.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Withers (2 petitions).
Petitions received.
To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:
That the Insurance Industry is already faced with
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will reject the Bill.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Withers.
Petition received.
To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Chaney and Senator McIntosh.
Petitions received.
To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled: The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:
Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate reject completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Withers.
Petition received.
To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:
Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Withers.
Petition received.
To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Withers.
Petition received.
To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Withers.
Petition received.
To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator McIntosh.
Petition received.
To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Martin.
Petition received.
The Honourable President and Senators assembled, we your humble petitioners, undersigned citizens of Australia, in duty bound do humbly pray that the Senate pass without amendment the AGIC (Australian Government Insurance Corporation) 1975.
For the following reasons:
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Poyser.
Petition received.
page 138
-Before I proceed to questions without notice I should like to make a statement relating to replies to questions upon notice. Following upon yesterday’s resolution of the Senate, operative for the next 3 months, that ‘any Senator who receives a copy of a reply to a question upon notice may, by leave, ask the question and have the reply read in the Senate’, it is suggested that the following procedure apply to give effect to that resolution:
I might add that I shall call the senators in the sequence in which the replies come to the Clerk or to the Ministers.
page 139
page 139
– I ask the Minister for Labor and Immigration: When is an agreement which is made between an employers body and a trade union a sweetheart agreement and when is it not a sweetheart agreement? Do the Minister’s recently publicised views indicate that any agreement made by the processes of conciliation and negotiation is to be open to scrutiny and approval by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission? If so, in what way is this policy different from the policy which the Opposition parties have always asserted and which the Government party has so frequently condemned?
-The Labor Party has always believed in stressing the conciliation side of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission’s functions and for that reason it has traditionally fostered the notion of agreements being reached between the parties to disputes. However, we are now in exceptional times requiring exceptional remedies. For example, it is notorious that some sections of industry can afford to, or consider that they should, buy off any sort of disruption of their industry at almost any price.
At the present time, as the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission indicated when it laid down its guidelines on 30 April when granting a tentative and temporary indexation of wages, any real disruption of those guidelines would be fatal to the system of indexation which was introduced. For example, if a powerful union and a powerful industry were to reach an agreement which stepped wildly outside those guidelines this could have flow on effects which would immediately torpedo any system of indexation. For that reason the Government is proposing not that the Government should have a right of veto of such agreements but merely that it should have a right to put its case to the Commission so that the Commission would be in possession of the Government’s view as to whether such an agreement should be approved or should be not approved.
– The Commission might have the power to veto?
Senator JAMES McCLELLANDAccording to what I am suggesting- this is not as yet the adopted policy of the Government, but I hope that it will be- the Commission would in an appropriate case have a right of veto of an agreement which stepped outside the guidelines which it has laid down for the future of indexation. We believe that if indexation is to have any future, if there is to be any possibility of a wages policy which will give some prospect of pegging back inflation, such a power is needed in the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission.
page 139
– The Minister for Agriculture is no doubt aware of the concern of many people at reports that the importation of aquarium fish into Australia is to be banned or restricted. Can the Minister indicate whether there is any basis for this concern?
-At one time a total ban was placed on the importation of these aquarium species but that ban does not apply at the moment. It is not my responsibility, as the Federal Minister for Agriculture, to say whether or not these species should be imported. The question involves specifically the States and also the Australian health authorities. A sub-committee of the Australian Fisheries Council currently is looking at this question because there is some concern about. health factors, and naturally we all would be concerned that the Government was keeping a proper watch on these matters. At present I can say categorically that there is no ban on the importation of these species, but the sub-committee of the Fisheries Council will be reporting to the Council at its next meeting so that this question can be considered by the Council.
page 139
– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. I refer to the problem of maintaining the container shipping link between Fremantle and the eastern States ports. I ask the Minister: What annual tonnages of freight are at present carried by rail and sea respectively between the eastern States ports and Fremantle? What is the present annual capacity of the east-west railway without its being upgraded? What is the general condition and reliability of the railway line, bearing in mind that it has recently been cut by flood waters and there have been some maintenance problems?
– As the honourable senator warned Mr Jones that he would be asking this question I have been able to obtain some information about it. The approximate tonnages westbound are as follows: Associated Steamships, 400 000 tonnes per annum, and Australian National Railways, 600 000 tonnes per annum. The traffic is heavily weighted in favour of the west bound service. The capacity of the TransAustralian Railway is more than adequate to cope with the total tonnages if the shipping service is withdrawn. The general condition of the Trans-Australian Railway is very good but there is a program of further upgrading to include continuous welding of rails and installation of more concrete sleepers. It is not considered that the cutting of the line by floodwaters, which happened recently, will be repeated. Generally speaking, the answer is that the condition of the permanent way is quite satisfactory.
page 140
-I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Defence a question which arises out of a number of inquiries that have been made of me as a former member of the Joint Committee on the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Legislation concerning taxation on commuted parts of the retirement benefit under the defence forces retirement benefits scheme. Is the Minister aware of rumours circulating within the defence force that the Government intends to abolish or modify the current commutation provisions of the Defence Forces Retirement and Death Benefits Act? In view of the concern with which serving members of the defence force view such allegations, will the Minister inform the Senate of the true position in this matter?
– It is regretted that these rumours are causing some anxiety amongst servicemen, but they are unfounded. Commutation has been a feature of the defence forces retirement benefits scheme since 1948. At no stage has the Government considered any proposal to abolish the provision. At present an examination of the commutation provisions and other areas of the benefit scheme is being undertaken at the direction of the Defence (Conditions of Service) Committee, which includes as members the chiefs of the personnel sections of the Services. Should any recommendations concerning the overall conditions of the DFRB scheme be made, the Minister for Defence and the Government would consider them. As far as I am aware, none of the things which are now being rumoured are contemplated.
page 140
– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for the Media. Is it a fact that the present subsidy on landlines for radio transmission will be stopped shortly? Does Government policy support this proposition? How many radio stations will be affected if the subsidy is discontinued? Is the Minister aware that many country stations could go bankrupt? What will happen to these stations and their frequencies? Will they be taken up for public or access radio?
– If 1 remember correctly, it was when I was Minister for the Media, or shortly after I vacated that position and became Special Minister of State, that Senator Bishop made a statement in the Senate on my behalf and in his capacity as PostmasterGeneral that landline charges in respect of Western Australia and Tasmania had been reviewed and reduced.
– Generally.
Senator DOUGLAS McCLELLANDSenator Bishop interjects and says ‘generally’. As to whether there is any move afoot to reduce landline charges further or to eliminate them is beyond my knowledge. Perhaps the question should be directed to my colleague Senator Bishop, the Postmaster-General, within whose area this matter lies.
page 140
-Is the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation aware that payments for medical services to injured persons which formerly were met by workers compensation and third party insurance are now being claimed under Medibank? If he is aware of that, has he any estimate of the amount that these claims may cost in the next financial year? Is he aware of any insurance company plans to reduce premiums in this field and to pass on to the consumers any savings from this apparent windfall?
-Yes, I am aware of this situation. In fact it is estimated that Medibank will pay some $27m for these services in the year 1975-76. So far I have not heard of any votes of thanks being passed by any of the insurance companies; nor, indeed, when they have been talking about creeping socialism, have I heard them saying that this was an aspect of it which they deplored. Not only have 1 not heard of that, I have not heard of any proposal by the insurance companies to reduce premiums for this insurance which now is being covered by Medibank. 1 understand their position because both of these areas are on the whole loss areas. I believe that if the state- I use the word ‘state’ generically to cover both the State and the national governments- accepts that it is essential that there should be workers compensation and third party insurance these facilities ought to be available to people at reasonable prices, but the insurance companies, for whatever reason, are not able to provide them. That is why the Australian Government, the Labor Party, proposes a national compensation scheme which will rationalise all of these contradictory and irrational methods now used to look after people in these circumstances. There is in fact a donation of $27m being made to the insurance companies, and so far not one word of thanks has been expressed, nor has there been one gesture from them in the direction of the people who have the misfortune to take out policies with them.
page 141
-My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. Is it a fact that funds for capital expenditure on aged persons hostels were either exhausted or frozen some months before the Budget? Will the Minister state to the Senate which programs for the building of aged persons homes will be supported this year? Is the Minister aware that applications for additions to hostels, particularly in my state of Victoria and in the country towns of Echuca and Boort, were sanctioned by the Department of Social Security in Victoria but were not endorsed in Canberra because of the unavailability of funds? Can he confirm whether aged persons homes and in particular those 2 hostels, at least one of which has a list of new applicants who are waiting in anticipation for the accommodation which this Government has promised, will have funds made available to them at the earliest opportunity? As inflation is eroding the capacity of even those bodies to build that accommodation will he investigate and determine whether assistance can be granted promptly?
– I think that when Senator Webster is referring to aged persons homes he is referring to what are technically known as aged persons hostels. If he is not referring to the hostels I would be happy to take up the question of aged persons homes with him. The Aged Persons Hostels Act was passed as a temporary measure by the previous Government in 1972 and is due to expire in September 1975. It was regarded as a short term measure to give assistance to what are technically described as aged persons hostels, which are somewhat different from aged persons homes which provide more self-contained units for the people who live in them. It was announced some time ago that the Aged Persons Hostels Act would not be extended beyond September 1975 for a number of reasons which I think one can readily imagine. I have made a number of statements and have written to people who conduct aged persons hostels asking them to place applications in my hands or the hands of the Department of Social Security before the expiration of the Act. If applications have been received before the expiration of the Act they will be dealt with in order of priority.
A number of applications have been received and approved in principle. The policy which we are following is to see that at least those people who have received approval in principle and have thereby of necessity involved themselves in all sorts of expenses, such as architect’s fees and various other preliminary disbursements, will not be out of pocket. They will be reimbursed for their out of pocket expenses and the projects will be placed on a list in order of priority. Naturally I am receiving representations from a number of individual organisations which conduct homes and hostels pressing their own particular cases. Some, I suppose, are stronger than others. I am not personally familiar with the 2 cases which Senator Webster raised. It may well be that they should be higher on the order of priorities than some others. If he would like to write to me about this or ask the organisations to write to me and put up their cases I would be very happy to consider them, as I have done in a number of other instances. If I feel it necessary to suggest to the Department that these cases be raised on the priority list I would be happy to do so.
page 141
– My question is directed to the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation and Minister for Social Security. Can the Minister confirm that despite the necessity to restrain government spending, the Government’s social welfare program to protect those who rely on government assistance is still providing the best possible benefits?
-Despite the fact that the Government has been under very great pressure to reduce public expenditure, there is one field in which we have more than maintained our record and that is in the area of social welfare. We reject the arguments which were put forward on Monday of this week in the Australian, whose proprietor and whose flunkies seem to have shown a remarkable reversal of form over the last few months and are now not only advocating opposition to what they would regard as socialism, whether of a creeping or any other variety, but also are opposed it would seem to the concept of the welfare state. We are not; we stand for the welfare state.
It is interesting to note that, despite the fact that we have found it necessary to cut back on expenditure in the public sector, if one looks at the record one sees that in the last year of the Liberal Government- 1971-72- of the total Budget outlay 25.2 per cent was spent on health, welfare and repatriation and that in the first year of the Labor Government such expenditure rose to 28.2 per cent. The estimate for this year is 34.5 per cent of the total Budget. One has to take into account with that expenditure the benefits which are being given by Medibank and other advantages which are now available to people which were not previously available. It can be seen that all needy sections of the community- the pensioners, the sick, the disabled and the veterans of the Australian forces- are much better off now than they have been in the past.
page 142
– I ask the Minister representing the Attorney-General: Has there been any change over the past month or so in the criteria for a grant of legal assistance from the Australian Legal Aid Office? In particular, has the means test been made more stringent or is it being applied more stringently? Have the areas of law or categories of clients within which or for which assistance is provided been redefined or has the Office recently been directed to keep within such areas or categories? Are the various offices operating on a restricted basis in any respect? Have there been delays in the Australian Legal Aid Office making payments due to solicitors to whom clients have been assigned by the Office?
– I had some prior warning of this question, but I think it will be agreed that it is of such a detailed nature, especially the last section of it, that it would not have been reasonable to expect me to have obtained all the information required in the time available to me. It is a most important question, however. I shall refer it to the Attorney-General and let the honourable senator have an early reply.
page 142
– I ask the Minister for Agriculture: Is it a fact that Australian beef shipments to the United States have, despite the diversification scheme, proceeded at such a rate as to risk exceeding the voluntary agreement entitlement figure of 279 000 tons before the end of 1975? If so, what is being done to avoid exceeding the entitlement and running into difficulties with the United States authorities?
-The arrangement with the United States authorities was that the importation of Australian beef should be on a voluntary restrictive basis. The decision of the United States was not to impose compulsory quotas but rather to expect countries such as Australia exporting beef to that country to operate on a voluntary restraint basis. The diversification scheme operated for some years and was discontinued in 1973 when the beef market was very strong. Since the decline in the market the scheme has been reintroduced, and it is our responsibility to ensure that the quota which has been agreed upon in relation to those exports to the United States is kept, otherwise the United States would be placed in the position of having to impose quotas. We do not want that to happen.
Under the present system the exporters have to exercise great care that they do not exceed the shipments which would normally be spread out over a 12-month period. Recently it was necessary for the Australian Meat Board to discuss with the Australian Meat Exporters’ Federal Council the need to revise somewhat the present scheme. Eventually, agreement has been reached whereby the exporters will in fact slow down their shipments of beef for the remaining part of this current season. As I have said, it is important for the Australian meat industry to be quite sure that its exports are not exceeding the amounts which the Americans have agreed to import. At the present time, the new arrangements which have been entered into are operating satisfactorily. I am sure that with the Australian Meat Board keeping a very close watch on the rate of shipment no problems should develop with the Americans.
page 143
– I direct a question to the Minister for Police and Customs. Is the Government making provision for a more effective control of brandy imports the level of which is a cause for concern to both grape growers and local processors as it affects placement of grape production? As the final phasing out of the differential favouring brandy, which was announced in the Budget, will be to the further detriment of sales of the local products, can the Minister indicate governmental intention in respect of the now huge volume of imports of French brandy which presents a major threat to our viticultural industry?
-The question of protection of the local industry is really a matter for consideration by my colleague, the Special Minister of State. Whether an industry needs protection from imports, and if so the type of protection that is justified, are matters that are generally referred to the Industries Assistance Commission for report to the Government. In 1973 the Tariff Board recommended that the present margin of protection, being the rates of duty provided in the customs tariff and the rates of duty provided in the excise tariff, be continued. The Government accepted the recommendation. That margin of protection- 19c per litre of alcohol- has been maintained right throughout. While the imports of brandy about which the honourable senator seems concerned increased in 1972-73 and 1973-74, the figures for the first 1 1 months of 1974-75- the latest available from the Australian Bureau of Statistics- indicate that on a pro rata basis imports for that year were down about 32 per cent on the 1973-74 figures. The quantity of imports in 1971-72 was 696 985 litres of alcohol; in 1972-73, 1 118 690 litres of alcohol; and in 1973-74, 1 137 490 litres of alcohol. The estimate on a pro rata basis for the current 12 months shows that the amount of imports will be down to approximately 863 000 litres of alcohol. The differential duty between brandy and other potable spirits not relevant to protection was applied on imports as well as local brandy. That differential duty was finally phased out in the Budget presented last Tuesday.
page 143
– I direct a question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs which refers to the stated intention of the dissident group on Bougainville to declare independence from Papua New Guinea on 1 September. Will the Minister inform the Senate of the Government’s attitude to this move and also of any action contemplated by it?
-I would invite the honourable senator’s attention to the statement issued by the Prime Minister on 1 1 August 1975 following discussions with the Chief Minister of Papua New Guinea, Mr Michael Somare. I will not read the whole of that statement, but the Prime Minister made the following points: It remains Australia’s firm policy that Papua New Guinea come to independence as one country in accordance with the wishes of the overwhelming majority of Papua New Guinea’s elected representatives. The Australian Government will give no sympathy, aid or support in any form to any group in Papua New Guinea working to undermine their country’s unity. A unilateral declaration of independence, if given effect, would be an illegal act which could not itself alter in terms of the law of Papua New Guinea, the authority of the Government of Papua New Guinea over the whole of the territory of Papua New Guinea, or detract from Australia’s international rights and duties under the trusteeship agreement.
Any move for Bougainville to become independent before 16 September would require not only the assent of the Government of Papua New Guinea but also that of the Australian Government and the United Nations. The Australian Government would not assent nor, in the Prime Minister’s judgment, would the United Nations. The Australian Government naturally remained interested and concerned about developments in Bougainville. The Prime Minister and Mr Somare had agreed to keep in the closest touch. The Prime Minister had given Mr Somare renewed assurances of Australian support and had every confidence that the move to independence on 16 September of a united Papua New Guinea would proceed smoothly.
Mr Somare has sent a message to the Secretary-General of the United Nations stating that the Government of Papua New Guinea has no intention of agreeing to the separation of any part of Papua New Guinea. The Australian Ambassador to the United Nations in New York has informed the Secretary-General that Mr Somare ‘s message has the full and firm support of the Australian Government. I received in Canberra on 14 August Father John Momis and Mr John Teosin from Bougainville after Mr Somare had advised that he believed it would be desirable for me to put directly to them Australian views on the question of secession. They, of course, were the leading secessionists. I reminded Father Momis of Australian policy as set out in the Prime Minister’s statement of 1 1 August. I noted that there were plans for further discussions between the Papua New Guinea Government and Bougainvillean representatives and I expressed the hope that these might provide opportunity for movement towards an accommodation between the central government and the Bougainvilleans.
page 144
– Will the Minister for Foreign Affairs undertake on his return from his forthcoming overseas trip to give to the Senate a full policy statement outlining the results flowing from policy initiatives announced in his statement of policy in May 1 973?
-I said yesterday that I make a practice of always tabling in the Senate a report on my overseas trips. I will certainly do so on this occasion.
– I ask a supplementary question. I did not ask the Minister for a statement about his trip; I asked him whether he would make a full statement outlining what has followed from the policy initiatives announced by him in May 1973. In other words, I asked him to inform the Senate and the Australian people whether his policy is working, and if so, how.
– If the last phrase had been used in the first place the answer would have been, yes. I have no doubts that our policy is working very well. The report that I will table, as I always have, will include those sorts of things. I will keep in mind that Senator Marriott has said that he wants to relate the speech I made some 15 months ago laying down policy initiatives to how those policy initiatives fit in with what is happening. I assure him right now that they are being pursued to the best of my ability, but I will certainly keep the honourable senator’s request in mind and try to meet it in my report when I return.
page 144
-Has the Minister for Foreign Affairs received reports on the recent civil disturbances in Bangkok? Have those disturbances led to the declaration of a state of emergency?
-Yes. Very recently, in fact in the last couple of days, we became aware of the civil disturbances in Bangkok. It appears that they involved disaffected elements of the Thai police force and university students. The student demonstrations seem to have reflected rivalries within the students ranks themselves. The police were said to have been demanding that the Thai Government adopt a firmer approach to what the police regarded as an increase in civilian disorder, lawlessness and student agitation in Thailand. One demonstration led to the ransacking of the residence of the Thai Prime Minister, Mr Kukrit Pramoj, who was elsewhere at the time.
The Australian Embassy in Bangkok has reported to us that the demonstrations, which now seem to have subsided, did not amount to anything like a threat to the Government of Thailand. There were reports that the demonstrations might have led to a state of emergency being declared. It appears that at this stage this has not been necessary. We have asked the Embassy to keep us closely in touch with anything else that might develop.
page 144
Further information will be announced by the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation. Details are set out in Statement No. 3
In the light of that very brief reference in the Budget Speech to repatriation benefits, will the Minister consider making such a statement publicly very quickly because no Press publicity has been given to this matter following the introduction of the Budget. Incidentally, the details do not appear in statement No. 3, as stated, but in statement No. 4 at page 47. Will the Minister consider making a public statement setting out the variations in repatriation benefits? It will be seen that there are some significant increases but there are some cases where no increased benefit is intended. Apart altogether from that, I think that publicity is required so that ex-service personnel who are beneficiaries might get to know as quickly as possible what is going to be done as a result of the Budget.
– I think that Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson has made a good suggestion. I have had some material distributed, but apparently with all the other exciting things that have been happening those who print the newspapers did not feel it warranted the same consideration as other matters. In fact, statement No. 3 as well as statement No. 4 does refer to these matters. Probably it could have been more correctly shown as appearing in statement No. 3 and in statement No. 4. If Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson looks at statement No. 3 he will find that it is also mentioned there. Naturally, these are matters which have to be made known to people. It is not much use having facilities available to people if they do not know about them. It is my practice in these circumstances to advise all the veterans organisations, but obviously there are a number of veterans who are not members of those organisations who also need to be informed. I shall certainly take up the honourable senator’s suggestion, although I think that this would have been done in any event. I shall see that the widest publicity possible is given to these matters.
page 145
– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Has he been able to obtain any further information about the alleged approach to the Minister for Health by a group of audiologists requesting an investigation into the activities of the hearing aid industry? This matter was raised during the adjournment debate last night by Senator Baume. Has Dr Everingham received the letter referred to and did he subsequently make contact with the writers of the letter?
– This matter was raised on the adjournment last night by Senator Baume. It was referred to Dr Everingham and I have now received some further information from him which may be of interest. Dr Everingham informs me that the letter to which Senator Baume referred was from a group of clinical audiologists working in several Sydney hospitals but not representing the Audiologists Society as such. I think that is the sense in which Senator Baume meant that it was not an official approach. The five individual clinical audiologists asked for an inquiry into the activities of the National Acoustic Laboratories and, as a result, Dr Everingham arranged for a meeting to be held on 17 June between officers of his Department, representatives of the National Acoustic Laboratories and the writers of the letter. At that meeting a number of matters were discussed and the Government’s policy regarding the supply of hearing aids was explained. I am informed by Dr Everingham that the audiologists expressed themselves as being pleased with the responsive and encouraging approach to their inquiries and were grateful for the chance to have this exchange of ideas and for the explanation of the Government’s plans. Arrangements are being made for continuing discussions with this group, should that be necessary or desirable. No further approach has been made by this group on the need for an inquiry.
The audiologists also said that they were aware of limitations in the services provided by the present hearing aid industry. The Otolarynogological Society of Australia -
– Say that again?
-The Otolaryngological Society of Australia- I know that Senator Withers takes a keen interest in its activities- was involved in the Australian Government’s working party on aids and appliances and has expressed itself as having a continuing interest in being involved in future developments in the hearing aid area. But this society which, as I understand it, is the professional society of people who are interested in otolaryngology has made no request for any investigation into the activities of the National Acoustic Laboratories.
page 145
-I ask the Minister representing the Treasurer: Does not Budget Paper No. 12 show an increase of $2,6 12m in pay-as-you-earn income tax for this year as estimated in the present Budget, being an increase from $6,07 lm last year to an estimate this year of $8,683m? Is that not a record increase for any year in history? Is not an increase of $2,612m approximately ten times the increase in this item, pay-as-you-earn income tax, for the last year of Liberal Government? Is that consistent with the pretence of the Budget speech that this Budget was operating to reduce workers’ income tax?
