19590407_reps_23_hor22.xml

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<hansard xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation="../../hansard.xsd" version="2.1" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance">
  <session.header>
    <date>1959-04-07</date>
    <parliament.no>23</parliament.no>
    <session.no>1</session.no>
    <period.no>1</period.no>
    <chamber>REPS</chamber>
    <page.no>895</page.no>
    <proof>0</proof>
  </session.header>
  <chamber.xscript>
    <business.start>
      <day.start>1959-04-07</day.start>
      <para>
        <inline font-weight="bold">Mr.</inline>SPEAKER (Hon. John McLeay) took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers. </para>
    </business.start>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS</title>
        <page.no>895</page.no>
        <type>ministerial arrangements</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>895</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>N76</name.id>
            <electorate>KOOYONG, VICTORIA</electorate>
            <party>LP</party>
            <role>Prime Minister</role>
            <in.gov>1</in.gov>
            <first.speech>0</first.speech>
            <name role="metadata">MENZIES, Robert</name>
            <name role="display">Mr MENZIES</name>
          </talker>
          <para>-  I wish to inform the House that the Minister for Trade will be absent for about three weeks. During his absence the Minister for Defence will act as Minister for Trade. </para>
        </talk.start>
      </speech>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>895</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>UNEMPLOYMENT IN THE CESSNOCK AREA</title>
          <page.no>895</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>895</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>DTN</name.id>
              <electorate>HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">EVATT, Herbert Vere</name>
              <name role="display">Dr EVATT</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  I desire to ask the Minister for Labour and National Service a question in relation to the unemployment situation in the Cessnock district, based on information which I received only an hour ago, and which I now put to the Minister for inquiry. First, are there approximately 715 unemployed miners in Cessnock? Secondly, does the department administered by the honorable gentleman decline to give figures for unemployment in the district other than those relating to the unemployment of miners? It has been suggested that that is so, and I should like the Minister to look into the matter. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>895</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>009MA</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MCMAHON, William</name>
                <name role="display">Mr McMahon</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- You are referring to Cessnock only? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>895</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>DTN</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">EVATT, Herbert Vere</name>
                <name role="display">Dr EVATT</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Yes, I am dealing only with that district. The information on which I base my question comes from the member for that area in the New South Wales Parliament, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. G.</inline> Neilly, who asked me to bring this matter before the honorable gentleman&#39;s attention. Will the Minister consider visiting the district, perhaps in company with the State Minister for Mines, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Simpson,</inline> and looking into the position so that the facts of the unemployment situation there may be clarified and clearly expressed, and some action taken by the two governments, if necessary through the Joint Coal Board? I know that the prerogatives of other Ministers, such as the Minister for National Development, are involved, but I think that this matter also relates clearly to the jurisdiction of the Minister for Labour and National Service. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>895</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>009MA</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party>LP</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MCMAHON, William</name>
              <name role="display">Mr McMAHON</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- As to the first question, I think that the number of persons registered for employment in the Cessnock area is about the figure mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition. As to the second question, I do not think that what he has stated is correct. We will always give the numbers of registrants for employment, and if it is necessary, and if the right honorable gentleman requires it, on this occasion I will try to obtain not only the number of miners, but also the number of other people, who may be applicants for employment in the area. As to the third part of his question, I can assure the right honorable gentleman that it is practically a daily task for me to look at the problem of employment as a whole, and particularly insofar as it touches Cessnock and related areas. As I know the right honorable gentleman&#39;s personal interest in this matter I shall have a letter drafted for him setting out some of the things that have been done, particularly in connexion with the activities of the employment committees that have been established for the northern coalfields districts and which are under my jurisdiction. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>895</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>PUBLIC SERVICE</title>
          <page.no>895</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>895</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KEP</name.id>
              <electorate>FRANKLIN, TASMANIA</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">FALKINDER, Charles</name>
              <name role="display">Mr FALKINDER</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Prior to the recess I asked the Prime Minister whether he would consider discussing with the  Chairman  of the Public Service Board the question of certain dismissals of ex-servicemen from the Repatriation Department in Hobart. 1 believe that this position also obtains in other States. I ask the right honorable gentleman now: Has he had an opportunity yet to do so and, if so, has there been any result? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>895</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>N76</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party>LP</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MENZIES, Robert</name>
              <name role="display">Mr MENZIES</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  I am not at all sure that I have not to-day answered a question on notice about this matter, but, in case I have not, I will certainly have a statement made available to the honorable member to-morrow. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>895</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>LUNG CANCER</title>
          <page.no>895</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>895</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>2V4</name.id>
              <electorate>HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA</electorate>
              <party>ALP</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">CAMERON, Clyde</name>
              <name role="display">Mr CLYDE CAMERON</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  I preface my question, which is addressed to the Minister for Health, by reminding him that on 19th March, in a question on notice, I asked, whether the Repatriation Boards or the Repatriation Commission knew the cause of lung cancer and, if they did, whether they would say what it was. He gave an evasive reply, which was not an answer to the question I asked. I now ask him whether, as a medical man and as the Minister for Health, he knows the cause of lung cancer. Does he know of any other doctor in the world who knows the cause of lung cancer? If the Minister does know the cause, will he tell us what it is? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>896</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JU8</name.id>
              <electorate>OXLEY, QUEENSLAND</electorate>
              <party>LP</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">CAMERON, Donald Alastair</name>
              <name role="display">Dr DONALD CAMERON</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- The ultimate cause of lung cancer, or indeed of any other cancer, is not known. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>896</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>TIBET</title>
          <page.no>896</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>896</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>4U4</name.id>
              <electorate>MORETON, QUEENSLAND</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">KILLEN, James</name>
              <name role="display">Mr KILLEN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- My question is directed to the Minister acting for the Minister for External Affairs. Is any move contemplated to raise before the United Nations organization the recent tragic events in Tibet? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>896</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>126</name.id>
              <electorate>PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
              <party>LP</party>
              <role>Attorney-General</role>
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BARWICK, Garfield</name>
              <name role="display">Sir GARFIELD BARWICK</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- So far as this country is concerned, there is no present intention to do so. Of course, the events have indicated to us the expansionist tendencies of the Communist regime in China, and therefore will no doubt be of interest to contiguous Asian countries. However, Australia does not contemplate sending the matter to the United Nations. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>896</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>TRADE UNION BALLOTS</title>
          <page.no>896</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>896</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>EE4</name.id>
              <electorate>REID, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">UREN, Tom</name>
              <name role="display">Mr UREN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Has the Attorney-General&#39;s Department completed inquiries into allegations by members of the Ironworkers Association of irregularities by two officials of the South Coast branch of the union in what is known as a court-controlled ballot? If the inquiry has been completed, what action does the department propose to take? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>896</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>126</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party>LP</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BARWICK, Garfield</name>
              <name role="display">Sir GARFIELD BARWICK</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- The result of any such inquiry has not come before me. but I shall find out what the position is, and decide what shall be done when the inquiry is finished. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>896</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>DRIED FRUITS</title>
          <page.no>896</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>896</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KWP</name.id>
              <electorate>MALLEE, VICTORIA</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">TURNBULL, Winton</name>
              <name role="display">Mr TURNBULL</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I ask the Minister for Primary Industry whether he will accept my invitation to visit the Mallee electorate at an early date, especially the portion that produces 80 per cent, of Australia&#39;s dried vine fruits, so that he may secure at first hand information and knowledge of the desire and need for stabilization of the Australian dried vine fruits industry. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>896</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JLR</name.id>
              <electorate>FISHER, QUEENSLAND</electorate>
              <party>CP</party>
              <role>Minister for Primary Industry</role>
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">ADERMANN, Charles</name>
              <name role="display">Mr ADERMANN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I will be glad to accept the honorable member&#39;s invitation to visit this so important electorate and to have a look at so important an industry. I have already had some representations made to me regarding stabilization, but I would like to know the whole of the facts, and I will be pleased to make the visit. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>896</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>REPATRIATION</title>
          <page.no>896</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>896</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JSU</name.id>
              <electorate>WILLS, VICTORIA</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BRYANT, Gordon</name>
              <name role="display">Mr BRYANT</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  I direct a question to the Attorney-General. A few minutes ago, the Minister for Health, speaking as a doctor, said the cause of lung cancer was not known. Will the Attorney-General examine the provisions of the Repatriation Act and the decisions of the repatriation tribunals, in which they declare that lung cancer has not been caused by war service, to ascertain whether they are consistent with the provisions of the Repatriation Act? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>896</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>126</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party>LP</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BARWICK, Garfield</name>
              <name role="display">Sir GARFIELD BARWICK</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- The provisions of the Repatriation Act come before me from time to time, not in my capacity as Attorney-General but more as a member of the Parliament. If any specific case is referred to me by my colleagues or by any honorable member I shall look at it, but I cannot do so, as it were, in the abstract. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>896</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JSU</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">BRYANT, Gordon</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Bryant</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- How many will you look at? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>896</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>126</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">BARWICK, Garfield</name>
                <name role="display">Sir GARFIELD BARWICK</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- As many as you care to send me. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>896</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS WITH RUSSIA</title>
          <page.no>896</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>896</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>DB6</name.id>
              <electorate>MACKELLAR, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">WENTWORTH, William Charles</name>
              <name role="display">Mr WENTWORTH</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Is the Minister acting for the Minister for External Affairs in a position yet to give to the House a statement of the terms discussed between Australia and the Soviet Union for the reexchange of diplomatic representatives? What assurances have been given by the Soviet Union that there will be no repetition of the undesirable incidents which were associated with Russia&#39;s previous diplomatic representation in Australia? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>896</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>126</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party>LP</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BARWICK, Garfield</name>
              <name role="display">Sir GARFIELD BARWICK</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- This matter, of course, has been before me both as Minister acting for the Minister for External Affairs and to some extent as Attorney-General. However, as my colleague, the Minister for External Affairs, will be in the House next week, I rather think it better to leave it to him to make a statement, and I am sure he will do so. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>897</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>DOCUMENTARY FILMS</title>
          <page.no>897</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>897</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K97</name.id>
              <electorate>KINGSTON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">GALVIN, Patrick</name>
              <name role="display">Mr GALVIN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Will the Minister for the Interior inform the House under what terms cinema theatres show documentary films which have been produced by the Commonwealth Government? Is a fee paid to the Government? If so, is it considered adequate in view of the fact that often such documentary films, plus a news review, are the only support for a feature film although the public are expected to pay the usual high admission charges? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>897</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JXI</name.id>
              <electorate>FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA</electorate>
              <party>LP</party>
              <role>Minister for the Interior</role>
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">FREETH, Gordon</name>
              <name role="display">Mr FREETH</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I shall obtain full particulars for the honorable member and supply them to him. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>897</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>BEEF AND HIDES</title>
          <page.no>897</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>897</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>DQF</name.id>
              <electorate>BRUCE, VICTORIA</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">SNEDDEN, Billy</name>
              <name role="display">Mr SNEDDEN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I direct a question to the Minister for Primary Industry. Is it true that there is a greatly increased market for Australian beef in the United States of America and that the consequence of meeting this demand has been an increase in the cost of both meat and leather for Australian consumption? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>897</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JLR</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party>CP</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">ADERMANN, Charles</name>
              <name role="display">Mr ADERMANN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- It is true that there has been a greatly increased demand for certain types of beef in the United States of America and this demand is reflected in the increased price that is payable for boner beef cattle in Australia. That, in turn, is reflected in the prices charged for thirdgrade meat used in Australia for smallgoods. As to hides, there is a world shortage of the heavy type of leather which is required for bootmaking purposes. That is the reason for the increase in recent months in the price of such leather. It is not due to the export of meat to America. Rather, I think that the more animals we kill and export, the more hides will be available. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>897</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>SUPPLEMENTARY RENT PENSIONS</title>
          <page.no>897</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>897</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KVT</name.id>
              <electorate>PORT ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">THOMPSON, Albert</name>
              <name role="display">Mr THOMPSON</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Will the Minister for Social Services inform the House how much money has been involved in the payment of an extra amount of 10s. a week to certain pensioners who pay rent? Can the Minister inform the House what the total cost would be if that supplementary payment of 10s. were paid to all pensioners? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>897</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KZE</name.id>
              <electorate>RIVERINA, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
              <party>CP</party>
              <role>Minister for Social Services</role>
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">ROBERTON, Hugh</name>
              <name role="display">Mr ROBERTON</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I regret that I cannot say how much in the aggregate the supple mentary allowance is costing the Government in terms of cash payments, but I can tell the honorable member that more than 71,000 people have qualified, lt is very difficult to give an estimate of the cost of supplementary social service benefits of this kind because people qualify from time to time for the supplementary allowance and then cease to qualify because of a change in their circumstances. The number receiving the allowance changes from time to time, and the cost varies accordingly. The additional cost that would be incurred, if all the conditions at present imposed were waived, could be estimated by the honorable member himself, because I can tell him that every increase of one shilling in age pensions means an additional &#163;1,250,000 in aggregate cost. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>897</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>WOOL FUTURES SYSTEM</title>
          <page.no>897</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>897</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KFH</name.id>
              <electorate>BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">FORBES, Alexander</name>
              <name role="display">Mr FORBES</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Has the Minister for Primary Industry noted recent statements suggesting that the development of the wool futures market could alleviate the disadvantages occasioned by the chronic instability of wool prices? Will he have this suggestion carefully investigated, and, if on investigation it proves to have merit, will he consider what part the Government can play in encouraging its adoption? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>897</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JLR</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party>CP</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">ADERMANN, Charles</name>
              <name role="display">Mr ADERMANN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I have had submissions made to me to the effect that the use of the futures system would be an asset to wool marketing in Australia. However, there are differences of opinion with regard to this question, even within the industry itself. The matter is at present being examined, as are all other matters pertaining to the wool industry, but I will have a further look at the suggestion mentioned by the honorable member. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>897</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>KINGSFORD-SMITH ELECTORAL OFFICE</title>
          <page.no>897</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>897</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K8B</name.id>
              <electorate>KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">CURTIN, Daniel</name>
              <name role="display">Mr CURTIN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Will the Minister for the Interior consider arranging for extensions to the building now known as the KingsfordSmith electoral office? Is it a fact that this office has such a limited floor area that it is necessary to store stationery and office equipment, and also ballot-boxes, at the Army storehouses in Fitzgerald-avenue, Maroubra, some two miles away? Does the Minister think it is good economics to pay rent for storage space when a storeroom could be added to the existing structure at minimum cost? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>898</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JXI</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party>LP</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">FREETH, Gordon</name>
              <name role="display">Mr FREETH</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I am not aware of the conditions suggested by the honorable member, but I will have a look at the matter. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>898</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>MEANS TEST</title>
          <page.no>898</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>898</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KXZ</name.id>
              <electorate>SCULLIN, VICTORIA</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">PETERS, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Mr PETERS</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I address a question to the Minister for Social Services. Have the officers of the Department of Social Services carried out any recent investigations into the practicability of eliminating the means test as applied to age and invalid pensions received by pensioners of various ages? If they have not, would the Minister consider such investigations to be desirable, so that a report on the matter could be presented to this House? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>898</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KZE</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party>CP</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">ROBERTON, Hugh</name>
              <name role="display">Mr ROBERTON</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I can assure the honorable member for Scullin, and any other honorable member, that the question of the abolition of the means test, or the complementary variations in the means test, is constantly under consideration by the department. From day to day, and from week to week, the department carries out these investigations. If the honorable member for Scullin, or any other honorable member, cares to look at the record of the present Government, he will find that in every year, almost without exception, there have been instances of substantial liberalization of the means test, with respect to both income and property. I hope that that splendid process will continue and that the time can be approximated when the means test will be so arranged as to avoid any condition of injustice or hardship to the community. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>898</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>PAPUA AND NEW GUINEA</title>
          <page.no>898</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>898</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>BV8</name.id>
              <electorate>MELBOURNE, VICTORIA</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">CALWELL, Arthur</name>
              <name role="display">Mr CALWELL</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- In view of the fact that on 30th January the Minister for Territories received a deputation from residents of New Guinea protesting against the introduction of income taxation in that Territory, and in view of the fact that paid advertisements are appearing in to-day&#39;s press making protests against the introduction of any such scheme of taxation, will the Minister state the intentions of the Government in regard to this matter? I remind the Minister that he has stated  several times that a report on this matter has been in the hands of the Government since October, 1958. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>898</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>ZL6</name.id>
              <electorate>CURTIN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA</electorate>
              <party>LP</party>
              <role>Minister for Territories</role>
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">HASLUCK, Paul</name>
              <name role="display">Mr HASLUCK</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- As 1 have previously explained to this House, in accordance with a promise made to this House, a review of the revenues of the Territory was carried out. That review was tabled in the Legislative Council of the Territory last&#39; October and, after an adjournment, was debated at a meeting of the Legislative Council early in March. At the same time, a petition from certain residents of the Territory was presented to the Legislative Council. Both the petition and the verbatim report of the debate in the Legislative Council have been placed before the Government. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>I have also had the benefit, as the honorable member for Melbourne has indicated, of receiving a deputation from residents of the Territory and hearing their views at some length. All I can say at the present moment is that I am sure there is no aspect of the views and interests of the people in the Territory which has not been fully communicated to the Government and taken into consideration by the Government in its examination of this problem. The last word I would say in answer to the honorable member is that the responsibility for making a decision of this kind does rest with the Government and the Government has to face that responsibility. It is not a decision in respect of the introduction of taxation into the Territory, lt is a decision which, if taken, will solely affect the way in which revenues will be raised. It will not be a decision to introduce taxation for the first time. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>898</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>BV8</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">CALWELL, Arthur</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Calwell</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I did not say that. I said it was a question of the introduction of income taxation for the first time. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>898</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>ZL6</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">HASLUCK, Paul</name>
                <name role="display">Mr HASLUCK</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- The Government&#39;s decision, when arrived at, will be communicated to the Legislative Council by the Administrator of the Territory who is also the  president  of the Legislative Council. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>898</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>TOWNSVILLE TO MT. ISA RAILWAY</title>
          <page.no>898</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>898</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KDT</name.id>
              <electorate>FARRER, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">FAIRBAIRN, David</name>
              <name role="display">Mr FAIRBAIRN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I wish to ask the Prime Minister whether it is a fact that, some time ago, negotiations were entered into with the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development for a loan to rebuild the Townsville-Mt. Isa railway line. Can he inform me of the stage that these negotiations have reached? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>899</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>N76</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party>LP</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MENZIES, Robert</name>
              <name role="display">Mr MENZIES</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- There have been negotiations, at one time or another. They largely depend on negotiations which are not yet completed between the Government of Queensland and the <inline font-weight="bold">Mr Isa</inline> company. I do not think it would be helpful, on my part, to make any further statement than that these matters are by no means yet concluded. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>899</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>TELEPHONE SERVICES</title>
          <page.no>899</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>899</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KDA</name.id>
              <electorate>WILMOT, TASMANIA</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">DUTHIE, Gilbert</name>
              <name role="display">Mr DUTHIE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  I ask the PostmasterGeneral whether it is a fact that the Postal Department had a profit of about &#163;4,000,000 last year. In view of this position will the Government consider abolishing the &#163;10 installation fee for telephones which is such a heavy burden of extra cost to bear? If this is not contemplated at this moment will the Government consider abolishing this &#163;10 charge where it involves a mere transfer of a telephone from one residence to another? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>899</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KCA</name.id>
              <electorate>DAWSON, QUEENSLAND</electorate>
              <party>CP</party>
              <role>Postmaster-General</role>
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">DAVIDSON, Charles</name>
              <name role="display">Mr DAVIDSON</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- It is correct, as stated by the honorable member for Wilmot, that in the last financial year the Postal Department declared a profit of &#163;4,000,000. He asks whether, because of that, it would be possible to reduce or eliminate the fee of &#163;10 for the installation of a telephone. The reply is that it is not intended to do this. I remind the honorable member that when this fee was introduced it was pointed out that the average cost of installing telephones throughout Australia was about &#163;250. That cost has now risen to about &#163;300 per telephone. Therefore, a contribution by the subscriber of &#163;10 towards an initial capital expenditure by the Government of nearly &#163;300 is, I think, quite warranted. I point out also that the department obviously must obtain certain revenue because it operates on a business-like basis. Therefore, this amount of &#163;10 which is paid as an installation fee represents a contribution of more than &#163;1,000,000 a year to departmental revenue and a non-recurring capital contribution by subscribers towards revenue. If this fee were not imposed it would have to be charged in some other way and instead of being non-recurring it would have to be added each year to the subscriber&#39;s account. Therefore, I think that the charging of this &#163;10 installation fee is a very sound business procedure. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>899</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>BEEF AND HIDES</title>
          <page.no>899</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>899</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KVG</name.id>
              <electorate>MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">STOKES, Philip</name>
              <name role="display">Mr STOKES</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- My question to the Minister for Primary Industry is supplementary to that asked by the honorable member for Bruce. I ask the Minister: Is it a fact that the imposition of a ceiling limit on beef killing in the Argentine is the major cause for the present world shortage of hides which is causing a great overseas demand? Is the Minister aware that hide prices in Melbourne in certain categories have risen during the last six months from 42d. per lb. for heavy calf to 65d. per lb., and on 40-lb. hides from 15d. to 27d. per lb.? Is the Minister aware also that the retail price of footwear in Australia has shown a sharp increase during this period and that manufacturers are concerned with possible rationing of supplies to retailers? If so, will he see that some control is exercised to prevent shortages of hides on the home market? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>899</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JLR</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party>CP</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">ADERMANN, Charles</name>
              <name role="display">Mr ADERMANN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- In reply to the first part of the question, I suggest that the position in the Argentine might, in the present instance, have been caused by the ceiling price imposed by the Argentine Government, but in the first instance it was due to the over-selling of breeding cattle by that country which resulted in a shortage of supply. As a consequence of this action by that government the field was left open for other countries to come in and meet the demand, which the Argentine was no longer able to do. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>As to the shortage of hides and leather, this is a world condition and has not been caused by Australia in any way. If Australia has been able to sell more cattle, obviously there are more hides available in this country. But world competition on the Australian market has pushed up prices considerably. Without having given this matter much thought, I do not know that I would favour any form of control. </para>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>899</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>NATIONAL SERVICE</title>
          <page.no>899</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>899</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KYS</name.id>
              <electorate>BARTON, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">REYNOLDS, Leonard</name>
              <name role="display">Mr REYNOLDS</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I ask the Minister for the Army: Have requests been made to him by the New South Wales Teachers&#39; Federation from time to time to have teachers exempted from national service training? Is he aware that an average of 40 to 50 young teachers a year are still being called up? In view of the consequent disturbance of classes and the disruption of training of young teachers in the first year of their service, and in view of the fact that no teachers are available to relieve those who are called up, will the Minister give an assurance that in future teachers will be allowed to remain with their classes as a means of making their best contribution to the nation&#39;s defence? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>900</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K7J</name.id>
              <electorate>BENNELONG, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
              <party>LP</party>
              <role>Minister for the Army</role>
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">CRAMER, John</name>
              <name role="display">Mr CRAMER</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- 1 am aware of certain difficulties in respect of teachers, and I can assure the honorable member that very sympathetic consideration is given to each case. The honorable member will realize that the degree of probable hardship varies. The only teachers affected are those who have already done their initial training and are continuing to do their three weeks&#39; camps. Not all teachers are affected, but in cases where hardship is incurred very sympathetic consideration is given. In many instances their call-up has been deferred. I should be glad to hear of any particular case in which hardship has been occasioned. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>900</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>RICHARDSON COMMITTEE REPORT</title>
          <page.no>900</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>900</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KZP</name.id>
              <electorate>MITCHELL, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">WHEELER, Roy</name>
              <name role="display">Mr WHEELER</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I desire to ask the Prime Minister whether he has been correctly reported as saying, with respect to certain financial proposals now exercising the minds of members of this Parliament and the public generally, that as far as he is concerned it will be a takeitorleaveit deal. If the right honorable gentleman has made that statement, does he consider it may infringe certain rights of members of this House? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>900</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>N76</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party>LP</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MENZIES, Robert</name>
              <name role="display">Mr MENZIES</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I take it that the honorable member is referring to the Richardson report. If so. I just want to say that when Cabinet had examined the report I issued it, together with a statement indicating that the Government adopted it, on the night of Tuesday, 24th March, since when I have made no statement on the matter whatever. From time to time I have read in sections of the press statements which occasionally rise to the impudent level of inverted commas. They are all invented. The one and only statement that I made, I made on that Tuesday night. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>900</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>THE PARLIAMENT</title>
          <page.no>900</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <para>Standing Orders</para>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>900</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KID</name.id>
              <electorate>MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">LUCHETTI, Anthony</name>
              <name role="display">Mr LUCHETTI</name>
            </talker>
            <para>