– My answer in substance is no different to the answer I gave to a similar question that Senator Wright asked yesterday. The question is only a rehash of aggregates, as I said at the time. Senator Wright comes into the chamber with a paper in his hand and recites a whole fistful of figures which he knows mislead or tend to mislead the people who may be listening to him. Of course there is a bigger increase because of the inflationary spiral at present. It would be idle to suggest otherwise. The relativity of taxation as a result of the measures taken by the Government under this Budget certainly gives a greater equity and a reduction in personal income tax to the Australian taxpayer. That fact is undeniable. The only other point I would make is that it is quite true that taxation naturally increases as the gross national product increases. I would remind Senator Wright that at no time in the history of this country have the earnings of Australian workers improved in real terms as much as they have done during the past 2!6 years of Labor Government.
page 146
– Has the Minister for Labor and Immigration seen a report in the West Australian of 15 August in which the Premier of Western Australia cities figures concerning State and Federal Public Service growth rates? The figures cited by the Premier reveal that the Federal Public Service increased by 3.3 per cent last year while the State Public Service in Victoria grew by 10.5 per cent and the State Public Service in Queensland by almost 8 per cent. Does the Minister know whether the figures cited by Sir Charles Court, the Liberal Premier of Western Australia, are correct? If they are, can he offer any explanation for the astronomical growth rates in the Public Services of the Liberal Party and/or National Country Party governed States of Queensland and Victoria? In particular is the growth in Queensland related to the explosion in the number of public relations officers- propagandists- employed by the Premier of Queensland to promote his personal image and the image of his Government?
-As a regular reader of that fine and unbiased newspaper the West Australian I have noticed the item to which the honourable senator refers. Of course, knowing the reputation for honesty of that newspaper and also the reputation for honesty of Sir Charles Court, I have no reason to doubt those figures. If they are correct, they offer a curious example of the double standard of the Liberal Party which enables it to regard practices which are reprehensible for a Labor government as virtuous for a Liberal government. The figures quoted by Sir Charles Court are rather extraordinary and indicate a growth rate in 1974-75 in the Liberal Government State of Victoria of 10.57 per cent, in Queensland of 7.94 per cent, in South Australia of only 5.2 1 per cent, in Tasmania only 4 per cent and in New South Wales of almost 4 per cent. My curiosity has been aroused by these figures. I will make some inquiries to satisfy the desire for information evinced by Senator Walsh.
page 146
– My question is directed to the Postmaster-General. Is it a fact that the Australian Postal Commission is giving consideration to reducing the newly established postal charges for bulk business mail which is mailed and delivered within the same post code area, as has been suggested by the Retail Traders Association of Tasmania? Can the Minister indicate what progress has been made by the APC’s current market research projects in relation to this matter? When is a decision likely to be taken in relation to the proposal? Will the Minister approve the decision if such a reduction is proposed bytheAPC?
– At this stage all I can say is that discussions about the matter are continuing. I will endeavour to get some final information from the Australian Postal Commission about it. As soon as I can I will give that to Senator Rae and to the Senate.
page 146
-Is the Special Minister of State aware of complaints that some dealers are increasing the prices of commodities such as beer and cigarettes which they purchased allegedly at pre-Budget rates of duty? What action, if any, can be taken by the Prices Justification Tribunal to see that the public is not fleeced by these unscrupulous operators?
– I understand that the Prices Justification Tribunal has learned of complaints of this nature and has announced already that it will be conducting spot checks on retail tobacco and beer prices in Melbourne and Sydney over the next week or so to detect any cases in which price increases might have been applied by companies to stocks that were acquired at pre-Budget rates of duty. I am told that the Prices Justification Tribunal has announced also that it will follow up any inquiries or complaints on this subject in those cities or elsewhere. I have noted with interest a report in this morning’s Sydney Morning Herald Column 8 that a severe warning had been given to a tobacco retailer in Sydney by an officer of the Tribunal. That is rather an amusing side to a serious subject because the legal advice given to me is that for constitutional reasons the powers of the Tribunal in this respect are limited to companies and cannot be directed to individual people. The Tribunal’s jurisdiction extends only to companies, for constitutional reasons, and its powers are limited to this type of business organisation.
page 146
– My question is directed to the Postmaster-General. I refer to the Salaried Staff By-Laws of the Australian Postal Commission and the Australian Telecommunications Commission which he tabled in the Senate recently. I refer particularly to the senior levels for administrative and executive salaries which are in Group A of Part 1.I ask the Minister: How do these levels compare with the equivalent levels in the Public Service, particularly in the Second Division? Was the Postmaster-General consulted by the commissions about the salary levels? Do they conform with the Government’s policies on indexation? Has the Postmaster-General given any directions to the commissions in respect of their policies on staff salaries?
-As I think the honourable senator knows, it was proposed that when the law was passed and the Australian Postal Commission and the Australian Telecommunications Commission were set up they would come under the responsibility of the Special Minister of State. During discussions on the legislation it was recommended by others and by myself that an officer of the Department of the Special Minister of State should be appointed to each of the commissions. The structure of these commissions was assessed in accordance with the recommendations of the Vernon Commission with the thought in mind that in some respects the services of the two commissions would have to be duplicated and that they would take over obligations which they did not have formerly. For example, the Australian Public Service Board was responsible for determining and controlling the conditions of service of the 122 000 workers employed by the old Post Office and the related arbitral functions etc. As the honourable senator knows, under the new legislation the employees of the commissions come under the control of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act.
The method of appointment and classification of staff to the commissions was determined after conversations with, I think, the Deputy Chairman of the Public Service Board and as the 2 chairmen, Messrs Gibbs and Kennedy, have said after investigations were undertaken by special consultants. I think the report of these consultants would be available to Senator Durack if he would like to see it. The special consultants had in mind that there should be a new more commercially oriented structure for the commissions and they recommended accordingly to the commissions. Investigations were made by the commissions. As honourable senators know there was a trade union representative on the Telecommunications Commission and on the Postal Commission. The Telecommunications Commission and the Postal Commission adopted the recommended structure, and recently replied to the public criticism of the appointments which they made. So I think the real test is whether the consultants’ advice and the consideration which was given to the related Public Service structure were appropriate.
The matter has been put to me since I again assumed responsibility as the PostmasterGeneral. I am presently looking at the position and I will be discussing the matter with the Minister for Labor and Immigration. I want to put it as clearly as I can that what we all would like to see is for the 2 commissions to get off to a fair start and for them not to be too restricted in proving that they can operate efficiently. In respect of their new arbitral functions, 1 think we have to see how the new structure compares with the old structure which was controlled by the Australian Public Service Board. When I have had time to consider what Senator Durack has raised I shall endeavour to give him any additional information he requires. I am quite prepared to discuss the matter with him or to convene a discussion with the officers of the commissions if he would like me to do so.
– I wish to ask a supplementary question, Mr President. I specifically asked the Postmaster-General whether the salary structure conformed with the Government’s policies on indexation. The Minister did not answer that, and I wonder whether he can do so.
– I have raised this matter with the commissions on my own initiative and acting on general directions which have come from the Public Service. I have been assured by the 2 chairmen that the matter has been discussed by both commissions on at least 2 occasions and those commissions have affirmed their support for Government policies. That information has been conveyed to the appropriate Ministers.
page 147
– I direct my question to the Minister for Agriculture. In view of the continuing threat of foot and mouth disease to Australia’s cattle industry, will the Minister indicate whether anything is being done to combat the disease in countries geographically close to Australia?
-The only significant outbreak of foot and mouth disease in the vicinity of Australia has been on the island of Bali in Indonesia in the last two or three years, and Australian officers have been working very closely with the Indonesian Government to ensure the maximum control of the disease on that island. Certainly if foot and mouth disease were to come to Australia it would be quite devastating for us. We provide assistance to the Indonesian Government, particularly in the expansion of its vaccine production facilities which are very limited at present. That assistance is in the form not only of technical advice but also of direct cash assistance.
I can assure the Senate that every effort is made to assist the Indonesians to maximise their efforts to keep foot and mouth disease under control on Bali. There have been 2 vaccination runs on quite a large number of cattle on the island, and I understand that a third run is in progress now. There is not much more that the Australian authorities can do to assist Indonesia, but the important thing is that the Indonesian authorities themselves seem to be fully conscious of the need to restrain the spread of the disease.
page 148
– My question, which is directed to the Minister for Labor and Immigration, refers to the Treasurer’s Budget statement: . . it is the Government’s firm view that, for the purposes of wage indexation, increases in prices resulting from tax measures of the sort that I have announced should be discounted.
I ask: Was the Government’s intention to discount such taxes disclosed to the unions at any time during the discussions aimed at securing a social contract on wage indexation? Will increased State and local government taxes, charges and fares be similarly discounted? Will not such a discounting result in a significant fall in the real value of wages as adjustments occur? Will not this mean that an estimated consumer price index increase of 5 per cent for the next December quarter will be discounted to 3 per cent for wage indexation, thereby robbing wage earners of purchasing power? The Government’s proposal is based on the claim that this discounting is justified because the workers are getting alternative benefits but since the Budget cuts virtually all major benefits, on the one hand taking off $1,3 10m in indirect taxes while, on the other hand giving $200m in direct tax relief resulting, in the net, in a total loss in living standards, how can this argument be sustained?
– I will do my best to answer what is a long and, I submit, rather confused question. On the first point as to whether the unions were taken into the Government’s confidence, the answer is yes. Representatives of the Australian Council of Trade Unions attended a meeting in this building, as did of course representatives of various other interested groups, in the run up to the Budget and this matter was canvassed with the unions.
– I asked not then, but in the original wage discussions.
-What original wage discussions?
– In the wage discussions of some six or eight months ago when wage indexation was first discussed.
– I am unsure of that. In fact, I think the answer is probably no. It is not a matter that has been canvassed until recently. I submit that there is a very respectable argument in support of this proposition, because I think that real income should include not only wages but also services provided by the public sector.
– And if you cut the services?
– Well, do we cut the services? What about Medibank? Medibank represents -
– What about education, housing and welfare?
– Would the honourable senator give me a chance? I know he has been waiting a couple of days to ask his question.
– Order! I think that a question as involved as this should be placed on notice.
– The Minister wants to answer it.
– Give him a chance to answer. Do not make a debate out of it.
– The Minister may answer if he wishes to do so.
– I will answer it in brief. I will give a more elaborate answer when I have had a chance to look at Hansard and see every aspect of the question. I think Senator Carrick would agree that I would have needed to be a fairly speedy shorthand writer to have taken down every item he put to me. Let me give my general philosophical approach to this question as to whether increases in Government charges and indirect taxes, including State and local government matters, should be taken into account in the CPI for the purposes of wage indexation. I believe there is a very respectable case why they should not, based on the fact, as I said, that the real income is not only wages but also services provided by the public sector. I was instancing Medibank which I think the Treasurer stated represented a net saving to the average household of something like $4 a week. Surely it is not to be said that in imposing indirect taxes in order to provide these services a government has to condemn itself by the mere act of introducing indirect taxes to fuelling the flames of inflation.
I believe that when Senator Carrick examines this matter more carefully he will agree that there is a great deal of merit in the proposition that services of this nature should not add to the CPI for the purposes of estimating what increases should be given in wages. I know it is a controversial proposition. I know it is a proposition which is not approved by the unions. It is a matter which, in the current national wage case hearing, counsel on behalf of the Australian Government put to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission for the first time. I would be less than frank if I did not say that it provoked the resentment and the resistance of the trade unions. It is a problem which will have to be solved. It is something of which the unions will have to be convinced. I may mention, as I did mention in answer to a similar question yesterday from Senator Greenwood, that it is a proposition that has been advanced also by various employers’ organisations and by counsel for one of the States in the current hearings. So the objections which Senator Greenwood and Senator Carrick offer to this proposition are not on all fours with that of their traditional supporters.
– And when you are cutting services?
– Well, we do not agree that we are cutting services. In any event, this is the rationale behind our proposition that this should be taken into account in estimating what goes into the CPI for the purposes of wage adjustment. It has some statistical difficulties. It is not easy to distinguish this element in the CPI but it is not impossible. As I said earlier, these are exceptional times calling for exceptional answers to our problems. To turn our backs on something merely because it is novel, merely because it evokes all the objections which novelty always attracts from the conservative forces in the community, is to cut off some of the options that we have in our present situation.
page 149
– For the information of honourable senators I present reports of the Temporary Assistance Authority on sporting goods, air conditioning machines and evaporative air coolers and certain time switches and clock movements.
page 149
– For the information of honourable senators I present a report on the survey ‘Income and Expenditure Patterns of Australian Tertiary Students in 1974’. Due to the limited numbers available reference copies of this report have been placed in the Parliamentary Library.
page 149
For the information of honourable senators I present a record of a ‘Seminar on Environmental Law: The Australian Government’s Role’.
page 149
Motion (by Senator Douglas McClelland) agreed to:
That, unless otherwise ordered, Government business take precedence of general business after 3 p.m. this day.
page 149
Message received from the House of Representatives intimating that it has agreed to Senate’s amendments Nos 1-13, 15, 17-19, 24, 29-31 and has agreed to Senate’s amendments Nos 14 and 16 with consequential amendments and has amended Senate’s amendments Nos 20-23, 25-28 and 32.
In Committee
Senate’s amendments-
Clause 3 (Interpretation),
Senate’s amendment No. 1 -
At end of clause add the following sub-clause:
A reference in this Act to a decision includes a reference to-
making, suspending, revoking or refusing to make an order or determination;
giving, suspending, revoking or refusing to give a certificate, direction, approval, consent or permission:
issuing, suspending, revoking or refusing to issue a licence, authority or other instrument;
imposing a condition or restriction;
making a declaration, demand or requirement;
f) retaining, or refusing to deliver up, an article; or
doing or refusing to do any other act or thing. ‘.
Clause 8.
Senate’s amendment No. 2-
In sub-clause (3), leave out ‘the Governor-General determines’, insert ‘ are prescribed ‘.
Senate’s amendment No. 3-
In sub-clause (4), leave out the sub-clause.
Clause 9 (Status of presidential members).
Senate ‘s amendment No. 4-
Leave out the clause.
Clause 12.
A full-time member shall not, except with the approval of the Minister, engage in paid employment outside the duties of his office.
Senate’s amendment No. 5-
Leave out ‘ , except with the approval of the Minister, ‘.
Clause 19 (Application of Judges’ Pensions Act).
Senate’s amendment No. 6-
Before sub-clause (1 ), insert the following new sub-clause: (1a) Subject to this section, the Judges’ Pensions Act 1968-1974 has effect is if a presidential member had the status of a Judge of the Australian Industrial Court. ‘.
Clause 23.
Senate’s amendment No. 7-
In sub-clause (2), line 25, after ‘sub-section 26 (6)’, insert or a provision of the Schedule’.
Clause 26.
Senate’s amendment No. 8-
In sub-clause (2), leave out the sub-clause, insert the following sub-clause:
Senate’s amendment No. 9-
In sub-clause (3), lines 40 and 41, leave out ‘or (2), that enactment, or another enactment having effect under that enactment ‘, insert ‘,that enactment ‘.
Senate’s amendment No. 10-
In sub-clause (6), paragraph (a), lines 12 and 13, leave out ‘, or another enactment having effect under that enactment,’.
Senate ‘s amendment No. 1 1 -
In sub-clause (6), paragraph (b), lines 20 and 21, leave out ‘, or another enactment having effect under that enactment,’.
Senate’s amendment No. 12-
After clause 26, insert the following new clause: 26a. (1) The provisions of the Schedule have effect ac cording to their tenor notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act (other than sub-section 26 (2)) or in any provision of any other enactment in force at the commencement of this Act.
Clause 27.
Senate’s amendment No. 13-
In sub-clause (1), leave out ‘an’ (first occurring), insert this Act or any other ‘.
Clause 28.
Senate’s amendment No. 14-
In sub-clause (2), leave out ‘a Minister’, insert ‘the Attorney-General ‘.
House of Representatives’ amendment to Senate’s amendment-
In clause 36, sub-clause (3), omit ‘a Minister’, substitute the Attorney-General’.
Senate’s amendment No. 15-
In sub-clause (2), paragraph (c), leave out the paragraph, insert the following paragraph:
for any other reason specified in the certificate that could form the basis for a claim by the Crown in right of Australia in a judicial proceeding that the contents of the statement should not be disclosed, ‘.
Clause 36.
Senate’s amendment No. 16-
In sub-clause (1), leave out ‘a Minister’, insert ‘the Attorney-General ‘.
House of Representatives’ amendment to Senate ‘s amendment-
In clause 36, sub-clause (4), omit ‘Minister’, substitute Attorney-General ‘.
Senate’s amendment No. 17-
In sub-clause ( 1 ), paragraph (c), leave out the paragraph. insert the following paragraph:
for any other reason specified in the certificate that could form the basis for a claim by the Crown in right of Australia in a judicial proceeding that the information or the contents of the documents should not be disclosed,’.
Senate’s amendment No. 1 8-
In sub-clause (5), leave out ‘, but does not affect any rules of law relating to privilege in relation to the disclosure of information or of the contents of documents in such proceedings’.
Clause 40.
Senate’s amendment No. 19-
After sub-clause (3), insert the following new sub-clause: (3a) A person summoned to appear before the Tribunal may request that he be represented by counsel or a solicitor and upon such request being made the tribunal may allow such person to be represented. ‘.
Clause 43.
Senate’s amendment No. 20-
In sub-clause (6), leave out ‘Superior Court of Australia’, insert ‘ Supreme Court of a State or Territory ‘.
House of Representatives’ amendment to Senate’s amendment-
Omit the words ‘insert “Supreme Court of a State or Territory” ‘ and substitute the words ‘insert “Australian Industrial Court” ‘.
Clause 44.
Senate ‘s amendment No. 2 1 -
In sub-clause (1) leave out ‘Superior Court of Australia’, insert ‘Supreme Court of a State or Territory’.
House of Representatives’ amendment to Senate’s amendment-
Omit the words ‘insert “Supreme Court of a State or Territory” ‘ and substitute the words ‘insert “Australian Industrial Court” ‘.
Senate’s amendment No. 22-
In sub-clause (2), leave out ‘Superior Court of Australia’, insert ‘Supreme Court of a State or Territory’.
House of Representatives’ amendment to Senate ‘s amendment-
Omit the words ‘insert “Supreme Court of a State or Territory” ‘ and substitute the words ‘insert “Australian Industrial Court” ‘.
Senate’s amendment No. 23-
In sub-clause (3), leave out ‘Superior Court of Australia’, insert ‘Supreme Court of a State or Territory ‘.
House of Representatives’ amendment to Senate ‘s amendment-
Omit the words ‘insert “Supreme Court of a State or Territory” ‘ and substitute the words ‘insert “Australian Industrial Court”’.
Senate’s amendment No. 24-
In sub-clause (4), leave out the sub-clause.
Senate ‘s amendment No. 25-
In sub-clause (5), leave out ‘Superior Court of Australia’, insert ‘ Supreme Court of a State or Territory *.
House of Representatives’ amendment to Senate’s amendment-
Omit the words ‘insert “Supreme Court of a State or Territory” ‘ and substitute the words ‘insert “Australian Industrial Court” ‘.
Senate’s amendment No. 26-
In sub-clause (6), leave out ‘Superior Court of Australia’, insert ‘Supreme Court of a State or Territory ‘.
House of Representatives’ amendment to Senate ‘s amendment-
Omit the words ‘insert “Supreme Court of a State or Territory” ‘ and substitute the words ‘insert “Australian Industrial Court” ‘.
Clause 45.
Senate ‘s amendment No. 27-
Leave out ‘Superior Court of Australia’ (wherever occurring), insert ‘Supreme Court of a State or Territory’.
House of Representatives’ amendment to Senate’s amendment-
Omit the words ‘ insert “Supreme Court of a State or Territory” and substitute the words ‘insert “Australian Industrial Court”’.
Clause 46.
Senate ‘s amendment No. 28-
Leave out ‘Superior Court of Australia’ (wherever occurring), insert ‘Supreme Court of a State or Territory’.
House of Representatives ‘ amendment to Senate ‘s amendment-
Omit the words ‘insert “Supreme Court of a State or Territory” ‘ and substitute the words ‘insert “Australian Industrial Court” ‘.
In clause 46, sub-clause (2), omit ‘ A Minister’, substitute the Attorney-General ‘.
Clause 47 (Temporary exercise of jurisdiction by Australian Industrial Court).
Senate’s amendment No. 29-
Leave out the clause.
Proposed new Part IVA.
Senate ‘s amendment No. 30-
After Part IV, insert the following new Part:
PART IVa-ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW COUNCIL 47a. (1) In this Part, unless the contrary intention appears- appointed member’ means a member referred to in paragraph47C (1 ) (d);
Council ‘ means the Administrative Review Council; member’ means a member of the Council.
A reference in this Part to an administrative decision or an administrative discretion includes a reference to an administrative decision made, or administrative discretion exercised, otherwise than under an enactment. 47b. There is hereby established a Council by the name of the Administrative Review Council. 47C. ( 1 ) The Council shall consist of-
the President;
the Australian Ombudsman holding office under the Ombudsman Act 1975;
the Chairman of the Law Reform Commission established by the Law Reform Commission Act 1973; and
not less than 3 or more than 7 other members.
The members referred to in paragraph ( 1 ) (d) shall be appointed by the Governor-General and shall be appointed as part-time members.
The performance of the functions or the exercise of the powers of the Council is not affected by a vacancy in the office of a member referred to in paragraph ( 1 ) (a), (b) or (c) or by reason of the number of appointed members falling below 3 for not more than 3 months. 47D. A person shall not be appointed as a member referred to in paragraph 47C(l)(d) unless he has had extensive experience in public administration or has an extensive knowledge of administrative law. 47E. ( 1 ) The functions of the Council are-
to ascertain, and keep under review, the classes of administrative decisions that are not the subject of review by a court, tribunal or other body;
to make recommendations to the Minister as to whether any of those classes of decision should be the subject of review by a court, tribunal or other body and, if so, as to the appropriate court, tribunal or other body to make that review;
to inquire into the adequacy of the law and practice relating to the review by courts of administrative decisions and to make recommendations to the Minister as to any improvements that might be made in that law or practice;
to inquire into the adequacy of the procedures in use by tribunals or other bodies engaged in the review of administrative decisions and to make recommendations to the Minister as to any improvements that might be made in those procedures;
to make recommendations to the Minister as to the manner in which tribunals engaged in the review of administrative decisions should be constituted;
to make recommendations to the Minister as to the desirability of administrative decisions that are the subject of review by tribunals other than the Administrative Appeals Tribunal being made the subject of review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal; and
to make recommendations to the Minister as to ways and means of improving the procedures for the exercise of administrative discretions for the purpose of ensuring that those discretions are exercised in a just and equitable manner.