              <inline font-weight="bold">- Mr. Speaker,</inline>my question is directed to you. Will you convene an early meeting of the Standing Orders Committee in order, first, to strengthen the control by Parliament of the Executive; secondly, whilst reserving democratic safeguards, to bring Standing Orders into line with modern requirements, free from archaic jargon and formality; thirdly, to tighten Standing Orders with respect to the reading of speeches, and to extend the time for debates on matters of urgency; and finally, to overhaul or review Standing Orders generally? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>900</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>10000</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">SPEAKER, Mr</name>
              <name role="display">Mr SPEAKER</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I will consider the requests that the honorable member has made to the Chair. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>900</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>SMOKING AND LUNG CANCER</title>
          <page.no>900</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>900</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KCS</name.id>
              <electorate>NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">DRUMMOND, David</name>
              <name role="display">Mr DRUMMOND</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I desire to ask the Minister for Health whether his attention has been drawn to apparently authoritative statements issued from time to time by doctors referring to cigarette smoking and the incidence of cancer. If the Minister has noted those statements, has he also noted that the authors of the statements recommend the use of pipes instead of the liberal smoking of cigarettes? If his attention has been directed to the latter statements, will he confer with the Minister for Primary Industry, the Minister for Trade, and such other Ministers as may be concerned, with a view to ensuring that the smoking public who wish to use pipe tobacco may see less of beautiful tins and more of beautiful pipe tobacco? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>900</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JU8</name.id>
              <electorate>OXLEY, QUEENSLAND</electorate>
              <party>LP</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">CAMERON, Donald Alastair</name>
              <name role="display">Dr DONALD CAMERON</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I am. in genera! terms, familiar with all the statements to which the honorable gentleman refers. This question of cigarette tobacco and pipe tobacco - indeed the whole question of any deleterious effects that may be caused by smoking - has been extensively examined by my department. Conferences have taken place with the Department of </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para class="block">Primary Industry and with other appropriate organs of the Government. However, no definite answer can be given to such a question without a great deal more experience of the clinical results consequent on smoking. Only a long-term examination will supply the final answer. My department at the present time is taking steps to arrive at that answer, but as I have said, it will be a long time before a really appropriate answer can be given to these questions. </para>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>901</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>FOOTSCRAY POST OFFICE</title>
          <page.no>901</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>901</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KRK</name.id>
              <electorate>GELLIBRAND, VICTORIA</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MCIVOR, Hector</name>
              <name role="display">Mr McIVOR</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  I direct a question to the Postmaster-General. I preface it by drawing the Minister&#39;s attention to the fact that the Footscray Post Office, in my electorate, has served that district for, most probably, half a century. The city of Footscray now has a population of 66,000 people. Will the Postmaster-General examine the possibility of building a new post office at Footscray, or of building other post offices throughout the district, particularly in the Kingsville area, to serve the needs of the city adequately? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>901</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KCA</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party>CP</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">DAVIDSON, Charles</name>
              <name role="display">Mr DAVIDSON</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  I am not immediately aware cf the position referred to by the honorable member, but I can assure him that the department is constantly reviewing conditions and post offices throughout Australia and doing its best to ensure that a proper service is provided for the people. I shall have the matter that he raises looked into and advise him of the actual position at Footscray. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>901</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>NUCLEAR WARFARE</title>
          <page.no>901</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>901</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JWK</name.id>
              <electorate>STIRLING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">CASH, Earl</name>
              <name role="display">Mr CASH</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  My question is directed to the Prime Minister. I preface it by referring to a very recent statement by the British Prime Minister. Speaking of nuclear war, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Macmillan</inline> said, &#34; Britain would be indefensible against hydrogen bombs. Imagine my position, having to go to the Queen seeking permission to evacuate her subjects to the Commonwealth &#34;. I therefore ask the Prime Minister whether he will, as I suggested in my maiden speech in this House, give consideration to the possibility of such an evacuation, and whether he will, when in Great Britain, confer with <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Macmillan</inline> on this important matter. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>901</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>N76</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party>LP</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MENZIES, Robert</name>
              <name role="display">Mr MENZIES</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  I am not aware of the statement that is referred to by the honorable member, but I would concede that the problem of evacuating 6,000,000, 8,000,000, or 10,000,000 people from one country to another would be no small operation. However, all aspects of the possibilities of nuclear war are constantly under examination, both in Great Britain and here. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>901</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>CANBERRA POLICE FORCE</title>
          <page.no>901</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>901</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JWX</name.id>
              <electorate></electorate>
              <party>ALP</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">FRASER, Jim</name>
              <name role="display">Mr J R FRASER</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I ask the Minister for the Interior: Will he have inquiries made to ascertain whether the numerical strength of the Australian Capital Territory Police Force is adequate for the policing of this growing city? If his inquiries reveal that the numbers are inadequate, will he consider either increased recruitment for that force or the passing of some police duties to other officers of the Department of the Interior? In particular, will the Minister ascertain whether the police officers detailed to traffic control and road safety duties are adequate in numbers to handle that important branch of police work? Is there still, in fact, a traffic branch within the Australian Capital  Territory  Police Force? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>901</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JXI</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party>LP</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">FREETH, Gordon</name>
              <name role="display">Mr FREETH</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- This matter is actively under consideration at the present moment. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>901</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>CATTLE</title>
          <page.no>901</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>901</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KWP</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">TURNBULL, Winton</name>
              <name role="display">Mr TURNBULL</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- My question is addressed to the Minister for Primary Industry. Has the Minister received any indication that even cattle that would normally be described as good stores are being slaughtered to meet the unprecedented demand, at high prices, for Australian beef for export? If this is so, and if these good stores include types usually held for breeding, will the Minister do all in his power to discourage such action? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>901</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JLR</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party>CP</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">ADERMANN, Charles</name>
              <name role="display">Mr ADERMANN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  There is some substance in what the honorable member has stated in his question. It is somewhat of a shame for the future of the cattle industry to see certain breeders being sold to the killing yards, and I have already publicly warned the cattle industry against selling breeders which should be retained if they desire to protect their industry. I have noticed from press reports, too, that &#39; leaders of the cattle industry also have given similar advice, and I hope that the cattlemen of this country will take notice. If they do not, we shall be in the same position as the Argentine and even New Zealand are in. The other day, I asked the New Zealand Minister of Industries and Commerce how boner meat for export from New Zealand to the United States of America was going. He said, &#34; We have none. We have over-sold.&#34; Then he elaborated and said that that may have been an exaggerated statement. Even so. according to his statement to me, New Zealand is to-day in the same position as is the Argentine, and I hope that Australia will wake up in time and protect its cattle industry. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>902</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>PUBLIC SERVICE</title>
          <page.no>902</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>902</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KFG</name.id>
              <electorate>SHORTLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">GRIFFITHS, Charles</name>
              <name role="display">Mr GRIFFITHS</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I direct my question to the Prime Minister. Do the Public Service Regulations provide for the retrenchment of permanent female officers if they marry? If so, does dismissal take place immediately or at a date suitable to the Public Service Board? Are married women later re-employed in the Public Service? If so, can the right honorable gentleman say why they are dismissed in the first place? Are married women dismissed in order to deprive them of furlough should they not have eight years&#39; unbroken service, or fifteen years&#39; service in all, when they later resign for domestic reasons? Will the Prime Minister have inquiries made in order to ascertain why the Public Service Board recently dismissed an officer 21 months after her marriage, and then reemployed her fifteen weeks later only to deprive her of furlough some 4&#163; years afterwards, after a total service of more than twelve years, when she was compelled to resign because she was expecting a child? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>902</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>N76</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party>LP</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MENZIES, Robert</name>
              <name role="display">Mr MENZIES</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I dare say that my friend does not expect me to carry all these facts in my mind. But I will certainly bc very happy to inquire into them and to give him all the information that he wants. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>902</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO WESTERN AUSTRALIA</title>
          <page.no>902</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>902</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JYO</name.id>
              <electorate>SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">CLEAVER, Richard</name>
              <name role="display">Mr CLEAVER</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. As an election has been held in Western Australia since the House last met and a significant change of government has taken place, will the right honorable gentleman review any outstanding Western Australian developmental projects at present waiting on Commonwealth approval, and will he also give sympathetic consideration to any reasonable request for financial assistance which may come forward from the new Premier of Western Australia, in order to help stabilize the economy of the western State? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>902</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>N76</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party>LP</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MENZIES, Robert</name>
              <name role="display">Mr MENZIES</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Any requests that came forward from Western Australia through the former Premier always received the most careful consideration by my Government and by myself. We will continue that treatment in the case of the new government. I would not like to have it thought that, in dealing with the merits of any application by a State, we have any discriminating test. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>902</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>JAPANESE FISHING IN AUSTRALIAN WATERS</title>
          <page.no>902</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>902</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>EE4</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">UREN, Tom</name>
              <name role="display">Mr UREN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I desire to ask the Prime Minister a question. Is the right honorable gentleman aware that Australians employed in the fishing industry in Queensland and northern New South Wales are very much concerned about Japanese fishing vessels operating in waters which have been recognized as Australian waters? Will he give the House an assurance that he will negotiate with the Japanese Government with a view to stopping this practice which, if it were allowed to continue, could have very adverse effects on the livelihood of many Australians engaged in this industry? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>902</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>N76</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party>LP</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MENZIES, Robert</name>
              <name role="display">Mr MENZIES</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I will refer the matter to the Ministers who deal with it - there are at least two concerned in that kind of problem - so that the honorable member may be advised. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>PARLIAMENTARY SALARIES AND ALLOWANCES</title>
        <page.no>902</page.no>
        <type>miscellaneous</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>902</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>N76</name.id>
            <electorate />
            <party>LP</party>
            <role />
            <in.gov>1</in.gov>
            <first.speech>0</first.speech>
            <name role="metadata">MENZIES, Robert</name>
            <name role="display">Mr MENZIES</name>
          </talker>
          <para>- I lay on the table the following paper: - </para>
        </talk.start>
        <quote>
          <para>Parliament of the Commonwealth - Salaries and Allowances of Members - Report of Committee of Inquiry (1959). </para>
        </quote>
      </speech>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>EXPORT PAYMENTS INSURANCE CORPORATION BILL 1959</title>
        <page.no>902</page.no>
        <type>bill</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <para>Bill returned from the Senate without amendment. </para>
      <para>Assent reported. </para>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>903</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES</title>
          <page.no>903</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>903</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>4U4</name.id>
              <electorate>Moreton</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">KILLEN, James</name>
              <name role="display">Mr KILLEN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- by leave - I wish to make a very brief statement concerning my membership of the Committee of Privileges. I ask leave of the House to withdraw from the Committee of Privileges during its hearing of the summons involving one John Somerville Smith. I hope, <inline font-weight="bold">Sir, that</inline> it will be clearly understood that in deciding to do this I have not been in any way influenced by anything that has been said in this House by any honorable gentleman. I also hope it will be clearly understood that my decision has in no way been influenced by any reckless requisition that has been served on this Parliament by any person outside. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>The truth of the matter is that on 9th May last year I referred in this chamber to what I believed to be improper conduct on the part of John Somerville Smith. Even though there may be no logical connexion between that matter and the issue which gave rise to the present dispute, there may be some people who, understandably, would believe I was prejudiced. </para>
          <para>
            <inline font-weight="bold">Sir, I</inline>have no ambition to hinder the proceedings of the Committee of Privileges in this matter; neither have I any wish to injure the integrity of this institution. For this reason I make the request that I have made. </para>
          <para>Motion (by <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Harold</inline> Holt) - by leave - agreed to - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>That during the consideration of the matter referred to the Committee of Privileges on 18th March, 1959, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Killen</inline> be discharged from attendance on the committee and <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Joske</inline> be appointed to serve in his place. </para>
          </quote>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>CIVIL AVIATION (CARRIERS&#39; LIABILITY) BILL 1959</title>
        <page.no>903</page.no>
        <type>bill</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <para>Bill received from the Senate, and (on motion by <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Townley)</inline> read a first time. </para>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Second Reading</title>
          <page.no>903</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>903</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KWH</name.id>
              <electorate>Denison</electorate>
              <party>LP</party>
              <role>Minister for Defence</role>
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">TOWNLEY, Athol</name>
              <name role="display">Mr TOWNLEY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - by leave - I move - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <quote>
            <para>That the bill be now read a second time. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">This bill has three main purposes. Part II. of the bill contains provisions which approve ratification and give effect to the Hague Protocol amending the Warsaw Convention. Part III. repeals the Carriage by Air Act 1935 which gives effect to the Warsaw Convention and makes appropriate provision for continuing to give effect to that convention during an interim period prior to its denunciation and the coming into force of the amended convention. Finally, Part IV. extends the principles of the amended convention to all domestic carriage by air within Federal competence but with certain modifications which are considered more appropriate for domestic purposes which I will outline at a later stage. </para>
          <para>The Warsaw Convention of 1929 establishes uniform international rules which govern the liability of international air carriers to passengers in respect of death or injury and loss of baggage and also to consignors of cargo. The convention applies to all international carriage of persons, baggage and cargo performed by aircraft for reward, and applies also to gratuitous carriage by air performed by an air transport undertaking. To dale, 46 countries have become parties to the Warsaw Convention, including all States which have any claim to significance in international air transport. Australia has been a party since 1935, and at present gives effect to the provisions of the convention in the Carriage by Air Act 1935, to which the convention is annexed as a schedule. </para>
          <para>The Hague Protocol to amend the Warsaw Convention was adopted unanimously by representatives of 44 States, including Australia, at a conference held at The Hague in September, 1955. The protocol will come into force as soon as it is ratified by 30 signatory States, and present indications are that most, if not all, of the parties to the original convention will, in due course, ratify the protocol. Australia signed the protocol during 1956. </para>
          <para>Until the protocol comes into force Australia will, of course, remain bound by the Warsaw Convention. It is also possible that it might wish to continue to be a party to the unamended Warsaw Convention in its relations with States which delay or fail to ratify the protocol after it has come into force. Australia&#39;s international airline, Qantas, currently operates through 26 countries, all of which are parties to the Warsaw Convention. From the practical point of view it would not be desirable to denounce the Warsaw Convention while any </para>
          <para class="block">State with which we have major air communications has not ratified the protocol. The bill, therefore, makes provision for this contingency. </para>
          <para>Clause 4 of the bill repeals the Carriage by Air Act 1935 and Part III. of the bill provides that the provisions of the old Warsaw Convention will continue to apply until a date to be fixed by proclamation. In effect Part HI- of this bill serves the same purpose as the old Carriage by Air Act 1935. This method has been adopted because it would have been necessary to make quite substantial amendments to the Carriage by Air Act 1935 in order to take into account legal developments since 1935 relating to such matters as contributory negligence and wrongful death actions, and also because it is clearly more convenient to have all aspects of carriers&#39; liability grouped together in a single act. </para>
          <para>I turn now to outline the changes made by the Hague Protocol. In the first place it makes a substantial number of desirable amendments to the Warsaw Convention, including several proposed by the Commonwealth, designed to resolve the legal difficulties which have been encountered during more than 25 years&#39; experience under the old convention and simplify outmoded provisions which no longer accord with current practices relating to such matters as the issue of passenger tickets, baggage checks and air waybills. From the practical aspect, the most important effect of the protocol will be to double the limit of liability of the carrier for death or personal injury by increasing the figure from &#163;3,700 to approximately &#163;7,400 per passenger. </para>
          <para>The texts of the Warsaw Convention and the Hague Protocol are attached as schedules to the bill, and it will be readily apparent that they are essentially technical legal documents. It may, nevertheless, be appropriate at this point to invite attention to some of the main provisions. </para>
          <para>Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention, which is not amended by the protocol, provides that the carrier is liable for damage sustained in the event of death or bodily injury suffered by a passenger if the accident which caused the damage took place on board the aircraft or in the course of any of the operations of embarking or disembarking. It will be noted that this is a very strict rule of liability, and apart from a narrow defence available to the operator under Article 20, it is akin to a system of absolute liability. </para>
          <para>Article 20 provides that the carrier is not liable if he proves that he and his agents have taken all necessary measures to avoid the damage, or that it was impossible for him or them to take such measures. The onus of proof is on the carrier and it is certainly a very narrow defence since, in most foreseeable cases, if the carrier &#34; takes all necessary measures to avoid the damage &#34;, the accident would not have occurred. However, for reasons which I will indicate later, it is proposed to deprive the operators of domestic services of even this narrow defence. </para>
          <para>Article 21 provides that, if the carrier proves that the damage was caused by or contributed to by the negligence of the injured person, the court may exonerate the carrier wholly or partly from his liability. Clause 16 of the bill gives effect to this article, lt provides that the court shall first determine the damages that would have been recoverable if there were no limit and there had been no negligence on the part of the passenger or consignor. The damages so determined are then reduced to such extent as the court thinks just and equitable, having regard to the share of the passenger or consignor in the responsibility for the damage. The most likely case of contributory negligence would be where a passenger fails to fasten his safety belt during turbulent conditions. </para>
          <para>Article 25 of the old convention provides that the carrier may not avail himself of the limit of liability if the damage is caused by his wilful misconduct or the wilful misconduct of a servant or agent acting within the scope of his employment. This article has for long been considered the most unsatisfactory provision in the convention and has led to protracted litigation in a number of countries with courts giving widely differing interpretation to the language of the official French text, lt is not surprising, therefore, that the Hague conference devoted much time to revision of Article 25. The protocol substitutes a new Article 25 which provides that the limits of liability shall not apply if it is proved that the damage resulted from an act or omission of the carrier, his servants or agents done with intent to cause damage or recklessly and with knowledge that damage would probably result, provided that in the case of such act or omission of a servant or agent it is also proved that he was acting within the scope of his employment. As the convention is based on a system of strict limited liability, it is rather surprising to find a provision of this nature so clearly out of harmony with the general policy of the convention. However, it will be appreciated that an international convention on this sort of subjectmatter necessarily involves compromises between many different legal systems. The history of this provision shows that it is a concession to states which were reluctant to depart entirely from a system based on fault. In giving the convention the force of law with respect to international carriage it is, of course, necessary to adopt all its provisions. However, when adapting the convention rules to domestic carriage, we are fortunately free to discard provisions based on this type of compromise between different legal systems, and in this case it is proposed to do so. </para>
          <para>Article 25a, inserted by the Hague Protocol, provides that if an action is brought against a servant or agent of the carrier, such servant or agent, if he proves that he was acting in the course of his employment, shall be entitled to avail himself of the limit of liability (&#163;7,400) and the aggregate of the amounts recoverable from the carrier and his servants or agents shall not exceed that limit. The reason for this provision is that, if an action were brought against a servant of the carrier and damages recovered in excess of the convention limit, the carrier would usually, under the contract of employment, have to indemnify his servant. This would present a ready means of defeating the convention limits of liability. The limits for baggage and cargo remain unchanged at 250 Poincar&#233; f francs (approximately &#163;7) per kilogram (2.2 lb.). The provisions of the Warsaw Convention and the protocol apply to all carriage performed by aircraft for reward and also apply to gratuitous carriage on a public transport service. </para>
          <para>Part IV. of the bill will apply the international rules, with certain modifications to domestic airline operators except when they are engaged in purely intra-state carriage, which is, of course, a matter for the States. Before outlining the proposed modifications, 1 will briefly describe the present law and practices governing the liability of domestic carriers to passengers and consignors. </para>
          <para>At the present time, domestic airlines are free to contract out of liability in respect of damage suffered by passengers and consignors of goods even if such damage is the result of serious acts of negligence of the carrier or his servants or agents. All domestic airlines, except Trans-Australia Airlines, do in fact insert a provision in their tickets contracting out of liability, although most regular public transport airlines now voluntarily take out insurance policies on behalf of their passengers; usually, however, for a sum of only &#163;2,000 in respect of death and varying amounts for injury. T.A.A., for example, now voluntarily insures passengers for &#163;1.000 for the loss of each eye or limb, with a maximum of &#163;2,000, and in all other cases of permanent or temporary injury for &#163;20 per week for a maximum of 100 weeks, a total of &#163;2,000. Ansett-A.N.A. insures for similar amounts. </para>
          <para>As recently as 1955, the full Supreme Court of Queensland held, in an action against one regular public transport operator in respect of the death of a passenger, that a standard provision endorsed on the ticket similar to that used by most domestic carriers was effective to bar any recovery by the dependants, even if the serious acts of negligence which were alleged in the case were fully established. This is a most unsatisfactory situation which can only be remedied by legislation. It is interesting to note that action was taken in 1952 by the United Kingdom,, where a similar situation existed, to apply the principles of the Warsaw Convention to domestic aviation, with necessary modifications, by the Carriage by Air (Non-International Carriage) Order 1952. </para>
          <para>The most important objective in applying the principles of the convention to domestic aviation is to deprive the domestic carriers of their present right to contract out of al! liability for damage howsoever caused, and to make them liable for proven damages up to &#163;7,500. Clause 32 of the bill provides that any contract attempting to fix a lower limit is null and void. It should also be noted that clause 31 contemplates that the carrier. may contract for a higher limit than &#163;7,500. The proposed limit of &#163;7,500 is approximately the same as the international figure which, when converted into Austalian currency, is &#163;7,400. The figure of &#163;.7,500 has not been selected solely for this reason. Detailed study has indicated that the figure of &#163;7,500 represents the coverage required by the average air traveller. If a higher limit were adopted, the cost of the extra insurance would, in the last resort, be borne mainly by passengers who would be unlikely to be able to prove more than &#163;7,500 damages for the benefit of a minority who were able to prove greater damage. There are adequate facilities for passengers in this latter group to obtain additional coverage at a cost of 2s. per &#163;1,000 for any specified flight or for any period of 24 hours. </para>
          <para>Part IV. of the bill, in applying the convention rules to domestic carriage, makes two important modifications of those rules. Off the one hand, the domestic carrier is not given a defence if he proves that he has&#39; taken all possible measures to avoid the damage and, on the other hand, the carrier is not deprived of the limit if the damage results from an act or omission done with intent to cause damage or recklessly and with knowledge that damage would probably result. I have already indicated that the two corresponding provisions in the international convention appear to have been included as concessions to states preferring a system based on fault. The advantage of omitting these exceptions is to introduce complete certainty so that the carrier knows in advance the extent to which he must insure and the passenger knows how much insurance over and above &#163;7,500, if any, he should take out to meet his particular circumstances and family obligations. The modifications to the international rules also remove the possibility of expensive and uncertain litigation, on the one hand by the carrier, to avoid all liability, and on the other by the passenger, to break the limits of the carrier&#39;s liability. In light of the insurance data which I have just furnished, it is considered that the modifications will establish a more satisfactory solution for domestic purposes. </para>
          <para>The convention is completely silent on the matters to be taken into account in assessing damages resulting from death or injury, so that the assessment of damages is governed by domestic law. In Australia the basic common law principle is that damages with respect to death are restricted to net pecuniary loss, but this narrow approach has been modified in various ways by different States, with the result that there is no uniform approach to the question. The bill deals with two aspects of the problem and in both cases the provisions are likely to ensure greater recovery by claimants. Firstly, sub-clause (8.) of clause 35 provides that in awarding damages the court or jury is not limited to the financial loss resulting from the death of the passenger. This clause makes it clear that a court in assessing damages is free to include compensation for matter not involving direct pecuniary loss, such as loss of consortium where a wife is killed, or, in the case of a claim on behalf of infants, addition;! compensation for loss of a parent&#39;s care and guidance. Secondly, clause 38 provides that in assessing damages there shall not be taken into account by way of reduction of damages - </para>
          <list type="loweralpha">
            <item label="(a)">
              <para>a sum payable on death or injury under a contract of insurance; </para>
            </item>
            <item label="(b)">
              <para>a sum payable out of superannua tion, provident or like fund or by way of benefit from a friendly society, benefit society or trade union; and </para>
            </item>
            <item label="(c)">
              <para>a premium that would have become payable under a contract of insurance but for the death. </para>
            </item>
          </list>
          <para class="block">In the absence of these provisions the courts might take these items into account so as to reduce the measure of damages. </para>
          <para>In the course of the debate in another place there was considerable discussion as to whether social services and repatriation benefits and certain benefits in the nature of inheritance should not be similarly treated. The Minister indicated that these matters would receive further consideration and it is now proposed at the appropriate stage to move amendments which will deal with both matters. The amendments will provide that in appropriate circumstances pensions, social service benefits or repatriation benefits shall not be taken into account. Similarly, when a dependant inherits, as the result of a passenger&#39;s death, an interest in real or leasehold property in which he ordinarily resided, this benefit will not be taken into account in assessing damages. </para>
          <para>I have just indicated that the liability of the Australian National Airlines Commission is limited at present to &#163;2,000 in respect of claims arising out of death or injury. In a separate bill amending the Airlines Act, it is proposed to increase the commission&#39;s liability to &#163;7,500 and to make the commission subject in all respects to the proposed Civil Aviation (Carriers&#39; Liability) Act. </para>
          <para>The bill also contains detailed provisions regulating the domestic carriers&#39; liability with respect to loss or destruction of passengers&#39; baggage. Clause 29 imposes liability on. the carrier for loss or damage to the passenger&#39;s baggage which occurs during carriage by air, and draws a distinction between baggage remaining in the passenger&#39;s . possession and registered baggage. The carrier is liable in the first case only for damage which occurs between embarkation and disembarkation. In the case of registered baggage, the liability continues while it remains in the custody of the carrier, but not longer than twelve hours after the baggage is made available for collection by the passenger in accordance with the ticket. This is because it would be unjust to impose on the carrier a stricter liability than that of a bailee for reward where baggage remains in the carrier&#39;s custody merely because the passenger failed to take delivery within a reasonable time. In respect of all types of baggage the carrier has the same defence as international operators, namely, that all necessary measures were taken to avoid the loss or damage or that it was impossible to take such measures. In the case of baggage remaining in the passenger&#39;s possession sub-clause (4.) of clause 29 raises a presumption of negligence on the part of the passenger. </para>
          <para>Sub-clause (5.) provides that where registered baggage is lost, damaged or destroyed during carriage by successive carriers, all carriers - other than a carrier who proves that the baggage was not in his possession at the relevant time - are jointly and severally liable. This is designed to protect a passenger who cannot establish which of two or more successive carriers was responsible for the loss, damage or destruction. </para>
          <para>Clause 30 provides thai receipt ot registered baggage by the person entitled, without complaint, is evidence that the baggage was undamaged and various periods are prescribed within which a complaint must be made depending on whether the baggage is registered or not and whether the complaint refers to damage or total loss. </para>
          <para>Under Clause 31 the carrier&#39;s liability in respect of a passenger&#39;s baggage is limited to &#163;100, and there is a further sub-limit of &#163;10 in respect of baggage remaining in the passenger&#39;s possession. </para>
          <para>Clause 40 authorizes regulations relating to passenger tickets and baggage checks, including regulations depriving the carrier of the benefit of limited liability if the ticket or baggage check does not include prescribed matters. The object of the reguolations will be to ensure that the passenger ticket is endorsed with sufficient particulars for the passenger to be aware that the carrier&#39;s liability is limited. There are similar provisions in the international rules. The bill does not contain detailed rules  regulating the domestic carriers&#39; liability to consignors of cargo, but clause 41 authorizes regulations applying, with such exceptions, adaptations and modifications as are prescribed, the provisions of the bill to the carriage of cargo. There is no immediate intention to make regulations dealing with cargo, since the relations of consignors and consignees appear at present to be satisfactorily regulated by contract. The power is necessary in case a need to regulate some aspect of the carriage of cargo should arise. </para>
          <para>It was pointed out in another place thai the clause as drafted would authorize regulations prescribing lower limits of liability with respect to cargo than the limits fixed under the convention. The Minister agreed to arrange for this matter to be further examined and at the appropriate time I will propose an amendment to clause 41 of the bill which will ensure that any limits prescribed by regulation shall not be lower than those contained in the convention and the protocol. </para>
          <para>There are a number of important legal provisions in the bill relating to such matters as contributory negligence, jurisdiction of the High Court and the classes of persons - dependants - who may claim in respect of the death of a passenger. These provisions relate to highly technical legal matters which can be more appropriately examined in committee. </para>
          <para>I have indicated that the legislation will not extend to intra-state carriage by air since this is not a matter within the competence of the Commonwealth Parliament. It is, however, very desirable to have uniform rules applying to all classes of domestic carriage especially as the one aircraft may frequently carry passengers in the course of intra-state and interstate journeys. In the long run, uniform rules may be achieved by a number of methods. Apart from an appropriate constitutional amendment the States may refer the matter to the Commonwealth, enact legislation in similar terms or simply adopt the Commonwealth legislation as State law in the same way as the uniform State Air Navigation Acts adopt the Commonwealth Air Navigation Regulations. It is proposed at the first opportunity to explore with State authorities all these methods of achieving uniform rules. </para>
          <para>It is considered that the proposed legislation will ensure a fair balance between the interests of the carrier and the interests of the users of air transport. It will take away the common law right of the carrier to contract out of liability and make him liable in accordance with rules which are substantially more severe than rules applying to any other form of transport. </para>
          <para>In place of a voluntary system, which can be varied at the will of the operator, providing for &#163;2,000 automatic recovery, it substitutes a system of absolute liability under which passengers or their dependants have a right to recover all damage they suffer up to the limit of &#163;7,500 without having to prove that the operator has been negligent. Assuming aviation insurance rates which are currently very sensitive, remain constant, the domestic air transport industry will, as a result of this bill, be required to pay about &#163;110,000 annually in insurance premiums compared with only &#163;42,000 under the present voluntary system. </para>
          <para>On the international side, the protocol will both simplify and improve the international rules relating to carriage by air and, in particular, will double the amount which international passengers may recover for death or injury. </para>
          <para>I commend the bill to the House. </para>
          <para>Debate (on motion by <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Whitlani)</inline> adjourned. </para>
          <para>AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL AIRLINES BILL 1959. </para>
          <para>Bill received from the Senate, and (on motion by <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Townley)</inline> read a first time. </para>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Second Reading</title>
          <page.no>908</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>908</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KWH</name.id>
              <electorate>Denison</electorate>
              <party>LP</party>
              <role>Minister for Defence</role>
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">TOWNLEY, Athol</name>
              <name role="display">Mr TOWNLEY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. -  by leave  - I  move - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <quote>
            <para>That the bill be now read a second time. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">The primary purpose of the Australian National Airlines Bill 1959 is to amend numerous outmoded provisions of the Australian National Airlines Act 1945-1958 and to make certain changes in the constitution and responsibilities of the Australian National Airlines Commission which recognize its role as a commercial undertaking in direct competition with private enterprise. This is the first time the act has been reviewed for this purpose since the establishment of the commission in 1945. It is not surprising, therefore, that many of the existing provisions of the act no longer accord with current practice in relation to Commonwealth authorities. </para>
          <para>Wherever appropriate, the provisions of the act will be brought into line with more recent legislation relating to Government instrumentalities, for example, the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission Act 1956, the Atomic Energy Act 1958, and the Overseas Telecommunications Act 1958. In addition, there are important amendments consequential on the proposed legislation relating to air carriers&#39; liability to passengers, and amendments repealing those original sections of the act which were designed to give the commission a monopoly with respect to certain classes of air services. A number of minor consequential amendments, for example, to the definitions section, require no comment. </para>
          <para>Turning now to the detailed provisions of the bill, I will deal firstly with amendments affecting the constitution and functioning of the commission. The present act provides that the commission shall consist of five commissioners, three constituting a quorum. The bill increases the number of commissioners to six, but three commissioners will still form a quorum. An increase in the size of the commission is justified since experience has shown that in the event of serious illness, or absence of two commissioners at the one time, the commission is reduced to a bare quorum with the result that the responsibility of the remaining commissioners is very onerous. </para>
          <para>The act provides that the initial appointment of commissioners will be for different periods ranging from five years to two years, and that subsequent appointments will be for a period of three years. The object of this provision was to ensure continuity of administration by providing a system under which not more than two vacancies were likely to occur in any one year. However, in practice, it has been found on several occasions that the requirements for new appointments to be for a specific period of three years is administratively inconvenient and defeats this object. This rigidity will be avoided by providing that appointments or reappointments to the commission will be for a period not exceeding five years instead of a fixed period of three years. The original object of ensuring continuity will be achieved by considering the appropriate period of each new appointment as a vacancy occurs, subject, of course, to the limit of five years. </para>
          <para>The bill also contemplates changes in the provisions of the act relating to remuneration of commissioners with effect from 1st July, 1957. The present act <inline font-style="italic">provides</inline> that the remuneration of the  chairman  shall be fixed by the GovernorGeneral while that of the vice-chairman and other commissioners is the rate prescribed in the act. In line with other recent legislation dealing with Commonwealth authorities, the bill provides that all commissioners shall be paid such remuneration and allowances as the Governor-General determines. </para>
          <para>The existing provisions of the Airlines Act relating to acting appointments to the commission appear to lack clarity and do not accord with corresponding provisions of more recent legislation. The new provisions draw a clear distinction between the case where a commissioner is absent with permission of the Minister for a definite period and the case where he is unable to attend a particular meeting of the commis sion. In both cases the vice-chairman automatically acts when the  chairman  is absent and, furthermore, if the vicechairman is absent the commission is authorized to appoint an acting vice-chairman. </para>
          <para>The Australian National Airlines Act specifies the circumstances in which a commissioner is deemed to have vacated office, for example, <inline font-style="italic">because</inline> of bankruptcy, unsoundness of mind, resignation, absence for three consecutive meetings, and interest in any contract or agreement entered into by or on behalf of the commission. Under section 14 of the airlines act, however, the vacation of office is dependent upon the establishment as a question of fact that one of these situations exists. In the recent shipping act, much the same considerations justifying vacation of office are stated, but actual vacation is effected by a declaration of the Governor-General published in the Gazette. This appears to be a more precise provision and it is, therefore, proposed to amend section 14 of the Australian National Airlines Act along the lines of the corresponding section 13 of the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission Act. </para>
          <para>It is also proposed to give the commission greater discretion in recruiting staff. The airlines act at present provides that a person shall not be appointed to a clerical position in the service of the commission unless he has &#34; in open competition successfully passed the prescribed entrance examination &#34;, and that persons shall be appointed in order of their merit in passing that examination. Experience shows that applicants for junior positions, who have obtained intermediate or leaving certificates, are disinclined to submit to further examination. In addition, the provision requiring appointment in order of merit is inappropriate in a Commonwealth-wide business. The commission feels that as a business undertaking it should be able to appoint without entrance examination persons who have attained a prescribed standard, such as the intermediate or school leaving certificate. It is proposed that the standards will be prescribed in regulations. </para>
          <para>The airlines act requires ministerial approval of the salary payable to any officer if it exceeds &#163;1,500 per annum. This was enacted in 1 945 and subsequent increases in salary rates now result in ministerial approval being necessary for relatively junior positions. Recent comparable legislation relating to salaries of employees of the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission and the Atomic Energy Commission requires ministerial, approval for salaries in excess of &#163;2,500. The bill adopts this figure in relation to salaries of the commission&#39;s employees. </para>
          <para>In view of changes in currency values and the growth in operations of the commission since 1945 it is also reasonable to enlarge the commission&#39;s powers in respect of the purchase and disposal of assets and entering into leases. Under the airlines act the commission may not, without the approval of the Minister, purchase land, the cost of which exceeds &#163;5,000, enter into a lease exceeding five years or dispose of property having an original or book value exceeding &#163;5,000. The bill increases these figures to &#163;20,000, ten years and &#163;50,000, respectively. The act also provides that the commission may not without consent of the Minister enter into any contract for the supply, from places outside Australia, of aircraft, equipment or materials of greater value than &#163;10,000. The bill increases this figure to &#163;50,000 and extends the provision to contracts for supplies within Australia. The increased limit is more commensurate with present day values and reduces the need to refer small transactions to the Minister. </para>
          <para>It will be noted that the bill also amends the provisions of the airlines act relating to investment of surplus funds. These amendments are of a drafting nature and bring this portion of the airlines act into line with the Coastal Shipping Commission Act. The audit of accounts of the commission is at present dealt with in section 36 of the airlines act in the short form commonly adopted in Commonwealth legislation at the date of the original enactment of the airlines act. The current practice is to prescribe audit requirements in some detail and the opportunity is, therefore, taken to do this. The commission has for some years treated its annual provision for overhaul of aircraft, engines and operating equipment as an item of expenditure for the purpose of determining its annual profit. The bill will give express authority for this practice. </para>
          <para>Under section 22 of the airlines act, the commission may enter into mail contracts with the Minister for Civil Aviation. These contracts now fall within the administrative responsibility of the Postmaster-General&#39;s Deparment and the section is therefore amended so that mail contracts may be made with the Postmaster-General on behalf of the Commonwealth. The airlines act provides for annual reports to the Minister on the operations of the commission. The bill contains more detailed provision relating to these reports which are designed to ensure their adequacy. All the amendments which I have so far outlined are directed to increasing the efficiency of the commission and assisting it to compete on equal terms with its major privately-owned competitor. Indeed, most of the amendments have been expressly requested by the commission in light of more than a decade of experience in operating a major commercial venture. </para>
          <para>I now turn to a number of amendments which are necessary to give effect to the Government&#39;s air transport policy. The first of these amendments removes possible legal doubt as to the capacity of the commission to operate intra-state services in Queensland and has the effect of enabling the commission to operate intra-state services in Tasmania. It may be recalled that section 19a of the airlines act was inserted in 1947 in pursuance of a war-time reference of the matter of air transport by the Queensland Government so as to enable the commission to operate intra-state services in Queensland. The Queensland reference would have expired in 1950 but was continued in force in accordance with the wishes of the Queensland Government by the Queensland Commonwealth Powers (Air Transport) Act 1950. The amendment removes legal doubt as to whether section 19a of the airlines act remained effective, in the absence of any further Commonwealth legislation, after the date of expiry in 1950 of the original Queensland Commonwealth Powers Act. The doubt is removed simply by amending section 19a of the airlines act in terms which indicate that it is supported by any State reference of the matter of air transport or the regulation of air transport prior to the date of commencement of the amendment. That will be the date on which this bill receives the royal assent. I should, perhaps, add that this amendment does not purport to authorize any States other than Tasmania and Queensland to operate. In fact, in recent years no other State has referred the matter of air transport to the Commonwealth Parliament, so that it would not be competent to authorize the commission to engage in intra-state services except in Queensland. </para>
          <para>Tasmanian legislation of 1952 which referred the matter of air transport to the Commonwealth has recently been proclaimed to come into force. As I indicated earlier, this amendment will, therefore, enable the commission, subject to obtaining the necessary licences and complying with any rationalization decisions, to conduct purely intra-state services in Tasmania. Apart from Tasmania and Queensland, there are no other States which have legislation in force referring the matter of air transport to the Parliament of the Commonwealth. </para>
          <para>I turn now to the monopoly provisions of the airlines act. Part III. of the Australian National Airlines Act 1945-1958 contains some remarkable provisions. It provides, in the first place, that the commission may, for the purposes of the act, by notice served on the owner or published in the &#34; Commonwealth Gazette &#34; acquire any aircraft or other property, not being land, required for the purposes of the commission. Any person who fails to deliver up the aircraft or property in accordance with the terms set out in the notice is liable to &#163;100 fine or six months imprisonment or both. Part V. of the act attempts to set up machinery for ensuring just compensation. These provisions were, of course, an integral part of the scheme to establish a government monopoly. Needless to say, the commission has never exercised these powers which purport to authorize it to expropriate the assets of private citizens including the aircraft of a competitor, nor it is likely to do so. It is obvious that the provisions, even if valid, serve no useful purpose and the bill, therefore, provides for their repeal. </para>
          <para>Part IV. of the act was likewise an integral part of the scheme to establish a monopoly. The most important sections in this part for achieving a socialist monopoly were sections 46 and 47. These sections read in conjunction with section 19, imposed on the commission the duty to provide services as fully and adequately as may be necessary to meet the needs of territorial and interstate traffic and, where such adequate services were provided, granted the commission a monopoly. </para>
          <para>Section 46 (1 .) of the airlines act provided in effect that where a licence has been issued to the commission to operate an interstate service and the commission has provided an adequate service licences issued to other persons to operate competing airlines will be inoperative for so long as the commission provides an adequate service. Section 46 (2.) makes similar provision in the case of territorial airline services. </para>
          <para>Section 47 completed the scheme by prohibiting the licensing authority from issuing a licence to any operator wishing to compete with a service operated by the commission unless and except to the extent to which the licensing authority is satisfied that the services provided by the commission are inadequate to meet the needs of the public. </para>
          <para>The High Court held unanimously that sections 46 and 47 were invalid because they purported to establish a monopoly of interstate services and, therefore, contravene section 92 of the Constitution. The court held, however, that the sections were severable and that they could validly operate in respect of territorial services. The invalid parts were repealed in 1947 but the provisions designed to establish a monopoly of territorial services still remain on the statute book. Indeed, the latter provisions applying to territorial services were, in fact, fortified in 1947 by inserting a new definition which defined an &#34; adequate airline service &#34; and a &#34; service in respect of which there is in force a declaration made by the Minister and published in the &#34; Gazette &#34; that the service is adequate to meet the needs of the public for transport by air . . .&#34;. Previously the adequacy of the service had to be established by evidence but as a result of amendment the simple publication of a Gazette &#34; notice appears to conclude the matter. </para>
          <para>It must be quite obvious that these provisions are totally inconsistent with the philosophy underlying the two Civil Aviation Agreements for establishing equality between the commission and the major private operator. The bill, therefore, provides for the repeal of Parts III., IV. and V. of the airlines act. </para>
          <para>Finally, the airlines bill includes a number of provisions which are related to the Civil Aviation (Carriers&#39; Liability) Bill. This bill provides for a comprehensive set of rules governing the liability of international air carriers and, with certain modifications, extends these rules to all domestic, carriage by air other than purely intrastate carriage which, generally speaking, is a matter within the exclusive competence of State parliaments. lt is proposed that the commission will, in common with all public transport operators, be subject to these rules and it is, therefore, necessary to amend those sections of the airlines act which are inconsistent with the proposed code of carriers&#39; liabilty At this stage I will merely indicate the main amendments involved. </para>
          <para>The airlines act now provides that the commission shall be a common carrier. The carriers&#39; liability bill will establish a system of liability in relation to passengers and goods which is stricter than that of a common carrier and, in particular, abolishes the right of an air carrier to contract out of liability for negligence. It will, therefore, no longer be appropriate to describe the commission as a common carrier. </para>
          <para>The airlines bill also proposes to amend the airlines act so that the time within which actions against the commission must be brought will be two years instead of six months. Two years is the period which will apply to other domestic air carriers by virtue of the carriers&#39; liability bill and there seems to be no reason why the commission as a competitive commercial undertaking should have an advantage over other operators at the expense of the travelling public. </para>
          <para>The present section of the airlines act which provides that no action may be brought against the commission until at least one month after a claimant has given notice in writing to the commission is also to be repealed because it is unduly onerous to claimants. </para>
          <para>At present the commission&#39;s liabilty in respect of death or injury is, by virtue of section 66 of the airlines act, limited to &#163;2,000. This limit will be increased from &#163;2,000 to &#163;7,500 to accord with the limits of liability provided for in the proposed Civil Aviation (Carriers&#39; Liability) Act. </para>
          <para>All provisions of the bill are consistent with the Government&#39;s declared policy of maintaining competition on the trunk routes between the commission and the privateenterprise operators. I believe that enactment of the bill will strengthen the commission in operating a commercial undertaking in the transport field of great importance to our national development. I commend the bill to honorable members. </para>
          <para>Debate (on motion by <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Whitlam)</inline> adjourned. </para>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>CIVIL AVIATION (CARRIERS&#39; LIABILITY) BILL 1959</title>
        <page.no>912</page.no>
        <type>bill</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Second Reading</title>
          <page.no>912</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <para>Debate resumed (vide page 908). </para>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>912</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>6U4</name.id>
              <electorate>Werriwa</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">WHITLAM, Gough</name>
              <name role="display">Mr WHITLAM</name>
            </talker>
            <para>
              <inline font-weight="bold">.- Mr. Deputy Speaker,</inline>the rights and duties of aircraft passengers and operators in Australia must be dealt with under three headings. The first heading concerns flights between Australia and other countries. The second heading concerns flights between one State and another State, one Territory and another Territory, a State and a Territory, within a Territory or within a State via another State or a Territory. The third heading concerns flights wholly within the borders of one State. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>The first heading can be dealt with by this Parliament under its power to deal with trade and commerce with other countries, and usually has to be dealt with as we have hitherto dealt with it - by way of international agreements or treaties. In other words, the Commonwealth has to participate in private international legislation. The second heading can be dealt with by this Parliament under its power to deal with trade and commerce between the States or its power to deal with the territories. The third heading can be dealt with by the States alone. </para>
          <para>The present bill deals with the first and second headings. In both respects it brings about improvements. The improvements which it brings about under the first heading are ones that this Parliament has to accept as a whole. The Parliament either takes them or it leaves them. Parliament may not think that they are ideal, but they are improvements, and the only thing that we can do is accept them for the improvements that they are. Those improvements are carried out by Part II. and Part III. of the bill. Part II. deals with the position that will obtain when the Hague Protocol to the Warsaw Convention comes into operation. It will be quite some time before it does come into operation. The protocol was signed by 44 states, including Australia, lt requires ratification by 30 states before it can come into operation, and so far it has secured ratification from only nine states. Therefore, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Deputy Speaker,</inline> we must have the protection afforded by Part III. of the bill, which virtually continues the operation of the Carriage by Air Act 1935, until the Hague Protocol comes into effect. In fact, if some of the signatories to the Warsaw Convention do not ratify the Hague Protocol to that convention, it seems likely that Part III. of the act will have to remain in operation to secure the rights of our citizens and our companies in respect of those countries. </para>
          <para>I need not go in detail through the provisions of Part II. and Part III. It is sufficient to compare the second schedule - the alterations made by the Hague Protocol - with the first schedule, which reproduces the schedule to the Carriage by Air Act 1935  -  that is, reproduces the Warsaw Convention. On a comparison of the two schedules it will be obvious that many improvements have been brought about by the Hague Protocol. I have frequently criticized the Government for being tardy in implementing interstate agreements and international agreements. I think the least that I can do on this occasion is to compliment the Government for promptly implementing the Hague Protocol. Australia will be the tenth of the requisite 30 states to implement that protocol. In fact, it will be the first of the states in the British Commonwealth to do so. The United States of America has not done so, either. In implementing in this fashion the Hague Protocol in Part II. of this bill, we are affording a good lead, I believe, to the common law countries of the world which fill the principal role in international aviation. </para>
          <para>I said earlier that the protocol is not perfect. I feel I should also say that the representatives of Australia at the international conference which drew up that protocol strove persuasively and informatively to make the protocol still better than it is. The improvements which have been made by that protocol have been, to a considerable extent, due to the efforts of the Australian delegates at the conference. The protocol is not perfect, but one only has to consider what would be the position if there were no international agreements to see how our citizens and companies would fare in case of accidents beyond our shores. We would be burdened by the delay, expense and uncertainty of litigation in foreign parts. I compliment again the representatives of our country on the part they played to bring about the protocol, and I compliment the Government on the fact that we are the first of the common law countries to take steps to ratify that protocol. </para>
          <para>I have to turn in some greater detail to Part IV. of the bill. It introduces many improvements in the law, as it applies in Australia, in the federal field - roughly, interstate air carriage. But we on this side believe that it also is not perfect, and we are not satisfied with the want of perfection in this regard, because we in this Parliament can rectify it. In the international field, you cannot legislate unless all participants are willing. There has to be a unanimity amongst states. A majority is not enough. But in respect of interstate air carriage and in respect of the matters that are within this Parliament&#39;s competence, we can legislate according to our heart&#39;s desire. There is no limitation on what we can do, and accordingly there should be no limitation on what we do. Therefore, I have to deal in greater detail with Part IV. of the bill. </para>
          <para>First, I shall deal with those improvements over the present position which it brings about. Up till now, interstate airline companies have been liable in negligence for any accident to passengers or cargo. In the rest of my speech, I propose to refer to passengers only. It is true that there are many provisions of this bill and of the schedules which deal with cargo, in the sense of baggage which is consigned, registered, or which is taken in the cabin, but I am not so solicitous for consignors as I am for passengers, and I shall confine myself, in the interests of simplicity, to the interests of passengers alone. It is true that up till now interstate carriers by air have been liable in negligence for damages which occurred to their passengers, but they have been able to exclude their liability in the contracts of carriage, and, in fact, they have all, except Trans-Australia Airlines, excluded the liability for negligence. As an act of grace they have insured those who travel with them. T.A.A. and the other companies have insured their passengers for the sum of  &#163;2,000  in the case of death and for smaller amounts in the case of permanent or temporary injury. I think that T.A.A. is the most generous in its insurance provisions in the case of injuries, but still the most one can get is  &#163;2,000,  or  &#163;20  a week for two years. We do believe that Part IV. of the bill is an improvement on the present position, because it will impose a strict liability on all interstate carriers. They will have not absolute but strict liability for their accidents up to the same amount as applies to carriers under the Warsaw Convention, as modified by the Hague Protocol. Clause  28  of the bill imposes that strict liability. </para>
          <para>Further, clause  32  brings about the advantage of preventing interstate companies from contracting out of that liability. That is, they will not be able to make a person who travels with them forgo any claim as of right as all the interstate companies except T.A.A. have hitherto done. </para>
          <para>The disadvantage that the bill imposes, as compared with the present position, is that clause  36  displaces other liabilities. If a company has failed to exclude liability for negligence, this act does it for the company. That is, however negligent a company has been towards its passengers, and whatever injuries those passengers have suffered as a consequence of its negligence, this bill says that no more than  &#163;7,500  can be recovered by all the persons who have a claim in respect of the death or injury of any one passenger. </para>
          <para>Now, <inline font-weight="bold">Sir, I</inline> compare the position under Part IV. of this bill with international carriage. The advantage - I think it is the sole advantage - which the bill introduces in respect of interstate carriage as distinct from international carriage, is that there is no exemption for the operators, such as is granted by Article  20  of the Warsaw Convention. You will remember, <inline font-weight="bold">Sir, that</inline> the article, which now comprises only the first paragraph - the second paragraph having been excluded by the Hague Protocol - reads as follows: - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>The carrier is not liable if he proves that he and his servants and agents have taken all necessary measures to avoid the damage or that it was impossible for him or them to take such measures. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">It must be doubtful what that means, because from one view of the language it would seem that if an operator had taken all necessary measures to avoid damage, and damage occurred, then the measures he took were not all the necessary ones. The language is not very elegant, but nevertheless, whatever that limitation means, the exemption in favour of the operator does not apply to interstate passengers as it does to international passengers. </para>
          <para>But, <inline font-weight="bold">Sir, there</inline> are two disadvantages introduced as regards interstate passengers which do not apply as regards international passengers. First of all, there is not the liability on the operator in interstate carriage which there is on the operator in  international  carriage under Article  25  of the Warsaw Convention, as replaced by Article XIII. of the Hague Protocol, which reads - </para>
          <quote>
            <para class="block">The limits of liability specified in Article 22- </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">That is the limit of  &#163;7,400- shall not apply if it is proved that the damage resulted from an act or omission of the carrier, his servants or agents, done with intent to cause damage or recklessly and with knowledge that damage would probably result; provided that, in the case of such act or omission of a servant or agent, it is also proved that he was acting within the scope of his employment. </para>
          <para class="block">We on this side regard it as a severe limitation that that should not apply to interstate passengers. In regard to international passengers, there is no limitation of  &#163;7,400  if it is shown that the carrier, or his servants or agents acting within their employment, had acted with intent to cause damage, or recklessly and with knowledge that damage would probably result. As regards interstate passengers, the limit of liability of the operator will now be  &#163;7,500,  and that is irrespective of the intent, the knowledge or the recklessness of the operator. No matter how grave his negligence, he can never be responsible in a greater sum than  &#163;7.500.  We say that one puts too high a premium on simplicity if one takes away from the interstate passenger one of the safeguards which he did have against the grossly, the recklessly negligent operator, such as the international passenger has. </para>
          <para>Now, <inline font-weight="bold">Sir, we</inline> say that there is another disadvantage which has been imported by Part IV. in regard to passengers in interstate carriage as compared with those in international carriage under paragraph 2 of Article 3 of the Warsaw Convention, as substituted by Article III. of the protocol. Paragraph 2 of Article III. of the protocol provides, in part - </para>
          <list type="lowerroman-dotted">
            <item label=".">
              <para>if, with the consent of the carrier, the passenger embarks without a passenger ticket having been delivered, or if the ticket does not include the notice required by paragraph 1 (c) of this Article, the carrier shall not be entitled to avail himself of the provisions of Article 22. </para>
            </item>
          </list>
          <para class="block">That is the &#163;7,400 limit. It may be only a small thing, <inline font-weight="bold">Sir. There</inline> is very little chance, I imagine, of a passenger boarding an aircraft without receiving his ticket, but it is one of the privileges which is granted to an international passenger that if the operator neglects to grant him a ticket or to insist on him taking a ticket, and then the passenger is hurt, the operator is liable for the whole of the damages, whatever they may be. We say that there again we are placing too high a premium on simplicity by saying that that safeguard also shall be denied to interstate passengers although it is retained in regard to international passengers in all the countries which are signatories to these conventions. </para>
          <para>I have compared the interstate and the international provisions - the provisions in Part IV. in the one case and Parts II. and III. in the other case - and I have shown that, whereas there are some improvements in regard to interstate carriage introduced by Part IV., there are other limitations introduced by Part IV. which the Parliament should not persevere with. We propose, at the appropriate time, to move that the bill be amended to accord with what we conceive to be proper principles in these regards. </para>
          <para>It is well to seek a general principle in these matters. The Commonwealth Parliament has legislative competence to deal with trade and commerce with other countries and between the States, and we should as far as possible, I submit, co-ordinate our transport laws in various fields and afford a model to the States in the fields in which they alone can legislate. I shall deal with the four fields of transport which we have in this country. </para>
          <para>There is road transport. This Parliament has never passed laws with regard to interstate road transport, although it could do so. But it so happens that the States have independently introduced substantially similar legislation with regard to the rights and duties of persons who operate motor vehicles and persons who are passengers in motor vehicles. There are some anomalies. For instance, contributory negligence is still a complete defence in New South Wales although it is not a complete defence in the Australian Capital Territory or in any of the other States. Otherwise there is no limitation on the damages which a passenger can recover for negligence. </para>
          <para>Then there are railways. In this country, the railways all are publicly owned, with, I think, four small exceptions - the Emu Bay railway, the Midland railway, the Silverton tramway and one railway near Maitland. In each of these cases, I regret to say, there seems to be limitation on the liability of the operator to the passengers. There was a limitation of that liability introduced in the original Commonwealth Railways Act in 1917 by section 81, and that limitation of &#163;2,000  -  or, in the case of temporary disablement, &#163;1,000  -  has been continued to the present day. It is in the same terms as section 66 of the Australian National Airlines Act 1945. That, T submit, <inline font-weight="bold">Sir, is</inline> a blemish on our capacity to legislate in respect of passengers and operators of railways. This Parliament could legislate in respect of its own railway - the Commonwealth Railways - and it could legislate in respect of interstate rail transport. </para>
          <para>Then, <inline font-weight="bold">Sir, I</inline> pass to shipping. As regards passenger traffic in the Australian competence, our shipping is entirely in private hands. As regards cargo traffic, it is partly in private hands, but is passing increasingly into public hands - the Australian National Line. There again, there is a limitation on the liability to passengers. Only last year, in section 161 of the Navigation Act, which introduced a new section 331 into the principal act, we tied the liability of a shipowner to his passengers to the provisions of the United Kingdom </para>
          <para class="block">Merchant Shipping Act, which, for over 200 years, have limited the liability of a shipowner to passengers in the interests of the shipowners and against the interests of the passengers. I regret to say that that provision in the Navigation Act passed through the Parliament last year without comment. It is something which we could have dealt with, because all the passengers who travel by ships on our coast travel from one State to another. It is something, therefore, which we could have legislated upon. </para>
          <para>Finally, <inline font-weight="bold">Sir, we</inline> come to these airlines, which are either publicly owned or privately owned but subject to public subsidies and control. Here, I regret to say, in the bill with which we are now dealing, we are approximating rather to the limitations which we have introduced in regard to shipping and railways instead of to the position which applies as regards road users. If one gets this matter in perspective one will find that most of the people who travel from one State to another do so by road or by air. Many more people travel by road or by air from one State to another than travel by rail. I should think that the sensible thing is to equate as far as possible the rights and duties of the operators and the passengers by aircraft to the rights and duties which apply to the road operators. If one may draw a precise comparison with the present bill, it would seem that we are requiring airline operators to insure - but we are requiring them to insure only to the amount of &#163;7,500. The Minister&#39;s excuse in his second-reading speech - which was a very helpful and comprehensive speech - was that there were reasons of insurance which prevented, or would deter, the companies from taking out unlimited insurance. </para>
          <para>Now, the same argument is very frequently brought up in regard to road transport. Frequently, one finds insurance companies - and very often government insurance companies, which have been left more and more to carry the baby in this respect - advocating that there should be some limitation on the damages which can be recovered in respect of road accidents, or that there should be some special tribunal appointed to deal with road accidents and the damages that apply to them. The State governments have resisted that, and the Commonwealth Government has also resisted it in regard to its Territories. The plain fact is that if a person is injured on the roads now it is left to a jury or a judge to determine, according to well-established legal principles, what the damages are - and there is no limitation on the damages. If you injure a millionaire in such a way that you prevent him earning his income thereafter, you may be up for damages amounting to millions, or hundreds of thousands, of pounds. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>916</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JWK</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">CASH, Earl</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Cash</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Are the damages fixed by income? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>916</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>6U4</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">WHITLAM, Gough</name>
                <name role="display">Mr WHITLAM</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- It depends on what the person&#39;s earnings come from. If they come from investment the damages would not depend on earning capacity; but I imagine there are some persons in this country - outside this place, of course - who still earn incomes from their own efforts and not from investments. If the company with which you are insured is unfortunate enough for you to injure or kill such a person that insurance company will be up for very heavy damages, indeed. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>The position we are now introducing by this measure is better in one respect. It will now mean that the plaintiff in a damages case will receive up to &#163;7,500 instead of &#163;2,000 at the most. But he will receive no more unless he has taken out an individual insurance policy. It is true that you can take out an individual insurance policy if you travel by rail or sea and you once upon a time were able to do that if you travelled by road; but one can readily imagine the impediment to economic or speedy air transport if everybody wanted to insure himself by taking out an individual insurance policy. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>916</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KKU</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MACKINNON, Ewen</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Mackinnon</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- You mean, it is more profitable to travel by road? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>916</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>6U4</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">WHITLAM, Gough</name>