The Council may do all things necessary or convenient to be done for or in connexion with the performance of its functions. 47f. An appointed member shall be appointed for such period, not exceeding 3 years, as the Governor-General specifies in the instrument of his appointment, but is eligible for re-appointment. 47G. (1) An appointed member shall be paid such remuneration as is determined by the Remuneration Tribunal but, if no determination of that remuneration by that Tribunal is in operation, he shall be paid such remuneration as is prescribed.
An appointed member shall be paid such allowances as are prescribed.
This section has effect subject to the Remuneration Tribunals Act 1973-1974. 47h. An appointed member may resign his office by writing signed by him and delivered to the Governor-General. 47j. (1) The Governor-General may remove an appointed member from office for misbehaviour or incapacity.
If an appointed member is absent, except by leave of the Minister, from 3 consecutive meetings of the Council, the Governor-General may remove him from office. 47k. ( 1 ) The Council shall hold such meetings as are necessary for the performance of its functions.
The President may at anytime convene a meeting of the council.
The President shall, on receipt of a request in writing signed by 3 members, convene a meeting of the Council.
At a meeting of the Council, 4 members constitute a quorum.
The President shall preside at all meetings of the Council at which he is present.
If the President is not present at a meeting of the Council, the members present shall elect one of their number to preside at that meeting and the person so elected shall preside accordingly.
Questions arising at a meeting of the Council shall be determined by a majority of the votes of the members present and voting.
The member presiding at a meeting of the Council has a deliberative vote and, in the event of an equality of votes, also has a casting vote.
The Council may regulate the conduct of proceedings at its meetings as it thinks fit and shall keep minutes of those proceedings.
A person acting in the office of the Australian Ombudsman may attend a meeting of the Council and, in relation to a meeting of the Council that he attends in pursuance with this sub-section, shall be deemed to be the Australian Ombudsman. 47l. The staff of the Council shall be persons appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1 922- 1975. 47m. (1) The Council shall, as soon as practicable after 30 June in each year, prepare and furnish to the Minister a report of the operations of the Council during that year.
The Minister shall cause the report of the Council to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the receipt of the report by the Minister.
The first report by the Council shall relate to the period commencing on the date of commencement of this Act and ending on 30 June 1 976. ‘.
Clause 58.
Senate ‘s amendment No. 31-
In sub-clause (2), leave out the sub-clause, insert the following sub-clause:
Where an application is made by a person under subsection ( 1 ), the Attorney-General may, if he is satisfied that it would involve hardship to that person to refuse the application and that, in all the circumstances, it is reasonable that the application should be granted, authorize the provision by Australia to that person, either unconditionally or subject to such conditions as the Attorney-General determines, of such legal or financial assistance in relation to the proceeding as the Attorney-General determines. ‘.
Proposed Schedule.
Senate’s amendment No. 32-
Add the following Schedule:
SCHEDULE Section 26a
page 154
( 1 ) This Schedule applies only in respect of decisions made after the commencement of this Act.
House of Representatives’ amendment to
Senate’s amendment-
After Part I of the proposed Schedule, insert the following Part:-
PART Ia- AGRICULTURAL TRACTORS BOUNTY ACT 1a. Applications may be made to the Tribunal for review of-
a decision of the Minister under sub-section 6 (5) of the Agricultural Tractors Bounty Act 1 966- 1 973 ;
a determination of the Comptroller-General of Customs under sub-section 6(6) of that Act;
a decision of the Comptroller-General of Customs under section 8 of that Act;
a decision of the Minister under section 9 of that Act;
a decision of the Minister under sub-section 1 1 (3) of that Act;
a determination of the Minister under sub-section 11(6)ofthatAct;and
a decision of the Minister under sub-section 1 1 (8) of that Act cancelling the registration of premises’.
Amend Part II of the proposed Schedule-
by omitting from sub-cluse ( 1 ) of clause 2 the words Director-General of Civil Aviation ‘and substituting the words ‘Secretary to the Department of Transport’; and
by inserting in paragraph (b) of sub-clause (1) of clause 2, before the figures ‘257’, the figures and word ‘256 or’.
Senate’s amendment No. 32-
Insert the following part:-
PART II-AIR NAVIGATION ACT
- ( 1 ) Applications may be made to the Tribunal for review of decisions by the Director-General of Civil Aviation-
refusing to grant a licence or certificate referred to in regulation 254 of the Air Navigation Regulations; or
varying or cancelling such a licence or certificate or suspending such a licence or certificate otherwise than under regulation 257 of those Regulations.
A person is not entitled to-
have a matter to which a decision relates submitted for review to a board of review; or
b ) appeal against a decision, in accordance with regulation 259 of the Air Navigation Regulations if an application may be made to the Tribunal in respect of the decision by virtue of sub-clause ( 1 ).
PARTIII-AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY TAXATION ADMINISTRATION ACT
3.(1) An application may be made to the Tribunal for review of the revocation by the Commissioner of Taxation under section 20 of the Australian Capital Territory Taxation Administration Act 1969-1973 of an authority granted to a banker under Division 2 of Part III of that Act.
A person is not entitled to appeal under section 21 of the Australian Capital Territory Taxation Administration Act 1969-1973 against the revocation of an authority in respect of which an application may be made to the Tribunal by virture of sub-clause ( 1 ).
For the purpose of reviewing a revocation of an authority referred to in sub-clause ( 1 ), the Tribunal shall be consituted by a presidential member alone.
PART IV- AUSTRALIAN FILM COMMISSION ACT
An application may be made to the Tribunal for review of a requirement made under section 10 of the Australian Film Commission Act 1975.
PART V-BROADCASTING AND TELEVISION ACT
5.(1) Applications may be made to the Tribunal for review of decisions of the Minister made under section 86 of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942-1974 or decisions of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board made under section 1 1 9 of that Act.
A person is not entitled to appeal under section 87a of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1 942- 1 974 against a decision in respect of which an application may be made to the Tribunal by virtue of sub-clause ( 1 ).
House of Representatives’ amendment to Senate’s amendment-
After Part V of the proposed Schedule, insert the following Parts:-
PART Va-BOOK BOUNTY ACT 5 a. Applications may be made to the Tribunal for review of-
a direction of the Minister under sub-section 3a (2) of the Book Bounty Act 1969-1975;
a determination of the Minister under sub-section 4(2)or(3)of that Act;
a decision of the Minister under section 9 of that Act;
a decision of the Minister under sub-section 1 1 (3) of that Act;
a determination of the Minister under sub-section 11 (6) of that Act; and
f) a decision of the Minister under sub-section 1 1 ( 7 ) of that Act cancelling the registration of premises.
PART VB-CELLULOSE ACETATE FLAKE BOUNTY ACT
5b. Applications may be made to the Tribunal for review of–
decisions of the Comptroller-General of Customs made under section 9 of the Cellulose Acetate Flake Bounty Act 1956-1973; and
decisions of the Minister made under sub-sections 10 (3), (4) and (5) of that Act.
PARTVc-COAL EXCISE ACT 5c. Applications may be made to the Tribunal for review of decisions of the Collector under sections 12 and 16 of the Coal Excise Act 1949-1973.
PART Vd-COMMERCE (TRADE DESCRIPTIONS) ACT 5d. (1) Applications may be made to the Tribunal for review of-
decisions of the Comptroller-General of Customs made under sub-section 7 (3) or section 10 of the Commerce (Trade Descriptions) Act 1905-1973 other than a decision in respect of which an appeal has been made to the Minister for Police and Customs under that sub-section, or section, as the case may be: and
decisions of the Secretary to the Department of Agriculture made under sub-section 1 1 (3 ) or section 13 of that Act other than a decision in respect of which an appeal has been made to the Minister for Agriculture under that sub-section or section, as the case may be.
A person is not entitled-
to appeal to the Minister for Police and Customs under sub-section 7(3) or section 10 of the Commerce (Trade Descriptions) Act 1 905-1 973 against a decision of the Comptroller-General of Customs made under that sub-section or section, as the case may be; or
to appeal to the Minister for Agriculture under subsection 11 (3) or section 13 of that Act against a decision of the Secretary to the Department of Agriculture made under that sub-section or section, as the case may be, if an application has been made to the Tribunal for review of that decision.
PART Ve- COPYRIGHT ACT 5e. (1) Applications may be made to the Tribunal for review of decisions of the Comptroller-General of Customs made under sub-section 135 (6) of the Copyright Act 1968-1973 other than a decision in respect of which an appeal has been made to the Minister for Police and Customs.
A person is not entitled to appeal to the Minister for Police and Customs under sub-section 135 (6) of the Copyright Act 1968-1973 against a decision of the ComptrollerGeneral of Customs made under that sub-section if an application has been made to the Tribunal for review of that decision.’.
Amend Part VI of the proposed Schedule by inserting after paragraph (e) of sub-clause (2) of clause 6 the following paragraphs:- (ea) a direction of the Minister under paragraph 151 (8)(a)oftheCustomsAct; (eb) a decision of the Collector under section 151a of the Customs Act; (ec) a specification of the Minister under sub-section 1 5 7 ( 4 ) of the Customs Act; ‘.
Senate’s amendment No. 32
Insert the following Part:
PART VI-CUSTOMS ACT
Applications may be made to the Tribunal for review of-
Where, on an application made under sub-clause (3), the Tribunal has made a decision reviewing a demand made by the Collector, the power duty payable in respect of the goods concerned shall be deemed to be-
an order of a court on appeal from that decision; or
the sum paid under protest, whichever is the less.
House of Representatives’ amendment to Senate ‘s amendment-
After Part VI of the proposed Schedule, insert the following Part:-
Part VIa-CUSTOMS REGULATIONS 6a. Applications may be made to the Tribunal for review of-
decisions of a Collector made under regulation 1 28b and sub-regulation 132 (2) of the Customs Regulations; and
decisions in relation to drawback of customs duty made by the Minister or a Collector under regulations 129, 131, 133 and 1 34 (other than declarations by the Minister under sub-regulation 131 (1)) of those Regulations. ‘.
Senate’s amendment No. 32-
Insert the following Part:-
PART VII-CUSTOMS TARIFF
Applications may be made to the Tribunal for review of-
a direction given by the Minister under section 7 of the Customs Tariff 1966-1974; and
determinations made by the Minister under sections 8 and 3 1 of the Customs Tariff 1 966- 1 974.
House of Representatives’ amendment to Senate’s amendment-
After Part VII of the proposed Schedule, insert the following Part:-
PART VII a- DEFENCE FORCE RETIREMENT AND DEATH BENEFITS ACT 7a. (1) Applications may be made to the Tribunal for review of a decision of the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Authority established under section 8 of the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act 1973-74 in a case where, but for this Part, a request in relation to the decision could be made to that Authority under section101 of that Act.
A person is not entitled to make a request to the Authority referred to in sub-clause ( 1 ) of this clause under section 101 of the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act 1973-74 in relation to a decision in respect of which an application may be made to the Tribunal by virtue of that sub-clause.’.
Senate’s amendment No. 32-
Insert the following Part:-
PART VIII-DISTILLATION ACT
Applications may be made to the Tribunal for review of-
a decision by the Collector under section 20 of the Distillation Act 1901-1973; and
a cancellation of a licence by the Minister under section 24 of the Distillation Act 190 1 - 1973.
PART IX-EXCISE ACT
- (1) In this clause, ‘Excise Act’ means the Excise Act 1901-1974.
Applications may be made to the Tribunalfor review of-
a decision by a Collector under section 5a of the Excise Act;
a decision by the Collector under section 40 of the Excise Act;
a cancellation by the Minister under section 43 of the Excise Act;
quota orders, and variations of quota orders, made by the Minister under sections 59a and 59b of the Excise Act; and
a demand made by a Collector under section 60 of the Excise Act.
Where a dispute referred to in section 154 of the Excise Act has arisen and the owner of the goods has, in accordance with that section, deposited the amount of duty demanded by the Collector, an application may be made to the Tribunal for review of the demand made by the Collector for that amount.
A person is not entitled to apply for a review under section 59D of the Excise Act of a quota order, or a variation of a quota order, if an application may be made to the Tribunal under paragraph (2) (d) in respect of the quota order or the variation, as the case may be.
An application may not be made to the Tribunal under sub-clause (3) unless the application is made within a period of 6 months after the making of the deposit referred to in that sub-clause.
Where the owner of goods has made an application to the Tribunal under sub-clause (3)-
the consequences referred to in paragraph 152 (2) of the Excise Act shall not ensue and the owner of the goods is not entitled to institute against the Collector an action referred to in that paragraph; and
the proper duty payable in respect of the goods shall be deemed to be-
the amount determined to be the proper duty by, or ascertained to be the proper duty in accordance with-
the decision of the Tribunal; or
an order of a court on appeal from that decision; or
the amount of the deposit, whichever is the less, and where the amount of the deposit exceeds the amount referred to in subparagraph (a), the excess shall be refunded by the Collector to the owner with interest at the rate of 5 per centum per annum.
House of Representatives’ amendment to Senate’s amendment-
PART IXa-EXCISE REGULATIONS 9a. Applications may be made to the Tribunal for review of-
decisions of a Collector under regulation 58 of the Excise Regulations; and
b ) decisions in relation to drawback of excise duty made by the Minister or a Collector under regulations 76, 77, 78, 78a and 78B (other than declarations by the Minister under sub-regulation 77(1) of those Regulations.’.
Senate’s amendment No. 32.-
Insert the following Part:-
PART X-INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT
( 1 ) An application may be made to the Tribunal for review of the cancellation by a Tax Agents’ Board under section 251k of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936-1975 of the registration of a tax agent.
A person is not entitled to appeal under sub-section 251k(5) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936-1975 against a cancellation of the registration of a tax agent in respect of which an application may be made to the Tribunal by virtue of sub-clause ( 1 ).
For the purpose of reviewing the cancellation of the registration of a tax agent, the Tribunal shall be constituted by a presidential member alone.
PART XI- MARRIAGE ACT
- (1) An application may be made to the Tribunal for review of a decision of a Registrar of Ministers of Religion refusing to register a person who has applied for registration under Division 1 of Part IV of the Marriage Act 1961-1973 or removing the name of a person from a register in pursuance of section 33 of that Act.
A person is not entitled to request a review under section 34 of the Marriage Act 1961-1973 of a decision in respect of which an application for review may be made to the Tribunal by virtue of sub-clause ( 1 ).
For the purpose of reviewing a decision referred to in sub-clause ( 1 ), the Tribunal shall be constituted by a presidential member alone.
House of Representatives’ amendment to Senate’s amendment-
After Pan XI of the proposed Schedule, insert the following Part:-
PART XIa-METAL WORKING MACHINE TOOLS BOUNTY ACT 11a. Applications may be made to the Tribunal for a review of-
a decision of the Minister under sub-section 3 (2) of the Metal Working Machine Tools Bounty Act 1972-1973;
a determination by the Comptroller-General of Customs under section 5 of that Act;
a decision of the Comptroller-General of Customs under section 9 of that Act;
a decision of the Minister under section 10 of that Act;
a decision of the Minister under sub-section 12 (3) of that Act;
a decision of the Minister under sub-section 12 (6) of that Act;
a determination by the Minister under sub-section 12(7)ofthatAct;and
a cancellation of the registration ofpremises made by the Minister under sub-section 12 (8) of that Act.’.
Senate’s amendment No. 32-
Insert the following Parts:-
PART XII-MIGRATION ACT
12 (1) Applications may be made to the Tribunal for review of decisions of the Minister made under section 12, 13 or 48 of the Migration Act 1958-1973 other than a decision made on a matter remitted by the Tribunal for reconsideration in accordance with sub-clause (3 ).
A person is not entitled to make an application under sub-clause ( 1 ) in relation to a decision made under section 1 2 or 1 3 of the Migration Act 1 958- 1 973 unless-
the person is an Australian citizen; or
the continued presence of the person in Australia is not subject to any limitation as to time imposed by law.
After reviewing a decision referred to in sub-clause ( I ), the Tribunal shall either affirm the decision or remit the matter for reconsideration in accordance with any recommendations of the Tribunal.
For the purpose of reviewing a decision referred to in sub-clause ( I ), the Tribunal shall be constituted by a presidential member alone.
PART XIII-NATIONAL HEALTH ACT
( 1 ) An application may be made to the Tribunal for review of a decision of the Director-General of Health under section 90 of the National Health Act 1953-1975 rejecting an application of a pharmaceutical chemist under that section.
A person is not entitled to appeal under sub-section 90 (5) of the National Health Act 1953-1975 against a decision in respect of which an application may be made to the Tribunal by virtue of sub-clause ( I ).
An application may be made to the Tribunal for review of a decision of the Minister under section 95 of the National Health Act 1953-1975 suspending, further suspending or revoking the approval or authority of a medical practitioner or a pharmaceutical chemist.
A person is not entitled to appeal under section 97 of the National Health Act 1953-1975 against a decision in respect of which an application may be made to the Tribunal by virtue of sub-clause (3).
PART XIV-PATENTS ACT
- (1) Applications may be made to the Tribunal for review of a refusal by the Commissioner of Patents to register a person as a patent attorney under section 133 of the Patents Act 1957-1973.
Applications may be made to the Tribunal for review of an order by the Commissioner of Patents under regulation 27 of the Patent Attorneys Regulations directing that the name of a patent attorney be removed from the Register of Patent Attorneys.
A person is not entitled to appeal under regulation 29 of the Patent Attorneys Regulations against an order in respect of which an application may be made to the Tribunal by virtue of sub-clause (2).
For the purpose of reviewing an order referred to in sub-clause (2), the Tribunal shall be constituted by a presidential member alone.
PART XV-SPIRITS ACT
An application may be made to the Tribunal for a review of a decision of a Collector of Customs under section 20 ofthe Spirits Act 1906-1973.’.
House of Representatives’ amendment to Senate ‘s amendment-
At the end of the proposed Schedule, add the following Part:-
PART XVI- TRADE MARKS ACT
14.(1) Applications may be made to the Tribunal for review of decisions of the Comptroller-General of Customs made under sub-section 103 (2) of the Trade Marks Act 1955-1973 other than a decision in respect of which an appeal has been made to the Minister for Police and Customs under that sub-section.
A person is not entitled to appeal to the Minister for Police and Customs under sub-section 103 (2) of the Trade Marks Act 1955-1973 against a decision of the ComptrollerGeneral of Customs made under that sub-section if an application has been made to the Tribunal for review of that decision.’.
– I understand that the amendments that have been sent to us from the other place are not to be disputed by the Opposition. Senate amendments Nos 14 and 16 restricted to the Attorney-General the power to give a certificate entitling information or documents to be withheld from parties to proceedings before the Tribunal. When those amendments were made in the Senate action was not taken to make consequential amendments to other provisions of the Bill referring to Ministers generally and the amendments made in the House of Representatives make those consequential changes. Senate amendments Nos 20-23 and 25-28 deleted references to the Superior Court of Australia and inserted instead references to the Supreme Court of a State or Territory. The effect of this change was to provide that appeals on questions of law from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal were to go to State and Territory Supreme Courts. The amendments made in the House of Representatives have the effect that appeals from the Tribunal on questions of law would go to the Australian Industrial Court instead of to the State and Territory Supreme Courts as was proposed by the Senate. The Government believes that appeals from an administrative appeals tribunal reviewing decisions of Ministers and officials under laws of the Australian Parliament and Territories should be heard by a Federal court. It does so for 2 reasons. One is that these appeals will involve interpretation of provisions of Acts of Parliament and Territory laws in matters that would not normally come before State and Territory courts. The second is that the Australian Government believes that there should be uniformity in the treatment of appeals in order to enable the development of an authoritative body of administrative law so that administrators would not be faced with conflicting or inconsistent decisions of State and Territory Supreme Courts.
The purpose of amendments Nos 5 and 7 to 1 3 is to make additions to the Schedule inserted in the Bill by government amendment in the Senate in order to increase the area of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. Amendment No. 6 makes a necessary correction to the reference made in the Senate amendment to the relevant office and to exclude an appeal in a matter in which an appeal was not intended; that is, an amendment to the air navigation regulations had been overlooked at the time. The Schedule inserted in the Senate set out those statutory powers in respect of which it was possible in the time available to provide a right of appeal to the Tribunal. In the praliamentary recess a number of other Acts were considered with a view to enabling the tribunal to review a greater range of statutory powers- of course, these will be added to from time time- having regard largely to the recommendations of the Bland Committee and legislation enacted since the Committee reported. The amendments made in the House of Representatives to the Schedule extend the Tribunal’s jurisdiction into matters arising under those Acts. Accordingly, I move:
– The Opposition supports the motion which has been moved by Senator James McClelland. I do not wish to speak at any length but I think there are some comments which ought to be made to explain our support. The first and the third sets of amendments are, of course, either consequential or understandable additional amendments necessitated by the course which events have taken. We see their point; we do not oppose them. The second set of amendments represent the acceptance by the Opposition of a point of view which has been stressed by the Government after its primary position was rejected and which, when the measure was earlier before the Senate, the Opposition had also opposed. We recognise that it is a desirable objective to have the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Bill working as soon as possible. In the negotiations which have taken place it was suggested to us that our concurrence in this particular proposal would facilitate that objective. We think the objective is worthy of attainment and we are prepared on this occasion to accede to what the Government has suggested.
The Government had originally proposed that any appeals from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal on questions of law should be entertained by the Superior Court of Australia. There is, of course, no Superior Court of Australia and the Senate has indicated on several occasions that it is opposed to the establishing of a Superior Court. Accordingly, the Opposition moved to have deleted from this Bill the reference to the Superior Court of Australia. In its place we moved, and the Senate concurred in our proposal, that any appeals on questions of law should be able to be entertained by the Supreme Court of the States or a Territory. The Government has said that it would prefer that appeals should be heard by the Australian Industrial Court. The initial stand taken by the Opposition was that the Industrial Court was not an appropriate court, and it is a desirable development in our jurisprudence that appeals which are taken from tribunals, be they State tribunals or Commonwealth tribunals, should be able to be entertained in the ordinary courts of the land. We felt, and it is a general concept to which the Opposition is striving to give expression, that we should give to the Supreme Courts of the States and the Territories as wide and as comprehensive a jurisdiction as can be, that we should limit the courts exercising a Federal jurisdiction to the High Court of Australia, and that if there has to be some other court that court should be limited in its role and should not be a court of general usage. For the purposes of enabling this Bill to be implemented we forgo that hope which we trust will one day be realised, namely, that the Supreme Courts of the States and the Territories will exercise a complete jurisdiction in all of these matters. We believe that the Bill should be brought into operation as soon as possible.