                <name role="display">Mr WHITLAM</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- If time is not of the essence. Some far-sighted members of this House have taken out policies to cover themselves against air accidents, on an annual basis, with the honorable member for Swan <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Cleaver),</inline> and I among them. What is the reason for differentiating between road transport and air transport, the two most popular forms of transport, both of which, in the interstate sphere, are within the competence of this Parliament? Why is it that if you are injured on the roads you can secure whatever damages are necessary to compensate you, or that those who suffer as a result of your death can similarly receive such compensation as money can represent, but if you travel by air and have not taken out an individual insurance policy the amount which ail your dependants, your employers, and all the people who suffer as a result of your death can receive as compensation is limited to &#163;7,500, which they have to share among them? The only argument that has been given in favour of this proposal is that it would be expensive for the companies to insure in excess of that amount. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>917</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KWH</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">TOWNLEY, Athol</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Townley</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- The passengers would have to pay more in fares in order to cover increased insurance. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>917</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>6U4</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">WHITLAM, Gough</name>
                <name role="display">Mr WHITLAM</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I realize that that is so; but everybody who travels by road pays a little more because he is covered by third party insurance, the cost of which is paid directly by the operator and indirectly by the passenger. Now, the economic way to provide for insurance of this kind is to have compulsory and universal insurance. The cost of this would be very much less per head if everybody had to share it instead of it being borne by those who have the foresight and the patience to take out individual insurance. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>917</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KEE</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">KENT HUGHES, Wilfrid</name>
                <name role="display">Sir Wilfrid Kent Hughes</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- For most people that would be money unnecessarily spent, would it not? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>917</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>6U4</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">WHITLAM, Gough</name>
                <name role="display">Mr WHITLAM</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- One always hopes that money spent on such an insurance policy is money unnecessarily spent. Let me draw a comparison between this legislation and workers&#39; compensation, because there is a certain comparison between what we advocate on this side in relation to this matter and the position which applies in regard to workers&#39; compensation. If an employee is injured at work, or in some other circumstances, he can secure certain fixed compensation under workers&#39; compensation acts. If he is killed his dependants can secure certain fixed amounts by way of compensation. These amounts are recoverable irrespective of the negligence of the employer or, everywhere except in Commonwealth competence, irrespective of the negligence of a fellow employee. There, <inline font-weight="bold">Sir, the</inline> comparison is with this bill, because this bill introduces a system cognate to workers&#39; compensation. Anybody who is eligible for workers&#39; compensation can alternatively, in the case of his injury, or his dependents can, in the case of his death, sue for unlimited damages against the employer, if the employer or. except in Commonwealth competence, a fellow employee, was negligent. Now, <inline font-weight="bold">Sir, what</inline> we want to introduce is that second leg of the law. That is, we want to provide that if anybody is injured in interstate air carriage through the negligence of the operator, he should be able to secure unlimited damages. That is to say, give him the opportunity of one or the other remedy just as he has if he is an employee, or in some circumstances if he travels by road. We see no logical reason on the grounds of equity or expense for not having perfection in regard to interstate air transport when we have it already in regard to employees and road passengers. I shall give a simple illustration of something which could arise in this case. If, when you are getting onto, or out of, an airways bus, you slip on the steps because the steps have been negligently installed or maintained by the owner of the bus, you can secure any damages that you can prove to any court. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>917</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KDA</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">DUTHIE, Gilbert</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Duthie</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  The person concerned might be drunk. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>917</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>6U4</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">WHITLAM, Gough</name>
                <name role="display">Mr WHITLAM</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- That would be contributory negligence which would be a partial defence in any State except New South Wales or a Territory and a complete defence in New South Wales. If, however, for that or any other reason, a passenger slipped on the stairway going up to or coming down from the aircraft, the most he could recover would be &#163;7,500 or, if on an international flight, &#163;7,400. Why should there be a difference? Of course, in relation to steps, there have been many cases in cities where people have fallen on stairways or escalators and broken a leg or suffered some other injury and have secured damages. There can be no reason for differentiation between the injuries or the liability for injuries when a person is getting into or out of an airways bus and injuries caused when getting into or out of an aircraft. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>We concede that, in relation to international air carriage, this bill introduces amendments which are acceptable to the Opposition, because better amendments cannot be obtained although Australia&#39;s representatives at conferences overseas have tried to do so. We also concede, as regards interstate air carriage, that improvements are to be brought about by this bill. We accept those improvements and applaud the Government for them, but we believe that it should be possible to do better still as regards interstate air transport. That can be done here and it should be done. We should not be limited within our own competence by what has been achieved internationally. Further, as regards intra-state air transport, which is entirely a matter for State control, we should be giving the States a lead. We are not doing it in this legislation, because if the States themselves pass measures modelled on Part IV. of this bill, they will be differentiating also between people who travel by air within their borders and those who travel by road. Accordingly, I move - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>Omit all words after &#34;That&#34;, insert &#34;the bill be withdrawn and redrafted to incorporate, in relation to Australian domestic air services within Commonwealth competence, the general principle of unlimited liability at law for negligence on the part of airline operators in respect of passengers, cargo and baggage&#34;. </para>
          </quote>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>918</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JUP</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">CLAREY, Percy</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Clarey</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  I second the motion. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>918</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>126</name.id>
              <electorate>Parramatta</electorate>
              <party>LP</party>
              <role>Attorney-General</role>
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BARWICK, Garfield</name>
              <name role="display">Sir GARFIELD BARWICK</name>
            </talker>
            <para>. - I want to answer very briefly something that was said by the honorable member for Werriwa <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Whitlam).</inline> The important thing in relation to this bill is to consider just what it sets out to do. The honorable member quite rightly called attention to the fact that at present the carrier has a right to protect himself entirely by what the lawyers call &#34; contracting out &#34;. You will notice, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Deputy Speaker,</inline> that I am now at liberty to refer to the lawyers in the third person. The passenger was entitled, of course, to insure himself at his will. Onto that common law position there had been engrafted by convention here in Australia a voluntary insurance by the carrying companies of a limited amount. Any one approaching this problem could do one of two things, but in my submission could not do what the honorable member proposes. The bill could have simply provided that there would be no contracting out, and that would have left the parties to their position at law; or the bill could have stated that there would be a fixed upward lift of strict liability, leaving the plaintiff to prove the amount of the damage up to the amount of the limit. The Government came down on the side of the second alternative of which I have spoken, and I think that, on reflection, the reasons for that will commend themselves to honorable members. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>In my suggestion, there is no use in drawing any comparison between a man slipping on the step of a bus and a widow trying to prove how an air accident happened. Of course, if you slipped on the step of a bus, the average lawyer would be able to rustle up some evidence and put it into shape for you. You at least have your own evidence or that of the passengers on the bus, and you also have the bus which remains so that you can look at the form of the step and see whether it was of a sort which showed negligence in the management of the bus. That is not so difficult, although it is remarkable how many plaintiffs fail to recover damages because they cannot make out a case of negligence. Many are inclined, of course, to think that negligence is shown simply whenever something happens to a person which is unexpected and not usual, but that is not the position. You must prove that a party has done something which a reasonable person so placed would not have done. </para>
          <para>In relation to road transport or shipping, such as a case where a person tumbles down the gangway of a ship, the standards that can be imposed on the carrier are understandable by the ordinary man, and the breach of them is provable in a fairly simple way; but when you come to air carriage and bear in mind that there is always a line of distinction between error of judgment and negligence, the situation is different. A man might make a mistake which is fatal and it need not be negligent. In the case of road transport, that line is sometimes followed and you will find a verdict given for a defendant because what happened was simply an error of judgment and was not negligent. When you pass into the area of air transport, and particularly when you come to a widow&#39;s claims where it is presumed in most cases that the aircraft has been lost, the difficulty is to prove with any degree of precision and by such simple steps as ordinary folk can afford, that there was negligence. And having proved what has taken place, you then face a very severe barrage of experts seeking to show whether what happened was merely an error of judgment and did not show negligence. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>919</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JF7</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">BEAZLEY, Kim</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Beazley</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  Perhaps the AttorneyGeneral would consider this proposition: What about an aircraft accident where an inquiry established that the maintenance carried on in the workshops was inadequate and wrong; that the maintenance of instruments was inadequate and wrong, and a pilot had shown by examination under the chief pilot that he really did not know his job but went on piloting? That happened in Western Australia in 1949. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>919</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>126</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">BARWICK, Garfield</name>
                <name role="display">Sir GARFIELD BARWICK</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  The honorable member would not fall into the logical error of suggesting that because in a certain case negligence might be proved, that that is an average case. The bill has to provide for the average case. I agree, of course, that there may be some glaring instance in which, by some good fortune, you may be able to prove negligence, but I am speaking of the ordinary, average case. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>919</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>6U4</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">WHITLAM, Gough</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Whitlam</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  Does the Minister say, then, that the bill should never deal with a case which can happen, although only rarely? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>919</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>126</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">BARWICK, Garfield</name>
                <name role="display">Sir GARFIELD BARWICK</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  Not at all. The bill attempts to compromise a number of rights. There is the right of a carrier to contract himself right out of liability and say, &#34; I will not carry you unless I am quit of liability.&#34; That is an important right that he now has. Then there is the right, on the other side, of a plaintiff who is entitled, if he can prove a case of negligence, to the full amount of the damages that he may be able to establish. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>In this field there is, in my suggestion, great difficulty, in the ordinary way of things, in proving with precision and ease what has really caused the damage. I remind the honorable member who interrupted me that an ordinary plaintiff has not at his hand the facilities that are available to those conducting an air accident inquiry. If such an inquiry makes a finding that favours a plaintiff, the finding does not prove anything. The plaintiff has to set about proving the matter again in a court of law. When he sets about proving it again he will, if I know anything about human nature, find a great deal of difficulty in getting precisely the same evidence as was given before the air accident inquiry, because a lot of other human cross-currents are at work. What you can elicit at an air accident inquiry, when one set of issues has to be determined, is very different from what you can elicit from the very same witnesses in a court of law. </para>
          <para>My proposition, therefore, is not that you can never prove negligence, because that would be too silly, as the honorable member has demonstrated. What I am putting is that in the ordinary case it is difficult, costly and uncertain. One of the worst things we could do would be to leave people in a position in which they could sue for negligence in unlimited sums, because we would be luring them into a most expensive and uncertain area of the law. So the compromise is made, and it is, like any other compromise, the best that can be devised by one group of minds. The compromise involves a strict liability up to a sum which will fairly represent the average experience. </para>
          <para>I took the trouble, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Deputy Speaker,</inline> to make some inquiries for myself, because it is quite some time since I practised in running-down cases and death claims. I inquired of members of my own bar in New South Wales who are still practising daily in this type of case. I also had them inquire of the officers of the Government Insurance Office of New South Wales, the officers of the Transport Department in that State and of officers of underwriters&#39; establishments, to find out, first, whether statistics were available to show the average recovery in a death claim under the provisions covering fatal accidents. I found that there are no such statistics to be had. I then sought the opinion of these people. I ascertained what their experience was. </para>
          <para class="block">I also had the benefit of the experience of two New South Wales judges who sit regularly in this type of case. The information I received was to the effect that the average recovery in death claims involving transport is between &#163;6,000 and &#163;8,500. Those are the limiting figures given by these various people with their differing experiences. This rather indicates that the sum of &#163;7,500 fairly represents the average experience in the community. I may say that New South Wales is a more expensive State than any other in which to run people down. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>920</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>6U4</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">WHITLAM, Gough</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Whitlam</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  If I may ask the Minister, did they take into account the proposition that air travellers are, as a class, more affluent than other kinds of travellers? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>920</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>126</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">BARWICK, Garfield</name>
                <name role="display">Sir GARFIELD BARWICK</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I left out any consideration of air travellers alone. We were thinking of road travellers, because we have not, fortunately, had any experience in Australia from which we could get information about air travellers. The problem is to arrive at the average sum that is likely to be recovered, to make it a certain sum and eliminate even that very narrow defence which the international convention provides. I agree with the honorable member that it is really a foolish defence. All that it would do would be to give to the carrier an advantage over the passenger or his representatives, because the carrier could threaten a defence along those lines and might force a favorable compromise, because the plaintiff would have to face all the resources of the airline, the representatives of which might say, &#34;We are going to prove that we did everything reasonably possible &#34;. The plaintiff would have a very costly and difficult piece of litigation on his hands, because all the experts would be in the other camp. It is only sensible, therefore, to remove such a defence and to say to the airline operator, &#34; You are liable for this sum, without proof of how the accident happened &#34;. I want honorable members to bear in mind that this legislation covers every accident that may occur from the foot of the gangway back to the foot of the gangway. The legislation does not apply only if the passenger is killed in the aircraft. It covers anything in the way of an accident that might happen in the aircraft. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>920</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JSU</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">BRYANT, Gordon</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Bryant</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Even being tripped by the hostess! </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>920</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>126</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">BARWICK, Garfield</name>
                <name role="display">Sir GARFIELD BARWICK</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Yes, being tripped by the hostess, or being injured by a piece of glass from the containers that are passed around in aircraft. The legislation does, therefore, cover a very wide span of experience, and the amounts recoverable are fixed. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>The argument that the honorable member puts is that there should be a middle case specified. It is suggested that, the compromise having been made, the carrier being required to suffer his side of it and the passenger being given the benefit of his side, we should then go further and do the very thing that we set out at the beginning to avoid by rendering everything certain and removing the enticement to expensive and uncertain litigation. It is suggested that we should do this having regard to experience in cases which were away from the average only, because the average experience shows a recovery of about &#163;7,500. </para>
          <para>This matter received international attention, as the honorable member mentioned. The convention&#39;s solution was dictated very largely - and let me add that I have looked at some of the papers, although not all of them - by the notion that you can never let a man profit by his crime. The exclusion in the convention is limited to an intentional creating of damage, a reckless or intended act with knowledge that the damage may ensue. Well, that involves a form of criminality, and the continentals felt that they could not allow any benefit to be obtained by a person who was guilty of criminality. We have not that notion in our law at all. The international limitation extended, in the first place, to wilful misconduct, variously interpreted in the courts on the continent, but generally coming down to meaning the doing of something deliberately to harm the other fellow. That provision is in the protocol. </para>
          <para>An attempt has been made to write it out in slightly different words, but it is to that effect. It would be simply teasing a widow to tell her, &#34; You can have &#163;7,500 and your lawyers can go on and sue if they can prove that the pilot flew the aircraft into the ground intentionally &#34;.  1 can understand such a provision with regard to cargo, because one may find a man who slashes a piece of cargo intentionally while it is held in store by the airline, but in considering harm in the air it is difficult to conceive of a case in which one could even begin to prove that the act was done wilfully or recklessly with knowledge that the damagewould follow. So the international provision for the lifting of the limit is really worthless when it comes to our systems of law. </para>
          <para>Having examined the international aspect let us consider the other proposition. The honorable member for Melbourne said, &#34; Let us go back to our ordinary law of negligence &#34;. Just imagine what the situation would be in that case! One would say to the widow and her lawyer, &#34; You will get  &#163;7,500  for certain. If you like, you can initiate proceedings on the chance that you can prove negligence in this difficult field.&#34; What will then happen to that  &#163;7,500? </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>921</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K5L</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">COPE, James</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Cope</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Could that sum be obtained without a lawyer&#39;s help? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>921</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>126</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">BARWICK, Garfield</name>
                <name role="display">Sir GARFIELD BARWICK</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Yes, there is no trouble about that provided she has suffered that amount of damage. She might have to prove that. There is no need to worry about the lawyer. No one comes out of such a case without suffering some disadvantage in cost, so some part of the  &#163;7,500  would be gone. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>We have thought, on the Government side, that it is a simple kindness to the people who travel and to whom  &#163;7,500  is about the average recovery, to say to them, &#34; Your right is  &#163;7,500.  There is no need to prove how it happened.&#34; </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>921</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>K5L</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">COPE, James</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Cope</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- And it would not cost anything for lawyers? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>921</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>126</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">BARWICK, Garfield</name>
                <name role="display">Sir GARFIELD BARWICK</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- No. May I say that no one in the community saves people more money than does the lawyer. Then we say to the passenger, &#34; If you are of that group of people in the community for whom  &#163;7,500  will not fairly cover what you may lose, you can take out insurance.&#34; There is no hardship in that compromise between the various rights, particularly in view of the difficulties of which I have spoken. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>The honorable member for Melbourne spoke about &#34; universal insurance &#34; and said that it was cheaper. I do not know what basis he has for that statement. One can see what would happen if we said to the airline company, &#34; You are liable for negligence on top of the  &#163;7,500  &#34;. Then the insurance company would charge a much greater premium. It would rate that premium, not on the actual number of people who travel and who could get more than  &#163;7.500  but on a supposition as to how many people will travel. Consequently the premium would cover a lot of people who would not travel and a lot of people who would travel but who could not recover  &#163;7,500.  That premium would be reflected in the costs of the airline operations and in the fares of all of us. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>921</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>6U4</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">WHITLAM, Gough</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Whitlam</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Does not third party insurance cover that same range? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>921</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>126</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">BARWICK, Garfield</name>
                <name role="display">Sir GARFIELD BARWICK</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- It does, in a way. But the position in relation to road transport is quite different. It is possible to prove what happened much more easily. Imagine a jury of four persons, as we have in New South Wales, sitting on one of these aircraft inquiries, listening to technical evidence about motors, aeroplane techniques, the effect of weather, turbulence and so, trying to make up their minds whether there was negligence or an error of judgment or just sheer bad luck! </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>We, on this side of the House, think that the only sensible compromise is to say to people, &#34; You will get a certain sum. You have to prove no more than that you have suffered the damage. For the rest, you can take out an insurance policy for any special flight on which you think an accident would involve damage in excess of that sum.&#34; </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>921</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JSU</name.id>
              <electorate>Wills</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BRYANT, Gordon</name>
              <name role="display">Mr BRYANT</name>
            </talker>
            <para>.- The Attorney-General <inline font-weight="bold">(Sir Garfield Barwick)</inline> has defined this bill, in effect, not only as limiting the liability of companies, but as limiting the liability of this Parliament. He has taken, he says, the average case as the limit to which the bill is prepared to go and that is that. On this side of the House, we say that any bill of this Parliament ought to be so designed that it covers everybody. It was worth waiting all these years to hear the Attorney-General, a lawyer, say that it was an act of simple kindness to air travellers for the Government to make provision for this amount of compensation. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>The Government has not always been notable for simplicity or kindness in many of its legal exercises. Therefore, some of the points that the Attorney-General raised do not impress us greatly. Speaking on the difficulty of proof, he was at great pains to point out that one of the requirements was that proving should take place with precision and with ease. I suppose that if it were always possible in the courts to prove things with ease there would be no need for the legal fraternity and there would be a lot more unemployment in that field. </para>
          <para>So we turn our attention to the provisions of the bill with respect to internal and domestic airlines which are the same provisions as those in respect of external airlines. In this instance, it is important to remember that most Australians who travel overseas appear to travel on Australia&#39;s overseas airline. It is possible for us to make special provision for them. It is important, also, to remember that most Australians who travel within Australia travel on two large airlines. Therefore, there is no great difficulty in bringing them into some scheme. Finally, it is important to remember that we ought to establish higher standards of protection for our people than are necessary when an attempt is being made to negotiate a difficult international agreement. </para>
          <para>The international agreement which we have been considering is a very complicated one. It is a lengthy one and a significant one. A conference of the nations has been held as a result of which a very complex and detailed agreement has been drawn up. It will be found that the schedules to the bills even define such things as the way in which baggage checks and waybills are to be drawn up. This agreement is an important contribution to international co-operation. The Opposition accepts the point of view put by the Government that it is not practicable to alter any provisions of the bill which are the result of international agreement. Generally speaking these provisions represent an advance. However, the insurance coverage for personal baggage still remains, as it was twenty years ago, at between &#163;10 and &#163;100. That is a very small amount, these days. The sum of &#163;100 would not even cover the movie camera which most Government supporters seem to be able to take with them on their trips, and the benefits of which I am able to enjoy only afterwards when the films are shown to other members. Therefore, some consideration should be given to an amendment of this amount. </para>
          <para>Turning our minds to the actual insurance provisions, we find that the AttorneyGeneral has been at great pains to show that it is unnecessary to enlarge these. First of all, there is the matter of simplicity and the matter of proof. On that subject he was rather macabre in continually referring to &#34; widows &#34;. Is there no possibility that the passenger himself may survive an air crash, although severely injured? Of course, there is. Is there no possibility of the cause of an accident being proved conclusively? Is there no possibility that it may be found that chocks were not removed or that necessary maintenance had not been carried out as the honorable member for Fremantle <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Beazley)</inline> mentioned by interjection? Of course, there is. Although we have the most stringent air safety provisions, I suppose, in the world, and we certainly have the most excellent air safety record, there will still remain cases in which it is possible to prove these things. </para>
          <para>I believe that it is necessary to apply to our domestic airlines a different scale of values from that which we apply to external airlines. The control of our internal airlines is completely within the constitutional power of this Parliament. Let us examine what would be involved if we placed a much higher responsibility upon the airline companies themselves. If I remember rightly, it is about ten years since there was a fatal airline accident in Australia. In that time, the airlines have carried some 18,000,000 passengers. The Minister for Defence <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Townley),</inline> in his second-reading speech, said that insurance companies were exceptionally sensitive to the dangers of air travel. <inline font-weight="bold">Senator McKenna</inline> pointed out in his speech in another place that after an Electra disaster in the United States of America, recently, the insurance companies raised their premium rates all over the world. That was inclusive of Australia, with its high standard of air safety. Therefore, it is an open field for the Commonwealth Government to step into and do something about insurance. Even this Government has established and accepted that principle with regard to the Export Payments Insurance Corporation. Therefore, there is no need for us to be worried at all about the sensitivity of insurance companies. </para>
          <para>Admittedly, the assessment of the loss of an aircraft and of the lives of its 60 passengers would be represented by an astronomical figure, but as I said earlier, in the last ten years 18,000,000 passengers have been carried without loss. If a fund had been established ten years ago and a premium of one penny on each air ticket paid into it, it would now stand at &#163;75,000. If that premium had been one shilling a ticket the total would be approximately &#163;1,000,000. Risks are inherent in air transport, but in view of our high standard of safety it seems a simple matter to ask the airline companies to establish some sort of fund under the auspices of the Government and subject to audit, which is probably desirable, to meet any of the liabilities involved in air accidents which, fortunately, occur on very rare occasions. </para>
          <para>I support the amendment moved by the honorable member for Werriwa <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Whitlam).</inline> In other fields, such as land transport, there is no question of a court being able to award any amount of compensation it wishes. We all know of very large sums being granted by workers compensation boards and by the courts generally in respect of third party insurance. If it is possible to apply a universal coverage of third party insurance to land transport, surely it is possible to apply it to air transport also. The fact that there are difficulties in doing this does not mean anything. </para>
          <para>I understand that the Attorney-General has been entered in the lists of the Cabinet because of his extraordinary ability to solve all sorts of problems. Here is a field in which he could exercise that extraordinary ability. If his speech to-day could be regarded as his maiden speech as a Minister - that is if Ministers make maiden speeches - it has been extraordinary to hear him outlining the difficulties in the legal propositions he has put forward. I suggest that he should turn his talents to overcoming this particular difficulty. We do not accept the suggestion that because it is easy for a widow to acquire &#163;7,500 compensation - I should hope that a male appli cant might be able to obtain it also without undue trouble - it is not necessary to increase that sum in accordance with other proven standards. For that reason members of the Opposition support the amendment. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>923</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JF7</name.id>
              <electorate>Fremantle</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BEAZLEY, Kim</name>
              <name role="display">Mr BEAZLEY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>.- I do not think that any of us would care to cross swords with the Attorney-General <inline font-weight="bold">(Sir Garfield Barwick)</inline> on points of law, especially if we are not lawyers, seeing that he is one of the most brilliant in the Commonwealth. It is important to note, however, that this legislation which the Government has brought down is being introduced in the teeth of a recommendation made by a court of inquiry into an air crash which occurred in Western Australia ten years ago. That court recommended action which is exactly the opposite to what the Government proposes in this measure. I shall read one of its suggestions, which is as follows: -  &#91;t is suggested that the law be amended to provide a form of compulsory insurance, by the operator, of passengers carried and that the insurance maximum be fixed at &#163;2,000. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para class="block">I would emphasize that this suggestion was made in 1949, when the value of money was much different from what it is to-day. The report went on - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>This insurance should be payable irrespective of whether there is proof of negligence on the part of the operator. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">That principle is contained in this measure. The report continued - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>Some of the larger operators in Australia already have such a form of insurance. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">Now comes the recommendation which is contrary to the Government&#39;s measure - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>The insurance should be without prejudice to the right to sue the operator for any damages in excess of the amount insured in the event of tortious liability being proven. </para>
            <para>Alternatively it is suggested that the law be amended to provide that whenever injury is sustained by a passenger in the course of carriage in an aircraft the onus of disproving negligence on the part of the operating company shall lie on the company. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">So, there were alternative approaches to those put forward by the Attorney-General when he started his speech. This recommendation is that the Government&#39;s principle should be adopted, that there should be this fixed insurance, and also that where a person can establish tortious liability over and above that, the company should be liable to pay a further sum. The Minister seems to think there is something wrong with that, but he did not really make a very good case for excluding from the bill what this report specifically recommends. He has said that if a widow, or whoever it is, can sue beyond the &#163;7,500 it is very hard to prove negligence and the parties may be induced into a field of litigation which is a kind of legal death-trap and into which they will pour a great deal of money. </para>
          <para>Surely the onus of making a decision is on the person concerned. There may be many factors which show the grossest negligence on the part of the company in the way the aircraft was maintained on the ground - certain things which are distinctly provable. In answer to my interjection, the Minister said that it would be human nature that the same witnesses who went before the court of inquiry might give different evidence in the court of law. But if they gave the same evidence in the court it might help the persons concerned to establish gross negligence on the part of the company - and not only on the part of the company. This report of the inquiry into the aircraft accident in Western Australia in 1949 established gross negligence on the part of the Department of Civil Aviation for its failure to keep a check on the company, its instruments, and the standard of training of some of its engineers who were uncertificated, and for its failure to keep a check on the standard of pilots. According to this report, the pilot of the plane concerned should never have been a pilot. It includes the report of the chief pilot on that pilot. He examined him on a number of occasions and found that he did not know how to carry out a number of certain elementary operations which the chief pilot considered were essential in piloting an aircraft. </para>
          <para>The finding was that any company, large or small should conform to safety procedures. This was a small company involved. I do not propose to mention its name, since this accident happened a long while ago. The report says that none of the larger companies would have had such a man in charge of its aircraft. It went on to say that the manufacturers&#39; manuals setting out necessary maintenance were not distributed to the maintenance staff. These men saw only sketchy summaries on a board which did not give them a clear indication of the maintenance standards envisaged by the manufacturers. All of these things did not involve the accident to that aeroplane in the air, except that it was proved, from the loading sheets, that the plane was improperly loaded. This created a wrong centre of gravity which could have contributed to its stalling. But all these things were verifiable in the affairs of the company on the ground, irrespective of the difficulty of working out what took place in the aircraft in the air. In those circumstances they constituted at least very strong prima facie evidence that there was negligence. </para>