The only other thing I would say is that the way in which this Bill has passed through the House of Representatives and the Senate reflects the parliamentary procedures working as they should. It is a pity that so many other measures, be they introduced by this present Government or by any other government, could not be dealt with in the same constructive way. We have heard talk of so-called obstruction or frustration by the Senate of measures which the Government has introduced. Talk of that character is talk which ignores what parliamentarians should be about. A government which asserts that its measure is the only way in which an objective can be achieved and which shuts its mind to any amendment simply because it wants to use a political argument of obstruction or frustration by the Senate, does not either do itself credit or improve legislation which comes up for parliamentary scrutiny. That has been the course which has been followed with so many pieces of legislation which have been introduced. I am quite sure that if a different attitude had been taken by the Government, constructive amendments and the negotiations which can occur when there are opposing points of view which have been overcome to achieve a common objective could have been utilised much more frequently than they have been in the past. I mention that only because of what has happened in relation to this Bill.
I trust that the Minister for Labor and Immigration (Senator James McClelland) will not regard my remarks as out of place because he himself has contributed in this place so much to the way in which this Bill has been dealt with and ultimately reach the stage at which it will become legislation. The Opposition amendments which were carried in the Senate- I think that of the 32 amendments which were passed the great preponderance were Opposition amendments although the Government itself chose the opportunity to introduce some- have resulted in a Bill which we think is an improved Bill and which, from what I understand of what the AttorneyGeneral (Mr Enderby) said in the House of Representatives, he also regards as an improved Bill. What we have been able to do, of course, is to provide that the terms and conditions of service of members of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal will be fixed by regulation so that in the future they will be amenable to parliamentary scrutiny. We have provided that members of the Tribunal shall be persons who are able and prepared to give their full time to the tasks which the Tribunal will impose upon them. We have decided that if there is to be a restriction on the type of material which can be placed before the Tribunal, it shall not be the Minister concerned who will have the final say as to what will be excluded. That task will be vested in the AttorneyGeneral who will apply the standards which a law officer of the Crown should apply in deciding whether that material is to be withheld. We have established an Administrative Review Council which, of course, was within the concepts of the Kerr report when it initially proposed a scheme for administrative review in this country.
Finally, the Government has seized an Opposition initiative and has produced a schedule which gives a substantive jurisdiction to the Tribunal as from the time the legislation comes into operation. I think they are constructive changes. The Government has accepted them and the Opposition is happy that the Government has adopted this attitude. We trust that this legislation will be of the service which we all believe it will be.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Resolution reported; report adopted.
page 160
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Wood)- The President has received a letter from the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Wriedt) stating that Senator Brown has requested that he be discharged from further attendance on the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances and nominating Senator Walsh to be appointed to the Committee in his place.
Motion (by Senator Douglas McClelland) agreed to:
That Senator Brown be discharged from attendance on the Standing Committee on Regulation and Ordinances and that Senator Walsh, having been duly nominated in accordance with standing order 36a, be appointed to the Committee.
page 160
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay.
Bill (on motion by Senator Wriedt) read a first time.
– I move:
This Bill introduces legislation for the screening of foreign takeovers of Australian businesses and the prohibition of such takeovers determined by the Treasurer to be against the national interest. Since foreign takeover controls were first introduced in 1972, they have operated on the basis of:
Interim legislation- the Companies (Foreign Take-overs) Act 1972-1974- which extends only to foreign takeovers of companies effected by means of acquisitions of voting shares.
Policy measures which, up to 10 December 1974 when the Government announced its comprehensive foreign takeover legislation proposals, extended to takeovers of:
The Bill provides for legislation which comprehends the whole of the Government’s controls over foreign takeovers. An outline of the comprehensive legislative proposals was given in a statement made by the former Treasurer on 10 December 1974, a copy of which is attached to the explanatory memorandum that I have circulated on the Bill. The explanatory memorandum outlines in detail the operation of the scheme embodied in the Bill. Briefly, in addition to company takeovers effected by means of acquisitions of voting shares, the Bill will cover three other areas:
First, takeovers covered by the 1972 policy measures- that is, takeovers of businesses by means of asset acquisitions and takeovers of mineral rights.
Second, takeover methods which have been used to evade the operation of the 1972 statutory and policy measures for the control of foreign takeovers. These comprise company takeovers effected by means of acquisitions of shares other than voting shares; company takeovers effected by means of splitting a large shareholding into small nominee groups where this has the effect of increasing the voting rights attached to the shareholding; business takeovers effected by means of leases or licences over the assets of a business, and business takeovers effected by agreements and arrangements relating to board representation rights and rights to participate in the management or profits of a business. (The main practical effect of these extensions will probably be to discourage use of such methods of evasion. It is expected that in practice these provisions of the Bill will not need to be used to any significant extent.)
Third, transfers of control of businesses from one foreign group to another.
In connection with the last-mentioned area, the Bill also provides for the screening of certain transactions in the shares of a company incorporated outside Australia. This provision is a logical consequence of the Bill’s coverage of transfers of control from one foreign group to another. Effective control of an Australian business can pass from one foreigner to another without there being any change in the legal ownership of the Australian business concerned. For example, a change in the ownership of the shares of a holding corporation based overseas could change the beneficial (but not legal) ownership and control of any Australian subsidiaries of the overseas corporation.
The Government considers that it would not be feasible or desirable to attempt to examine all overseas transactions in the shares of a company incorporated outside Australia. The relevant provisions in the Bill are based on a recognition that, on rare occasions, such transactions could result in a change in the control of a major Australian business that would be against the national interest. The bill accordingly provides that a share deal which results in a change in the control of a company incorporated outside Australia will be examinable where either 50 per cent or more of the assets of that company are held in Australia or where its Australian assets amount to more than $3m. The Bill does not provide for exemption from examination of any domestic takeover transactions. However, the Government will continue its existing administrative practice of not intervening in takeovers of business with total assets of Sim or less, except in special circumstances.
I come now to the question of criteria forjudging whether a foreign takeover proposal would be against the national interest. The criteria have not been incorporated in the Bill; this is because the criteria must be flexible in their interpretation and application and it has been found that it would be impracticable, consistent with the need for such flexibility, to express the criteria with the precision required by legislative form. The criteria that will be used are essentially the same as those which have been developed in the administration of the legislation and measures that have operated since 1972 and which experience has shown to be both appropriate and effective.
The first criterion for judging a proposed foreign takeover under the Bill will be: Whether, against the background of existing circumstances in the industry concerned, the takeover would lead, either directly or indirectly, to net economic benefits in relation to such matters as competition, productive capacity, technological change, development of new markets, production, quality and range of products and services, level of prices and efficiency which would be sufficient to justify the change in foreign control of the business concerned. If the proposed takeover is judged not to be against the national interest on this basis, the following additional criteria will also be taken into account: Whether, after the takeover, the business concerned could be expected to follow practices consistent with Australia’s interest in matters such as exports, imports, local processing of materials produced, research and development and industrial relations; and whether the takeover would be consistent with the Government’s objectives in relation to such matters as defence, the environment and conservation, urban and regional development and the preservation of Aboriginal land rights.
In making judgments as to whether particular foreign takeovers would be against the national interest on any of the foregoing grounds, due weight will be given to: The extent of the Australian participation in ownership, control and management that would remain after the takeover; and the interests of employees, shareholders and creditors of the business subject to the takeover proposals.
In preparing the Bill the Government has had the benefit of more than 2 years’ experience of the operation of foreign takeover controls. The Bill has been drafted with careful regard to that experience. It embodies a scheme of comprehensive and effective control of foreign takeover proposals. I commend the Bill to the Senate.
Debate (on motion by Senator Cotton) adjourned.
page 162
Debate resumed from 20 August on motion by Senator Douglas McClelland:
That the Bill be now read a second time.
– The Opposition will vote against this Bill, as it did when it was previously before the Senate. The Bill is another bid by the Government to change the electoral law to benefit itself. No government in the history of Parliament has shown such dogged determination to change the electoral system in its own favour. If the Government showed the same persistence in dealing with the problems of inflation and unemployment it would not need to devote so much of its time to rigging the electoral system. Its continuing attempts to force electoral legislation benefiting no one but itself show that the Government sees the writing on the wall. It knows that it will be thrown out of office for its mismanagement of the economy and its sellout of the people who supported it. This Government has betrayed the workers, it has betrayed its own Party organisation, it has betrayed the electors of Australia. This Government cannot come to grips with the real problems of Australia. It seems to devote more time to thinking up ways of fiddling the electoral system than it does to looking after the interests of the Australian people. Its one last hope is that it can bully the Parliament into passing some of these reforms- and I use the word in inverted commas because the only people who benefit from the change are the Government.
This Bill poses as one which would limit electoral expenditure and require public disclosure of the sources of funds made available to political parties and candidates. But it is really just another example of the Government’s attempt to encroach on the rights and liberties of individuals, organisations or political parties. Like so many of its other measures, the Government, blinded by what it sees as its own advantage, has not looked at the legislation to see its possible undemocratic features. Just because a law is passed imposing limits on the size of electoral expenditure gives no guarantee that there will not be illegal contributions. After all, only recently a court discovered that a certain newspaper magnate had given Mr Mick Young more than $70,000 for the Labor Party’s campaign in 1972. It was pointed out at that time that only a very few people were informed of the arrangement. I ask: Does the Government seriously pretend that such backdoor underground actions will cease just because it passes this Bill? In any event, the limits which this Bill proposes- 1.5c for each elector enrolled in the State in the case of a candidate for the Senate and 7.5c for each elector enrolled in a division in the case of a candidate for the House of Representatives- are totally unrealistic in these inflationary times. Who decided arbitrarily upon those figures? What might have been realistic at the beginning of this year is unrealistic today, and will be totally unrealistic by election time. If this Bill were passed there would have to be a constant updating of the amounts to keep the limits in line with the Government sponsored galloping inflation.
Imposing any limit on expenses gives an undoubted advantage to the Government. The Government can use taxpayers’ funds to campaign for itself. There is no limit to this expenditure. The Government can use the vast resources of government. The Government can use its huge team of public relations officers, the men who perpetuate the Government’s communications gap, because they do not understand what the people want. This Bill would not interfere with the propaganda machine the Government has set up throughout the country. It would not interfere with the Government’s advertising program. Since it came to power the Government has spent more than $24m of taxpayers’ money of paid advertising- advertising telling the people how good it is- and this Bill will not put an end to that misuse of public funds. All the Bill will do is put every other party at a disadvantage compared with the Australian Labor Party.
This Bill claims to be an attempt to create electoral equity, but that is an impossibility. The Bill would create instead electoral inequity. It would place all the advantages with the Government and impose severe limitations on its competitors. Will the Bill stop the Government going out and trying to buy votes? That is an electoral expense; an expense which the taxpayer has to meet. I give as an example of that the fact that this Government went on an incredible vote-buying spree in Bass and the electors in that electorate had the sense to treat this blatant exercise with the contempt it deserved. But the taxpayer paid for the Government to run around buying up votes.
What Mr Daly wants is freedom for the Government to use taxpayers’ money to buy votes and limitations on everyone else so that they cannot compete, even though their funds are provided voluntarily. Of course, what the Government does not realise is that money alone is not the solution to all evils. The Government is so blinded by its abuse of the money printing press that it overlooks the worth of the free contribution of volunteers. How does one measure that in monetary terms? That does not bother the Opposition because it has an enthusiastic band of supporters, unlike the Australian Labor Party whose supporters are disillusioned and disappointed. But it does show that the Government is mesmerised by a belief that a party campaigns only on radio and television and in the newspapers. There are many other ways of campaigning that do not involve the expenditure of money. For those and the other reasons I outlined when the Bill was previously before the Senate, the Opposition will vote against the second reading of this Bill.
-This Bill again comes before the Senate seeking to ensure that all candidates for Parliament should disclose the sources of their financial support and that political parties should have to disclose their sources of funds. There is no point in trying at length to convince the Opposition of the good sense of that course, but I should like to quote from the words of Senator O’Connor when he introduced the first Commonwealth Bill on this subject into the Senate. He stated:
If we wish to secure a true reflection of the opinions of the electors we must have a system which will not allow the choice of the electors to be handicapped for no other reason than the inability of a candidate to find the enormous amount of money required to enable him to compete with other candidates.
This matter has been a passion with people in the Labor Party since it first came into existence and, in saying that this Bill benefits nobody but the Government, the Opposition admits that the Bill would limit the amount of money it could spend to the amount of money that ordinary people could afford. As a former campaign director in Victoria, I know the tremendous amount of time that is taken up in raising funds in order to match the Opposition. The costs today of campaigning are enormous. To run any sort of mediocre campaign, a minimum coverage campaign on television, radio and in the newspapers, takes an enormous amount of money. The Opposition parties have always had access to large amounts of money from the business community. They also have had control of the media so that they could control the comment, the time and the space given to their policies.
The Labor Party, of course, has a fierce belief in a fair go and it feels that it must match its opponents. It does not make for true democracy to have on the one hand a campaign funded by the major commercial enterprises in this country and on the other hand a campaign funded by trade unions and ordinary people. Trade unions, for all that the Opposition says about them, have only the funds they collect from their members and no one could say that their coffers are overflowing. Campaigns today are becoming more and more costly, more and more full of gimmicks of all sorts. Larger and larger sums are being spent on advertisements of an extravagant sort that in many cases are an insult to people ‘s intelligence. It is easy to say in this context that what I am putting is that if people have the money they will win the votes. That in itself is not true. We in this place are supposed to be logical and adult. We know well that there is no reality or democracy in a situation in which one man has the money to put an introductory card into a letter box and his rival has the money to saturate television and radio with advertisements giving his name over and over again.
I am afraid this legislation will not remedy the situation overnight. People will attempt to get around it. The Watergate affair in America arose out of a similar situation and showed the sort of thing that could happen. I would favour a system that stopped completely all private donations to political parties, politicians and candidates, to get away from the soak-type advertising by political parties that is becoming more and more familiar in Australia. I favour a system whereby all political parties are given time on television equal to the amount of support they had received in previous elections so that they could put their views properly, constructively and correctly to the people of Australia, who I believe are much more intelligent than some of the material would give them credit for.
We are not going that far in this Bill but at least the steps proposed here for attempting to control the money spent make some sense. The National Country Party is at present collecting Sim. The Liberal Party says that it has $lm. That money does not come from the pockets of the members of the Liberal Party. It comes from the major cartels and multinational organisations which those political parties represent. The funds that come to the Labor Party come from areas that are proud to contribute and do not mind that the rest of Australia knows that they contribute. They are very open about giving the money. Any trade union balance sheet can be inspected and the funds contributed to the Australian Labor Party are shown in black and white. The conservative parties feel that they have to protect their backers- not that a great deal of the information is not common knowledge.
I am sure that this question will be dealt with by a future Parliament. After the experiences of the last 2 elections, if this Parliament ignores the position, if it allows this dangerous situation to continue whereby democracy is made ridiculous by the inability of individual candidates to match the machines and the hysteria of Party machines becomes even more overpowering, then it will in retrospect look ludicrous and ridiculous. The facts are before us all because we have all been through it. Even those of us who participate only at local level have some inkling of the amounts of money that are changing hands and we have some inkling of the sources of that money. Those who have been in a position to look at election campaigns at a national level are aghast. Policies and principles are more important to the people of Australia than the razzamatazz. We should act responsibly and bring some sanity to bear on the situation.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Wood)- Before we proceed any further, I draw the attention of honourable senators to the fact that speeches should not be read.
-The Electoral Bill 1975 has been before the Senate on previous occasions and has been rejected by the Opposition. I believe the Government has achieved its aim to some extent by publicity through the media to the effect that the Labor Party is seeking by this Bill to do something for the good of the people. It is attractive to the public to hear that a party has proposed a Bill which seeks to avoid expenditure and to disclose contributions made by bodies to political parties. That is an attraction all the time when one can say, as the previous speaker said, that my Party and the other Opposition Party, the Liberal Party, receive their donations from nefarious sources. She mentioned multinational corporations and other bodies and implied that those funds came from sources which are not acceptable to the Labor Party. That sort of language perhaps casts a shadow when it is reiterated to the public in general.
I would be a supporter of an Electoral Bill which would seek truthfully and in a fair fashion to limit the expenditure by political parties on electoral matters. One must think that this Government is the most scurrilous government that has ever been in power in Australia, that it is purely stupid and cannot recognise what it has written into this Bill or that behind it are some very shrewd people who have written into the Bill something which will be greatly to the benefit of the Australian Labor Party. Much as I dislike many of the things which the Labor Party does and which it has done during the past few years, I do not acknowledge that it is purely stupid. I accept that behind the Labor Party is a group which is promoting the idea that what should be introduced should be for the benefit of the Labor Party.
It is a pity that the public in general does not hold the view that what the Labor Party is proposing here is so biased to the advantage of the Labor Party that it is unable to comprehend the limits of that advantage. The Leader of the Opposition (Senator Withers) mentioned some of the advantages but they are far greater than he has mentioned. Overall the Bill seeks to inhibit the promotion in the community of any new opposition. It seeks to confine the opposition, if it possibly can, to one party, which is a disadvantage to the third political party- my party. The Bill seeks in the end, if it possibly can, to bring about a one-party system in this country. Let me illustrate the point. Part XVI- Electoral Expenditure and Political Contributions- clause 145 states:
In this Pan, unless the contrary intention appears-
– You disagree with that?
– Behind the ideas that undoubtedly Senator Cavanagh has taken part in promulgating in this Bill is his wish to see no independent or minority parties having any say in the community. It is an attempt to have one opposition and then finally one political party. This matter was debated at some length in February 1975.I refer to remarks I made as reported at page 346 of Senate Hansard of 20 February 1975. Surely it is impossible to concede when one looks at the Billl as a whole how it discloses other than a complete double standard in the Government. Double standards have been shown recently. Perhaps one should not be surprised at their being shown in this particular important Bill.
One recalls very well a statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) at the last election that all the benefits that the Labor Government would seek to bring to this community could be brought about without increased taxation. That was not a truthful statement. As recently as a month ago we heard statements from Ministers that unemployment was falling and would continue to fall. They must have known that unemployment was probably at the highest level at which it has ever been and that it was brought about intentionally- surely it was intentional- by this Government. We have heard comments relating to inflation- that inflation was falling. Mr Whitlam’s statement in that respect during the last election campaign was misleading also.
The statements by Ministers that as a result of this Budget people will pay less taxation will be demonstrated to the average person to be untrue when the projections that personal taxation is likely to rise by between 30 per cent and 50 per cent are taken into account. Not so long ago I argued on a platform with a member of the Labor Party who stood by the comments of the Minister for Social Security (Senator Wheeldon) and of the Prime Minister that Medibank would cost not more than $900m in a year. When that proposal was brought in it was stated that there would certainly not be any cut back in other social service benefits. According to the newspapers now, Medibank will cost $ 1,450m. What do we see occurring every day? We see the tumbling down and the tearing apart of the social welfare program which Labor had previously said it supported. Questions in the Senate this day indicate the inability of the Government to continue the aged persons homes scheme. All sorts of other benefits that had been progressing over past years are now to be discontinued.
The clear statements that the one thing Labor would not stand was increased unemployment surely have been proved to be untruthful. We see an escalation in unemployment, and the Budget Papers proposing that unemployment could increase to 500 000 by the end of this year. Today the Minister for Social Security had a great run blaming the insurance companies because the introduction of Medibank is likely to withdraw $27m -
– I raise a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President, I cannot for the life of me see how this speech is related to the Bill. The speech has nothing to do with the Electoral Bill.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT- The speech is a bit wide ranging. Statements on a political basis have been made from both sides. I suppose it is one of the things that come up in debate on an electoral Bill. I ask Senator Webster to confine his remarks as closely as possible to the Bill.
-For the benefit of Senator Poyser who raised the point of order, let me say that I was attempting to show the double standard of his political Party over the past few months and attempting to tie it up with the fact that under this Bill a massive double standard is now demonstrated. Senator Melzer spoke of donations and said that the Government wants to try to limit donations so that these awful bodies that donate to Opposition Parties will be named. She said that Labor got its donations from the unions which are proud- that was her word- to contribute and do not mind making public the evidence. I was attempting to show a double standard even in what Senator Melzer said. While this Bill has been in the Federal Parliament and has been debated in another House and in this place, at no stage did I hear the Prime Minister, any of his Ministers or Senator Poyser say that they were proud that Rupert Murdoch contributed to their Party over $70,000. Why does not Senator Melzer have the honesty to say: We are proud to have the big news media of this country contributing to us’? We remember the attitude which the Press took prior to the election. The kick back came when, as Murdoch himself said, his newspaper got back $59,000 in advertising. I was attempting to disclose to the honourable senator the double standards that are displayed in this very important Bill.
I speak for the people in this community who may be interested in politics. This Government has tried by many means to blanket this community with dishonest advertising. It has now set up its public relations base through the Department of the Media. I believe that in that Department and in other departments over 700 people are employed by the Government to write in a parochial way for the Government and who would have the term ‘journalist’ applicable to them. That is an indictment on our community. It is a fact that this Government proposes that everyone in the community will be equal but the Government will have the backing of over 700 writers and an expenditure of $20m to put over its policies.
The proposals in the Bill are that the various individuals offering themselves for election should disclose the source of their funds. This Government would not have the honesty to say that it believes that when an election is near or when the writs are issued members of the Opposition, Ministers and members of the Government should lose the benefits and the facilities they have as a result of being members of Parliament. I believe that my chances of being reelected are benefited greatly because of the facilities provided free to me by this Government. I have access to communications, to travel around the country, to staff that this Government has given me and to air transport. I have important benefits including free stamps. Where is the equality for the poor person who wishes to contest my place and to have himself elected in my stead? The Government knows this. The Government knows it has a VIP jet fleet behind it to fly the Prime Minister and Ministers all around this country at a cost of millions of dollars to try to keep themselves in office. Yet the Government puts up a Bill such as this which says that it will limit the expenditure of any new candidate to $3,000 or $5,000.
– That is humbug.
– It is pure humbug. Whether this proposal came from the Electoral Office or from the Minister, those who proposed it should find themselves in gaol. It is one of the most scurrilous pieces of legislation which have ever been proposed. Senator Melzer spoke of donations. We had tears in our eyes when she disclosed that the source of Labor funds was unions. I have produced a list which shows that under the Australian Assistance Plan this Government has given thousands of dollars to unions, supposedly to assist less fortunate people in the community, unions which have never previously been associated with assisting people of that class. In the western suburbs of Melbourne donations of $40,000, $50,000 or $60,000 have been made directly to the Trades Hall in Melbourne. It has not previously had a program of welfare assistance on any official basis. I hope to ask a question in the near future about, and to see tabled in this place, audited statements as to how that money was spent. It will be very interesting to see what has happened. I believe that the money has been spent in the hope that there will be a kickback to the Labor Party at election time. I say that because the papers disclosed quite recently enormous donations by Rupert Murdoch to the Labor Party.