          <para>I do not wish to labour the report. It goes on to speak about a wrong relationship between the Department of Civil Aviation and this particular company. I do not see why the Department of Civil Aviation, if it neglects to do its job, should not be involved in being sued. In such a case the Commonwealth could be sued. The company could also be sued where there was such clear evidence, not necessarily related to the accident itself, of the general procedures of the company and the employment by the company of unfit persons. </para>
          <para>In the course of the debate on this bill in another place, which I might say provided something of a lawyer&#39;s beanfeast, some startling things were revealed and I should like to see something done to clear up certain anomalies. The liability for death is at the upper limit of &#163;7,500. It was pointed out in another place that if any of us were killed in an aircraft accident, parliamentary pensions for the widow would not be taken into account as reducing the liability of &#163;7,500. The same thing would apply in the case of Commonwealth superannuation and the superannuation of executives of private companies. But in the case of an ordinary widow, the fact that she had qualified earlier for a widow&#39;s pension would be taken as an asset that she has got from the death of her husband and would reduce the &#163;7,500. Similarly, if a wife inherits from her husband a house worth, say, &#163;7,500, she has an accelerated benefit in being left the house by him. It is true that the &#163;7,500 insurance will not cancel out the &#163;7,500 value of the house, but an effort is made to work out what benefit the widow has gained by getting the house earlier than she would have if her husband had died in the normal course, and the &#163;7,500 insurance is reduced accordingly. Tasmania has legislated to prevent that happening, and I understand that legislation exists in New South Wales to prevent it. But such legislation is not Commonwealthwide. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>925</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KWH</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">TOWNLEY, Athol</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Townley</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- There will be a similar provision in the bill. In my second-reading speech I said that I would move an amendment to provide the protection that you seek. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>925</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>6U4</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">WHITLAM, Gough</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Whitlam</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  Does the Minister intend to move such an amendment? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>925</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KWH</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">TOWNLEY, Athol</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Townley</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  Yes. In my secondreading speech I said that all those things would be covered. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>925</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JF7</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">BEAZLEY, Kim</name>
                <name role="display">Mr BEAZLEY</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  I am glad to hear that, and there is now no need for me to continue on those points. I think it can be said that the Government&#39;s action in introducing such amendments after this measure was hell-raked in another place by some of the ablest lawyers in the country indicates that the Government&#39;s approach to this legislation was not as thorough as it should have been. I am afraid that nothing that the Attorney-General <inline font-weight="bold">(Sir Garfield Barwick)</inline> has said, convincing as he is on points of law, really explains why a person who can prove negligence should be debarred from proving liability over and beyond the sum of &#163;7,500. Surely a person should be entitled to make his own decision and not be told that he is only entering into a doubtful and tortuous field of litigation which would cost him a lot of money. If that is the Government&#39;s view, people would be debarred from entering into all sorts of litigation on the ground that it might cost a lot of money to have their grievances rectified. If people wish to enter into litigationI do not think that they should be debarred from doing so. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>Question put - </para>
          <quote>
            <para>That the words proposed to be omitted <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Whitlam&#39;s amendment)</inline> stand part of the question. </para>
          </quote>
        </speech>
        <division>
          <division.header>
            <time.stamp />
            <para>The House divided. (Mr. Deputy Speaker - Mr. T. F. Timson.)</para>
          </division.header>
          <division.data>
            <ayes>
              <num.votes>66</num.votes>
              <title>AYES</title>
            </ayes>
            <noes>
              <num.votes>36</num.votes>
              <title>NOES</title>
            </noes>
          </division.data>
          <para>Majority . . 30 </para>
          <para class="block">
            <graphic href="022131195904075_30_1_3_P.jpg" />
          </para>
          <para>AYES</para>
          <para class="block">
            <graphic href="022131195904075_30_1_1_A.jpg" />
          </para>
          <para>NOES</para>
          <para class="block">
            <graphic href="022131195904075_30_1_2_N.jpg" />
          </para>
          <division.result>
            <para>Question so resolved in the affirmative. </para>
          </division.result>
          <para>Amendment negatived. </para>
          <para>Original question resolved in the affirmative. </para>
          <para>Bill read a second time. In committee: </para>
          <para>Clauses 1 to 14  -  by leave - taken together, and agreed to. </para>
        </division>
      </subdebate.1>
      <para>Clause 15 - </para>
      <quote>
        <para>In assessing damages in respect of liability under the Convention there shall not be taken into account by way of reduction of the damages - </para>
        <list type="loweralpha">
          <item label="(b)">
            <para>a sum paid or payable out of a superannuation, provident or like fund, or by way of benefit from a friendly society, benefit society or trade union; or </para>
          </item>
        </list>
      </quote>
      <para>Amendment (by <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Townley)</inline> agreed to - </para>
      <quote>
        <para>In paragraph (b) omit &#34; or &#34; (last occurring). </para>
      </quote>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>926</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>KWH</name.id>
            <electorate>Denison</electorate>
            <party>LP</party>
            <role>Minister for Defence</role>
            <in.gov>1</in.gov>
            <first.speech>0</first.speech>
            <name role="metadata">TOWNLEY, Athol</name>
            <name role="display">Mr TOWNLEY</name>
          </talker>
          <para>.- I move- </para>
        </talk.start>
        <quote>
          <para>After paragraph (b) insert the following paragraphs: - &#34; (ba) any sum in respect of a pension, social service benefit or repatriation benefit paid or payable, consequent upon the death or injury, by any government or person; &#34; (bb) in the case of death, any sum in respect of the acquisition by a spouse or child of the deceased, consequent upon the death, of, or of an interest in, a dwelling used at any time as the home of that spouse or child, or of, or of an interest in, the household contents of any such dwelling; or &#34;. </para>
        </quote>
        <para class="block">In the course of my second-reading speech - this matter was also referred to by the honorable member for Fremantle <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Beazley)</inline> - I said that we were going to put certain doubts completely out of the minds of juries or courts which might be hearing some of these cases in the future. I said that it was therefore desirable to provide expressly in this bill that insurances and similar payments shall not be taken into account. The courts have, in some cases in assessing damages in respect of injuries or death, taken into account by way of reduction of damages, social service benefits such as widows&#39; pensions, that are or become payable to the person claiming damages. Whether or not it is just that such benefits should be taken into account is a matter on which there is room for difference of opinion. In some States, as we know, there are differences of law in relation to these matters being taken into account. The Commonwealth wants to put the matter beyond all doubt. </para>
      </speech>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>926</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>6U4</name.id>
            <electorate>Werriwa</electorate>
            <party />
            <role />
            <in.gov>0</in.gov>
            <first.speech>0</first.speech>
            <name role="metadata">WHITLAM, Gough</name>
            <name role="display">Mr WHITLAM</name>
          </talker>
          <para>.- This subject was referred to in the debate in another place, and two divisions occurred upon it. The amendment was supported in the other place by all the members of the Australian Labour party and the Democratic Labour party, and by Senators Wright and Wood, and opposed by the remainder of the members of the Australian Country party and of the Liberal party in that place. We thank the Minister, and the Minister for Civil Aviation <inline font-weight="bold">(Senator Paltridge)</inline> whom he represents in this place, for having given a more mature and beneficent consideration to our proposals made in the Senate and for having instigated the amendment of the legislation accordingly in this way. </para>
        </talk.start>
      </speech>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>926</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>126</name.id>
            <electorate>Parramatta</electorate>
            <party>LP</party>
            <role>Attorney-General</role>
            <in.gov>1</in.gov>
            <first.speech>0</first.speech>
            <name role="metadata">BARWICK, Garfield</name>
            <name role="display">Sir GARFIELD BARWICK</name>
          </talker>
          <para>. -  Could I say just one thing? There is a serious difference of opinion as to whether these amending provisions are necessary. When this bill was in another place, the view was entertained - I still entertain the view myself - that neither provision was strictly necessary. I shall not trouble honorable members with the legal refinements, but it has been thought very much better to remove the possibility of misconception. Indeed, these provisions are probably wider than any that were suggested in argument in the other place. </para>
        </talk.start>
      </speech>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>926</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>BV8</name.id>
            <electorate>Melbourne</electorate>
            <party />
            <role />
            <in.gov>0</in.gov>
            <first.speech>0</first.speech>
            <name role="metadata">CALWELL, Arthur</name>
            <name role="display">Mr CALWELL</name>
          </talker>
          <para>.- This is a very badly drafted bill, as events have shown. It was amended in a number of respects in another place after a good deal of debate and after certain Government senators saw the wisdom of the amendments proposed by the Opposition. This amendment, when proposed in the Senate, was rejected by the Government. </para>
        </talk.start>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>926</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KWH</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">TOWNLEY, Athol</name>
              <name role="display">Mr Townley</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  No. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>926</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>BV8</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">CALWELL, Arthur</name>
              <name role="display">Mr CALWELL</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Yes, it was. The Senate divided. Even the Minister does not know what happened or what is being put into his legislation. <inline font-weight="bold">Senator McKenna</inline> moved - </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <quote>
          <para>At the end of the clause insert - &#34; (d) any sum paid or payable by way of pension or allowance in relation thereto under - </para>
          <list type="loweralpha">
            <item label="(i)">
              <para>the Repatriation Act 1919-1958; or </para>
              <list type="lowerroman">
                <item label="(ii)">
                  <para>the Social Services Act 1947-1958 or under any Act amending or replacing any such Act; </para>
                </item>
                <item label="(e)">
                  <para>the value of such portion of the estate of a deceased passenger as passes to a dependant or to a member of his family.&#34; </para>
                </item>
              </list>
            </item>
          </list>
        </quote>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>926</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KWH</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">TOWNLEY, Athol</name>
              <name role="display">Mr Townley</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  Pending further consideration, the Government was not prepared to accept that. There has been further consideration. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>927</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>BV8</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">CALWELL, Arthur</name>
              <name role="display">Mr CALWELL</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- There was a division in the Senate. As the honorable member for Werriwa <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Whitlam)</inline> says, two Government senators supported the amendment. Consideration of this clause took place on the night of 17th March and was adjourned until the following day. It came on again not in its turn but at a later time. The amendment which the Minister now proposes is the insertion of these paragraphs - &#34; (ba) any sum in respect of a pension, social service benefit <inline font-style="italic">or repatriation</inline> benefit paid or payable, consequent upon the death or injury, by any government or person; &#34; (bb) in the caseof death, any sum in respect of the acquisition by a spouse or child of the deceased, consequent upon the death, of, or of an interest in, a dwelling used at any time as the <inline font-style="italic">home of that spouse</inline> or child, or of, or of an interest in, the household contents of any such dwelling; or&#34;. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>927</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KWH</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">TOWNLEY, Athol</name>
              <name role="display">Mr Townley</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- It is much wider than the amendment proposed in the Senate. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>927</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>126</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BARWICK, Garfield</name>
              <name role="display">Sir Garfield Barwick</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- It is more generous. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>927</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>BV8</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">CALWELL, Arthur</name>
              <name role="display">Mr CALWELL</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- It may be more generous and, if so, that makes my case even better. The Government has been forced by the passage of time to do more in this chamber than it was prepared to do on the Opposition amendment in another place. It rejected the amendment in the other place. Now it says, &#34;We have had another look at it, and to put the matter beyond all doubt we shall go even further than was suggested by the Opposition in that other place &#34;. To the extent thatthe Government has improved the bill, we commend it, but it has a long way to go before it can say that this and other legislation that it submits to this chamber has been carefully considered and properlydraf ted. I suggest to the AttorneyGeneral <inline font-weight="bold">(Sir Garfield Barwick)</inline> that if ever there is a doubt as to whether certain amendments should be included in legislation, it is better to include them than not to includethem. The matter might go to the High Court of Australia, and one can never tell what the judges will say on any matter. I suppose that the Attorney-General himself has been shocked by decisions given by the High Court and the Privy Council after he had laboriously hammered a point with his brilliant forensic skill and thought that he had a victory almost in the bag. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <para>It is just as well that the Opposition did persist with its proposals to amend this clause in the other place. I am sure that, as a consequence, when the bill is finally passed, it will be a very much better one than the Government originally intended it to be. </para>
        <para>Amendment agreed to. </para>
        <para>Clause, as amended, agreed to. </para>
        <para>Clauses 16 to 36 - by leave - taken together, and agreed to. </para>
        <para>Clause 37 (Certain liabilities not excluded). </para>
      </speech>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>927</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>6U4</name.id>
            <electorate>Werriwa</electorate>
            <party />
            <role />
            <in.gov>0</in.gov>
            <first.speech>0</first.speech>
            <name role="metadata">WHITLAM, Gough</name>
            <name role="display">Mr WHITLAM</name>
          </talker>
          <para>
            <inline font-weight="bold">.- Mr. Chairman,Imove</inline>- </para>
        </talk.start>
        <quote>
          <para>At the endofthe clause add the following sub-clause: - &#34; (2.) Nothing in this Part shall exclude or limit the liability of a carrier or his servants or agents, for damage resulting from negligence.&#34;. </para>
        </quote>
        <para class="block">This clause is part of Part IV.of the bill, which, on the face of it, applies to interstate air carriage the principles of the Warsaw Convention and the Hague Protocol which apply to international air carriage. We object to this part in that it unnecessarily confines and limits the rights which air passengers have in Australia to those which apply to air passengers between Australia and other countries. We agree that there are improvements in the part in that airline companies in Australia will now no longer be able to contract out of any liability for their passengers, and also in the fact that any passenger, or the legal personal representatives of any passenger, who can prove damages up to &#163;7,500 can now secure the amount of those damages, whereas, previously, in the normal course, without the passenger having taken out further insurance of his own, only &#163;2,000 damages could be recovered. That is an improvement, <inline font-weight="bold">Sir. But</inline> we say that whereas, in regard to international transport, Australia has to accept the limitations of the convention and the protocol, on the other hand, as regards interstate transport, we do not have to accept any such limitations. Not only do we think it is unjust that Australians should be limited unnecessarily in the rights which they have against persons who injure them through negligence. We say that we are carrying this attempt to tidy up and coordinate interstate and international air transport too far when, instead of giving </para>
        <para class="block">Australian passengers within Australia ail the rights which they could have, we arbitrarily and unnecessarily limit them to the rights which they would have in an international flight. We say, <inline font-weight="bold">Sir, that</inline> persons who travel in Australia should be able to recover the full damages which they suffer if they are injured by the negligence of an air operator. </para>
        <para>It is true that it is difficult to prove negligence on the part of an air operator in some circumstances, but it is not impossible to do it. The possibility is not so rare as the Attorney-General <inline font-weight="bold">(Sir Garfield Barwick)</inline> previously would have had us believe. It is true that you have to prove negligence, but in every case of an air accident in Australia - fortunately, there have not been many in recent years - an air court of inquiry has to be held, and impartial experts from the Department of Civil Aviation examine promptly every air accident. They report on the accident to the air court of inquiry and any other persons in the field whom the persons concerned wish to have give evidence may give that evidence, if it is relevant, to the court of inquiry. So that, before one ever takes proceedings against an air operator for negligence, there is a complete preliminary hearing in which all the relevant facts are fully investigated and fully reported upon. Surely, then, it is possible for persons who have been injured, or whose bread-winners have been killed, in an air accident to secure quickly, quite easily and quite cheaply, from perusal of the proceedings of the air courts of inquiry, which are open to the public, and the proceedings of which are readily available, an opinion whether they have an action in negligence against the air operator. We say it is wrong that in the field of air transport, in which more than 2.000,000 passengers are carried in Australia every year, anybody should be denied his rights against an air operator who has been negligent. </para>
        <para>I would point out. <inline font-weight="bold">Sir, that</inline> this bill applies not only to passengers while they are airborne, but also to passengers who are in aircraft on the ground and to passengers who are embarking in or disembarking from an aircraft. There have been - and presumably can be - many accidents on the ground. In another place, an instance was given of an aircraft starting up its motors, travelling several hundred yards into a hangar and stopping in the nick of time - just because the brakes were inoperative. That would have been a clear case of negligence if anything had happened to the passengers in that aircraft. Again, an instance was given of an aircraft having taken off and having to return because it was found that the movable control surfaces - the ailerons and so on - were in a fixed position and had the chocks still in. There is little doubt that if anything had happened to that aircraft and any of the chocks or their material had been found where it crashed, negligence could have been proved against the operator. </para>
        <para>We realize the difficulties which there are in proving negligence against an air operator as distinct from proving negligence against the operator of a railway or of a motor vehicle, but it is possible to do it, and it is all the more easy to do it because an open, public air court of inquiry into such an accident is held before an action for damages is taken. If it is possible to prove negligence in such cases, we should not prevent our fellow citizens from having that right. We merely ask that the 2,000,000 and more people who travel by air every year in Australia should have the same right to recover damages in excess of &#163;7,500, if such damages have been suffered as a result of negligence, as is available to everybody who is injured as a passenger in a motor vehicle as a result of negligence. Third-party insurance is a universal feature of life in Australia. Twenty years ago the people opposite, or their ilk, opposed such reforms in the State parliaments when the third party road insurance was introduced. The principle is now accepted, yet you will find the same specious, the same glib arguments produced by Government supporters, intended to show that it is impossible to bring in such insurance as we suggest now. It is averred that if a widow contests a negligence action she will lose the mite that she hath in prosecuting her rights. Now, we know perfectly well that there are cases in which negligence on the part of air operators has happened, and we know that, when accidents have occurred because of that negligence, in some cases it would have been possible to prove the negligence without any undue difficulty. </para>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>929</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KDY</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">JOSKE, Percy</name>
              <name role="display">Mr Joske</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  Where is the prohibition on suing for negligence? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>929</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>6U4</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">WHITLAM, Gough</name>
              <name role="display">Mr WHITLAM</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  In this part we are dealing with. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>929</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KDY</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">JOSKE, Percy</name>
              <name role="display">Mr Joske</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  It is not there. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>929</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>6U4</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">WHITLAM, Gough</name>
              <name role="display">Mr WHITLAM</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  Yes it is, in clause 36. The only right that a person has now is to claim damages up to &#163;7,500. It is true that he does not have to prove negligence any more than he has to prove negligence if, as an employee, he sues his employer under workers&#39; compensation laws; but we say that it is quite anomalous that we should prevent all those people who travel as passengers in the air from having the same rights as people who travel as passengers on the roads. The Government&#39;s only excuse is that it is difficult to prove negligence in the air. That is true; but it is not impossible. The Government says that it is expensive to prove negligence in the air. It need not be any more expensive to prove negligence in the air, considering the fact that all the evidence is thrashed out beforehand, than it is to prove negligence in many other respects. If a person wishes to risk a suit for negligence in regard to an accident in the air we say that that is a right he should have. In this bill we are denying people that right. We say that if they wish to exercise that right they should be able to do so. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <para class="block">The <inline font-weight="bold">CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bowden).Order!</inline> The honorable gentleman&#39;s time has expired. </para>
        <para>Sitting suspended from 5.58 to 8 p.m. </para>
      </speech>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>929</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>126</name.id>
            <electorate>Parramatta</electorate>
            <party>LP</party>
            <role>Attorney-General</role>
            <in.gov>1</in.gov>
            <first.speech>0</first.speech>
            <name role="metadata">BARWICK, Garfield</name>
            <name role="display">Sir GARFIELD BARWICK</name>
          </talker>
          <para>. -  I point out to the committee that the amendment that has been moved by the honorable member for Werriwa <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Whitlam)</inline> follows what was said by him on the second reading of the bill and, indeed, follows the amendment which he proposed at that stage of the proceedings. The burden of the honorable member&#39;s remarks is this: He said that in the international sphere, the right to sue for negligence is left, and there is no reason why there should be any difference between the international situation and the local situation. I think it very proper that I should point out briefly the difference in the two situations in point of precision. </para>
        </talk.start>
        <para>In the international position, the carrier is liable unless he can prove that he took all the steps necessary and possible to avert the damage which did in fact take place. Negligence has nothing to do with it. The honorable member has said  -  and I agree with him - that the position of the international carrier appears to set an impossible task. The removal of liability internationally does not depend upon negligence. It is not because the carrier was negligent, whether you stigmatize it as negligence or gross negligence; and I might add here that English law long since has given away that distinction as any useful criterion in determining liability. This lifting of the limitation is not because negligence is present but because wilful misconduct is present. Wilful misconduct is interpreted to mean a deliberate act to cause the damage, knowing that you are going to do it. As I mentioned during the debate on the second reading, that amounts to a criminal act and not a negligent act. So, the international situation is that the carrier is liable; but if he is able to do so, he can escape by proving that he did everything that was possible and necessary to avoid the damage. That is a thing he cannot prove. </para>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>929</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K8B</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">CURTIN, Daniel</name>
              <name role="display">Mr Curtin</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  How is the term &#34; negligence &#34; interpreted? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>929</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>126</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BARWICK, Garfield</name>
              <name role="display">Sir GARFIELD BARWICK</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Negligence has nothing to do with this matter. It must be a wilful mistake. Negligence is doing something a reasonable man would not do if so placed, or failing to do something that a reasonable man would do if so placed. It has nothing to do with errors of judgment. Wilful misconduct means a deliberate act. So, internationally, the right to sue for negligence for an unlimited amount of damage is not reserved or maintained. What is maintained in the convention is the ability to sue for an unlimited amount if you can prove that the carrier deliberately did you the harm. As I have said, that is in the case of a passenger in flight or walking up and down a gangplank, which is almost unthinkable. It might be true about cargo because a carrier is liable for his servant&#39;s act and a nasty-minded servant might do damage to cargo or baggage deliberately. That is kept in the local provisions. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <para>What we have done locally is simply first of all to remove the impossible defence that the carrier is given - or the almost impossible defence that is given him - under the convention. We have not kept the notion that there may be an action for unlimited liability for wilful misconduct in the case of passengers. If a criminal act is performed or done by a carrier or his servants, the criminal law will look after him. That is plain in this bill as the word &#34; civil &#34; is put in before the word &#34; liability &#34;. That was put in by amendment to make even plainer what seemed to us to be quite plain. In answer to the honorable member&#39;s amendment which I oppose, I say it is wrong to say there is any difference between the international situation and the local situation under this bill in respect of negligence. The two situations are exactly the same. </para>
      </speech>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>930</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>6U4</name.id>
            <electorate>Werriwa</electorate>
            <party />
            <role />
            <in.gov>0</in.gov>
            <first.speech>0</first.speech>
            <name role="metadata">WHITLAM, Gough</name>
            <name role="display">Mr WHITLAM</name>
          </talker>
          <para>.- The amendment I have moved is that as regards interstate air travel, the citizen shall have the option, if he desires, of suing for unlimited damages if injured because of the negligence of an operator. There is nothing to confuse this position with the position which arises under Part II. and Part III. of the bill. Those parts deal with the rights which Australian companies and citizens have in regard to flights between Australia and other countries. The Commonwealth Parliament cannot pass acts unilaterally determining what those rights and duties shall be. Australia has to join in international legislation to effectuate those rights and duties. In 1929, we signed the Warsaw Convention to provide for them, and in 1955 we signed the Hague Protocol to that convention. </para>
        </talk.start>
        <para>We do not regard these international agreements as ideal, but they are the best which the representatives of more than 40 countries could agree upon themselves. The agreement was reached not by a majority but unanimously. You cannot have an international law unless those who are parties to it are unanimous in agreeing to it. Therefore, as regards international air carriage we accept what has been reached because that is the best that could be obtained. The provision is for &#163;7,400 damages however great the damages are and even if the operator has been negligent. It is true, as the Attorney-General <inline font-weight="bold">(Sir Garfield Barwick)</inline> has said, that if the operator of international flights has been grossly negligent or criminally negligent, the limitation of &#163;7,400 does not apply and the passenger concerned, or those who survive him, can recover any damages which meet the bill. </para>
        <para>But the amendment I have moved is an amendment to a clause which deals entirely with air carriage between the States or other fields of federal competence. In regard to such air carriage, this Commonwealth Parliament is not limited by any international agreement. Under our own Constitution, ever since we have had aviation in Australia, we have been able to pass any act we chose defining the rights and duties of interstate air operators and passengers. We say that the Government, in the interests of simplicity - which is false, illusory simplicity so far as we are concerned - has applied the requirements of international legislation to our interstate air carriage. It has said that interstate operators are not to be made liable for more than &#163;7,500 damages, but they can be made liable for that amount even though they have not been negligent at all. </para>
        <para>Our objections are two-fold. First, in regard to interstate transport, the qualification to which the Attorney-General referred, has been removed. That is as regards interstate air carriage, however negligent, grossly negligent or criminally negligent the air operator has been, an interstate passenger can still recover only &#163;7,500 damages. But I propose to deal with that aspect further when I move a subsequent amendment, with your leave, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Chairman.</inline></para>
        <para>Dealing with the present amendment, we say that as regards interstate air carriage the passenger should not be denied the remedy which is available to him if he is travelling interstate as a passenger in a motor vehicle - or, in fact, if he is travelling anywhere in Australia, in a State or a Territory, as a passenger in a motor vehicle. We know that if a person travels in a motor vehicle on the roads and suffers injury there is no limit to the amount of damages he can recover if he proves negligence on the part of the owner of that vehicle or on the part of the owner of some other vehicle which causes damage to the vehicle in which he is a passenger. </para>
        <para>Similarly, there is no limit to the amount his dependants can recover if he is killed and they can prove such negligence. </para>
        <para>We claim that it is anomalous that in respect of interstate carriage by air, which is the second most popular form of interstate carriage in Australia and a form of carriage with regard to which the Commonwealth Government has unlimited competence, we should limit the amount of compensation that may be obtained. We believe that Australian citizens should have the right, if they want to exercise it, and if they want to spend their money in litigation, to sue for unlimited damages, if they can prove negligence on the part of the persons who own or operate the aircraft in which they are passengers. </para>
        <para>This matter is not of such importance with regard to interstate transport by sea, because that form of transport is rather rare these days. It does not greatly matter so far as interstate transport by rail is concerned, that being the safest and least hazardous mode of transport. But more than 2,000,000 people travel by air in Australia every year, and we say that they should have the same rights as their fellow citizens who travel as passengers on the roads. We also say that a system of thirdparty insurance could cover the risks involved as simply and as fairly as it does with regard to road vehicles. Every owner of a road vehicle has to carry his insurance, and we cannot understand why the owners of aircraft, whom we subsidize to a great extent - I think it is fair to say that every air fare is subsidized by the Commonwealth to the extent of 50 per cent. - should have the advantage of a limitation on the amount of damages that may be recovered from them. </para>
        <para>Let me draw a comparison, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Chairman,</inline> between the rights enjoyed by a person travelling in the airlines bus to the airport and the rights enjoyed by the same person travelling subsequently in an aircraft. If he injures himself getting into or out of the bus, or while in the bus, there is no limit to the amount of damages which he may recover, and which would be covered by third-party insurance, from the person responsible for the injury that he suffers. If, however, he injures himself while in the aircraft, whether it is on the ground or in the air, or even when he is getting into the aircraft or out of it, the amount of damages that he may recover is subject to a limit of &#163;7,500. True, he does not have to prove negligence, but however grossly negligent the operator has been, and even if the person injured can prove negligence beyond any doubt whatsoever, he still cannot recover more than &#163;7,500. This limitation applies even if the . injury was sustained while he was walking up or down the steps leading to the aircraft. </para>
        <para>We say that it is completely anomalous,  unfair and unnecessary to deprive our fellow citizens of the right, if they are so minded, to try to recover unlimited damages in the courts for injuries caused by the negligence of those operating the aircraft in which they travel, when we extend that right to those who travel on the roads. </para>
        <para>This legislation does not simply seek to apply to interstate transport the rules of international transport. It applies those rules with an unnecessary limitation. The limitation, is unnecessary because we could preserve, in interstate transport, the exclusion relating to gross negligence on the part of the operator which applies in respect of every international flight. We could, moreover, because we are completely competent on such matters within our borders, decide that in the air our interstate passengers will have the same rights as are enjoyed by every person who is a passenger on the roads. The legislation does an additional mischief in regard to the third field of air law in Australia, applying to passengers who undertake flights entirely within a State and who, therefore, are subject to State legislation. Those who frame the laws covering this kind of transport will have a model, in the measure before us, of legislation which provides for our citizens something less than is available to them with respect to other forms of transport and something less than we are capable of granting them. </para>
      </speech>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>931</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>DTN</name.id>
            <electorate>Hunter</electorate>
            <party />
            <role>Leader of the Opposition</role>
            <in.gov>0</in.gov>
            <first.speech>0</first.speech>
            <name role="metadata">EVATT, Herbert Vere</name>
            <name role="display">Dr EVATT</name>
          </talker>
          <para>. - I think the committee is entitled to the views of the AttorneyGeneral <inline font-weight="bold">(Sir Garfield Barwick)</inline> as to why this proposal should be rejected. It has nothing to do with international transport or the international convention. It refers only to the control that the Parliament may exercise, under the special power granted by section 51 of the Constitution, to make laws with respect to interstate trade and commerce. In relation to interstate trade and commerce the Commonwealth&#39;s powers are very wide, and they deal with transport in interstate trade. The Commonwealth Parliament can lay down rules for interstate trade which it thinks just. Why should it be said that a limitation should be adopted because of an international convention which fixes a limitation arbitrarily? It has no relation to the general power over transport. It appears that the amount is simply worked out as being a reasonable risk for international aviation to take. In interstate trade there is nothing comparable. </para>
        </talk.start>
        <para>The committee might consider, for instance, the very anomalous rules that have come into existence regarding the limitation of damages in the case of railways. With respect to the New South Wales railways, I think the limitation still stands at &#163;2,000. That amount was fixed, I should imagine, 50 or 70 years ago, when it was feared that there might be some great railway disaster which would result in a burden too big for the community to bear. I believe that public opinion on that matter has changed, and that the public would now accept the proposition that there should be no limitation upon damages. </para>