When Mr Whitlam, his Ministers and speakers for the Labor Party in this place have been discussing donations, why have they not had the honesty to say that the Party received donations from outside sources. Senator Melzer used only the word ‘unions’. I nearly wept thinking that those poor unionists and employers had to contribute all that money to the Labor Party. I wonder what the margarine industry contributed to the Labor Party through one particular company. We know that the publicity indicated that when the Labor Party was supporting the campaign of the margarine industry its refrigerators were stacked full of that industry’s products. Then we found that the manager of the company concerned was promoted to be one of the great arts people in this community.
I had been the instigator of one company applying for a margarine production licence in the Australian Capital Territory at least a year before, but for some mysterious reason suddenly one company was given the right to produce margarine in this Territory- one company only. Ministers and honourable senators will be pleased to know that in the Australian Capital Territory no administrative restrictions have been placed upon the company manufacturing that product, which produces a great deal of objectionable effluent. There is no control whatsoever in the Australian Capital Territory. What donations did that company make? What was the kickback for that company? Are we going to see a situation in which, if you are good for the Labor Party, it will grant you these great benefits?
A Foreign Takeovers Bill has just been introduced. The Committee on foreign takeovers, the Senate Select Committee on Foreign Ownership and Control, rejected a takeover by the firm AMATIL of the potato chip section of Marrickville Margarine Pty Ltd. In discussion with Senator Bessell this morning it was pointed out that the potato growers in Tasmania are being harmed greatly by the imports that this
Government is permitting. It would be interesting to see what the interest is in that proposition. I repeat that the Senate Select Committee on Foreign Ownership and Control rejected a takeover by that multi-national corporation, AMATIL, which is a very fine company in my view. AMATIL was offering $ 1.25m to take over the potato chip section of Marrickville. The Committee rejected the offer; it did not think that the takeover would be in Australia’s good. But Mr Enderby had second thoughts. He had seen the process which I have outlined and ruled that the takeover was in order. He overrode the recommendation of the Committee. What publicity has been given to that matter in the newspapers? I say that the legislation before us is scurrilous. It is scurrilous legislation in the hands of a scurrilous government.
I used to regard the Australian Broadcasting Commission as being an independent news body. It has appeared to be a little that way in the last two or three weeks but I do not know why that has occurred; perhaps the Opposition is getting to it. I decided 12 months ago that one could not believe the news programs that were put out by the ABC. I have no doubt that word was being passed along as to the type of publicity that the ABC should put forward. We have heard of a proposal by this Government to produce a government newspaper. The requirement to disclose donations to other parties will ensure that unions will take action against anyone who contributes to other than the great Australian Labor Party. My words indicate that those who do contribute to the Labor Party can expect to be handled very kindly by this Government. One could go through the legislation and pull out the various clauses in it. One may ask who determined the criteria adopted in determining the limit of expenditure proposed in the legislation. We have had no explanation from the Government. No Government speaker has sought to explain this Bill. I think it is a most objectionable Bill for our society. I have the greatest pleasure in indicating my Party’s opposition to it.
Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2. 1 5p.m.
- Mr President, a Bill identical to the one that we are discussing has been before the Senate previously and has been rejected by the Senate. The Bill before us is a fairly simple Bill. As other speakers have indicated, it is designed to tidy up the question of the financing of elections, the expenses of candidates, and so on. It hardly deserves some of the epithets that have been aligned against it. I notice from some of the utterances that came from the Opposition that the Opposition really agrees with the legislation but it does not agree with it in this form. It adopted a similar attitude to a Bill that we had before us yesterday. This excuse is wearing a bit thin.
There is no suggestion that the Opposition intends to move any amendments to the Bill. Honourable senators opposite are saying: ‘Yes, we think that in regard to the question of financing of elections, of financing of candidates, of payment of interested people, in giving donations to parties or to candidates there ought to be something done, but not in this form’. They should remember that in 1971 their own Government suggested that there should be an abolition of the amount of money that is allowed to be spent on elections. So they themselves were thinking about amending the Commonwealth Electoral Act along these lines. We thought at that stage- we still think it- that it would be wrong to take away the limit and make it just an open slather, so that to the extent that money can control elections it would be a matter of let it go to the strongest, that might would be right. We have come down with a proposition which is in between the present situation and what the Liberal and Country parties proposed back in 1 97 1 .
Some very strident remarks have been made about the fact that in a recent case in Sydney it was revealed that Mr Murdoch, a very well known Press man in Australia, the owner of newspapers not only in Australia but also overseas, had made a donation to the Australian Labor Party. Honourable senators opposite somehow seem to think that this is a terrible and shocking thing to do. The very thing about which they are speaking would be covered by this Bill. A donation such as that would be brought into the open right from the start by this Bill; it would not be revealed during the hearing of a charge in a court in New South Wales.
It is no good saying that this is a Bill set up for the Labor Party and that already equal amounts of money flow into the coffers of the various political parties. There is nothing illegal about what I am about to say, but when one compares the structure of the Liberal Party in Australia with the structure of the Labor Party in Australia one sees it is quite obvious that countless hundreds of thousands of dollars are pouring permanently into the coffers of the Liberal Party. When one looks at any of the State structures of the Liberal Party and compares them with the State structures of the Australian Labor Party one does not have to be a genius to be able to assess that money is pouring permanently into the coffers of the Liberal Party. The number of personnelresearch officers, organisers and the like- in the Liberal Party would be many times the number of personnel in the Labor Party. Honourable senators opposite are saying: ‘You are wanting to bring about equality’. There is no equality at the moment, and there is nothing illegal about that. All we are saying is that these things ought to be brought into the light of day.
As I have said, this Bill seeks to do something which the Opposition has had a chance to consider previously. It deals with only one section of the amendments which we believe should be made to the Electoral Act. What does it do? It provides that a party contesting all seats in the House of Representatives would be allowed to spend $606,000-odd on the election. One can hardly say that this is a small amount of money. That amount of money ought to be sufficient to allow the big parties- the Liberal Party and the Labor Party- to put fairly and squarely before the electors what they term to be their propaganda, their platform for an election. A party contesting a Senate election for the States and the Territories would be allowed to spend $ 12 1,000 on the election. Again I think that that is an adequate amount of money. Parties contesting a double dissolution would be able to spend about $ 1.25m on the election. People have asked: ‘How do you arrive at these figures?’ We have arrived at these figures in the way that we arrive at any figure or any decision. Somebody has sat down, looked at the question and taken the best possible situation to bring about what should be a fair and equitable result to all the people.
Also by this Bill we are creating the situation in which a person between the donor and the candidate will be responsible for collecting and spending the money. We are adopting a term that is used I think in England, that is, there is to be a parliamentary agent or an agent. Why has this been done? Why is there to be a person between the donor and the candidate? There is being placed on this person the responsibility to make a declaration of the amount of money that he has received and the amount of money that he has spent. When he takes the agency he will have an obligation to do exactly that. It is interesting to note that both Canada and the United States of America have introduced legislation along similar lines to this Bill. When one sees some of the revelations associated with what has been loosely termed the Watergate troubles one can realise that unless we intend to wait until we get into a similar situation in Australia, it is better to nip this thing in the bud.
There was talk, particularly from Senator Webster- he was very trenchant in his criticismthat if somebody makes a donation to the Labor Party he will get a kick-back from the Labor Party. I suggest that the more we adopt Bills such as the one that is before us the more chance there will be of stopping that sort of thing from happening. I know of no kick-backs in the Labor Party, and I do not know of any kick-backs in the Liberal Party. That is always possible. If in the future we do not have the very great leaderships of the parties that we have today- we think that we are all nice and pure today- this could certainly happen. The Opposition has analysed the Bill and it opposes the Bill. What the Opposition ought to be doing is supporting the Bill. If it thinks that the amounts of money are not the correct amounts it should say so. In looking at the amounts of money I do not know whether they are the absolutely correct amounts of money, down to the last cent. It seems to me that they are reasonable amounts of money.
It seems to me that the Bill limits the amount of money that can be spent on elections and at the same time provides ample opportunities for the political parties in Australia to put their case before the people. I do not understand the argument that the Bill will operate against the smaller parties or against individuals. I do not see that at all. As other speakers have said- I think quite rightly so- because this proposal has become a fairly hardy quarterly in this place, I do not think it is necessary to go into all the ramifications of the Electoral Act. This Bill deals with one section of the Electoral Act, something which is pretty easily understood- the question of making available to the public details of the amount of money that is given to candidates and to parties. It provides for the appointment of somebody between the donor and the candidate who will be responsible for declaring this to the public and to the Parliament. It will limit the amount of money spent on elections to a figure which this Government believes is a reasonable one. I am sure that if the amounts of money provided in the Bill were considered by the Opposition to be not quite reasonable it should have said so. I commend the Bill to the Senate.
Question put. The Senate divided. (The President- Senator the Hon. Justin O’Byrne)
AYES: 24
NOES: 28
Majority……. 4
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the negative.
page 169
-by leave-By arrangement between the Whips in the Senate, Senator Webster will not vote in divisions this day to compensate for the vacancy caused by the death of Senator Milliner.
page 169
Debate resumed from 20 August on motion by Senator Wheeldon:
That the Bill be now read a second time.
– The Australian Government Insurance Corporation Bill poses 2 main questions. Firstly, are private sector insurance companies incapable of giving adequate service, and, secondly, is it a matter of the Government embarking on an insurance nationalisation plan? It is my considered opinion that in answering those questions I would give my vote in favour of the second one. This matter was discussed yesterday from 4 p.m., throughout the whole of the afternoon and the evening. I do not intend to traverse the ground which previously has been covered. Suffice to say that I would imagine the petitions presented to this Senate represent a greater number of signatures than the Senate has ever received in connection with any other matter. Whilst I am prepared to admit that it is very easy to obtain signatures to a petition the fact remains that a great number of these petitioners have been voicing their opinion against the possible nationalisation of insurance and the taking away from the private sector of something which rightfully belongs to it. There is no justification for encroachment on the private sector in this matter. I say that by reason of the fact that insurance companies have not failed. Throughout the term they have carried out their functions in a very wonderful fashion and have presented to the public generally a state of affairs within the insurance world that has stood our people in good stead.
As a public accountant I have realised over the years the value of insurance contracts. I have been privileged from a personal point of view and also on behalf of scores of clients to have negotiations with insurance companies and they have been all very satisfactory. They have provided a state of affairs whereby people who have been prepared to make preparations for the future have been given a contract- a very desirable contract. In many instances, as a result of the prudence and forethought of people desiring insurance, the Government has been relieved of the necessity to provide pensions.
It was stated yesterday that some people have been unable to obtain contracts; that insurance companies were not prepared to enter into negotiations with them and to provide contracts. I put that position in the reverse. People who desired insurance have not been able to pay for it. They have not been able to meet the premium which the companies desired to charge. Taking into account that insurance generally operates on an actuarial basis, it is necessary, if insurance companies are to remain solvent and if they are to provide a security for their shareholders generally, that contracts should be such as to make them a payable proposition. Insurance has not been refused but many people have not been prepared to pay the price asked for it. There is a vast difference in saying that one cannot obtain insurance due to the policy of companies and saying that insurance cannot be obtained on account of the price structure of it.
I believe that this legislation is designed to give vent to an avowed policy of the Government. The point has been emphasised that insurance companies have not been able to meet natural disaster requirements. That is as it should be. It is not for the private sector of insurance companies to make provision for natural disasters, any more than it is for any other organisation to take from the Government the task of national development. These things go hand in hand and if we are to have national disasters it is up to the social system which we have- a very line social system- to meet the needs of those people who are affected by the disasters.
I feel also that this is a most inopportune time to present a Bill such as this. The Budget is sufficient to let us realise that it is necessary for the Government to mark time on new ventures and, more particularly, to mark time on a venture which, as I said before, has been a very successful one in the hands of the private sector. The fact remains that this country cannot afford to enter into this type of new adventure. I know perfectly well that we are living in a world of change but it is necessary that basic fundamentals are not thrown overboard to bring about this change. We find that fundamentals are being thrown overboard in the Bill before the Senate. The fact is that governments, in conjunction with the private sector, have built up a great country and, make no error about it, the part that the private sector has played, not only in developing this country but also in providing the wherewithal for the government of the day to present to the public a catalogue of social services, is the envy of many countries. So this happy partnership which has applied throughout the years has done a great service and it is necessary that the partnership be a complete one between all facets of government and all facets of private enterprise.
We are still a private enterprise country and, make no error about it, if we are to change and go away from that situation we will go in the wrong direction. Insurance offices have an absolutely unblemished record as I see it and this Bill is another step towards nationalisation rather than a condemnation of a longstanding private service. The national government collects the total taxation and it is called upon to look after the social affairs of this country, and rightly so. The nationalisation of activities or, might I say, the socialisation of activities must not depart from the social welfare ambit. I am not one of those who decry Medibank. Medibank rightfully belongs to the national government. The funds for Medibank should be provided by the people through the normal structure of tax collection. However, I am opposed to an encroachment on the private sector such as this Bill seeks to make and such as was attempted previously in connection with the banking system. Goodness knows where the next move will come from.
Let us not hide our light under a bushel; let us be prepared to acknowledge what has happened in the past and to acknowledge the way in which we have accepted the dictates of federation. This country has made great strides as a result of the operation of the partnership to which I have just referred and we have reached a stage when we should as a matter of policy decide to carry on into the future the correct operations of government and private enterprise as we have done in the past. This is not a totalitarian state. It is a state in which private enterprise has played its part so well that governments should have confidence in the part that private enterprise can play. The appointment of a board under this insurance legislation is another instance of the delegation of an authority which rightfully belongs to government, and that is what I am concerned about. Unfortunately it is not only in Federal but also in State governments, irrespective of party affiliation, where we find that authorities, corporations, boards and commissions are taking control. We are getting not government for the people by the people but a bureaucracy which is not standing this country in good stead. I could give dozens of instances of this mainly in connection with the State sphere, strange to relate, because I have been closely associated with local government for half a century and have seen so many changes take place, changes which have upset the normal pattern upon which a great country has been built. If we throw overboard the private enterprise sector and put it under government bureaucratic control it will not be in the best interests of our parliamentary society.
So I have no hesitation in opposing this legislation. We find that the control which we are getting in many things today is costly indeed and I would venture the opinion that the deficit which was revealed to us the night before last has to a large extent been brought about by the costs of organisations such as those I have mentionedboards, authorities, corporations and the like- to which authority has been given to duplicate, with big staffs, the work which could be done in the normal departments and in many instances to duplicate the work which has for a century been carried out by local government. There is no need for the change to take place. Therefore this Bill is a step in the wrong direction. I will be ever ready to support the nationalisation of welfare concerns and to condemn in a very loud voice the nationalisation of matters which do not belong to government control.
– It is clear that during the parliamentary recess sufficient pressure has been brought to bear upon the Opposition parties and senators because even the public statements of the Leader of the Parliamentary Liberal Party show that at one time he was not necessarily going to place himself in the camp of those opposed to the Australian Government Insurance Corporation. It is clear that as a result of such pressure the saner voices within the Liberal Party have been silenced and now ally themselves with the hysterical propaganda and activities of those who have organised themselves since the Government first introduced this legislation earlier this year. Of course, that ranting has been evident in the discussion within this place over the last few days and it is to the detriment of honourable senators opposite that they speak in the vein in which they do, ignoring what has been the experience of public sector activity with which their governments both in the national and in the State arenas have been associated in the past.
It is interesting, for example, to refer to this comment made by Senator Cotton in his contribution to this debate:
There is the case for a need for an insurance office to be operated by the Australian Government in the present commercial insurance scene.
It is true that Senator Cotton went on to qualify that but it ought to be drawn to the attention of the Senate that the areas of insurance in which he believed the public sector should be involved were those that were the least profitable. He wanted no interference with the commercially profitable areas of insurance. In other words he wanted the public sector to be saddled with the uneconomic and public interest areas of insurance. That is precisely the experience which has resulted in the private insurance companies withdrawing, one by one, from the third party insurance field leaving it substantially either to State instrumentalities or to motorist organisations. As I understand it, that is the general experience in New South Wales and in Victoria and possibly the same thing could be said about other States as well.
Before speaking on the Bill itself I want to refer to some of the comments that have been made by those honourable senators who have not dealt with the substance of the Bill but who have, in an emotional way, endeavoured to create the impression that this Government has a policy of destroying the insurance companies, a policy of unfair competition, and a policy of introducing socialism by stealth. I can well remember when I was in local government and was associated with a majority view in the area I represented, we wanted to place some restraints upon the multiplication of service station sites. I remember that a member of the Liberal Party who had been a candidate in the previous election described the attempt to rationalise the siting of service stations as Bolshevism by stealth. That is the philosophy behind the people who have indicated their opposition to this Bill in this chamber. Of course, we have lived to see the day when the service station proprietors have been forced out of the industry because the petrol companies are now closing service stations.
Let us consider what Senator Carrick, in his usual ranting manner, had to say. He said:
This is surely the most paternalistic, the most totalitarian and most personally corrupting doctrine that can be.
He was referring to the policies enunciated by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam). He said also: lt would be the worst of all worlds if this Government got its hands on insurance funds for socialist purposes . . . What is happening now is that this Government, having destroyed the people’s savings in the banks and having destroyed their wages, is now saying that it is going to get its clammy hands upon the investments in the insurance industry.
That is a palpable lie. The facts are that the people’s savings in the savings banks at this point in Australia’s economic history are at an all time high. The Australian Government has very limited opportunity to influence the areas in which those funds can be invested. They are substantially in the hands of the banking companies. Then Senator Carrick said that we are going to use those funds for socialist purposes. If Senator Carrick and his colleagues believe that in using what funds we can get for the extension of our social welfare program- whether it be for the Medibank scheme; whether it be for better pensions for ex-servicemen; whether it be for more money for the States for public housing- is using funds for socialist purposes, then we readily admit our guilt.
The elected Government of the Australian people is not going to be answerable to the vested interests, the minority groups and the institutions which, over the last 6 months, have waged an infamous propaganda campaign. We are standing on the mandate which was given to us by the electors in 1972 and 1974. Let me refer to what the Prime Minister said in his policy speech in April 1974 when referring to the program for which we were seeking the support of the Australian people. Mr Whitlam said:
Accordingly, the Government will set up an Australian Government Insurance Office which will compete actively in all forms of insurance and which, in particular, will provide the widest possible cover for homes at the lowest possible premiums.
The claims that have been made by persons, companies and institutions, all of which are private and which seek to discredit the Government’s program and policy, are ludicrous, because we merely want to set up an independent Government insurance corporation to act in competition with the great variety of insurance companies- there are something like 300 of them- which operate in this country. We are indebted to Senator Wriedt for referring to the fact that even the constitution and platform of the Liberal Party subscribe to that theory.
Of course, nothing is said by Opposition senators about the percentage of foreign ownership of our private financial institutions. They accept that situation as a normal fact of life. They do not draw to the attention of the Australian people the fact that our financial institutions make us a mere colony of the United States of America and England, that the views represented by those interests are not always in the best interests of Australia, and that in some instances they have reached the point of arrogance as they no longer strive to provide the fullest of covers demanded by this Government and demanded by an aware public with a developed social conscience. I need only refer to the speech Senator Coleman made yesterday to point out how insurance companies have discriminated against half of our population. The only reaction we could get out of Senator Jessop when Senator Coleman drew attention to the deficiencies within the private sector insurance field was some scorn and disregard for the interests of those people who, as I have said, form half of the population of Australia.
Notwithstanding the involvement of State governments in public ownership- all State governments have government insurance offices- the statistics on foreign ownership speak for themselves. In the life insurance sphere, for example, the aggregate foreign ownership is 36.8 per cent. The percentage of ownership and control in the general insurance sphere is even greater; foreign ownership stands at 45.7 per cent. I am citing the official statistics put out by our own Australian Bureau of Statistics should any honourable senator have some doubts about their veracity. How much worse this position would be if the State governments, both Liberal and Labor, had not in years past embarked upon State insurance office activity? Notwithstanding the vicious campaign and, I say, the unAustralian compaign- I say that having regard to the overseas ownership of the insurance companieswe claim that the interests of the policy holders and the interests of this country are not being properly represented by that campaign.
The Minister for Repatriation and Compensation (Senator Wheeldon) has endeavoured on many occasions to have dialogue with the private insurance companies so as to better inform them of the Government’s intention- a very modest attempt to enter into competition, on an independent basis with limited capital, in the insurance field. The vicious campaign which has been waged by using the funds of the policy holders, I think, reflects the contempt with which the hierarchy in the insurance field operates in this country. This is an attempt to confuse the Australian people. It is an insult to the intelligence of the Australian public.
Opposition senators are mistaken if they believe that they are on a winner on this particular issue. They may well have the numbers in this chamber to defeat the legislation but if they believe that the Australian people support their activities, that the Australian people are happy with private insurance activities in this country, they are out of touch with reality. It is not hard to understand why they would make that error of judgment. Look at the error of judgment they made in March 1974 when they misjudged the political climate in this country, when they denied supply to the Australian Government which had received a mandate in 1972, when they went to the people and presented their program as the Government did.
– I rise on a point of order, Mr President. Senator Gietzelt has just said that the Senate denied his Government supply in 1974. We have already had one Minister apologise to the Senate for such a statement being untrue. I ask the honourable senator to withdraw the comment.
– Even though some predecessor of mine in the Chair has given a ruling along those lines, what the honourable senator said does not cast a personal reflection and I do not feel that the honourable senator should be proscribed from making those references if they are part of his speech.
– Thank you, Mr President. I am sure that Senator Webster is angry with the decisions that were taken at that time because if the Opposition had left the position to the normal effluxion of time, having regard to what Opposition members consider to be the political climate, they would probably now regard themselves as being on a good thing if the elections were to be held in the next couple of months. That is a misjudgment in tactics just as it is a misjudgment in tactics for the Opposition to oppose this Bill. It did not take national disasters of the magnitude of the Brisbane floods or the cyclone damage in Darwin for the Australian Government to understand the need to enter the insurance field, lt is clear from the debate in the Senate that no honourable senator from the Opposition has taken into consideration the difficulties that developed in Brisbane a year or two ago with the disastrous floods. It is clear that they have not taken into consideration the experiences in Darwin. This only seems to indicate the correctness of the policy of the Government, of which I am a part, which had taken into consideration the need for insurance companies to accept public interest and public risk policies.
I think it is interesting to refer to the editorial of the Melbourne Age newspaper of 18 March 1974 which stated:
The most important question to be asked about the Federal Government’s proposal to enter the household insurance business is this: Would it be in the public interest?
The editorial goes on to state:
The recent Queensland and NSW floods demonstrated the melancholy fact that most people were not covered by insurance for flood damage. In many cases this was because insurance companies were reluctant to offer flood insurance or because policy holders did not realise that flood damage was excluded from their household cover.
The final portion of that editorial states:
As in banking, competition among Federal, State and private insurance organisations could result in better and fairer service to the public.