        <para>In a claim for damages the plaintiff has to prove negligence. The motor car is the vehicle most widely used in road transport, and the owner of a motor car has to insure the vehicle. A person injured, or the dependants of a person killed, may sue for the maximum award which the jury or a judge may be disposed to give. This is guaranteed, in effect, by insurance. Why should the aircraft operators be treated any differently from the operators of motor vehicles? Indeed, as the honorable member for Werriwa <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Whitlam)</inline> has asked, why should the rules applying to the motor bus acting incidental to the air service be different from those applying to the aircraft? </para>
        <para>The idea that there should be a limitation is wrong in modern times. We can understand how the idea arose, but there is to reason why it should be persisted with. That is the real point of the Opposition&#39;s amendment, the case for which has been so ably put by my colleague, the honorable member for Werriwa. There is no reason why we should continue with these limitations. We are considering a matter relating to interstate trade, and surely we are entitled to have a Commonwealth law, a just law, making a negligent person who is responsible for damages liable to pay in full, in the same way as negligent motor car operators are liable to pay in full. The compulsory insurance is merely a form of machinery for guaranteeing that awards for damages in the case of injuries sustained in motor car accidents can and will, at the proper time, be paid. </para>
        <para>The Opposition&#39;s suggestion represents the more modern and more civilized way of looking at the matter, and I submit that it is the proper way. Many illustrations could be given, but the whole question boils down to whether or not the person responsible for a civil wrong of negligence, causing injury or death, should pay to the person injured or his dependants a sum sufficient to cover full legal damages. Such persons can insure. They can take out insurance policies against the risk or there could be in interstate trade a system of compulsory insurance such as is imposed in connexion with motor car accident liability by compulsory insurance law. I think that in Canberra, now, there is a compulsory insurance provision which has been adopted from New South Wales. </para>
        <para>I cannot understand why it is that this special release from liability - this special beneficial action towards aircraft operators - should be applied to interstate trade when it is not needed for interstate trade in Australia. The interest concerned is the interest either of the operators of the aircraft or the insurance companies. That risk can all be covered by insurance. So, if there is an accident, to a great extent that can be met. But I look at it from the point of view of the individual and the individual is entitled to recover so far as the legal limit existing under the general law is concerned, damages in the ordinary case. I have pointed out that there are exceptions such as the statutory limitation in connexion with railways. I do not think that that is a limitation which should continue in modern times. It is there, but that is no reason why something similar should be perpetuated. I submit that it is a matter of elementary justice, as an incident in the law of negligence applied by the Commonwealth to interstate trade, that this should be treated according to the general principle. </para>
        <para>I entirely agree with the honorable member for Werriwa <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Whitlam)</inline> that the Government should explain why interstate trade, which the Commonwealth controls in this aspect, should have to follow a law adopted by a convention as the best that could be obtained out of the compromise which every convention represents. Some countries, probably, would not go as far as other countries wished to go. I think that the United States of America was very strongly opposed to the convention. It wanted the damages under the international convention to be far greater than the arbitrary figure of, I think, &#163;7,000. Whether or not that is inadequate has nothing to do with the point we are making. The question is whether a person responsible for a civil wrong of negligence causing injury or death should be mulct of damages in the same way as a person causing an injury by motor car. Why should the Government cut down the area of the law and give a benefit to people operating in a certain business for their profit? No doubt they operate very skilfully, but the exceptional case happens and when negligence occurs let the general law apply. </para>
        <para>Let me give a further illustration. We are speaking of interstate trade because the Commonwealth&#39;s only relevant power is in interstate trade. The Commonwealth cannot regulate trade within a State. But there is no more reason why this concessional benefit should be given by the Commonwealth in interstate trade than there would be for it to be given with regard to trade within a State if that were to be regulated by the Commonwealth. The States can control intra-state trade. They can fix the limitation of liability where they like. But there is no reason why this limit should be fixed. It seems to me that the trend in Australia must be towards Commonwealthwide control of aviation, including domestic trade as well as interstate trade. Why, then, does the Government fix this arbitrary figure, determined by the convention for reasons which relate to the difficulty of getting agreement internationally? </para>
        <para>For purposes of Commonwealth legislation we should regard the standard to be aimed at as the ordinary standard of justice. That is to say that the wrong-doer should pay to an injured person or his family the damages which the law awards in ordinary cases. Why is it not done in this case? Are we not entitled to know why? The aviation companies are not in a position in which they cannot undertake greater liability for damages. They would have to insure, of course. No doubt that would increase costs, but the Opposition is looking at it from the point of view of the injured person. There is no reason in the world why the injured person should not be able to sue for damages in the event of proved negligence. It is not merely a matter of insuring against accident. </para>
      </speech>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>933</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>10000</name.id>
            <electorate />
            <party />
            <role />
            <in.gov>0</in.gov>
            <first.speech>0</first.speech>
            <name role="metadata">CHAIRMAN, The</name>
            <name role="display">The CHAIRMAN</name>
          </talker>
          <para>- Order! The right honorable member&#39;s time has expired. </para>
        </talk.start>
      </speech>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>933</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>126</name.id>
            <electorate>Parramatta</electorate>
            <party>LP</party>
            <role>Attorney-General</role>
            <in.gov>1</in.gov>
            <first.speech>0</first.speech>
            <name role="metadata">BARWICK, Garfield</name>
            <name role="display">Sir GARFIELD BARWICK</name>
          </talker>
          <para>.- The Leader of the Opposition <inline font-weight="bold">(Dr. Evatt)</inline> has asked for an explanation of why this legislation takes a particular form. Let me say immediately that it does not take this form because of any question of power. I have not said and I do not say that there is any limit on the power with respect to interstate trade and commerce which requires the legislation to take this form. So it is idle to discuss what power we have. This limitation is not imposed because of any supposed similarity to the limitation imposed on government railways or railway corporations in the early days. That was imposed for a policy reason quite different. There, it was not thought that a pioneering government enterprise ought to run the risk of being financially ruined by undue claims for damages. </para>
        </talk.start>
        <para>There is no similarity either to the limitation we have in connexion with merchant shipping. Under merchant shipping law, when one ship collides with another, the owners of the ship at fault can say, &#34; I limit my liability to &#163;8 sterling per ton of my ship &#34;. That provision was introduced to encourage British shipping. These limitations have nothing to do with the provisions of this bill. There is no similarity between third party insurance with respect to road transport and what we are doing here. The man who is knocked down on the road has not a contract with the fellow who knocks him down. But  a  person who buys an air ticket makes a contract and the contracting air carrier can exclude him, if he wants, from all recovery. That is the situation in which this legislation has been introduced. The carrier is able to protect himself entirely. We are not limiting a right. If we came down on the side that the Leader of the Opposition advocates we would say to the injured party, &#34; Very well. Sue for negligence. Take the whole burden of proving negligence against the air carrier with all its risks and difficulty, and good luck to you &#34;. </para>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>934</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K8B</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">CURTIN, Daniel</name>
              <name role="display">Mr Curtin</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Why not? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>934</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>126</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BARWICK, Garfield</name>
              <name role="display">Sir GARFIELD BARWICK</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Because it would be too foolish to suggest such a thing. This is what the right honorable gentleman has been asking: Why should not the position be similar to that in relation to the railways or a man who is knocked down on the road? In the field of civil aviation, because the company makes a &#34;contract of carriage, it can exclude from compensation the person who suffered  injury. The Commonwealth comes into that field and says to the injured person, &#34;We will give you a new right to recover damages without proving any negligence. But  when we do that and displace the right of the carrier - and it is an important right - we think it only fair and reasonable to say that we will impose on the new right a limit which will be just about enough to cover the ordinary man because the rest of you - the businessman, the business executive, and, perhaps, the member of parliament - are well able to take out a policy of insurance and work out for yourselves what further risk is involved &#34;. We think that is eminently sensible and fair. It has nothing to do with any of the other things that have been talked about. Then it is said, &#34; Why not enforce compulsory insurance on the air carrier?&#34; In the same breath, the honorable member for Werriwa said, &#34; We are already subsidizing him &#34;. What would happen? There would be a very large increase in insurance premiums. No one knows in what proportions they may vary from time to time. When the new Electra crashed in New York premiums sky-rocketed. No one can tell what the rates will be in a free market - a world market - such as it is. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>934</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>6U4</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">WHITLAM, Gough</name>
              <name role="display">Mr Whitlam</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- We could legislate with respect to insurance. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>934</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>126</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BARWICK, Garfield</name>
              <name role="display">Sir GARFIELD BARWICK</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- What is the good of that if no one will take the insurance? No one in Australia can accept their risks. Furthermore, additional premiums go into costs. I suppose that rather than that aircraft companies should look for more subsidies it is much more sensible to say to the passengers, &#34; Those of you who feel yourselves to be above the ordinary class of air traveller with respect to whom &#163;7,500 is a fair cover, have to add to your own fare the cost of extra insurance &#34;. I am quite sure that most of the travellers have enough sense to do that. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <para>This is not the limiting of an existing right, because at present there is no right. The contract with the carrier has deprived the passenger of that. The Government is providing a new right. The Government saysit is fair enough, since it has pushed the carrier out of his right, to fix a limit to the new right. With respect to third party insurance, limits do exist in some States. </para>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>934</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K8B</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">CURTIN, Daniel</name>
              <name role="display">Mr Curtin</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- In Liberal States. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>934</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>126</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BARWICK, Garfield</name>
              <name role="display">Sir GARFIELD BARWICK</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I do not know whether or not they are Liberal States; I cannot identify them. That is my answer to the right honorable gentleman. I hope I have explained why the legislation takes this form. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
      </speech>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>934</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>JSU</name.id>
            <electorate>Wills</electorate>
            <party />
            <role />
            <in.gov>0</in.gov>
            <first.speech>0</first.speech>
            <name role="metadata">BRYANT, Gordon</name>
            <name role="display">Mr BRYANT</name>
          </talker>
          <para>.- The Attorney-General <inline font-weight="bold">(Sir Garfield Barwick)</inline> has based his argument on two points. First he has suggested that in any air accident the penalty is death and not necessarily injury: and secondly, that insurance policies are worked out on a free market. Let us examine, first of all, the value of &#163;7,500 to a person who is injured, or to one who suffers total incapacity as a result of his injury. These facts face people in the third party insurance field and are responsible for third party claims reaching such high figures as are often paid. Members of the Opposition consider that it is logical that if a person is injured in an air crash to the same extent as he might have been injured in a road accident in respect of which damages are recoverable he should be able to recover compensation to the same extent in respect of the air accident without the additional burden of paying for special insurance. </para>
        </talk.start>
        <para>The second point is the insurance policy itself. The pampered darlings of the whole of the travel economy of Australia are the airlines, and they should be expected to provide the insurance policies of the passengers. Admittedly, there is some substance in the point raised by the Attorney-General that the airlines are already subsidized and if they provided further cover their subsidies would have to be increased. They would then have to meet the additional cost either by raising fares or taking it out of their profits. Last year 2,000,000 passengers travelled by airlines in Australia, but they were not subject to a great degree of danger. I do not think there has been a fatal airline accident in Australia for ten years. It would be a simple matter to create a fund which could be built up with contributions according to the number of passengers carried and use that fund to take care of any contingency which might arise. Members on this side of the committee say that it is simply a matter of logic that the policies and principles which apply for the protection of a traveller by road or rail - particularly by road - should be applied to the traveller by air. The Attorney-General has completely begged the question. He has not answered the points raised by members on this side. </para>
      </speech>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>935</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>KVT</name.id>
            <electorate>Port Adelaide</electorate>
            <party />
            <role />
            <in.gov>0</in.gov>
            <first.speech>0</first.speech>
            <name role="metadata">THOMPSON, Albert</name>
            <name role="display">Mr THOMPSON</name>
          </talker>
          <para>. - There are one or two points upon which I am not quite clear. Many an air traveller has the impression that if he travels in an aeroplane his wife will be automatically entitled to collect insurance to the extent of &#163;7,500 if an accident happens and he is killed. I am not a lawyer, and I should like a little more information before I decide whether something should be done about this provision in the legislation. Clause 31 of the bill, to which the committee has already agreed, provides -  (I.) Subject to the regulations relating to passenger tickets, the liability of the carrier under this Part in respect of each passenger, by reason of his injury or death, is limited to the sum of seven thousand five hundred pounds or such higher sum as is specified in the contract of carriage. </para>
        </talk.start>
        <para class="block">It seems to me that the sum of &#163;7,500 would not be the limit if the ticket was for more. The Attorney-General <inline font-weight="bold">(Sir Garfield Barwick)</inline> said just now that if the liability was greater than &#163;7,500 then the premium would increase as was done in the case of the Electra aircraft in America. He suggested that the premiums would skyrocket. lt seems that instead of everybody being able to say, &#34; I am covered to the extent of &#163;7,500 &#34;, they are to be covered by a sum appropriate to the value of their ticket. Most .air passengers do not read the conditions on their tickets but take it for granted that once they buy an air ticket and are in the aeroplane they are covered to the extent of &#163;7,500. I am not sure that that is the position. </para>
        <para>The honorable member for Werriwa <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Whitlam)</inline> pointed out that accidents can happen in connexion with aircraft which in no way involve crashes in respect of which no evidence is available. Honorable members may recall the case of a man walking towards an aircraft about to depart ,and being drawn by the heavy draft into the propeller and killed. Obviously, the company was liable to provide protection so that such a thing could not happen. We have heard of other cases in which men and women walking towards an aircraft to board it have been struck by the propeller and killed. The AttorneyGeneral suggests that one cannot compare a road accident with an aeroplane accident, but in this measure the Government has done away with the civil rights of persons, or of their next-of-kin, who are injured in aircraft accidents. </para>
        <para>Victims of road accidents have been awarded &#163;15,000 or &#163;20,000 as compensation for injuries received. I take it from my reading of this bill that the maximum amount of compensation payable would be &#163;7,500 unless .a higher amount was named in the contract with the person making a flight. I repeat the question of the honorable member for Werriwa and the Leader of the Opposition <inline font-weight="bold">(Dr. Evatt):</inline> Why should these civil rights be taken from air travellers? I direct attention again to clause 35 which provides -  (2.) Subject to section thirty-seven of this Act. the liability under this Part is in substitution for any civil liability of the carrier under any other law in respect of the death of the passenger or in respect of the injury that has resulted in the death of the passenger. </para>
        <para class="block">The Government is taking that right away. The ordinary man in the street who travels in an aeroplane considers that he has rights at common law in respect of anything that might happen, lt has always been my impression that such rights include the right of a person to claim unspecified damages in connexion with any accident, lt does not even specify an accident with a motor car. By &#39;&#34; common law &#34; we understand the right of the common people to compensation for injury. I cannot see why this right should be excluded from this measure. 1 can agree with the Attorney-General about provision being made for the rights of a person who can prove that negligence Was responsible for an aircraft crash in which he was injured. I believe in giving that right to the passenger, because it is sometimes difficult to prove the cause of the crash. The bill will prevent people with a good case from seeking redress at common law. We should consider the responsibilities that different men may have. One man may have a wife and one child eighteen years of age. Another man may have a wife and six children, some of whom require medical attention. It is not right to say to that man that he cannot go to the court in the ordinary way and seek a just award. The proposal of the honorable member for Werriwa, if adopted, would be a move in the right direction. Intending passengers should be quite clear in their minds whether they are entitled to &#163;7.500 or to the amount that is printed on their tickets. I do not know the true meaning of this clause, and I should like the Minister or somebody on the Government side to give a clear interpretation of the meaning of the clause. </para>
      </speech>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>936</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>DTN</name.id>
            <electorate>Hunter</electorate>
            <party />
            <role>Leader of the Opposition</role>
            <in.gov>0</in.gov>
            <first.speech>0</first.speech>
            <name role="metadata">EVATT, Herbert Vere</name>
            <name role="display">Dr EVATT</name>
          </talker>
          <para>. -  I should like to say a few words about clause 35, which states - </para>
        </talk.start>
        <list type="lowerroman-dotted">
          <item label=".">
            <para>. the liability under this Part is in substitution .... </para>
          </item>
        </list>
        <para class="block">The liability that is removed is the civil liability of the carrier under any other law in respect of the death of a passenger or injury resulting in the death of a passenger. That is to say. if there were no other law on the subject there would be liability for negligence. Of course, such liability could be excluded. That is what the AttorneyGeneral <inline font-weight="bold">(Sir Garfield Barwick)</inline> said. If the carrier stipulated in the contract that there would be no liability whatever, you would be carried at your own risk, but carriers know that it would not be profitable to do that and they know that if they did it they would get no patronage. This clause, in effect, removes the ordinary common law liability of the carrier and fixes a limit of liability. 1 do not say that in every case an action should be brought for damages, but I am certain that in some cases the total sum payable if negligence were established would be very great. It should be if the negligence causes injury or death. That is the ordinary law. Under this bill the carrier can limit his liability. </para>
        <para>There is no doubt that this bill will turn out to be a great boon to the air carriers, but they should not be treated differently from other persons. The Attorney-General disclaims any relationship with the limitation in railway cases. We are getting rid of the common law liability to pay damages for negligence causing injury or death to a passenger. A carrier could insure to cover himself against any disaster that may occur. The belief is widely held that it is difficult to prove negligence in air accidents. On the contrary, I think it is almost certain that every air accident is traceable to some form of negligence or misconduct. Such negligence or misconduct may be difficult to prove because the persons concerned may not be able to give evidence. They may be injured or dead, but that does no1 exclude proof of negligence. Heavy damages have been recovered in several cases of air accident. Heavy damages do not necessarily mean unjust damages. They merely represent full compensation - the damages awarded are equal to the losses sustained. That is all that we are seeking. If you cause injury through negligence, and you are in a carrying busineses of this kind, you should pay. You should not be able to fix a limit irrespective of whether the damages caused amount to &#163;30,000 or &#163;50.000. To plead the statute means that the person who is by hypothesis guilty of negligence and should pay in full has the benefit of the difference between full damages and the limited sum. I think that the Opposition&#39;s view is the correct one, and I think that it should be adopted by the Government. That would be bare justice. </para>
      </speech>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>937</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>KWH</name.id>
            <electorate>Denison</electorate>
            <party>LP</party>
            <role>Minister for Defence</role>
            <in.gov>1</in.gov>
            <first.speech>0</first.speech>
            <name role="metadata">TOWNLEY, Athol</name>
            <name role="display">Mr TOWNLEY</name>
          </talker>
          <para>. - Whatever the merits or otherwise of this bill may be, one thing has become clear this afternoon, and that is that it has been a field day for the lawyers. They have had a good go this afternoon. We have been regaled with stories of tort-feasors and so on. Fortunately, we do not have to pay for it in this place. But I think it is necessary to get away from some of the hypothetical and academic points of view that are being put forward with the best of good faith by the legal profession. Let me repeat what I said in my second-reading speech on this point. I said - </para>
        </talk.start>
        <quote>
          <para>The proposed limit of &#163;7,500 is approximately the same as the international figure which, when converted into Australian currency, is &#163;7,400. The figure of &#163;7,500 has not been selected solely for this reason. </para>
        </quote>
        <para class="block">I should like honorable members to pay a little more attention at this stage than they apparently paid this afternoon. In my speech I said - </para>
        <quote>
          <para>Detailed study has indicated that the figure of &#163;7,500 represents the coverage required by the average air traveller. </para>
        </quote>
        <para class="block">I do not want to weary the House by going into the why and wherefore of this detailed study, but I assure the House that such a detailed study has been made with great care and accuracy. If a higher limit were adopted, the cost of the extra insurance would, in the last resort, be borne mainly by passengers who would be unlikely to be able to prove damages in excess of &#163;7,500. This would be for the benefit of a minority of passengers who would be able to prove damages greater than &#163;7,500. This evening, the honorable member for Werriwa <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Whitlam)</inline> - possibly I should say my learned friend - spoke of a millionaire travelling by air and said that &#163;7,500 would be more or less chicken feed to him. But my point is that after the most detailed study, &#163;7,500 is a figure that emerges for the ordinary, average air traveller. If a millionaire, a friend of the honorable member for Werriwa, travels, that is fair enough. Why should the average traveller, for whom a figure of &#163;7,500 is reasonable and adequate, be burdened with an extra premium for a higher amount, which will be added to the cost of his ticket, in order to meet liability in respect of those wealthy people for whom &#163;7,500 is not enough? I commend to the committee the wisdom of this proposition. It has been shown by the most detailed examination that the average person is adequately provided for by this figure of &#163;7,500. Those people who are in the minority class of persons for whom &#163;7,500 is not enough, can get for 2s. per &#163;1,000 all the insurance cover they like for a particular journey or for a period of 24 hours. I suggest that that is pretty fair. </para>
        <para>The Opposition has made much of a comparison between car transport and air transport. There is unlimited liability in respect of injury to a person travelling in a car, but the proposition is that there will be a limit of &#163;7,500 in respect of injury to a person travelling by air. Air travel is infinitely safer than road travel. When we pick up our newspaper every morning we see that dreadful list of road accidents. I will touch wood when I say that in five years we have carried over 10,000,000 people on our commercial airlines, and not one fatality has occurred. That is a magnificent tribute to the Department of Civil Aviation, the examiners of airmen, the Australian airlines, and the competence of the men who fly the aircraft and the men who maintain them. But it has been said that if we travel by road we are covered completely, whereas if we travel by air we are covered to the extent of only &#163;7,500, and that this is wrong. I wish that the AttorneyGeneral <inline font-weight="bold">(Sir Garfield Barwick)</inline> were here, because I should like to compliment him on the contribution he has made to this debate. Tt was a sheer delight to listen to him, in his clear exposition not only of this bill, but also of the law in general. Those of us who are laymen all enjoyed the experience. As he pointed out, the subtle difference is this: If there is an accident, minor or major, on the roads, there is usually quite a lot of evidence to be obtained, but when an aircraft &#34; spins in &#34;, rarely is it possible to establish the cause. </para>
        <para>The honorable member for Werriwa <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Whitlam),</inline> answering the AttorneyGeneral, said, &#34; Yes, but I can tell you of a couple of occasions &#34;. He said that one was when an aircraft was started up and taxied into a hangar because the brakes failed. That, he said, was clearly a case of negligence. I take issue with him on that. If he had ever flown aircraft, he would know that hydraulic systems can be a little erratic, and that not until one went for his brakes would a failure in the hydraulic pressure occur. It need not necessarily be as a result of negligence. </para>
        <para>He cited, as another case of negligence, an aircraft which took off with the pins still in the aileron controls. That may or may not have been the result of negligence. But the point is that in both of these instances there was not an accident. The Attorney-General said that in an aircraft accident the evidence was destroyed. The honorable member for Werriwa said, in reply, &#34; I can give you instances where there was negligence &#34;. The answer is that in those instances there was not an accident. </para>
        <para>Now the Opposition has come out with the accident at South Guildford. Honorable members opposite did not mention its location, but that was obviously the one referred to. They said, &#34; Here is a clearcut case &#34;. In the evidence before the court of inquiry, it was stated that the pilot was not competent. The check captain had been there and said, &#34; This man is not even good at his stick and rudder work, and in a major airline he would not get a job &#34;. In the course of the evidence it was said that the maintenance of this small operating company was not what it should have been. </para>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>938</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JF7</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BEAZLEY, Kim</name>
              <name role="display">Mr Beazley</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  That was in the report. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>938</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KWH</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">TOWNLEY, Athol</name>
              <name role="display">Mr TOWNLEY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  Yes. You went right through this report and told us all of these things in support of your argument, which was quite valid. What we were not told was how the report finished. I dug it out, and this is what it says - </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <quote>
          <para>The same rules as are applicable to liability in tort for injuries sustained by passengers in land vehicles on account of the negligence of the driver of the vehicle or the negligence of the owner of the vehicle are applicable to injuries sustained by passengers in aircraft, but it is obvious that the nature of an aircraft is such that it is often extremely difficult, if not impossible, when an accident happens to prove negligence. </para>
        </quote>
        <para class="block">That is the point that the Attorney-General made. The report finishes - </para>
        <quote>
          <para>This is such a case. </para>
        </quote>
        <para class="block">
          <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Chairman,</inline>I suggest that the amendment should be rejected. </para>
      </speech>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>938</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>JF7</name.id>
            <electorate>Fremantle</electorate>
            <party />
            <role />
            <in.gov>0</in.gov>
            <first.speech>0</first.speech>
            <name role="metadata">BEAZLEY, Kim</name>
            <name role="display">Mr BEAZLEY</name>
          </talker>
          <para>.- I honestly still cannot see why the Government says that because it is very difficult to prove that an aircraft accident is due to negligence nobody should be given any remedy at law even if he is satisfied that the aircraft accident is due to negligence. The Government is proposing to give cover to the extent of &#163;7,500. I do not think that the Minister does himself any credit by postulating the case of a millionaire. </para>
        </talk.start>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>938</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KWH</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">TOWNLEY, Athol</name>
              <name role="display">Mr Townley</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  I did not. It was you; I just reminded you. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>938</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JF7</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BEAZLEY, Kim</name>
              <name role="display">Mr BEAZLEY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  Excuse me, I did not mention a millionaire. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>938</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KWH</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">TOWNLEY, Athol</name>
              <name role="display">Mr Townley</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  Your side did. Are you not in the party? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>938</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JF7</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BEAZLEY, Kim</name>
              <name role="display">Mr BEAZLEY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- The Minister must accept responsibility for his own words. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>938</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KMD</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">OSBORNE, Frederick</name>
              <name role="display">Mr Osborne</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- You must take responsibility for your side&#39;s part in the debate, lt was said by the honorable member for Werriwa, who is sitting at the table. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>938</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JF7</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BEAZLEY, Kim</name>
              <name role="display">Mr BEAZLEY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  I am quite willing to take responsibility for anything that anybody says, if the Minister says that that is necessary for the purposes of this debate. But the case postulated by the Minister of some rich man dying on an aircraft, seems to me to be rather absurd. People critically injured in an aircraft accident may live for many years in a state of living death. For them &#163;7,500 is not adequate compensation. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>938</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>6U4</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">WHITLAM, Gough</name>
              <name role="display">Mr Whitlam</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  There are frequently verdicts for &#163;20,000 or more. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>938</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JF7</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BEAZLEY, Kim</name>
              <name role="display">Mr BEAZLEY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  Yes. This is what disturbs me. Always the Government is speaking about an aircraft accident in which one cannot, because of the pulverized condition of the wreckage, really determine where responsibility lies. I was in Europe four years ago when a Swiss Airlines Convair took off from Paris to fly to London, which is not a very long flight for a Convair. Five people neglected to put any petrol in the Convair. There were five people who should have checked up - the pilots and various members of the ground staff in Paris. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>938</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KGC</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">HAMILTON, Leonard</name>
              <name role="display">Mr Hamilton</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  But they got there. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>938</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JF7</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BEAZLEY, Kim</name>
              <name role="display">Mr BEAZLEY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- They did not get there. The aircraft landed in the sea in the Channel. A number of children and their parents on board that Convair were drowned. There is a clear case of negligence, and I do not know how the Minister could get round it. It would not be very difficult to prove that there was negligence. Under this legislation, which presumably conforms with international custom, the sum total of compensation that people could get would be &#163;7,500. The Minister has brushed aside the report that I quoted, but it made a definite recommendation, and it is precisely that recommendation that we have been pressing. I should like to read to the Minister what the report recommends on this exact point. It refers to a fixed sum as compensation - like the Minister&#39;s &#163;7,500. It reads - </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <quote>
          <para>The insurance should be without -prejudice to the right to sue the operator for any damages in excess of the amount insured in the event of tortious liability being proven. </para>
        </quote>
        <para class="block">Swiss Airlines, without any doubt, exhibited tortious liability in the case of the Convair which went down in the Channel. We know that the cases wherein people would get full compensation would be rare and that it really is hard to prove negligence. But surely that is all the more reason. If it is going to be so hard to prove, there goes your argument that you would have to so load tickets with the insurance that the airline companies would have to take out to cover the enormous damages that people would get. If it is going to be very rare for them to prove by their own legal efforts any tortious liability going beyond the &#163;7,500, surely the insurance companies will not be mulcted of large sums, and a tremendous cost will not be added to the air fares. All the Government&#39;s arguments about it being practically impossible to prove negligence just reinforce the argument that where you can prove negligence you should be able to get more than the &#163;7,500. </para>
      </speech>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>939</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>KLL</name.id>
            <electorate>Bonython</electorate>
            <party />
            <role />
            <in.gov>0</in.gov>
            <first.speech>0</first.speech>
            <name role="metadata">MAKIN, Norman</name>
            <name role="display">Mr MAKIN</name>
          </talker>
          <para>
            <inline font-weight="bold">.- Mr. Chairman,</inline>I feel that the reply given by the Minister for Defence <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Townley)</inline> to the arguments advanced by the Opposition is very .unsatisfying. Although I tried to follow what the Minister was saying in order to learn something of the Government&#39;s attitude on this matter, I must admit that I did not detect any note of logic in his expression of the attitude that the Government has adopted. The committee has not been given any adequate explanation why one rule is set for one class of travel and denied in regard to another. The position is that one may sue at common law for such damages as a court may award in relation to any negligence as it affects travel on the roads of this country, but such damages in relation to air travel are limited to &#163;7,500. Why is the Government denying the Australian travelling public that added advantage and protection that they should have if the airline companies honoured their responsibility to see that negligence does not occur? In relation to this situation, it seems as if there were some desire to limit the obligations and responsibilities of the airline companies, to the disadvantage of the Australian travelling public. The amount of &#163;7,500 is negligible and far too small to compensate adequately for a permanent disability or incapacity suffered in an aircraft accident resulting from negligence on the part of the airline operator. Evidently, there is some desire specially to protect the airlines from the obligations that they should rightly discharge in order to ensure that the travelling public are afforded the maximum of protection and safety by any provision that may be made. </para>