An article in the Australian Financial Review of 5 March 1974 stated:
The 1 00 or more tariff companies operating in Queensland saying that very few people were covered by insurance must suffer some embarassment from the fact that a Commonwealth agency has covered such a disaster.
Of course, the article is referring to the fact that the Australian Government, through its war service homes insurance scheme, was providing full cover for those people who were affected by the tragedies of those floods. Of course, the Australian Government wants to enter this field so that it can extend that insurance cover to all citizens who want to take out home insurance. The Melbourne Herald of 7 March 1974 stated:
The strong hint in Federal Parliament yesterday that the Federal co-operative household insurance scheme may extend beyond war-service policy-holders, is shrewdly timed. The non-Labor Queensland Government -
That is headed by Mr Bjelke-Petersen who is a member of Senator Webster’s Party, the National Country Party of Australia- deluged by complaints over insurance interpretations of flood damage, is already looking at a similar scheme.
What did Mr Bjelke-Petersen have to say in the Courier-Mail newspaper of 5 March 1974? He said:
The State Government is gathering information and getting legal advice to see whether it should force insurance companies to compensate flood victims under storm and tempest insurance.
The Premier (Mr Bjelke-Petersen) said yesterday: ‘We want to make sure that people aren ‘t getting a raw deal ‘.
Yet we have heard the comments from the previous speaker, Senator Bunton, who said that the insurance companies had an unblemished record and we have heard also the other intemperate statements from honourable senators opposite who suggested that everything was fair and above board as far as the private insurers were concerned. We are dealing with a situation in which the insurance companies write their own rules. What seems to be an unusual feature about the insurance companies’ rules is the similarity of insurance covers that they will make available to the policyholder and the areas in which the companies will not make cover available. Of course, the companies also interpret their own rules. They sit in judgment upon those who claim some benefit as a result of a disadvantage. Of course, the companies not only sit in judgment upon such claims. They even reject the claims. There is no basic arbitration here. There has never been any attempt to my knowledge by the Opposition parties when they reigned in power too long- 23 years in this national Parliament- to introduce any sort of uniform insurance policy arrangements or legislation that would have the effect of rationalising policies and providing the maximum benefit to the claimant.
Of course, the private insurance companies can reject the claims and they do this, particularly so in the area of public risk. I can speak on this matter from my experience. In fact, I ask Senator Bunton: How many times has he had to adjudicate on problems involving insurance companies and public risk in his experience in local government? How many representations were made to him on what circumstances could be regarded as constituting a reasonable claim? Certainly, it has been my experience that many such situations arise. There is no redress. There is no appeals tribunal. There is no way other than an appeal for some ex gratia payment for the claimant if the matter is taken up by some public authority. What does the Australian Government Insurance Corporation seek to do? It seeks to extend the range of opportunities for those who want a wider cover than is available.
It might be interesting if I referred to a specific case to show that Senator Bunton is not able to understand what really happens in the field of insurance. I refer to a case which has been placed before me by a constituent who happens to be the secretary of the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union who had property in Darwin. He had a policy which cost him $110 a year. It so happened that the expiry date of that policy was 14 March 1974 and that the policy covered certain property for fire, storm and tempest damage for the sum of $16,000. 1 am not suggesting that the company concerned did not meet its obligations. But what I am suggesting is that the union subsequently received an account from the insurance company- it was the same insurance company, the New Zealand Victorian Insurance Group- for $64 to cover the same property for the same period of time. This was subsequent, of course, to the Darwin disaster. The union sent off the cheque to the insurance company and then received a letter from the company- the New Zealand Victorian Insurance Group- dated 2 April 1 975. The letter stated:
We return your cheque for renewal of your policy covering flats at Nation Crescent, Nightcliff, Northern Territory.
Unfortunately, for the time being, the only cover we are able to provide is a fire only cover, for which the premium is $36.00.
The company decided without any consultation with the union, or in other cases it would be the person concerned, that it would take out the storm and tempest cover from the insurance policy and restrict it to just a fire cover. Of course, the union made representations on several occasions to the insurance company. But the insurance company writes its own rules and refused to make any redress. It refused to accept the full responsibility because of the particular situation, that developed in that case. Hundreds of thousands of individuals in Australia have had similar treatment with claims. Unfortunately I had a similar experience when my own home was bombed in 1973. Honourable senators might recall that a bomb was placed at my home. Despite what appeared on the front page of the insurance policy the finer print at the back of the policy enabled the company to say that it would accept no responsibility. What was the sum of the damage? It was something less than $1,000. Of course the experience of the AMWU to which I referred is the experience of great numbers of people.
The insurance companies can never be said to be behaving in an humanitarian way. Claims are settled or dismissed according to their strict interpretation of the clauses and conditions of the policies involved. Of course this is according to law and no attack can be made on this ground.
I raise these issues only to indicate how this one sided private insurance organisation operates to the disadvantage of the Australian people. It might not be to the knowledge of Opposition senators that more recently new clauses have been written into many insurance policies in this country. One overseas insurance company says that as a result of experiences in recent years a marked increase has occurred in the use of atomic energy for purposes ranging from the generation of electric power to the manufacture of weapons of war. The company says that this could produce now hazards which were not envisaged when the present policy forms were drafted. For this reason insurers in many parts of the world have been introducing into their policies clauses excluding the consequences of nuclear hazards. In Australia recently it has been decided by insurers that policies should be subjected to similar exclusions.
This unilateral action of insurance companies is what prompts the Australian Government to believe that it ought to enter this field and it ought to offer a range of benefits in the event of unforeseen circumstances. I think Senator Cotton was referring to this when he suggested that the Government seeks to enter a field which ought to be left alone. In other words the Liberal-Country Party Opposition seems to take the view that it is just too bad for those who suffer a disadvantage as a result of any experience, any unforeseen circumstance, any accident of any illness, which Senator Coleman referred to yesterday as specifically applying to women, if in fact the insurance companies say: ‘We will not cover such an eventuality’. We find in the State spheres that the Liberal Premiers of New South Wales and Victoria seem to have a wider understanding of the problem. The Premier of New South Wales, Mr Lewis, recently announced an increase in third party cover and drew attention to the fact that the private insurance fields were not interested in this area. He also drew attention to the fact that it is becoming increasingly expensive, if not actuarily almost impossible, for the State government insurance offices to continue with third party motor insurance. Consequently premiums have risen out of all proportion. The Premier went on to say that if the Commonwealth scheme- he was talking of the national compensation scheme- which is at present under investigation in the Senate were unduly delayed he would resume his own investigation of a no fault insurance scheme for New South Wales. It seems as though philosophy varies between State Liberal Parties and those who enjoy the temporary majority in this place.
It is untenable that private institutions be forced to cover what they deem to be uncommercial risk-taking propositions but it is unconscionable, untenable as well as arrogant that the same institutions seek to prevent a service being offered by the Australian Government and say that the legislation should be defeated by the Parliament. Champions of the so-called free enterprise system expect the Australian public to be gullible enough not to notice their contradictory position. The Australian Government Insurance Corporation, notwithstanding fears to the contrary, will be an independent insurance company run on commercial principles. Clause 14 however empowers the Minister to direct the Corporation to enter into contracts of insurance which will be in the national interest. Surely some of the areas of which I have spoken are areas of national interest. In point of fact both the Commonwealth and State governments had to spend great sums of public moneys in order to enable people to be rehabilitated as a result of floods in Brisbane and New South Wales. The regulations pursuant to this direction would be mandatory upon the Corporation and what hitherto has been deemed a non-commercial type of insurance contract would be entered into for the benefit of the public. This is precisely the motivation of the Australian Government. It is different from the mish mash of hysterical rantings from Senator Carrick and his fellow senators who are endeavouring to read all sorts of ulterior motives into what clearly will be an improved public service to those people at present not covered by private insurance.
The Opposition has indicated that it does not find it offensive that measures are being taken to establish a more equitable system to settle losses pursuant to a natural disaster of the magnitude of the Brisbane floods. It expects funds to be made available for the cyclone damage in Darwin but it says there is no need to establish an Australian Government Insurance Corporation because it will put the Australian Government’s activities in competition with the private sector’s activities. Of course members of the Opposition say that this will affect the balance of funds position within the private insurance companies. Decisions that are made within the private insurance companies about what funds should be expended, where and in what enterprises are made in the board rooms of those organisations and not necessarily in the interests of the general public but in the interests of those who happen to manage the insurance companies. The basis of this view seems to be that profits are for the few and that the national losses should be borne by the Australian Government with some minimal assistance by the States. The Bill conclusively disagrees with this concept and justly provides that all forms of insurance may be entered into by this independent corporation.
It is becoming increasingly obvious that the activities of the Government should be clearly directed to certain high risk areas such as third party insurance and workers compensation. Already we are being deluged by letters from employer organisations about the extent of the increases in third party insurance areas. The letters make the point that the private insurance companies are not prepared to support the less profitable areas. Of course that view has been expressed by both Mr Lewis and Mr Hamer. I can understand the Opposition’s views being expressed in this place because in a newspaper article on 30 May of this year the AttorneyGeneral (Mr Enderby) said in the national Parliament that the National Country Party had been paid thousands of dollars in commission from an insurance company. The Party had received $30,546 from the Federation Insurance Ltd of Victoria in 1972 and $47,000 in 1974. It was expected that the company would pay to that Party $60,000 in 1975.
Of course it is interesting that that Party- the Premier of Queensland was expressing some fears about the problems associated with his State 18 months or so ago- has lost its enthusiasm for entering this area and assisting those affected by natural disasters. One does not have to look very far to understand why the Opposition now is opposing this Bill. Let us look at the Australian Mutual Provident Society. It uses the same language as Opposition senators use, and in a memorandum which it has released it repeats the same propaganda. In referring to the Government’s proposals it states that a discussion centred on:
The effects on the whole private sector of the economy if creeping socialisation of the insurance industry proceeds.
In a confidential memorandum it goes on to state:
I am confident that, given time to put our present plans into operation and with your assistance -
This refers to the employees of the organisation- the insurance industry will be able to arouse a groundswell of public opinion which will either force the Government to drop its proposals for an AGIO and severely amend its proposed National Compensation Plan or force it from office.
Those are the words of the AMP directors, speaking on behalf of their interests and not on behalf of the interests of the Australian community.
– A good Australian company.
– It is said that it is an Australian company, but it is a company whose assets are substantial and, according to the 1974 annual report, now exceed $3,685m. Approximately one-third of that amount, something like 30 per cent, is invested in public securitiesgovernment securities and local government securities. I want to show to the Senate that of the balance of the funds, about $732m is invested in property and some $523m is invested in shares. Does it necessarily follow that the people making those decisions are acting in the best interests of either the policy holders or the Australian people? I think it could be argued that in fact they are acting to the detriment of the overall control of our economy.
I want to relate one particular experience to indicate again what happens when the insurance companies have complete and utter sway. In 1960 and 1961 in the area of Sutherland there was a great public outcry about the redevelopment of the Cronulla peninsula for high density purposes. As a result of that outcry a very large public meeting was held. It was attended by 1000 people, which was a lot of people in those days. The council was prevailed upon to change its high density policies. One of the independent councillors who was present at that meeting lent himself publicly to the view that the archaic way in which planning had proceeded previously was acting against the best interests of the residents of the area. His name was Councillor Stan Chapman and he was employed by Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Ltd. He made speeches in the council and in other public places saying that he was there representing the views of the residents.
What happened to him? He was called into the head office of the organisation which employed him- Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Ltd- and told that the company’s interests were being affected by his public activities, by his voting and by his public advocacy of the development of a better standard of residential development within the Cronulla region. He was told that it would be in his interests, as well as in the interests of the policy holders of that company, if he toned down his public utterances and put himself in a position where he would not be. found always to be voting against the developers, the speculators and those who were making profits as a result of the redevelopment of that area. In point of fact, the people who were creating the problem by buying up disused land and old houses were then getting development consent from the council and hawking the land to major developers for the purpose of building high density flats. Finally Councillor Chapman said that he did not feel he could prejudice in any way his public responsibilities, and the company then intimidated him and eventually forced him out of that position. They drove him out of office, and I have his authority to relate that experience to the Senate.
The company is still persisting in its campaign. I have a copy of a memorandum which was sent from the State office of Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Ltd to district office managers on 6 May of this year, enclosing petitions which honourable senators opposite have presented with gay abandon in great numbers in the belief that they represent a substantial point of view within the community. The confidential memorandum states:
Attached hereto is a petition concerning the Government’s proposed entry into our industry. Our General Manager has requested that staff members signify their resistance to such involvement by placing their name, address . . . thereon. There is no compulsion in this connection however . . .
One can see the comparison between the intimidatory tactics used against Councillor Stan Chapman in 1961 and what is involved in this memorandum 14 years later. Whether it is the same general manager or not I do not know. The memorandum continues: it is brought to the notice of a staff member who refuses to sign, that should the legislation be enacted -
– I rise on a point of order, Mr President. I would request that the document from which the honourable senator is now quoting be tabled.
– I should be very happy to table it. As I was interrupted by those who want to protect the interests of the private insurance companies, I might just recapitulate.
– Order! It is necessary for you to seek leave to table the document.
– I seek leave, of course. I will table all of the documents, if that is the wish of the Senate.
-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.
– The memorandum states:
There is no compulsion in this connection however, it is brought to the notice of a staff member who refuses to sign, that should the legislation be enacted, their continued employment would be far from assured.
What sort of intimidatory harassment tactics do we have from this organisation? It is not hard to understand why in the space of a few short months, when ‘Big Mai ‘ was not sure whether he was going to support the legislation or defeat it, he caved in in the belief that it was going to be a profitable political exercise from his point of view.
Let us look at the rules that these insurance companies make for their own purposes. I will quote from a document which can be tabled also if that is the desire of the Senate. In a memorandum to its agents one insurance company states:
Where at the time of proposing a man is about to go to an unhealthy climate or a country where special hazards exist, a suitable extra premium will require to be charged. On his return, consideration may be given -
That is another one of those great discretions exercised by these great proponents of free enterprise and the rights of the individual- to the removal of the extra premium charged, subject to a satisfactory medical examination . . .
The memorandum goes on to state:
Lives other than of European race, such as Chinese, Maoris, Hindus, etc., will require to be dealt with under special instructions from the office with which the representative corresponds, and from which he should obtain full information should any likely proposal be under consideration.
Proposals on the lives of Indians and Southern Asiatics residing in Australia should be limited to Endowment Assurance maturing no later than age 65.
The memorandum goes on- and I should love to know the attitude of Senator Bonner on this clause- to state:
It is not desirable that business on the lives of Australian Aborigines be actively sought.
What does the standard booklet of the Colonial Mutual Life Assurance Society Ltd say about the great numbers of people who have come from the Mediterranean? It states:
One can see the degree of discrimination that exists in the private insurance field. The facts were adequately presented yesterday relating to half of the population. Now facts are being presented relating to another great proportion of the Australian community.
Clause 45 of the Australian Government Insurance Corporation Bill has been argued many times in this place. I can remember asking questions of Senator Wheeldon and I can remember Senator Wheeldon giving answers not only to honourable senators on the Government side but also to honourable senators of the Opposition. He has made the point time and time again that the AGIC will be taxed as though it was a private insurance company. This means that it will be taxed to a greater extent than State Government insurance offices. Yet if one were to read the speeches of Opposition senators one would imagine that that is not so.
What are the taxes which the Australian Government Insurance Corporation will be required to pay? They are income tax, sales tax, customs duty, excise duty, payroll tax, stamp duty and rates. Those are within Commonwealth responsibility. In areas of State responsibility, it will be required to pay stamp duty, payroll tax, land tax, rates, motor vehicle taxes and fire brigade levies. Clause 45 (5) has the effect of preventing the Australian Government Insurance Corporation being exempted from paying company tax on the grounds that it is a public authority. Many other authorities are similarly excluded from this provision. They are authorities to which the Parliament, even when it was in the control of the Liberal-Country Party, granted similar exclusions. Those authorities include the Commonwealth Trading Bank, the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission, the Overseas Telecommunications Commission and the Australian National Airlines Commission.
What is it the real concern of Opposition senators? It seems to me that their concern is not with a proper examination of the Bill but rather with an attempt to seek some temporary political advantage. I have referred to the fact that the rules which the private insurance companies apply to policy holders are harsh rules. They are rules the companies make. They are rules which have as their motivation the maximising of profit, not public benefit. It is a paranoid statement for those opposite to say that the Government is endeavouring to nationalise the insurance industry by stealth merely by establishing a very minor but important new insurance activity in this country.
I appreciate that the Bill will not be supported at this stage but it does not necessarily follow that the Bill is not in the best interests of the Australian people. The campaign against the proposed Corporation was clearly planned from within the top echelons of the private insurance companies by directors who have large amounts of capital accumulation at their disposal and who are able to make decisions where that capital shall be placed. They are the people who have succeeded for the time being, not only in disrupting the economy but also in organising opposition to the extent of influencing members of the Opposition Parties to oppose this Bill. That is a matter of great regret because in all the States, and even on the initiatives recently of Liberal Premiers, there have been extensions in the area of government insurance. It appears that that can be done at that level, but when an endeavour is made to do it at the national level it is claimed that it represents a threat to the economy. In fact it is a threat to the ability of the Australian Government to extend its welfare proposals to those least able to protect themselves in the area of public insurance.
I conclude by referring to an article which I think ought to be examined by Opposition senators. It appeared in the Australian Financial Review of 15 February 1975 and was the fourth in a series of articles by Trevor Sykes on the ownership of Australian businesses. Mr Sykes wrote of the institutions which are the true colossi of the Australian investment scene. The relevant portions of the article state:
Among the life offices, the AMP Society stands out like a giant, accounting for roughly one-third of all new investment each year. The National Mutual, the Colonial Mutual and the MLC account for roughly another one-third.
Apart from these 4 titans, the Temperance and General, the Prudential and the City Mutual would be the largest investors among life offices.
This handful of institutions, and particularly the AMP, dominate not only the daily share market but also the psyches of the sharebrokers.
So it is ludicrous that we should hear suggestions from Opposition senators that there would be any massive shift of capital from the insurance area or any dislocation of our economy just because we make available in the Budget, in the interests of economic management in this country, approximately $800,000 to establish the Australian Government Insurance Corporation.
The Bill is doomed but because it is a good Bill it will ultimately become law. It may not appear on the statute book in 1975 but I venture the opinion that the time will come when the Bill will receive the assent of both Houses of Parliament and will become law. I look forward to that day because on that day the Australian people will be afforded the insurance benefits which are surely their due.
– This Bill is suffering the fate of a series of Bills which have been presented to the Senate during the past Vh years for which the Australian people have voted. When the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) delivered the policy speech on behalf of the Australian Labor Party during the campaign for the 1974 election nothing could have been clearer than what he said on the subject of the Bill which is before the Senate at this moment. He said:
The Government is determined to give home-owners the opportunity to insure their properties for lower premiums and against natural disasters. The Commonwealth Banking Corporation introduced on 1 February a House Insurance Scheme with rates more favourable than those set by any insurer other than the Defence Service Homes Insurance scheme, while the latter scheme provides wider cover than other insurers, as flood victims in Brisbane have come to realise.
Accordingly the government will set up an Australian Government Insurance Office which will compete actively in all forms of insurance and which, in particular, will provide the widest possible cover for homes at the lowest possible premiums.
Nothing could have been clearer than that.
When the people of Australia voted for the Australian Labor Party in May 1974 this is one of the things for which they were voting, but because of the oddities of our Constitution and our electoral system and because of the behaviour of the Premier of New South Wales we do not have the representation in the Upper House that we have in the Lower House and we are unable to pass the legislation which any government should be entitled to introduce- that is, those matters which are put to the people at an election and are adopted by the people. I do not think there could be any greater humbug than to hear people on the opposite side of the chamber talk about democracy and the will of the people. Although the will of the people was very clearly expressed the Opposition here today is taking the steps that it can take, and which we knew that it would take, to reject the will of the people. They do it because they do not like the will of the people.
One of the things that has been most striking in this debate has been the refusal of Opposition senators to debate the Bill. They have debated creeping socialism. When I hear reference to creeping socialism I am reminded of the observation of one of my colleagues in the West Australian Parliament, the member for BoulderDundas, that whatever people may say about creeping socialists he prefers the creeping hordes of socialism to the hoarding creeps of capitalism. Opposition senators spoke about creeping socialism and all sorts of matters completely unrelated to the Bill, but they refused to discuss the Bill. A great deal has been said already, both here and elsewhere, by me and by other members of the
Labor Party, about this Bill. I do not intend to repeat all the things that have been said.
I wish to repeat why we are introducing this legislation. We are doing it for the reasons which were given by the Prime Minister in his policy speech for which the people voted, as you would recall, Mr Deputy President. We are doing it to provide competition. We want to provide competition for the private insurers, in the same way that the Commonwealth Bank provides competition for the private banks. One of the lasting achievements of the Fisher Labor Government of 1910-13- the Government which, apart from the present Government, did more to transform the face of Australia and to benefit the people of Australia- was the establishment of the Commonwealth Bank. The Commonwealth Bank and its successor, the Commonwealth Banking Corporation, have provided for the people of Australia a banking service which would otherwise not have been available. The competition which they have given has forced the private trading banks to do things which they would otherwise not have done. We want to do precisely the same thing with the Australian Government Insurance Corporation. Senator Everett crystallised yesterday in the points he raised the reasons for the introduction of this Bill.
We want also to provide what is known as national interest insurance. We want to see that the people who are affected by natural disasters are not left without cover. We want to see that they are not left like Sir Gordon Chalk, the Leader of the Liberal Party in Queensland, who was left high and dry by the Brisbane floods. We want to see that the farmers of this country have the opportunity at least of gaining crop and livestock insurance. Such insurance is available in countries which are completely committed to the capitalist system to the extent that the United States of America and France are. It is not available in this country. It has been tried in this country. It was tried only recently in Western Australia by a consortium of West Australian farmers and the Farmers Union Western Australia (lnc). It failed. It failed because it was unprofitable. We are not suggesting that anybody in private enterprise ought to engage in an enterprise which is unprofitable. We are saying that it ought to be done by the nation. That is why we make provision for national interest insurance in the Bill.
We do not exclude from the Bill any actions which the private insurers may care to take. It is interesting to note that it is only since an Australian Government Insurance Corporation has been proposed that the private insurance companies thought of providing national interest insurance. It has been only a way of staving off the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Corporation. What proposals did the private insurance companies put forward? As Senator Everett remarked yesterday when talking about the proposals that they made about national compensation, by their proposals they will get all the glory, and we will get all the bills. I am not responsible for the Insurance Acts, but negotiations are taking place between the Treasurer (Mr Hayden) and representatives of the general insurance companies to try to adopt some sort of national interest insurance guidelines. I have told the Fire and Accident Underwriters Association and the representatives of the private insurance companies that they are not excluded in any way under this Bill from engaging in national interest insurance. If they are prepared to put forward amendments to the Bill which would make it clear that they were not excluded and which would enable them to co-operate in a satisfactory way with the Australian Government Insurance Corporation to provide national interest insurance, we would be happy to consider those amendments.