        </talk.start>
        <para>The Minister said that if a passenger desires added protection he can take out extra insurance. But should that be the passenger&#39;s obligation? Should it not be the obligation of the airline to see that air travellers are afforded the maximum protection and safety? The airlines should afford their passengers the maximum protection against accident and it should not be necessary for the passenger to take out extra insurance in circumstances in which, had he been travelling by other means, he would have been entitled at common law to bring a suit against the people responsible for the negligence that had occurred and to claim damages adequate for any injury that he may have sustained. </para>
        <para>I feel that the amendment proposed by the honorable member for Werriwa <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Whitlam)</inline> is more than justified, and I hope that the committee will see the wisdom of agreeing to it in order that the Australian travelling public may be afforded the maximum possible protection. </para>
      </speech>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>939</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>KMD</name.id>
            <electorate>Evans</electorate>
            <party>LP</party>
            <role>Minister for Air</role>
            <in.gov>1</in.gov>
            <first.speech>0</first.speech>
            <name role="metadata">OSBORNE, Frederick</name>
            <name role="display">Mr OSBORNE</name>
          </talker>
          <para>. - <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Chairman,</inline> the honorable member for Bonython <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Makin)</inline> has complained that the Government seeks to impose limitations on the rights of recovery of airline passengers who are injured, or of personal representatives of passengers who are killed, in such a way that they will be denied rights which have been afforded in respect of other forms of transport. However, the honorable member has quite overlooked the long history of the limitation of the right to recover damages in relation to different kinds of transport which have been frequently mentioned in this debate. There is, for example, the limitation of liability imposed by government railways in this country. </para>
        </talk.start>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>940</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KLL</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MAKIN, Norman</name>
              <name role="display">Mr Makin</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  I spoke about roads. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>940</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KMD</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">OSBORNE, Frederick</name>
              <name role="display">Mr OSBORNE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  I cannot speak about the South Australian railways. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>940</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KLL</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MAKIN, Norman</name>
              <name role="display">Mr Makin</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  I spoke about roads, and the Minister knows it. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>940</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KMD</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">OSBORNE, Frederick</name>
              <name role="display">Mr OSBORNE</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  The honorable member spoke about roads, and we are speaking about airlines. He said that the Government seeks to impose limitations on the right to recover damages in a way that is not done in respect of any other forms of transport. I refer the honorable gentleman to railways. There is a long history of the limitation of liability in relation to the railways. As I am sure the honorable gentleman knows, there is a long history of the limitation of liability for damages by shipowners. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <para>What the Government has done in this instance is to limit the liability of airline operators for accident, death or injury occurring to passengers to &#163;7,500. But, although the bill imposes a liability, it also confers a benefit - I venture to suggest that over thelong course in the future it will prove to be a considerable benefit - in that the injured passenger, or the personal representative of a passenger killed in an accident will no longer be required to prove negligence. This freedom to claim what you will about which the honorable member has been talking, is. of course, dependent upon the proof of negligence. As has been pointed out here frequently in thepast. without proof of negligence - andproof of negligence often fails - the applicant recovers nothing. Here, the passenger or his personal renresentative can recoverup to &#163;7,500 without any proof of negligence. </para>
        <para>The honorable member complained that the Government had suggested that if a passenger wanted higher cover it wasopen to him to take out additional insurance. and he said that  it  ought to be the airline operator&#39;s obligation take out the insurance. In that, he overlooked entirely the fact that the whole cost, ultimately, would come back on the passenger. It is quite foolish to say that this liability ought to  be  on the operator, and to have no regard for the fact that the liability eventually comes back to the traveller himself. The precaution is reasonable and very sensible. </para>
        <para>The honorable member for Bonython has  complained  about this Government imposing liabilities on airline travellers, but I remind him that, in 1945, a Labour government - of which he was a member - in the Australian National Airlines Act which it introduced in that year, limited to &#163;2,000 the liability of Trans-Australia Airlines - its own pampered  darling  and monopoly airline, to the success of which it was so devoted that it wanted to exclude all other  airlines.  Would the honorable gentleman from Bonython care to explain how he finds  it  so  disreputable in  this Government to limit the liability to &#163;7,500 when the government of which he was a member limited it to &#163;2.000? </para>
      </speech>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>940</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>KYS</name.id>
            <electorate>Barton</electorate>
            <party />
            <role />
            <in.gov>0</in.gov>
            <first.speech>0</first.speech>
            <name role="metadata">REYNOLDS, Leonard</name>
            <name role="display">Mr REYNOLDS</name>
          </talker>
          <para>.- I listened to the debate this afternoon but perhaps I missed an explanation of the provision in clause 37, and I would be glad if the Minister for Defence <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Townley)</inline> would repeat it for my benefit. It has been stated at various times during this debate that &#163;7,500 is the automatic, and the maximum, amount that will be payable in respect of death in an air accident. But clause 37 makes provision for payment of an  indemnity  to an employer who had a legal liability to cover an employee who is killed  in  an accident. It also makes provision  regarding  the payment of contribution to a tort-feasor who is liable in respect of the death of. or injury to, a  passenger.  The last part of the clause reads -  but this section does not operate so as to increase he limit of liability of a carrier in respect of a passenger beyond the amount fixed by or in accordance with this Part. </para>
        </talk.start>
        <para class="block">Does that mean that,  in  fact, the payment of &#163;7,500 is to cover not only the relatives of the person who meets with the accident but also the other people mentioned in clause 37? If that be so, none of these persons may receive the &#163;7,500 compensation. </para>
        <para>I should like to raise another point now in relation to insurance. It has been claimed in this debate that if people wanted to they could insure themselves for payments in excess of the  &#163;7,500  specified in this bill. The honorable member for Fremantle <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Beazley),</inline> I think, quite rightly mentioned that, the Government having pointed out that it is so difficult to prove negligence in air accidents, the chances are that the insurance companies are likely to be called upon to make few such payments. I would add the further point that the conduct of aviation in this country over the last ten years has been remarkably free from accidents. I understand that insurance premiums are related to the incidence of claims made on insurance companies. If that be so, the very low incidence of air accidents in Australia should mean that the premiums required from airline companies for the insurance of their passengers against death or injury should be comparatively low. </para>
        <para>Actually, I would say that an unlimited liability would be a greater inducement to air safety, because the Department of Civil Aviation, on behalf of the Government, would be even more careful and more stringent about the observance of safety provisions. Unlimited liability would provide that extra inducement, that extra motivation for the authorities and organizations concerned, to be mindful of public safety in the carriage of people by air. </para>
        <para>I should say that the liability is on the airline companies to protect themselves. It is not so much a question of their protect  ing  their passengers. I think it is a case of the companies protecting themselves against claims made as a result of negligence on their part. </para>
        <para>I come back to the main point with which I am concerned. I wish to have some clarification from the Minister for Defence or one of the other Ministers at the table of the provisioninclause37. Does this clause mean that, in fact,  &#163;7,500  is not only the absolute limiting amount to cover the relatives or dependants of a person injured or killed, but is also a complete coverage in respect of the other people mentioned in the clause, such as the employer in a compensation case, or the tortfeasor? </para>
      </speech>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>941</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>K8B</name.id>
            <electorate>Kingsford</electorate>
            <party />
            <role>Smith</role>
            <in.gov>0</in.gov>
            <first.speech>0</first.speech>
            <name role="metadata">CURTIN, Daniel</name>
            <name role="display">Mr CURTIN</name>
          </talker>
          <para>. - I should like to make a few remarks in regard to this bill. I did not like the jocular manner in which the Minister approached the respective clauses. He tried to brush things off, of course, in his usual manner. He talked about lawyers, and mentioned that one great feature of this debate had been the advice and opinions of the legal eagles of this Parliament. </para>
        </talk.start>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>941</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KKU</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MACKINNON, Ewen</name>
              <name role="display">Mr Mackinnon</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  And now we have to have the opinions of the bush lawyer. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>941</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K8B</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">CURTIN, Daniel</name>
              <name role="display">Mr CURTIN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- The bush lawyer from Kingsford-Smith may know a little more and be a bit more realistic in his comments, than the legal eagles. I disagree with the opinion of the Attorney-General <inline font-weight="bold">(Sir Garfield Barwick),</inline> one of the &#34; greats &#34; in the legal profession.  His  argument was designed to fob off questions by drawing distinctions between wilful misconduct and negligence. It costs people fortunes to listen to that sort of argument from socalled legal eagles. What I want to know is this: Does the Minister suggest that  &#163;7,500,  which on the average is lower than any compensation claim that has been paid out over the years, and much lower than most compensation claims paid in New South Wales, is enough to cover the grief of a family the father of which is killed in an aircraft accident while proceeding to his work or proceeding somewhere in order to obtain work? Of course, the Minister may be in the millionaire class. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <para>The Minister stated htat it is hard to prove negligence. Anybody who has worked in industry - and we can gather from the opinions expressed by Ministers that they have never worked in industry - knows that it is quite easy to prove negligence, for instance, in the workshops that have a lot to do with the construction of aircraft. We know that Trans-Australia Airlines has a system under which employees are paid for fault-finding. This is an inducement to the employees to prevent errors in construction. But are the private airlines operating such a system? A fault in a spare part, due to its manufacture from inferior material, may be the result of negligence of an inspector or a supervisor. </para>
        <para>I ask just this one question, and I should like the legal eagles to answer it: Is the father of a family to blame because he is killed through the negligence of a supervisor in relation to the manufacture of a spare part or the construction of an aircraft generally? </para>
        <para>Is the Minister trying to protect the airlines? Is he trying to protect and foster the insurance companies? He gave an open invitation to passengers to take out more insurance. Apparently the Minister does not believe that fares are high enough already without people having to undertake the obligation of insuring themselves against negligence on the part of the operators of the aircraft in which they travel. </para>
        <para>I would say that Trans-Australia Airlines has a very good reputation as regards safety measures. I wish I could say the same about other concerns. But what I am concerned about, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Chairman,</inline> is the Minister&#39;s idea of what compensates a family for the death of a bread-winner. Would &#163;7,500 compensate the mother of five or six young children for the death of a husband, when she faces the task of having to provide for these children until they reach the school-leaving age, and then perhaps establish them in a trade? I think the Minister should give that some consideration. Of course, the legal eagles would not think of anything like that, simply because they do not know what goes on under the surface. They have no idea! If they did, instead of trying to protect the rich airline companies and seeking more business for the insurance companies, they would try to protect the interests of the people who voted them into office. The Government was elected to watch the interests of the ordinary people, but its supporters know nothing about the needs of the man in the street. Day in and day out, they can think of nothing but the wealthy companies. </para>
        <para>I compliment the honorable member for Werriwa <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Whitlam)</inline> on the manner in which he has put the case for the Opposition. I fully support his statement of the Labour party&#39;s viewpoint and his case for the man in the street. This is the honorable member&#39;s first appearance at the table of this chamber to put the Opposition&#39;s viewpoint against the so-called great legal eagle. The legal eagle saw fit to walk out of this chamber and leave the honorable member for Werriwa to assume his rightful place in undisputed possession of the field. I congratulate my colleague and support the amendment he has proposed. </para>
      </speech>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>942</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>KWH</name.id>
            <electorate>Denison</electorate>
            <party>LP</party>
            <role>Minister for Defence</role>
            <in.gov>1</in.gov>
            <first.speech>0</first.speech>
            <name role="metadata">TOWNLEY, Athol</name>
            <name role="display">Mr TOWNLEY</name>
          </talker>
          <para>, -  I shall take only a few mniutes to reply to the honorable member for Kingsford-Smith <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Curtin)</inline> who has just resumed his seat at the close of his speech, or perhaps I should say his emotional outburst. To use his own phrase, the legal eagles do not understand what this bill is all about. If the breadwinner of a family dies, according to the honorable member &#163;7,500 is completely inadequate to compensate his family. The honorable member asked: What would the legal eagles know about the troubles of a widow left with a family and maybe with an apprentice to keep? Presumably the only only people who have this information are honorable members who support the Australian Labour party. We who associate ourselves with the so-called legal eagles support the payment of &#163;7,500, and I just want to point out to the committee that honorable members on the Opposition side, who claim omniscience concerning the needs of people in the lower income bracket, considered, when they were in office, that &#163;2,000 was enough. </para>
        </talk.start>
      </speech>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>942</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>KYC</name.id>
            <electorate>Lalor</electorate>
            <party />
            <role />
            <in.gov>0</in.gov>
            <first.speech>0</first.speech>
            <name role="metadata">POLLARD, Reginald</name>
            <name role="display">Mr POLLARD</name>
          </talker>
          <para>.- I listened to the Minister for Air <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Osborne)</inline> inform the House that in 1945 a Labour government provided only &#163;2,000 as compensation for loss of life incurred in an aircraft accident when it introduced a measure for the establishment of TransAustralia Airlines. The honorable gentleman did not explain that a number of years have elapsed since then and that in the interim, the value of money has decreased substantially. Even if that were not so. does it follow that because some government in 1945, irrespective of its political complexion, was not as generous or as just as it might have been in the opinion of some honorable members, we should perpetuate an injustice? The Minister for Air said that if &#163;7,500 was inadequate, a passenger could take out additional insurance. In other words, the private insurance companies would come to the party. Everybody knows that the cost of administration and the profits of private insurance companies have never been higher. Consequently, if the Minister&#39;s suggestion were followed, the premium rates would be higher than they are now where government instrumentalities carry their own insurance. Does anybody deny that? The right thing, and the least costly thing to do, would be for the Government which operates its own airline to carry its own insurance and, for that matter, to make it compulsory for the private airlines to carry their insurance also. </para>
        </talk.start>
        <para>Nobody has pointed out that whilst &#163;7,500 may seem generous in terms of a lump sum, it would be exceedingly unwise for a widow who received such an amount to dissipate it on rearing her family and running her home. Normally, when persons receive compensation they invest the money. Let us consider that proposition in terms of &#163;7,500 and, for the sake of rapid calculation, work on a basis of &#163;8,000. I do not suppose that anybody could invest in a gilt-edged security anywhere in Australia at a better return than 5 per cent. A yield of 5 per cent. on &#163;8,000 would return &#163;400 a year, or &#163;8 a week, for a widow in such circumstances. A person who was totally incapacitated might live as an invalid for twenty years. Such a person would receive &#163;8 a week at a time when the Arbitration Court estimates the bare minimum basic wage in Australia at &#163;13 10s. What a munificent Government we have! Talk about pauperization; it is disgraceful! </para>
        <para>The Minister for Air talked about the pampered Trans-Australia Airlines. Does he know that the departmental files contain a report of evidence that was given before a departmental committee of which <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Corbett</inline> was  chairman.  Evidence given before that committee suggested that there should be a corporation - a closely knit concern for those who were already in the business - to run the airlines after the war. These disciples of private enterprise wanted competition eliminated except for the few who were already in the game. Further, the evidence given before that committee by a representative of one of theprivate airline operators was so bad and misleading that he was told by the  chairman  to go away and come back the following day and give correct evidence. He was told to cease telling untruths. These are the people this Government talks about and protects by not obliging them to provide adequate cover for airline passengers. </para>
        <para>This Government considers that &#163;7,500 which will return no more than &#163;8 a week is adequate for those who may suffer. Surely, honorable members can rise above party in this matter and provide that persons who travel on airlines should have at least the right that is given to every citizen when proceeding against road operators. Reference has been made to the fact that the railway authorities place a limit on compensation of &#163;3,000 to &#163;4,000. Does that make the proposals in this bill any better? Accidents on the State railways are exceedingly rare, but they are frequent on the roads. The cover should be highest where accidents are most likely to occur. I ask the Government, and the Minister as a reasonable man, to increase the cover provided by airline operators or at least to provide that the injured shall have the right at law to recover maximum compensation. </para>
        <para>Question put - </para>
        <quote>
          <para>That the amendment <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Whitlam&#39;s)</inline> be agreed to. </para>
        </quote>
      </speech>
      <division>
        <division.header>
          <time.stamp />
          <para>The committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr. G. J. Bowden).</para>
        </division.header>
        <division.data>
          <ayes>
            <num.votes>38</num.votes>
            <title>AYES</title>
          </ayes>
          <noes>
            <num.votes>61</num.votes>
            <title>NOES</title>
          </noes>
        </division.data>
        <para>Majority . .  . . 23 </para>
        <para class="block">
          <graphic href="022131195904075_49_2_3_P.jpg" />
        </para>
        <para>AYES</para>
        <para class="block">
          <graphic href="022131195904075_48_2_1_A.jpg" />
        </para>
        <para>NOES</para>
        <para class="block">
          <graphic href="022131195904075_49_2_2_N.jpg" />
        </para>
        <division.result>
          <para>Question so resolved in the negative. </para>
        </division.result>
      </division>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>944</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>6U4</name.id>
            <electorate>Werriwa</electorate>
            <party />
            <role />
            <in.gov>0</in.gov>
            <first.speech>0</first.speech>
            <name role="metadata">WHITLAM, Gough</name>
            <name role="display">Mr WHITLAM</name>
          </talker>
          <para>.- I  move - </para>
        </talk.start>
        <quote>
          <para>At the end of the clause add the following subclause: - &#34; (2.) Nothing in this Part shall exclude or limit the liability of a carrier for an act or omission of the carrier or his servants or agents done - </para>
          <list type="lowerroman">
            <item label="(i)">
              <para>with intent to cause damage, or </para>
            </item>
            <item label="(ii)">
              <para>recklessly and with knowledge that damage would probably result.&#34;. </para>
            </item>
          </list>
        </quote>
        <para class="block">You will remember, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Chairman,</inline> that Part IV. of this bill in general terms applies to interstate flights the same conditions as apply, pursuant to the Warsaw Convention and the Hague Protocol thereto, to international flights. There are, however, certain differences between interstate requirements in this Part IV. and the international requirement in Parts II. and III. The Government would aver that these differences result from a desire to simplify the international requirements. or trim from them certain obscurities or obfuscations, before applying them for interstate purposes. </para>
        <para>The Minister for Defence <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Townley)</inline> cited as one of the two important modifications which Part IV. makes in interstate carriage, as distinct from international carriage, the fact that the carrier is not deprived of the limit of &#163;7,500 if the damage results from an act or omission done with intent to cause damage recklessly and with knowledge that damage would probably result. I think the Minister said in his second-reading speech that the carrier is deprived but, in fact, he meant that the carrier is not deprived. </para>
        <para>We have learned from the AttorneyGeneral <inline font-weight="bold">(Sir Garfield Barwick),</inline> in his contribution to the second-reading debate and in committee, that the modification means that criminal negligence or gross negligence on the part of an operator in the course of interstate carriage will not deprive the operator of the benefit of that limit of &#163;7,500. In regard to the international operation, the limit is &#163;7,400  -  a quarter of a million gold francs - unless the operator or his servants or agents have been grossly or criminally negligent, in which case the injured person or his legal representative can recover unlimited damages - damages limited only to the amount he can prove as flowing from that gross or criminal negligence. </para>
        <para>It would seem, in regard to interstate carriage, that the same benefit to the passenger should be preserved, but the Government believes that however gross, however criminal, the negligence of the operator, the passenger still should not receive more than &#163;7,500 in damages. That amount, as we know, is to be shared between his close relatives and all other persons who suffer loss because ofhis death or the injury to him. </para>
        <para>It was said during the second-reading speech that the United Kingdom Government had applied the provisions of the Warsaw Convention to domestic air carriage within the United Kingdom by the Carriage by Air (Non-International Carriage) (United Kingdom) Order, 1952. Our legislation is more elegantly titled than the British but is not as just as the British to internal air passengers. In that British order the proisions of the Warsaw Convention have been preserved on this point. </para>
        <para>You will remember, <inline font-weight="bold">Sir, that</inline> the exact provisions of the Hague Protocol substituted the new Article 25 in the Warsaw Convention as follows: - </para>
        <quote>
          <para>The limits of liability specified in Article 22--  that is &#163;7,400-  shall not apply if it is proved that the damage resulted from an act or omission of the carrier, his servants or agents, done with intent to cause damage or recklessly and with knowledge that damage would probably result; provided that, in the case of such act or omission of a servant or agent, it is also proved that he was acting within the scope of his employment. </para>
        </quote>
        <para>The amendment that I have moved seeks to preserve for interstate air passengers in Australia the benefit which that article, as amended in the Convention and Protocol, ensured for international air passengers. The amended article replaced the following article in the Warsaw Convention: - </para>
        <list type="decimal-dotted">
          <item label="1.">
            <para>The carrier shall not be entitled to avail himself of the provisions of this Convention which exclude or limit his liability, if the damage is caused by his wilful misconduct or by such default on his part as, in accordance with the law of the Court seised of the case, is considered to be equivalent to wilful misconduct. </para>
          </item>
          <item label="2.">
            <para>Similarly the carrier shall not be entitled to avail himself of the said provisions, if the damage is caused as aforesaid by any servant or agent of the carrier acting within the scope of his employment. </para>
          </item>
        </list>
        <para>Those paragraphs appear at the top of page 21 of the bill. They constitute Article 25 of the First Schedule. </para>
        <para>The British order modifies the article of the Warsaw Convention. The modifications occur in the first schedule of the order and the amended form is set out in the third schedule of the order. As amended, it reads - </para>
        <quote>
          <para class="block">Article 25. (1.) The carrier shall not be entitled to avail himself of the provisions of this Schedule which exclude or limit his liability, if the damage is caused by his wilful misconduct. (2.) Similarly the carrier shall not be entitled to avail himself of the said provisions, if the damage is caused as aforesaid by any servant or agent of the carrier acting within the scope of his employment unless the carrier proves that the wilful misconduct of his servant or agent took place without his actual fault or privity. </para>
        </quote>
        <para class="block">In the United Kingdom, this removal of the limitation has taken place. I should like to know why, in Australia, in equating in some respects the interstate to the international provisions, and in seeking to simplify the interstate provisions, we have not at least preserved for domestic travellers, as in the United Kingdom, some exemption in favour of the passenger as against the criminally or grossly negligent operator. </para>
        <para>I presume that, in this regard, as in regard to the other amendment which was moved, it will be said that the cost would be prohibitive, that aircraft companies would have to pay a vast amount in increased insurance, and that that would have to be passed on to air travellers. If it is so rare to be able to prove negligence on the part of an aircraft operator, surely it is still more difficult to prove gross or criminal negligence on the part of an operator. One would think, therefore, that claims, international, interstate or domestic, under such an amendment as I have moved, would be very many times fewer. </para>
        <para>Looking at the quantum of the insurance, let me recall the statement of the Minister for Defence on this subject. He said that the increase in the insurance cover from the &#163;2,000 limit which at present applies to the &#163;7,500 limit which will apply under Part IV. of this bill would involve a total annual increase in insurance premiums payable by all domestic operators from &#163;42,000 to &#163;1 10,000. If we preserve for interstate travellers the same provision that is made in favour of international travellers, if we were to confer on interstate travellers the same provision as the United Kingdom, six or more years ago conferred on domestic air travellers, and if, furthermore, we realize that the difficulties of proving grave or criminal negligence are great and the opportunities to prove it therefore are few, it is plain that the extra insurance premiums involved would be very small indeed. They would be no great burden on the aircraft operators. They would be an infinitesimal burden on the air travellers as individuals or as a class and accordingly we can at very small cost secure the same justice in interstate air travel as we already have for international air travellers and which already applies to all air travellers in the United Kingdom. </para>
      </speech>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>945</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>126</name.id>
            <electorate>Parramatta</electorate>
            <party>LP</party>
            <role>Attorney-General</role>
            <in.gov>1</in.gov>
            <first.speech>0</first.speech>
            <name role="metadata">BARWICK, Garfield</name>
            <name role="display">Sir GARFIELD BARWICK</name>
          </talker>
          <para>. -  The House has already rejected an amendment which would have lifted this limit in the case of negligence. That being so, this amendment, in truth, is an impossible one. It would be wrong - and the committee has said so - to alter the structure of this bill by allowing a claim for unlimited damages if negligence were proved. It necessarily follows that it would be wrong also to lift the limit if wilful misconduct were proved. Damages are not a punishment for negligence; they are only an endeavour to recompense the plaintiff. When you go to punish a person you prosecute him criminally. </para>
        </talk.start>
        <para class="block">There is no reason to suggest that we should lift the limit where there is criminality on the part of the operator. Before you do that you might as well lift the limit where there is negligence. Indeed, there would be much more sense in lifting it in the case of negligence if there were any need to make any alteration in the structure at all. </para>
        <para>Basically, I have endeavoured to explain the philosophy of the bill. It has given a new right with a limit and it has said that this will be irrespective of negligence. It is logical to say also that it is quite irrespective of criminality. The honorable member constantly says that gross negligence or criminal negligence are the things provided for in the Convention, but with very great respect, I should like to say that there is no similarity in the precise expression between those two ideas. </para>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>946</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>6U4</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">WHITLAM, Gough</name>
              <name role="display">Mr Whitlam</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  I thought they were the words you used. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>946</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>126</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BARWICK, Garfield</name>
              <name role="display">Sir GARFIELD BARWICK</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  I did not use them. I said that gross negligence was written out of our law and that wilful misconduct is not gross negligence. It has nothing to do with negligence; it is wilful, deliberate conduct causing damage. I said that that would be criminal conduct. It is not a question of cost of insurance in the case of this amendment, as the committee has already said that the structure of the bill does not call for a lifting of the limit in the case of negligence. With very great respect, that, to my mind, means equally that there is no case for lifting the limit in the case of wilful misconduct. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <para>Let me repeat what I said on an earlier occasion: It is more than teasing a plaintiff to say to him, &#34; If you like, you can fight the aircraft company and try to prove that the pilot drove the machine into the ground deliberately &#34;, or &#34; The person caused you injury deliberately with intent or that he did so recklessly with the knowledge that what he was doing would harm you &#34;. That sort of occasion is so rare that it would be luring persons to their destruction to leave such a provision in the law. It is no use saying to me that the United Kingdom legislation left that provision in; it made other little changes. </para>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>946</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>6U4</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">WHITLAM, Gough</name>
              <name role="display">Mr Whitlam</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  What were those changes? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>946</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>126</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BARWICK, Garfield</name>
              <name role="display">Sir GARFIELD BARWICK</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  They put the word &#34; reasonable &#34; instead of &#34; necessary &#34; in section 20. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>946</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>6U4</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">WHITLAM, Gough</name>
              <name role="display">Mr Whitlam</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  Would the Minister accept an amendment such as that? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>946</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>126</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BARWICK, Garfield</name>
              <name role="display">Sir GARFIELD BARWICK</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- No. I say that the United Kingdom did something quite different. We have thought this thing through and we say, quite distinctly, that it is right to provide a new remedy with a limit which is fair and reasonable. These other provisions are no more than tantalising. They are not real; they do not refer to any sort of case which is ordinarily likely to happen. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <para>While I am on my feet, I wish to refer to the honorable member for Fremantle <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Beazley),</inline> who interrupted earlier by citing a report and saying that the court of inquiry which investigated an aircraft accident at South Guildford in Western Australia found many breaches of regulations and that the aircraft had defective engines. At the end of its report that court of inquiry said something which is worth noting. It bears out what I have been saying, that negligence is so difficult to prove in the case of an aircraft accident. This passage appears at the end of the report - </para>
        <quote>
          <para>The same rules as are applicable to liability in tort for injuries sustained by passengers in land vehicles on account of the negligence of the driver of the vehicle or the negligence of the owner of the vehicle are applicable to injuries sustained by passengers in aircraft, but it is obvious that the nature of an aircraft is such that it is often extremely difficult, if not impossible, when an accident happens to prove negligence. </para>
        </quote>
        <para class="block">This is such a case, and all the findings that the people have got out of the report quoted by the honorable member would have ended up with their not having any evidence of negligence on the basis of the report itself. I mention that in passing, and in further justification of what I put to honorable members earlier. </para>
        <para>I oppose this amendment, not on the question of costs but because it is out of line with the philosophy of the bill.In truth it was negatived when the committee negatived lifting the limit for negligence so as to allow negligence to be the subject of a claim. The Government thinks that this proposal would only tantalize or lure plaintiffs to their destruction by endeavouring to prove remote cases against very well-equipped and financial defendants. </para>
      </speech>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>947</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>JF7</name.id>
            <electorate>Fremantle</electorate>
            <party />
            <role />
            <in.gov>0</in.gov>
            <first.speech>0</first.speech>
            <name role="metadata">BEAZLEY, Kim</name>
            <name role="display">Mr BEAZLEY</name>
          </talker>
          <para>.-I hope the Attorney-General <inline font-weight="bold">(Sir Garfield Barwick)</inline> will have the grace to admit  that  I quoted the report on the precise point that we have been arguing all the night. That committee of inquiry recommended that there should be liability beyond the actual sum which was named as adequate cover. There are cases where negligence is clearly shown. The Attorney-General was out of the chamber when I spoke of an experience in Europe where a Swiss Airlines Convair flying from Paris to London did not take enough petrol and came down in the English Channel. Five persons were supposed to have checked its petrol supply.  I do not think there was much difficulty in proving negligence in that case. </para>
        </talk.start>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>947</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>126</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BARWICK, Garfield</name>
              <name role="display">Sir Garfield Barwick</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  In that case there was wilful misconduct. The company was excused from negligence in that flight. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>947</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JF7</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BEAZLEY, Kim</name>