The third reason for introducing the Bill is that we are sick and tired of Australia being subject to Coca-colonisation. We believe that it is an independent country. It is one of the 10 great trading nations of the world. We do not believe that something as important as insurance should be in foreign hands, in a way in which no other country, even the meanest and smallest most recently independent colony, would tolerate. We do not want to continue a situation by which over 45 per cent of the general insurance business is written by foreign insurance companies, by which 20 per cent of the balance is written by State insurance offices- nearly all of which is almost entirely in unprofitable fields- and by which 40 per cent of the life assurance business is written by foreign companies.
We want to engage in the field of re-insurance. It is an important field. It was said yesterday by Senator Jessop that large sums had been paid out by foreign re-insurers as a result of the Darwin cyclone. He asked was not it a wonderful thing for Australia that we had been able to pick up all this money from the foreign re-insurers. If one looks at a business only on the payments outnot on the receipts- one can come to some very funny conclusions. I think it is true to say that if one looked at the re-insurance business over the last couple of years one would find that it is not profitable in Australia. It has not been profitable because of a rapid succession of misfortunes such as the Tasmanian bushfires, the Brisbane floods, which were partly covered, and the Darwin cyclone. If one looks at it over a longer period- a decade, 20 years, a quarter of a century or half a century- few commercial enterprises are more profitable than re-insurance. Although it is difficult to obtain the figures as to how much reinsurance business is written in Australia and who does it, it would seem that at the most about 2!4 per cent of the re-insurance business that is written in this country is written by Australian companies.
I must commend Senator Laucke. The only time I felt I was at all on the ropes in relation to this matter was as a result of a question asked by him, with his usual perspicacity. I think he has drawn attention to something of significance, and that is that if the Australian Government Insurance Corporation starts with the limited funds which we intend to make available to it and with the small funds which it would acquire in any event over 5 to 10 years, the amount of reinsurance which it would be able to write would be very small. In its original stages it would be quite small. There is no question about that. The fact is that we would be going into business with the purpose of providing re-insurance. Once the resources of the Corporation developed we would have in Australia an instrumentality which had as part of its charter the writing of reinsurance. We would not be seeing vast sums going overseas to damage our trade balance.
As polls have been mentioned- not Blue Poles but public opinion polls- I think it is most interesting to note that the most recent poll which I have seen in relation to support for the Australian Government Insurance Corporation showed that, despite the polls which were taken earlier in the year when an overwhelming majority of Australians who apparently knew little about it were opposed to its establishment, less than half the Australian population are opposed to it. Almost half the Australian population are in favour of it. As some wit on the West Australian, the Perth morning newspaper, if you will excuse the expression, described it, only 19 per cent of those people who presently hold insurance policies would transfer them to the Australian Government Insurance Corporation. Obviously, if 19 per cent of the insurance business written in Australia were transferred to the Australian Government Insurance Corporation that Corporation would be one of the mightiest insurance offices in the world. That is the situation as it stood a month or more ago.
The argument about nationalisation has been used. It is an unfortunate argument and I am very disappointed in Senator Cotton. I am pleased to see that he had the decency not to debate the Bill itself but to talk in general terms. He knew there was nothing that he could say against the Bill. But the argument has been used that somehow this Bill is going to lead to the nationalisation of the insurance industry. I wonder whether someone could explain to me how it is going to lead to nationalisation of the insurance industry? Has the establishment of the State government insurance offices led to the nationalisation of the insurance industry? Has the establishment of the Commonwealth Bank led to the nationalisation of banking? The previous Labor Government- the Chifley Government- did try to nationalise banking in 1947 but did the existence of the Commonwealth Bank make it any easier to do so? It did not. It had no effect whatsoever. If a government were elected with a policy of nationalising insurance it would make no difference whether there were an Australian Government insurance corporation or whether there were not.
When the Indians nationalised insurance they did not need to have an Indian Government insurance office to do so. They simply nationalised what was there. The same thing happened in Peru. There was no Peruvian Government insurance corporation when they nationalised insurance. They just went ahead and did it. The same thing applies here. When honourable senators argue- and I will deal with some of these points later on- that somehow this legislation will enable us to put the private insurance companies out of business it shows that they just have not read the Bill which is before them; they have been reading the handouts which have been distributed to the lower-middle class cannon fodder who have been gathered by the insurance companies to demonstrate outside Parliament House and in various State capitals throughout Australia. They have not been reading the Bill.
I should like to comment briefly on some of the tilings which have been said by the first senator to speak and the last senator to speak in this debate, although I have said something about what Senator Laucke has already said. Senator Cotton has said that there is no good reason for the Government’s interfering in the insurance field and that under clause 14 of the Bill the Minister may direct the Australian Government Insurance Corporation to write insurance on an unsound basis. I take it he means a commercially unsound basis and is referring to the national interest insurance- that form of insurance which we say, and everybody admits, is not commercially profitable. But Senator Cotton omitted to tell us that the Bill says also that any proposal that the Australian Government Insurance Corporation should write national interest insurance could be implemented only after a regulation had passed through both Houses of the Parliament. The proposal would not be subject to the direction of the Minister; it would be subject to the direction of the Minister with the concurrence of both Houses of the Federal Parliament.
One other small point I should comment on came from Senator Bunton. Senator Bunton told us that the insurance industry has an unblemished record. If by that he means a consistent record, I would not dispute it. If he means the word in any other sense I think I might be prepared to debate the matter with him. I think that Senator Bunton, in referring to the unblemished record of the insurance industry to which he has been so kind as to draw our attention, overlooked one rather important matter. In fact not only has he overlooked but he has misinformed us. He has told us that all premiums paid to insurance companies are actuarially determined. I have some information for Senator Bunton: They are not. Life assurance premiums are actuarially determined but those premiums which will prevail as the most important part of the activities of the Australian Government Insurance Corporation in the field of general insurance- fire, accident, and marine insuranceare not actuarially determined; they are determined on the maximum that the market can afford to pay- the most that the insurance companies can squeeze out of those people who are unfortunate enough to have to take out insurance. They are not actuarially determined at all.
It has been alleged also- and this has been dealt with by other speakers on this side of the House- that the various laws to which the private insurance companies are subject would not apply to the Australian Government Insurance Corporation. I think this matter has been dealt with over and over again. The Corporation would pay taxes and it would pay the fire brigade levies. It has been alleged, on what authority one does not know, that the Trades Practices Act would not apply to the Australian Government Insurance Corporation. I do not know who was the legal sage who provided this advice to the Opposition. Whoever he was, I do not think he was one of the parliamentary lawyers because none of them has expressed such an opinion. Just in case there is any doubt on this matter I have obtained an opinion from the Secretary of the Attorney-General’s Department dated 20 August. I shall not read the document in any great detail, but the final paragraph of the advice from the Secretary of the Attorney-General’s Department states:
In summary, the Trades Practices Act will apply to the commercial operations of Australian Government Insurance Corporation.
As this is a matter which has occasioned some concern, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the advice to the Secretary of the Department of Repatriation and Compensation from the Secretary of the Attorney-General’s Department.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Webster) Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The document read as follows)-
ATTORNEY-GENERAL’S DEPARTMENT
Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 Please Quote YourRef: 20 August 1975
The Secretary, Department of Repatriation and Compensation, P.O. Box 21, WODEN A.C.T. 2606
Application of the Trade Practices Act 1974-1975 to the proposed Australian Government Insurance Corporation
I refer to your memorandum of 23 July 1 975 in which you seek advice on whether the proposed Australian Government Insurance Corporation (AGIC) would, if created pursuant to the Australian Government Insurance Corporation Bill 1975 currently before the Senate, be bound by the provisions of the Trade Practices Act 1 974- 1 975 in relation to its commercial operations.
It has been assumed that the reference in your memorandum to ‘commercial operations’ is meant to include all operations of AGIC except those relating to the National Interest Insurance Fund.
The Trade Practices Act, inter alia, prohibits corporations from engaging in conduct either specified in Part IV of the Act to be restrictive trade practices or specified in Part V (Division 1) to be unfair practices. Section 4 of the Act defines a corporation to include a body corporate that carries on the business of insurance as its sole or principal business. There seems little doubt that AGIC would fall within this definition. Clause 6 of the Bill constitutes AGIC as a body corporate, and clause 7 indicates that insurance is to be its sole business.
However, the Trade Practices Act does not bind a body that can claim the shield of the crown. Accordingly it must be considered whether AGIC, whilst a separate legal personality, would still be regarded in law as a servant, agent or emanation’ of the Crown. In the view of this Department it could not be so regarded.
Whether or not a statutory corporation can be regarded as a servant, agent or emanation of the Crown will always depend upon the construction of the statute creating the corporationwhether the legislature intended the corporation to have that relationship with the Crown. The AGIC Bill does not expressly give the corporation any character of relation to the Crown. The leading statement of the law in this regard is contained in the judgment of the case Launceston Corporation v The Hydro-Electric Commission (1959) 100 C.L.R. 654, where Dixon C. J., Fullagar, Menzies and Windeyer J. J. said:
Both in England and Australia there is evidence of a strong tendency to regard a statutory corporation formed to carry on public functions as distinct from the Crown unless parliament has by express provision given it the character of a servant of the Crown.’ (at p.662; see also State Electricity Commission of Victoria v City of South Melbourne ( 1968) 1 18 C.L.R. 504).
It remains to consider whether it is a necessary implication from the provisions of the Bill that AGIC has the shield of the Crown. No such implication should be drawn. The Board of AGIC is largely independent of ministerial control. It can even disregard any direction from the Minister under clause 13 which is not in accordance with sound commercial principles. Staff of AGIC are appointed by the Board and are not employed under the Public Service Act. Finances of the corporation are to be separate from the Commonwealth Public Account and profits of the corporation are not to be paid totally to the Public Account. The corporation is to be subject to taxation.
Another matter that has been considered is whether AGIC is given specific authority or approval by the Bill, such as would except its conduct (pursuant to section 5 1 ( 1 ) (a) of the Trade Practices Act), from the operation of the provisions relating to restrictive trade practices in Pan IV of the Trade Practices Act. in the view of this Department there is no provision in the Bill that would specifically authorize or approve any conduct that would otherwise contravene a provision of Part IV of the Trade Practices Act.
In summary, the Trade Practices Act will apply to the commercial operations of AGIC.
G. HARTNELL
for Secretary 20 August 1975
– I should like to deal with some of the matters which have been dealt with in a statement which was made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser) in another place, who made the announcement somewhat belatedly that the Opposition would oppose this legislation. He took his time about it. He was berated by Senator Steele Hall who in one of his characteristic left-right switches was outflanking the Liberal Party from the right on this occasion and saying that Liberal Party members were a wishy-washy lot who would not make up their minds about creeping socialism. Mr Fraser has been repudiated by his former leader- although one could hardly say his close friend- the former Prime Minister, Mr John Gorton, who has expressed his support for the establishment of an Australian Government insurance corporation, once again giving evidence of that great patriotism which Mr Gorton has always shown. Even though we may have disagreed with him on certain aspects of his policies, no one has ever disputed that he is a patriot.
He has shown his patriotism once again in his support for this patriotic piece of legislation.
Mr Fraser has said that the Government has disadvantaged the insurance industry already in the last 2 Budgets by increasing the industry’s tax liabilities. The tax changes brought insurance companies into line with other commercial companies. They did not disadvantage insurance companies; they removed advantages from them which they previously had over other commercial operations. We did not disadvantage them as compared with anybody else. Mr Fraser went on to say that this Government now proposes to set up a new and powerful competitor with certain commercial advantages- I stress the words ‘with certain commercial advantages’- in an already highly competitive industry to the further detriment of the private sector. The Australian Government Insurance Corporation would have no discernible commercial advantage. It would pay taxes on the same basis as its competitors. The Bill requires that, like its competitors, it must act in accordance with sound commercial principles and must pay dividends on its capital and interest on all its borrowings.
It would have no advantage whatsoever apart from the fact that, as a government instrumentalityjust like the Commonwealth Bank or the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission, as it was, or Trans-Australia Airlines- it would be guaranteed by the Government. Of course it would be guaranteed by the Government. But, unlike the directors of various insurance companies who are not responsible to their policy holders, the Australian Government would be responsible to its policy holders. If the Government were pouring vast sums of money into an unprofitable enterprise then it would be answerable at the elections in a way in which the directors in Zurich, Amsterdam, London and New York of insurance companies that are operating in Australia are not responsible to their policy holders when they use their funds to defeat a democratically elected Australian government. The Government would be responsible.
Mr Fraser this is probably the last point with which I wish to deal at any length- has said that the Australian insurance industry provides the private sector with 10 per cent of its total private capital formation. That is true. This is regarded as being a great virtue. Some well may wonder whether such a narrow group as that ought to be quite so influential in the total economy of the country. But let us accept that this is a good thing; let us not dispute it. The Australian insurance industry provides 10 per cent of the total capital formation. What difference does the establishment of the Australian Government Insurance Corporation make to this? The Bill clearly provides that the board has a responsibility to invest the funds of policy holders on sound commercial principles. They are subject to audit, they are subject to scrutiny to see that the funds are invested on sound commercial principles. The only reason they would not invest on sound commercial principles would be if the private sector were not the best place in which to invest. Otherwise, of course they will invest the funds in this way.
We decided to establish an Australian Government Insurance Corporation not only for the reasons which I have already mentioned and which have been dealt with by other Labor senators, but also because we as a Party do not believe in unrestricted capitalism. We believe in state intervention. We believe in state enterprise. It is no use honourable senators opposite extolling the virtues of the free enterprise system when, as they look around the world, they ought to be able to see that the so-called free enterprise system, the capitalist system, is in rags and tatters and in a state of collapse in every country in which it operates. It is either inflation or unemployment, or it is both. One of the reasons this is the case, as Joan Robinson, the British economist, pointed out so clearly when she was in Australia only a few weeks ago, is that it is an absurdity to expect a system to function whereby the saleability of goods and services somehow will produce that ideal equilibrium where everybody is working and is well housed, there is no pollution and there are no wars. It does not work.
Throughout the world the capitalist system is collapsing, and in a large part of the world it already has collapsed, never to be restored. Without commenting on their civil liberties, let us look at Latin America at present. What is happening in three of the strongest industrial countries in Latin America, the three most developed countries in Latin America, the three most white of the Latin American countries- Argentina, Chile and Uraguay? They all have capitalist systems. One has a capitalist system which recently was restored in a most brutal manner. Where are they? They are in shreds and tatters. There is unemployment, inflation, violence and repression. Let us compare them with Cuba. Whatever one may think about Cuba’s political system, what is the problem in that country? There is a shortage of manpower, not a shortage of jobs. The people of the world are aware of this.
We are a modest Party. We are a social democratic Party. We believe in attaining our ends by peaceful means and by the maintenance of the democratic parliamentary system. We believe that we want to bring about our changes gradually by state enterprise competing with private enterprise so that people can make their choice. I think that the owners of the insurance companies and the people in this Parliament who represent the owners of the insurance companies have not been very intelligent in the way in which they have approached this Bill. There is a well recognised principle in the science of physics, that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Sir Vincent Fairfax and the newspaper proprietors cum insurance company directors- the insurance companies own 43 per cent of the shares in the Herald and Weekly Times Ltd, there are these interlocking directorates- and the people who are opposed to the working people of this country and to the party which represents the working people of this country have not been very clever, because there has been an equal and opposite reaction to their action of trying to discredit this Government and its policy not only on this issue but also on its whole program of social welfare, its whole program of bringing equality to the people of Australia. There has been this reaction, and in due course I believe that these people will pay for it.
There are now people whose wrath has been aroused by the campaigns which have been waged against this Government, against the Australian Labor Party by the private insurers who had never hitherto given one moment’s thought to the private insurance companies. I think that honourable senators opposite and the private insurance companies ought perhaps to think sometimes about the words of the old American negro spiritual, which I am sure that Senator Everett, knowing his religious background, would remember, which is:
God gave Noah the rainbow sign,
This time water; the fire next time.
If these people continue to resist the small, modest, peaceful proposals such as those that we are putting forward here today, perhaps they will succeed- perhaps not now- in getting rid of the Labor Government and coming back into office, but they will go the same way as their counterparts have gone throughout the whole of the world. We in this Government have offered them the opportunity to bring about peaceful changes which are inevitable one way or the other. If they do not want to accept that, if they want to reject the will of the people, if they want to reject this Bill, they ultimately and the people whom they represent are the ones who will pay for it.
Question put. The Senate divided. (The President- Senator the Hon. Justin O ‘Byrne)
AYES: 23
NOES: 26
Majority…….. 3
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the negative.
page 184
Consideration resumed from 3 June on motion by Senator Wheeldon:
That the Bill be now read a second time.
Question put:
The Senate divided. (The President- Senator the Hon. Justin O ‘Byrne)
AYES: 22
NOES: 26
Majority……. 4
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the negative.
page 184
Debate resumed from 20 August on motion by Senator Douglas McClelland:
That the Bill be now read a second time.
– As the Special Minister of State (Senator Douglas McClelland) said when this Bill was introduced yesterday, it is the third occasion on which it has been introduced into the Parliament; it is the second time that it has been introduced into the Senate this year. It is a Bill which the Senate opposed when it was before us on 25 February this year. It is a Bill which the Senate Opposition, consistent with the view which has been expressed by the Opposition in the House of Representatives, will again urge the Senate to reject on this occasion.
The purpose of the Bill is to ask the British Parliament to pass a law which in effect abolishes the existing right of appeal which some people have from the State Supreme Courts to the Privy Council. As I indicated on behalf of the Opposition when the Bill was before us in February, there is no objection- indeed there is general support on the part of the Opposition- to the concept that the appeal to the Privy Council should cease. It has ceased, as a result of an initiative which the Liberal-Country Party took in 1968 with respect to appeals from the High Court to the Privy Council, and it is desirable that the appeal from the Supreme Court to the Privy Council should disappear also. The objection of the Opposition is to the method by which this is sought to be undertaken.
I do not propose to elaborate the reasons which were advanced at length on an earlier occasion. Anyone who is interested may find them set out, along with a number of opposing views, in the Senate Hansard of 25 February this year. I do not recapitulate those matters because obviously the result of this Bill is foreordained. But I noticed that the Minister stated when introducing the Bill that it was being introduced for the purposes of section 57 of the Constitution. Section 57 of the Constitution is a provision whereby in certain circumstances, if a Bill is introduced in the House of Representatives and rejected by the Senate, and after a lapse of 3 months it is again introduced and rejected by the Senate, the Governor-General may grant a double dissolution. If after the double dissolution the measure is again presented to the Senate and rejected, by means of a joint sitting all the members of the Parliament may determine whether or not that Bill is to become law. As I understand it, there are already 13 Bills stored up under the provisions of section 57 of the Constitution in the lifetime of this Parliament. I only say that that use of section 57 is a misuse of section 57.
– And the High Court will make judgment on it.
-One would hope that Senator Sir Magnus Cormack ‘s concepts would be accepted but whether or not the High Court regards itself as entitled to look into these matters, the fact is that we should recognise that there is a misuse of section 57 because one would suppose that the purpose of section 57 was to deal with one BUI so that in a double dissolution there could be one issue determined by the people of Australia. What is happening in the current use of section 57 is that a Government’s program is being dealt with, not in the traditional manner but in the manner in which conceivably a joint sitting will command the power to pass a number of Bills which, without a joint sitting, could never pass each House of the Parliament.
We can only regret that the Government has chosen to depart from the conventions of the Constitution, the practices which have characterised the Westminster system, and to rely upon an interpretation of section 57 and possibly the High Court’s reluctance to intervene in parliamentary matters, in an endeavour to achieve particular ends which otherwise it could not achieve. We simply say that if the Government feels that it has not sufficient control of the Parliament to pass its measures, it has a ready means of determining that issue, and that is the traditional course which other Governments on other occasions have pursued of asking the GovernorGeneral for an election. If the Government chooses not to do that it should accept that there will continue to be some frustrations to what it regards as its objectives. Therefore we recognise that it is not the merits of this Bill which will be canvassed in this debate but rather the purposes of the Government in seeking to add another Bill to its storehouse of Bills under section 57. 1 speak very briefly concerning the merits of the measure.
– What? Are they afraid of a double dissolution? Why have they not acted on the thirteen.
– I appreciate what Senator Wright has said. One wonders why it is that the Government is continually adding to the number of Bills. Is it because it genuinely anticipates that a double dissolution might restore its fortunes? Is it because we are to have a double dissolution in the near future? Or is it simply that the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) is becoming so adept at talking about obstruction and frustration that it is the one record he can play, and he plays it to perfection in his own mind every time he seeks to do so. According to the number of Bills which have been passed by the House of Representatives and rejected by the Senate and the number which likewise will be again presented to the Senate, it seems that we will be running up to a quarter of a century of Bills before the end of this year. That is not the way in which the Westminster system was designed to operate.
Dealing very shortly with the substance of this measure, the argument which the Government raised in a very short speech by the Special Minister of State is that the Opposition is not sincere because if it were sincere in its protestations that appeals to the Privy Council should be abolished it would support the measure. That is a specious argument. Any observation of the statements made by Opposition spokesmen in both the House of Representatives and the Senate indicates that we believe that the referendum is the appropriate way for this issue to be resolved or, if a referendum is not to be undertaken, for the Commonwealth to join with the States in a joint approach to the British Parliament. What is happening here is that the Commonwealth is making an approach to the British Parliament ignoring and by-passing the States and, having regard to the way in which the States are being by-passed, the States are opposed to what is being proposed.
This is the point the Opposition has been concerned to make. One does not achieve a proper and effective working of our system of government by a consistent confrontation, by a reliance upon assumed powers which the Australian Government does not have and by a flat contradiction of the claims by the States that at least they ought to be consulted in these matters. For almost 2’/i years we have had a pattern of confrontation when, if only there had been an exercise in co-operation, much more could have been achieved and thereby the people of Australia advantaged.
There are 4 major arguments the Opposition puts forward as to why this particular Bill should be rejected. In the first place, it is a by-passing or ignoring of the State Parliaments in a matter which is not of Commonwealth concern but of State concern. The limit of Commonwealth concern is the power which the Commonwealth has to limit appeals from the High Court to the Privy Council. That power has been fully exhausted so that there is now no appeal from the High Court to the Privy Council. There is, of course, an appeal which may be taken from the State courts to the Privy Council. Mr Whitlam himself said in 1968 when this measure was before the Parliament, and as recorded in volume 58 of Hansard:
It is impossible for this Parliament or for the State Parliaments, by legislation, to abolish appeals from the State Supreme Courts to the Privy Council.
Yet that is what he is purporting to do by way of approach to the British Parliament. He had said that if that course were adopted ‘this would emphasise Australia’s dependence upon Britain’. He had suggested there was an alternative course, namely, the use of a referendum which would have emphasised Australia’s independence. We believe that is the appropriate course because it does emphasise Australia’s independence. I simply make reference to that statement of the Prime Minister because it emphasises the point which should be made quite clear, namely, that this Parliament has no power to abolish an appeal from State Supreme Courts to the Privy Council and the Government, in the course it is adopting, is ignoring and by-passing the State parliaments. The Opposition therefore expresses its objection to that course on that ground.
The second ground is that it is not consistent with Australia’s standing to go cap in hand to the Imperial Parliament to ask that Parliament to abolish a right which citizens have to take their litigation from the Supreme Courts to the Privy Council. Technically the right is there if the British Parliament chooses to exercise that power but we believe that in a matter where the Australian nation has the power to determine these questions for itself the Australian nation, the Australian people, should be asked to make the decision, not the British Parliament. The third ground of objection which the Opposition has is that it is a misuse of the powers of the Statute of Westminster. The Statute of Westminster was enacted by the British Parliament in 193 1. It provided that thenceforth it would not legislate with respect to the dominions, and in 1942 the Australian Parliament enacted the Statute of Westminster in which it acknowledged Australia’s sovereignty and the recognition by the United Kingdom that it would not legislate for the Australian dominions unless, in particular circumstances, there was a request by and the consent of the Australian Parliament- the Commonwealth Parliament- for such legislation. At the time it was one of the issues between the States and the Commonwealth as to whether this was a provision which bound the States and the AttorneyGeneral and Deputy Prime Minister of the day, Dr Evatt, said it was inconceivable that any approach would be made which would seek to ignore the rights of the States and that if such an approach were made it was inconceivable that the British Parliament would act in a way which ignored the States’ rights. The attempt by the Government today ignores the views then expressed by Dr Evatt which were supported, as I recall, at the time by Professor Bailey who subsequently was the Solicitor-General of the Commonwealth for many years. It represents an endeavour by the Commonwealth, as I see it, to misuse the powers in the Statute of Westminster.
The final argument of opposition which the Opposition has expressed is that for this legislation to be enacted and to be presented to the British Parliament would create a position for the British Government to which the Australian Government should not submit, because to ask the British Government on the request of one of the Parliaments of Australia to legislate with respect to a matter which is of direct concern to the State Parliaments places the British Government in an invidious position. In an age of independent nation states it is not for Australia to assert a right or a claim upon the British Government to exercise a power in that way. There has been a wealth of erudition in regard to the substance of the matters canvassed by this Bill which is to be found amongst the writings of jurists and others who have directed their minds to it. Much of that learning has been forthcoming in debates in this chamber and in the House of Representatives on the earlier occasion when the Bill was produced.
All I say in conclusion is that the Opposition’s view has been expressed and has been successful in the Senate in the past. It is again asserted with a hope and an expectation that it will again be successful. We desire to see the appeal to the Privy Council removed entirely, and we trust that in due course the Australian people will be given the opportunity to do it in a way which is consistent with this nation’s independence and with the verdict of the Australian people, but to do it in a way which invites a British Parliament to legislate for Australia is, we believe, not only inconsistent with Australia’s independence but also a most remarkable instance of the inconsistency of the Prime Minister who, having adopted one view when in Opposition, chooses in power, to adopt a course which reflects our dependence.
– in reply- Very briefly, the arguments in relation to this legislation have been well canvassed, as Senator Greenwood has just said. I would have expected that during his remarks Senator Greenwood might have introduced some new material to the debate, but basically what he said was a restatement of the things which have been said both here and in the House of Representatives when the legislation was before the Parliament earlier. It is my understanding that the Australian Government did make all reasonable requests to the States to ascertain their views on this matter. I believe that the Opposition is brushing aside and trying to sidestep the real efforts that were made to ensure that the States were properly consulted. Certainly some of the States did oppose some of the measures proposed by the Government; others were in agreement. There is no point in canvassing all that again now because, as has been said by Senator Greenwood, the fate of the Bill is predetermined. The Liberal-Country Party Opposition is going to oppose it and it is going to win.
The only comment I would wish to make concerns the statements on what are now called double dissolution Bills and their accumulation for the purpose of holding elections. I can remember that early last year exactly the same talk took place as we have heard in the last 10 minutes. The Opposition had the support of a certain honourable senator who sits on the Opposition side. They were the days when it was believed that the Australian Government only had to be taken on by the Liberal Party in regard to certain matters and it would be defeated. It was taken on in relation to an election. We called on the election and we won. So I suggest to Senator Greenwood and also to Senator Wright that they should not be too sure about their own particular futures in this area of politics. They know as well as I and all other honourable senators do how quickly it can all change. I simply say that that grin on Senator Wright’s face may be something which we will not see in the future as often as he thinks he is going to wear it.
Question put. The Senate divided. (The President- Senator the Hon. Justin O ‘Byrne)
AYES: 22
NOES: 26
Majority……. 4
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the negative.
page 187
-I seek leave to make a brief statement in connection with the voting on the Australian Government Insurance Corporation Bill.
-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.
- Senator Rae did not vote in the division on the Australian Government
Insurance Corporation Bill. At the time of the division he was in an interview room which was not equipped with operating division bells. I have not asked the Government to recommit the vote on the Bill for a fresh division, as has been done on similar occasions in the past, as the result was not affected by Senator Rae’s absence for the division.
page 188
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay.
Bill (on motion by Senator Bishop) read a first time.
– I move:
Mr President, I seek leave to have my second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The document read as follows)-
The purpose of this Bill is to amend the defence legislation to give effect to reorganisation of the higher management of the Defence Force and of the Department of Defence. The Bill makes amendments to some 14 Acts, though most of these changes are consequential upon the significant changes introduced into the Defence Act. When the Government took office, the then Minister for Defence, Mr Barnard, announcedon 19 December 1972- the intention of the Government to move towards integrating defence management by providing more effective central military control of operations and related military activities and, secondly, by creating a single Department of Defence comprehending the staff in the four existing departments. A study was launched into the best way of achieving this. In December 1973, Mr Barnard announced the abolition of the separate Departments of Navy, Army and Air, and the intention to create by statute the office of Chief of Defence Force Staff with power of command of the Defence Force and located in the Department of Defence as a very senior statutory officer; and to re-distribute, by legislation and regulations, the functions performed by the Naval, Military and Air Boards. The legislation now introduced will give effect to these objectives.
The general control and administration of the Defence Force is to be vested in the Minister. A new office of Chief of Defence Force Staff, directly responsible to the Minister for Defence is created and the present office of Chairman, Chiefs of Staff provided by administrative means, and lacking statutory function or authority, disappears. Subject to the Minister’s directions, the Chief of Defence Force Staff will have command of the whole of the Defence Force and, under him, each Chief of Staff will command the arm of the Defence Force of which he is the Chief. The administration- as distinct from Command- of the Defence Force is to be vested jointly in the Secretary and Chief of Defence Force Staff, subject to, and in accordance with, any directions of the Minister and except for matters falling within the command of the Defence Force or other matters that may be specified by the Minister as a further exception. This integrated organisation will then replace the 5 government departments and 3 boards of administration previously responsible for defence administration. The Service Boards are to be abolished. This means a substantial increase in the direct authority of individual Chiefs of Staff. It also ensures clear definition of the responsibility falling upon individual office holdersthe Chief of Defence Force Staff, the individual Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary to the Department- as compared with the anonymity of Service Board decisions.
Under new section 9(3) as proposed to be inserted in the Defence Act by clause 7 of this Bill the 4 statutory officers created by this legislation will have right of access to the Minister in respect of their responsibilities- something which they have today only by administrative arrangements. The legislation will make clear that the Chief of Defence Force Staff (CDFS) and the Service Chiefs under him are the advisers on military matters to the Minister. The Secretary, as Permanent Head/Chief Officer of the Department will have legal responsibilities under the Audit Act and Treasury Regulations, will be the link with the Government administration at large, and will be the adviser on policy, on organisation and on financial planning and programming. Ministerial directives establishing the arrangements for the inter-relation of the high level service and civilian positions in sharing of responsibility in appropriate areas, and stating the responsiveness expected of the departmental structure to the operational priorities of the Chiefs of Staff, have already been drafted, in full consultation among the Chiefs of Staff and Secretary.
Four Heads of Departments under the old systemleaving aside a fifth, the Head of the Department of Supply which administered Defence science as well as other matters- will be replaced by one Permanent Head. On 28 January this year, the restructuring of the Department of Defence into the functional groupings approved by the Government was implemented to the extent possible pending the abolition of the Service Boards. There has already been a significant increase in the direct participation by officers from the Navy, Army and Air Force in the Defence Department business of strategic assessment, works and equipment programming, and advising on the use of total manpower. Naturally it is accepted that further changes to the defence organisation may be required from time to time. Indeed, it will be important to maintain an ongoing analysis of the organisation, the absence of which has been a major deficiency in the past.
Turning from the fundamental matters dealt with in the legislation I should mention that the opportunity has also been taken to make other amendments to the acts being amended, which are required for administrative purposes. Formal legislation will in future refer to the Australian Navy, Australian Army and the Australian Air Force instead of the Naval Forces of the Commonwealth, the Military Forces of the Commonwealth and the Air Force of the Commonwealth, respectively. I may say that this has nothing to do with the use of the prefix ‘Royal’. That usage derives from the consent of the Sovereign and these changes in legal terminology will have no effect on the use of the prefix, which as the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) stated categorically in a Press conference in London on 20 December last, will continue. References to national service which are no longer necessary are being deleted from the Acts being amended. I would like now to refer to particular amendments being made to the Acts affected.
Defence Act
I have already referred to the main proposals to implement the Government’s decisions contained in amendments to the Defence Act. I should also mention that the Chief of Defence Force Staff will have the command of the Defence Force subject to the command in chief vested in the Governor-General by section 68 of the Constitution. The appointment of an officer of the Defence Force to be Chief of Defence Force Staff will be made by the GovernorGeneral and provision is also made for the Governor-General to appoint an officer of the Navy to be Chief of Naval Staff, and an officer of the Army to be Chief of the General Staff and an officer of the Air Force to be Chief of the Air Staff. A Chief of Staff will exercise the command of his service under the Chief of Defence Force Staff. As a basis for binding instructions on matters of administration, including those with financial implications, to be issued by each Chief of Staff to his subordinates, provision is made for the Secretary and the Chief of Defence Force Staff jointly to authorise a Chief of Staff to administer matters relating to his arm of the Defence Force. It is the expectation of the Minister that a wide range of matters now being administered by the Service boards will become the responsibility of the individual Chiefs of Staff. The Secretary and the Chief of Defence Force Staff would be concerned principally with important matters of Defence policy and administration particularly those affecting the whole of the defence force- the aggregates and the common policies- which the Minister, and the Government look to them to co-ordinate in the interests of consistent application of policy requirements, including financial requirements. I should draw honourable senators’ attention to clause 46 of the Bill which amends section 98 of the Defence Act to prohibit the passing of the death sentence by any Service court martial.
Naval Defence Act
The amendments to this Act include the provisions for the abolition of the Naval Board and for necessary consequential amendments.
Air Force Act
The long title of the Act is being amended to bring it more into line with the. Naval Defence Act and the Defence Act, and the Air Force Regulations relating to the Air Board are being repealed.
Supply and Development Act
This Act and the Defence Act are being amended to enable defence research and development activities to be transferred to the Department of Defence and to permit other changes in the responsibilities of the Department of Manufacturing Industry.
Other Acts Amended
The amendments to the remaining Acts are consequential on the abolition of the Service boards and on the changes in the formal designations of the arms of the Defence Force. The amendment to the Remuneration Tribunals Act substitutes the Office pf Chief of Defence Force Staff for the Office of Chairman, Chiefs of Staff Committee. Mr President, as Mr Barnard said in his statement to the House on 4 December last yean
For too long, defence administration has remained entangled in cumbrous procedures, working in an atmosphere which encourages division and contest, because of the fatal error sixteen years ago in not abolishing the single Service Departments as was recommended even then. The new organisation will be the basis for more direct participation by officers from the Navy, Army and Air Force in the business of planning capabilities on a Defence, rather than a single Service basis to satisfy the country’s strategic needs. I am confident that the concerns of individual Services will both be fully expressed and fully weighed in this new system. I am also confident that we will have a greater sense of joint endeavour, which is a prime objective.
I commend the Bill to the Senate.
Debate (on motion by Senator Withers) adjourned.
page 190
– I have received the following message from the House of Representatives:
The House of Representatives acquaints the Senate of the following Resolution which this day was agreed to by the House of Representatives.
That the resolution of this House of 1 August 1974 concerning the participation by the Australian Parliament in the Constitutional Convention be amended as follows:
1) Paragraphs ( 1) (b) and (2) (c) omit ‘The Australian Country Party’, substitute ‘The National Country Party of Australia’.
Paragraph (2)(b) omit ‘The Right Honourable B. M. Snedden, Q C.’, substitute ‘The Honourable J. M. Fraser’.
page 190
– During the debate in the Senate on the evening of Thursday, 10 June 1975, on the motion for the adjournment of the Senate, Senators Coleman and McLaren raised a number of matters relating to the administration of Parliament House. A reply to these questions that concerned the Department of the Senate was given on 12 June 1975, and I now circulate for the information of honourable senators a statement that covers the matters coming within the responsibility of the Joint House Department. With the concurrence of the Senate I shall have this statement incorporated in Hansard. (The document read as follows)-
In the insertion of this advertisement in the Canberra Times on Saturday, 7 June, 2 errors occurred. The first was the printing of the word ‘Expendience’ for the word ‘Experience’, one of a number of typographical mistakes the responsibility of the newspaper, but the second involving the omission of a paragraph in which the address was specified to which applications should be sent was one that occurred in the typing of the letter and which the Administrative Officer who signed it omitted to see.
Senator Coleman pointed out that the advertisement specified ‘Superannuation available after a qualifying period’ and doubted that this could be the case when a temporary appointment only was being contemplated, at least initially. It is a fact that superannuation benefits are available to temporary officers under certain conditions, one of which is that 3 years service must first be given. It was therefore quite in order to nominate this benefit in the advertisement referred to.
This employee was appointed initially in a part-time capacity in July of 1973 and remained in that office until October 1974 when a vacancy for a full-time appointment occurred. Mrs Rodda was promised that she would be advanced to act in this position immediately but that so as to not prejudice other attendants with equal or greater seniority her permanent appointment to it would not take place until action had also been taken to appoint these officers. The action referred to has now been completed and the documents to appoint Mr Rodda and some five other attendants to the permanent staff have been signed. Also in this same connection I can say that approval has also been given to increase the number of female attendants to allow the information desk in King’s Hall to be staffed on 7 days per week and until 10 p.m. on all sitting nights.
Senator Coleman pointed out that a ladies’ toilet off the King’s Hall had recently been closed due to certain maintenance work being carried out, and questioned why this should be done during sitting periods.
The work being carried out in this toilet was the repair of broken tiles and this was being done by tradesmen from the Department of Housing and Construction who without notice to the Principal Technical Officer of the Joint House Department arrived, went to the area and commenced the work. As a matter of general policy the Joint House Department asks all contractors and tradesmen who have work to execute in the building to report to the Principal Technical Officer before they commence work but the staff concerned failed to do so on this occasion. The Director of the Department of Housing and Construction has been informed of this episode and asked to instruct all his staff that it is essential to secure the Principal Technical Officers ‘s approval before any work is undertaken in this building.
The painting of the lower floor area was undertaken by House staff who first commenced painting in a bathroom area that is very infrequently used and which caused very little inconvenience. However, having completed this they decided while in the area to paint the adjacent female toilet which though it took only two half days caused some inconvenience and should not have been attempted.
The number of female toilets provided in the wings added to the building in recent years is considered to be adequate for the occupancy in these areas but this is not true of the main block where, in general, and on the main floor level in particular, facilities are inadequate. I have given thought to the suggestion made by Senator Coleman concerning the toilets at the rear of the Senate chamber and in order to alleviate the problem mentioned by the Senator I have given approval for one of the existing male toilets being converted for female usage.
In 1972 and 1973 representations were received from the Federated Miscellaneous Workers ‘ Union concerning hours of duty of attendant staff of the Joint House Department who are employed on guide duties and guard duties. The view put by the Union was that these officers should not be required to work 40 hours a week, but only 36% a week, which was said to be the hours that the House attendants work.
A number of discussions with the Union were held at which the points of difference between the relative positions of the Joint House attendants and House Department attendants were canvassed but these were suspended in mid 1973 to await the outcome of a case in which the Australian Public Service (Fourth Division) Officers’ Association moved to bring Parliamentary Attendants within the scope of Public Service Arbitrator’s Determination No. 10 of 1929. After protracted proceedings that lasted until 1974 the Public Service Arbitrator found that the Australian Public Service (Fourth Division) Officers ‘ Association had sole rights to represent Parliamentary attendants and since then negotiations on this question have been confined to that body.
The question of the hours of duty of Parliamentary Attendant staff has been the subject of discussion between all Parliamentary departments and the Union since last year and this culminated some few weeks ago in a decision by the Departments concerned to accept the proposal put by the Union that the hours of Parliamentary Attendant staff be changed to 40 hours a week in Session and 34!6 hours a week in recess. In the Joint House Department these hours are also to be applied to attendant staff as well as to other staff working sessional hours.
The necessary administrative action to give effect to this decision, which includes an amendment to the Public Service (Parliamentary Officers) Regulations, is now being processed.
In reply to question on notice No. 549, a list of administrative staff and their salaries was provided which Senators Coleman and McLaren considered should include some employees in the bars and dining rooms of the refreshment rooms.
It is true that some of the officers mentioned, particularly those in the refreshment rooms- that is, waitresses and bar attendants in making out dockets, cellarman and storeman in maintaining stock cards, etc.- have to perform, in the normal course of their duties, a certain amount of clerical work, but this is incidental to their main function on which basis their salary is fixed, and it does not qualify them to be regarded as administrative personnel.
In the past 20 years there has been a significant growth in functions and a corresponding increase in the staff employed by all Parliamentary departments and it is thought that the increase in the number of administrative personnel in the Joint House Department would be relatively no greater than has been the case elsewhere in the House.
Senator Coleman questioned the scale of issue of certain items of clothing issued to attendants, that applied in 1973, and asked how the allowance figures were arrived at.
The scale of issue applying to attendants in 1 973 of 3 shirts per annum and 1 pair of shoes, either on an annual or a biannual basis, was one agreed to as a standard by all Parliamentary departments. The amount of $5 per shirt was fixed having in mind prices then obtaining in Canberra, while the allowance for shoes, $8.75, was taken from a contract for the supply of footwear used by Public Service departments in relation to their uniformed staffs.
In the current year shirts are being obtained from the Australian Government Clothing Factory for an initial issue of 5 and replacement issues of 3 per annum to attendants, and no allowance is therefore being paid. The amount allowed for shoes has however been raised to cover the cost of a pair of Julius Marlow shoes at a retail price of $29.99.
Supervision of the area at the side of the building in which senators park their cars, is maintained by the Department of the Senate which has covered this matter in a separate report. Senate Hansard 12 June, 1975, page 2680. The report also furnishes information concerning the parking area at the rear of the House which has been the subject from time to time of proposals by both the House departments and the Joint House Department.
Senator Georges drew attention to the fact that many division lights in members’ toilets cannot be seen from the cubicles and asked whether they could be relocated in more convenient positions.
I have had the technical staff of the Joint House Department examine this suggestion and as it has been found to bc practicable and reasonable in cost to make the alterations suggested 1 authorised the work to be carried out and this was completed during the past recess.
Senate adjourned at 4.38 p.m.
page 192
The following answers to questions were circulated:
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Services and Property, upon notice:
In relation to the electoral maps submitted by various interested parties which were attached as appendices to Volume II of the Redistribution Papers for New South Wales and Victoria.
why were these not clearly identified on the maps themselves as to their origin;
b ) ho w many such maps were produced; and
what was the cost of the production of these maps.
– The Minister for Services and Property has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s questions:
In the case of New South Wales, it was considered that if an identification number, which coincided with the number given to the suggestion, comment or objection in Volume II of the Commissioners’ Report (and with the index on the map pocket) was printed on the map, this would be sufficient identification. Unfortunately, two of the New South Wales maps do not have this identification number, due to an oversight.
In the case of Victoria, each map was marked with a number (from 1 to 13) on the top centre front of each map when folded. On the cover of the map pocket (Appendix to Volume II) an index of the contents listed map numbers, the name of the person or party submitting the map or maps, and the submission numbers.
In the case of Victoria, 732 copies of each of the 13 maps were produced, totalling 9516 maps.
The difference in map production costs as between the two States is largely attributable to the production of the New South Wales maps in full-size and colour (utilising artists’ services) whereas the Victoria maps were produced in black and white and reduced in size.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Services and Property, upon notice:
– The Minister for Services and Property has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice:
How many pilots in general aviation are now out of work.
– The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
As you know, my Department is responsible only for the standards and issue of licences, and prescribes some working conditions for pilots. Apart from services offered by various industry organisations to their members, employment is arranged on a personal basis, pilots themselves contacting prospective employers.
Nevertheless, my Department keeps a close watch on prevailing conditions in the industry and receives regular reports from major general aviation organisations. The situation at present appears to be relatively favourable. For charter and flying training activities, unemployment appears to be fairly minimal, and largely related to seasonal conditions. There is high unemployment amongst aerial agricultural pilots and I will advise you separately on conditions in that sector, in response to other questions you have raised. Industry sources estimate that between one and two hundred pilots can be classed as unemployed.
However, the determination of the numbers out of work is complicated by the difficulties in establishing the number of active’ pilots. There are many people who, while holding appropriate licences, do not regard themselves as full time professional pilots, and do not seek employment as such. This is true for many fields, but is especially so for pilots where qualifications are sought for both recreational and professional activities.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Environment, upon notice:
– The Minister for Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Environment, upon notice:
Have orders been given for the preparation of environmental impact statements for the following Tasmanian Government and Local Government works being carried out, or proposed to be carried out, with the assistance of Australian Government money:
reconstruction, up-grading and resealing of the Bass Highway from the vicinity of Elizabeth Town to Latrobe;
cutting walking tracks in the Dial Range in the Penguin Municipality;
construction of the Burnie Expressway; and
up-grading of the northern section of the Murchison Highway; if so, what was the date in each case on which the necessary order was tabled in each House of the Australian Parliament, and the dates on which each notice was published in the Australian Government Gazette as required by Section 7 ( 1 ) of the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974.
– The reply to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:
Projects (a) and (b), on the information supplied at the time, were not considered to have significant environmental consequences.
Project (c) was not eligible for Australian Government funding under the National Roads Act provisions.
Project (d) was classified as a rural arterial road under the roads legislation, and in 1974-75 all such roads were processed by the State environmental authority due to the delays in the passing of the roads legislation and the late receival of the State’s road program.
Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 21 August 1975, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1975/19750821_senate_29_s65/>.