              <name role="display">Mr BEAZLEY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- It may be different, but we are only discussing the question of whether an injured party should have the right to sue a company. The AttorneyGeneral has the strangest manner of debating that I have heard in this Parliament. He said, &#34; We have given this very serious consideration &#34;. Every government says that. He almost seemed to think that on that basis it was wrong for the Opposition even to discuss the point. I think there has been more evidence that there has not been serious consideration of this legislation by the Government than there has been in respect of any other bill that I can think of. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <para>In the Senate this measure was subject to terrific attacks, including some from Liberal senators. The assault was particularly strong in the speeches of <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Wright</inline> in relation to the interpretation of some State laws as a result of which certain people would have the maximum of &#163;7,500 greatly reduced because they were inheriting houses and other assets from husbands killed in air accidents. The unfortunate Ministers in the Senate were floundering about in the face of such attacks and the Government has now been making amendments in the bill, holus-bolus, some of which were resisted by the Ministers in the Senate. It is to the credit of the Government&#39;s intellectual integrity, in one  sense, that it has been prepared to make these amendments; but that does not support the Attorney-General&#39;s contention that a great deal of consideration was given to this measure before it was brought down. Since many matters were forcibly brought to the attention of the Government in the Senate debate the Government has been scrambling to incorporate changes. This does not suggest such deep consideration at the outset that the Opposition should not even dare to criticize the bill. </para>
      </speech>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>947</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>JWV</name.id>
            <electorate>Perth</electorate>
            <party />
            <role />
            <in.gov>0</in.gov>
            <first.speech>0</first.speech>
            <name role="metadata">CHANEY, Fred</name>
            <name role="display">Mr CHANEY</name>
          </talker>
          <para>.- I do not want to join in the argument about the proposed amendments to this clause. I want to refer to the fact that honorable members have no copies of the amendments that have been moved by the Opposition. We have copies of the amendments proposed by the Minister in charge of the bill. Obviously, the Opposition has prepared its case and I think that all honorable members should have before them copies of amendments that the Opposition proposes to move. I am sure that honorable members could not repeat the wording of the amendments that have been moved. </para>
        </talk.start>
        <para>Mr.Crean. -  The Opposition is doing you a favour by debating this bill on the same day that it was introduced. </para>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>947</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JWV</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">CHANEY, Fred</name>
              <name role="display">Mr CHANEY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  I am not criticising the honorable member for Melbourne Ports. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>947</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JAG</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">CREAN, Frank</name>
              <name role="display">Mr Crean</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  If the Opposition had not agreed to debate the bill to-day, the House would have had to adjourn for a week. You have no other business. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>947</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JWV</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">CHANEY, Fred</name>
              <name role="display">Mr CHANEY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  This bill was passed in the Senate on 19th March. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>947</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JAG</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">CREAN, Frank</name>
              <name role="display">Mr Crean</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-Rubbish! </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>947</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JWV</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">CHANEY, Fred</name>
              <name role="display">Mr CHANEY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- The fact is that the bill was passed by the Senate on 19th March, and I imagine that the Opposition prepared its case in the meantime. That is obvious from the way in which honorable members on the opposite side have spoken in the debate. Therefore, there shouldhave been no difficulty in having the proposed amendments printed and circulated to honorable members. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
      </speech>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>947</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>JSU</name.id>
            <electorate>Wills</electorate>
            <party />
            <role />
            <in.gov>0</in.gov>
            <first.speech>0</first.speech>
            <name role="metadata">BRYANT, Gordon</name>
            <name role="display">Mr BRYANT</name>
          </talker>
          <para>.- In reply to the honorable member for Perth <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Chaney)</inline> and for the record, I feel that I should make it clear that the Opposition has debated this bill on the day that it was introduced. We have made that concession. We do not have the same resources at our disposal for the printing of amendments as the Government has. </para>
        </talk.start>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>948</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JWV</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">CHANEY, Fred</name>
              <name role="display">Mr Chaney</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I am not criticizing you. What 1 said1 was right. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>948</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JSU</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BRYANT, Gordon</name>
              <name role="display">Mr BRYANT</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  The amendments that have been proposed from this side are the result of consideration of the legislation, consideration of experience overseas and consideration of other legislation. Despite the very fluent remarks made by the Attorney-General <inline font-weight="bold">(Sir Garfield Barwick)</inline> about the philosophies behind this bill - this is probably not the appropriate time to debate the meaning of the word &#34; philosophy &#34; .in this context - we remain completely unconvinced that it is a logical attitude to take arbitrarily a figure that has no relation to the damages that are given elsewhere in similar cases, particularly for injury. As I said earlier, the AttorneyGeneral did not give a logical or complete answer to the proposition that a person injured in an air accident may require much more than &#163;7,500 in damages. We on this side remain completely unconvinced. Honorable memebrs opposite need only read the report of the debate in the Senate to see that these questions have not been answered and that originally the bill was not very carefully prepared. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
      </speech>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>948</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>6U4</name.id>
            <electorate>Werriwa</electorate>
            <party />
            <role />
            <in.gov>0</in.gov>
            <first.speech>0</first.speech>
            <name role="metadata">WHITLAM, Gough</name>
            <name role="display">Mr WHITLAM</name>
          </talker>
          <para>.- I feel that I should make some explanation for people who might have heard in the chamber and over the air, the remarks of the honorable member for Perth <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Chaney)</inline> concerning the fact that copies of this second amendment that I have moved are not available. This bill was not on the notice-paper to-day. The first reading took place to-day. By leave the second reading followed. Another bill was then read a first time and, by leave, a second time. I was then required to speak on the second reading of this bill. </para>
        </talk.start>
        <para>The House met at 2.30 and I had to make my speech on the second reading at about 4.30. After a few honorable members had spoken on the second reading, we passed into the committee stage at about 5.15 or perhaps 5.30. Then we were given the Government&#39;s amendments. They were printed. We found that some of the Government&#39;s amendments embraced1 some of the amendments that we anticipated proposing. We thank the Government for simplifying our task. But there were two amendments which still remained to be moved. One was an amendment which was moved in the Senate by the Leader of the Opposition and which was supported by Senators Wood and Wright of the Liberal party, <inline font-weight="bold">Senator McManus</inline> of the Democratic Labour party, and <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Byrne</inline> of the Queensland Labour party. The other amendment was the one that I have just moved, which was proposed in the Senate by <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Wright</inline> and supported by the other senators whom I have mentioned. </para>
        <para>The honorable member for Perth was reduced, as all of us were, to reading the proceedings in the Senate in order to see what the amendments would be. I am sorry that they could not be circulated in printed form. </para>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>948</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JWV</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">CHANEY, Fred</name>
              <name role="display">Mr Chaney</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  I was not blaming you. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>948</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>6U4</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">WHITLAM, Gough</name>
              <name role="display">Mr WHITLAM</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- The honorable member should blame the person in charge of the proceedings. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>948</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JWV</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">CHANEY, Fred</name>
              <name role="display">Mr Chaney</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  That is exactly what I did. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>948</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>6U4</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">WHITLAM, Gough</name>
              <name role="display">Mr WHITLAM</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- In that case, I agree. We are flying in the same formation. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>948</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>126</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BARWICK, Garfield</name>
              <name role="display">Sir Garfield Barwick</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  I hope you do not crash together. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <continue>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>948</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>6U4</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">WHITLAM, Gough</name>
              <name role="display">Mr WHITLAM</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- There has been criminal negligence on the AttorneyGeneral&#39;s part - wilful misconduct amounting almost to criminality. It has passed beyond the stage of gross negligence. I do not propose to ask the committee to follow in this splitting of hairs. This debate today has seen the first flights of the Attorney-General in debate in this place. I think we can concede that he weaves  a  fair web of words. He said that it would be wrong to alter the structure of the bill. What is the structure of the bill? We are asking that the structure of Part IV. shall accord with the structure of Parts II. and III. We are asking that the structure of Part IV. shall accord with the United Kingdom Order in Council of 1952.  The  Attorney-General said that there  is no  reason to raise the limit of &#163;7,500  where  there is criminality. He said that the Government had decided that  it  would  not  raise the limit where there is negligence. He said  that  there  was  no reason  to raise  the limit where there is criminality. I would have thought that there was every reason to raise the liability of an operator where he has been criminally negligent, even if you do not raise it where he has been merely careless. If he has been guilty of deliberate misconduct, why should he get the benefit of the limitation that inures to those who have been merely careless, who have merely omitted to do the things which a prudent operator would do, or have done the things which a prudent operator would not do. The Government is saying that it does not matter how reckless or how criminally negligent you are, you still do not have to pay more than &#163;7,500 to everybody who is injured or bereaved and suffers because of your negligence or your recklessness. The AttorneyGeneral said - these were entrancing words - that we would be teasing plaintiffs, that we would be luring plaintiffs to their destruction, that we would be tantalizing plaintiffs if we were to enable them to claim unlimited damages when they could prove them against an operator who had been criminally negligent. The AttorneyGeneral would have us believe that all the 44 countries which signed the Hague Protocol are luring plaintiffs to their destruction - teasing and tantalizing them. He would have us believe that the British Government for the last six and one-half years had lured, teased and tantalized plantiffs. He has not cited a single case of that happening under the British legislation. Finally, he said that this legislation would be out of line with the philosophy of the bill. That was a grandiose and fatuous phrase. Why should not the philosophy of Part IV. of the bill accord with the philosophy of Parts II. and III.? Why should not the philosophy of portion of an Australian act accord with the philosophy of legislation which has been adopted by 40 or more other aircraft-owning countries? Why should not Part IV. of the Commonwealth bill accord with the philosophy of the United Kingdom order-in-council of 1952? The honorable gentleman&#39;s arguments are all gossamer, and all blown away! All we ask is that if we must apply to interstate air carriage the rights and duties which apply to international air carriage, we should do so completely as far as air passengers are concerned. We think it is quite wrong that every amendment which we make should inure to the benefit of the insurance companies or the air operators and be to the disadvantage of air passengers. The Attorney-General said - and he is quite right - that Part IV. of the bill confers .a new right with a limit, irrespective of negligence. He went on to prove that it confers a new right with a limit, irrespective of criminality also. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </continue>
        <para>Let us look at this new right. We have taken away the rights of air passengers to sue for damages for negligence if an air operator chooses to leave that right to those that travel with him. We could, of course, have prevented air operators from contracting out of that right, just as we prevented Trans-Australia Airlines. Something has been said this evening about T.A.A. being limited by the 1945 act to payments of &#163;2,000, but at least it was not allowed to contract out of that amount. It was the only airline in Australia against which an air passenger was certain to be able to get some damages if he could prove negligence. Every other operator we permitted for all these years to contract out of the ordinary rights of an air passenger to obtain damages for negligence. It is true that &#163;2,000 was a small amount. On present values it would be between &#163;4,000 and &#163;5,000. We have given a new right in respect of people who travel with other companies. We have increased the right of people who travel with T.A.A. We have limited the right to sue for damages for negligence or for damages arising from criminality. In moving this amendment, I merely ask that we should see that the whole of our act should have a consistent philosophy, that that philosophy should accord with the philosophy of this great international convention of 1929, as amended recently with the help of our own assiduous Australian representatives at the international conference in 1955, and that it should accord with the philosophy of the British order-in-council of 1952. </para>
      </speech>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>949</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>KIH</name.id>
            <electorate>LYNE, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
            <party />
            <role />
            <in.gov>0</in.gov>
            <first.speech>0</first.speech>
            <name role="metadata">LUCOCK, Philip</name>
            <name role="display">The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock</name>
          </talker>
          <para>-  Order! The honorable member&#39;s time has expired. </para>
        </talk.start>
        <para>Question put - </para>
        <quote>
          <para>That the amendment <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr. Whitlam&#39;s)</inline> be agreed to. </para>
        </quote>
      </speech>
      <division>
        <division.header>
          <time.stamp />
          <para>The committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Mr. P. E. Lucock.)</para>
        </division.header>
        <division.data>
          <ayes>
            <num.votes>38</num.votes>
            <title>AYES</title>
          </ayes>
          <noes>
            <num.votes>59</num.votes>
            <title>NOES</title>
          </noes>
        </division.data>
        <para>Majority 21 </para>
        <para class="block">
          <graphic href="022131195904075_55_3_3_P.jpg" />
        </para>
        <para>AYES</para>
        <para class="block">
          <graphic href="022131195904075_55_3_1_A.jpg" />
        </para>
        <para>NOES</para>
        <para class="block">
          <graphic href="022131195904075_55_3_2_N.jpg" />
        </para>
        <division.result>
          <para>Question so resolved in the negative. </para>
        </division.result>
        <para>Clause agreed to. </para>
      </division>
      <para>Clause 38- </para>
      <quote>
        <para>In assessing damages in respect of liability under this Part there shall not be taken into account by way of reduction of the damages - </para>
        <list type="loweralpha">
          <item label="(b)">
            <para>a sum paid or payable out of a superannuation, provident or like fund, or by way of benefit from a friendly society, benefit society or trade union; or </para>
          </item>
        </list>
      </quote>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>950</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>KWH</name.id>
            <electorate>Denison</electorate>
            <party>LP</party>
            <role>Minister for Defence</role>
            <in.gov>1</in.gov>
            <first.speech>0</first.speech>
            <name role="metadata">TOWNLEY, Athol</name>
            <name role="display">Mr TOWNLEY</name>
          </talker>
          <para>
            <inline font-weight="bold">.- Mr. Temporary Chairman,</inline>I moved two amendments to clause 15, which were accepted by the committee. Two consequential amendments to this clause have been circulated in my name. Briefly, the amendments to clause 15, put beyond all doubt the fact that pensions, superannuation payments, payments from provident funds, payments from union funds, and so on, would not be taken into account by a court if there was a claim for damages before it. A similar set of circumstances arises in relation to this clause, which relates to domestic carriage by air, and for the same reasons, I move - </para>
        </talk.start>
        <quote>
          <para>In paragraph (b) omit &#34; or &#34; (last occurring). </para>
        </quote>
        <para>Amendment agreed to. </para>
      </speech>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>950</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>KWH</name.id>
            <electorate>Denison</electorate>
            <party>LP</party>
            <role>Minister for Defence</role>
            <in.gov>1</in.gov>
            <first.speech>0</first.speech>
            <name role="metadata">TOWNLEY, Athol</name>
            <name role="display">Mr TOWNLEY</name>
          </talker>
          <para>. -  As I have already indicated, this second amendment follows the pattern of one previously agreed to in relation to clause 15. I move - </para>
        </talk.start>
        <quote>
          <para>After paragraph (b) insert the following paragraphs: - &#34; (ba) any sum in respect of a pension, social service benefit or repatriation benefit paidor payable, consequent upon the death or injury, by any government or person; &#34; (bb) in the case of death, any sum in respect of the acquisition by a spouse or child of the deceased, consequent upon the death, of, or of an interest in, a dwelling used at any time as the home of that spouse or child, or of, or of an interest in, the household contents of any such dwelling; or &#34;. </para>
        </quote>
      </speech>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>950</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>6U4</name.id>
            <electorate>Werriwa</electorate>
            <party />
            <role />
            <in.gov>0</in.gov>
            <first.speech>0</first.speech>
            <name role="metadata">WHITLAM, Gough</name>
            <name role="display">Mr WHITLAM</name>
          </talker>
          <para>.- This amendment, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Temporary Chairman,</inline> as was the previous one, is in similar terms to an amendment to clause 15. For the same reasons as applied to the amendments to that clause, on behalf of the Opposition, I express gratification that the Government has accepted the amendments sought in another place by the Leader of the Opposition <inline font-weight="bold">(Senator McKenna).</inline> We compliment the Government on having accepted them. </para>
        </talk.start>
        <para class="block">Amendment agreed to. </para>
        <para class="block">Clause, as amended, agreed to. </para>
        <para class="block">Clauses 39 and 40  -  by leave - taken together, and agreed to. </para>
        <para>Clause 41 - </para>
        <quote>
          <para>The regulations may provide for applying, with such exceptions, adaptations and modifications as are prescribed, the provisions of the Warsaw </para>
          <para class="block">Convention and the Hague Protocol and any of the provisions of this Act to and in relation to the carriage of cargo, being carriage in relation to which, if it were the carriage of passengers, this Part would apply. </para>
        </quote>
      </speech>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>951</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>KWH</name.id>
            <electorate>Denison</electorate>
            <party>LP</party>
            <role>Minister for Defence</role>
            <in.gov>1</in.gov>
            <first.speech>0</first.speech>
            <name role="metadata">TOWNLEY, Athol</name>
            <name role="display">Mr TOWNLEY</name>
          </talker>
          <para>. - <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Temporary Chairman,</inline> the bill does not contain any detailed rules regulating the liability of domestic carriers in respect of cargo, but this clause authorizes regulations applying with such exceptions, adaptations and modifications as are prescribed. As I have indicated, there is no immediate intention to make regulations dealing with cargo, since the relations of consignors, consignees and carriers appear at present to be satisfactorily regulated by contract. The power is necessary, however, in case a need to regulate some aspect of the carriage of cargo should arise. </para>
        </talk.start>
        <para>It was pointed out in another place that the clause, as drafted, would authorize regulations prescribing lower limits of liability with respect to cargo than the limits fixed under the Warsaw Convention and the Hague Protocol, and, in another place, the Minister for Civil Aviation <inline font-weight="bold">(Senator Paltridge)</inline> agreed to consider this point further. I move - </para>
        <quote>
          <para>At the end of the clause add the following: - &#34;, but so that no adaptation or modification of the provisions of Article 22 of the Warsaw Convention, as replaced by Article XI. of the Hague Protocol, shall have the effect of limiting the liability of the carrier to a sum less than the sum to which his liability would be limited if those provisions were applied without  adapatation  or modification.&#34;. </para>
        </quote>
      </speech>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>951</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>6U4</name.id>
            <electorate>Werriwa</electorate>
            <party />
            <role />
            <in.gov>0</in.gov>
            <first.speech>0</first.speech>
            <name role="metadata">WHITLAM, Gough</name>
            <name role="display">Mr WHITLAM</name>
          </talker>
          <para>
            <inline font-weight="bold">.- Mr. Temporary Chairman,</inline>I think it might be gracious to point out that this amendment, which we support and acclaim, probably flows from a report made by the Regulations and Ordinances Committee, which is composed of members from both sides in another place. On 18th March, that committee very promptly and very properly pointed out that the clause as it appeared in the bill passed through the other place, and as it appears in the bill introduced here, would enable the Executive to make regulations which would amount to substantive legislation and would not merely deal with administrative detail, and that, accordingly, the Executive would be given power to make regulations on matters which should more appropriately be the subject of parliamentary enactment. I think it would be gracious of us in this place, where we are too busy to deal with these minutiae with which, with their committees, the members, of another place can deal, to acknowledge that this improvement in the bill was brought about in that way. </para>
        </talk.start>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>951</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KWH</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">TOWNLEY, Athol</name>
              <name role="display">Mr Townley</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I concur in those remarks. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <para>Amendment agreed to. </para>
        <para>Clause, as amended, agreed to. </para>
        <para>Remainder of bill - by leave - taken as a whole, and agreed to. </para>
        <para>Bill reported with amendments; report - by leave - adopted. </para>
        <para>Bill - by leave - read a third time. </para>
      </speech>
    </debate>
    <adjournment>
      <adjournmentinfo>
        <page.no>951</page.no>
        <time.stamp>22:29:00</time.stamp>
      </adjournmentinfo>
      <para class="block">House  adjourned at 10.29 p.m. </para>
    </adjournment>
  </chamber.xscript>
  <answers.to.questions>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS</title>
        <page.no>951</page.no>
        <type>ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <para>The following answers to questions were circulated: - </para>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Security</title>
          <page.no>951</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <question>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>951</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>1V4</name.id>
              <electorate>YARRA, VICTORIA</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">CAIRNS, Jim</name>
              <name role="display">Mr Cairns</name>
            </talker>
            <para>s asked the Prime Minister, upon notice - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <list type="decimal-dotted">
            <item label="1.">
              <para>Has his attention been drawn to a report that a ^microphone was found recently in the ceiling of an office of the Communist party in Melbourne? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="2.">
              <para>Was this microphone installed by any officer or officers under the authority of the Prime Minister? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="3.">
              <para>If so, was it necessary to gain access to one or more offices occupied by other tenants of the building in order to install the microphone? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="4.">
              <para>Was this installation made without the knowledge or consent of the occupier or occupiers of the offices concerned? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="5.">
              <para>Did the officers act in accordance with their authority in entering offices or premises without the knowledge or consent of the occupier or occupiers? </para>
            </item>
          </list>
        </question>
        <answer>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>951</page.no>
              <name.id>N76</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party>LP</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MENZIES, Robert</name>
              <name role="display">Mr Menzies</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  Although the honorable member refrained from saying so, it is evident that the inspiration of his question is an article in the Communist &#34; Tribune &#34; of 18th February, 1959, repeated in the Communist &#34; Guardian &#34; of 19th February, 1959. My attention having been drawn to them, I have now read these articles. Like the overwhelming majority of loyal Australians, I have not bothered to interest myself in what those Communist newspapers care to print, let alone to believe them. I do not propose to do so now. If the object of this question is to obtain information as to alleged activities of the Australian Security Intelligence Organization, the honorable member surely has remained long enough in this House to have learnt that it was not the practice of the Labour government when in office, and that it is not the practice of the present Government to answer questions seeking information, whether positive or negative, as to the operations of the Australian Security Intelligence Organization. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </answer>
      </subdebate.1>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Premiers&#39; Conference</title>
          <page.no>952</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <question>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>952</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KX7</name.id>
              <electorate>EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">WARD, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Mr Ward</name>
            </talker>
            <para>d asked the Prime Minister, upon notice - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <list type="decimal-dotted">
            <item label="1.">
              <para>Did any of the State Premiers at the recent Premiers&#39; Conference held in Canberra submit requests that the federal authority make a substantial emergency grant to the States for educational purposes and that a Committee be immediately set up on the same pattern as the Murray Committee to make a thorough nation-wide investigation of the needs of primary, secondary, and technical education in Australia? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="2.">
              <para>If so, which Premiers sponsored and supported these proposals and what attitude was adopted by the Commonwealth representatives? </para>
            </item>
          </list>
        </question>
        <answer>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>952</page.no>
              <name.id>N76</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party>LP</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MENZIES, Robert</name>
              <name role="display">Mr Menzies</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  A transcript of that part of the proceedings of the Premiers&#39; Conference held on 4th-5th March, 1959, dealing with this subject has been sent to the honorable member. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </answer>
      </subdebate.1>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Taxation</title>
          <page.no>952</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <question>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>952</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KX7</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">WARD, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Mr Ward</name>
            </talker>
            <para>d asked the Treasurer upon notice - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <list type="decimal-dotted">
            <item label="1.">
              <para>Is a taxpayer who is a widower entitled to any taxation concession where he employs a housekeeper? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="2.">
              <para>If so, what are the details and what conditions must be satisfied to establish eligibility? </para>
            </item>
          </list>
        </question>
        <answer>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>952</page.no>
              <name.id>009MC</name.id>
              <electorate>HIGGINS, VICTORIA</electorate>
              <party>LP</party>
              <role>Treasurer</role>
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">HOLT, Harold</name>
              <name role="display">Mr Harold Holt</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  The answers to the honorable member&#39;s questions are as follows: - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <list type="decimal-dotted">
            <item label="1.">
              <para>Yes, if the conditions set out in reply to the second phase of this question are met </para>
            </item>
            <item label="2.">
              <para>A widower who employs a housekeeper may obtain a deduction for income tax purposes of up to &#163;143 if the housekeeper is wholly engaged in keeping house in Australia for the widower and is caring for - (a) a child of the taxpayer under 16 years: or (b) any other child under 16 years, or an invalid child, brother or sister of the taxpayer 16 years or over, in respect of whom the taxpayer is entitled to a deduction for maintenance as a dependant. </para>
            </item>
          </list>
        </answer>
      </subdebate.1>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Import Licensing</title>
          <page.no>952</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <question>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>952</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KX7</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">WARD, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Mr Ward</name>
            </talker>
            <para>d asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <list type="decimal-dotted">
            <item label="1.">
              <para>Has his attention been drawn to a statement by <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. A.</inline> E. Buttfield, Principal of A. E. Buttfield &#38; Company Proprietary Limited, importers, of Barrack-street, Sydney, who has been in business for approximately 30 years, that a thorough investigation into the issue of import licences would reveal some extraordinary happenings? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="2.">
              <para>Has this gentleman alleged that (a) vital business secrets sought by departmental officers have leaked to business competitors, (b) importers no longer in business have continued to receive imports licences which they are selling to other traders at a substantial profit, sometimes as high as 25 per cent., and (c) he is being victimized by departmental officers because he has appealed to the Minister and members of Parliament against departmental decisions? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="3.">
              <para>Has he taken, or does he propose to take, action to have these allegations investigated; if so, when does he expect to be able to make available the result of any inquiry? </para>
            </item>
          </list>
        </question>
        <answer>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>952</page.no>
              <name.id>009MB</name.id>
              <electorate>MURRAY, VICTORIA</electorate>
              <party>CP</party>
              <role>Minister for Trade</role>
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MCEWEN, John</name>
              <name role="display">Mr McEwen</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  The answers to the honorable member&#39;s questions are  as  follows: - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <list type="decimal-dotted">
            <item label="1.">
              <para>Yes. </para>
            </item>
            <item label="2.">
              <para>Yes. 3. (a) <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Butfield&#39;s</inline> three allegations have been investigated. The investigation does not in any way substantiate <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Buttfields</inline> claim that there have been breaches of confidence on the part of Departmental officers, (b) If <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Buttfield</inline> has any information concerning irregularities in import licensing and cares to make this information available to either the Department of Trade or the Department of Customs and Excise, it will be investigated, (c) Since the imposition of import restrictions, it has been, and still is, quite common practice for importers who are seeking import licences to appeal to individual Members of Parliament and to Ministers for support in their applications. I can assure you that no victimisation by Departmental officers has occurred because of <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Buttfields</inline> approaches. For some time, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Buttfield</inline> refused to make available information to enable his applications for special licences to be considered. However, this information has very recently been made available and special licences have been issued. </para>
            </item>
          </list>
        </answer>
      </subdebate.1>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Tariff Board Reports</title>
          <page.no>952</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <question>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>952</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>6U4</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">WHITLAM, Gough</name>
              <name role="display">Mr Whitlam</name>
            </talker>
            <para>m asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <list type="decimal-dotted">
            <item label="1.">
              <para>What matters did the Minister refer to the Tariff Board for report in 1958? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="2.">
              <para>On what dates did (a) the Minister refer these matters to the Board, (b) the Board inquire into them, (c) the Board report on them, and (d) the Minister take any action in respect of them? </para>
            </item>
          </list>
        </question>
        <answer>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>953</page.no>
              <name.id>009MB</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party>CP</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MCEWEN, John</name>
              <name role="display">Mr McEwen</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- The answers to the honorable member&#39;s questions are as follows: - </para>
          </talk.start>
        </answer>
        <para class="block">
          <graphic href="022131195904075_59_0.jpg" />
        </para>
        <para>During the year 1958 the Tariff Board furnished 35 reports covering subjects which had been referred to it prior to the commencement of that year. All of these reports, with the exception of four, have been tabled in the Parliament. </para>
        <para>The Government, during 1958, strengthened the secretariat of the Tariff Board and took other steps with a view to speeding up the work of the board. These measures were of assistance in the work of the board in 1958, particularly in the latter part of the year, but their effectiveness is not fully reflected in the number of reports submitted by the board in that year. However, the result of those measures will become increasingly apparent during the current year. </para>
      </subdebate.1>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Wheat</title>
          <page.no>954</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <question>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>954</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KX7</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">WARD, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Mr Ward</name>
            </talker>
            <para>d asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <list type="decimal-dotted">
            <item label="1.">
              <para>What quantity of wheat is at present held in storage by the principal exporting countries? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="2.">
              <para>What are the immediate production prospects in Australia and estimated price movements for export wheat? </para>
            </item>
          </list>
        </question>
        <answer>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>954</page.no>
              <name.id>009MB</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party>CP</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MCEWEN, John</name>
              <name role="display">Mr McEwen</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- The answers to the honorable member&#39;s questions are as follows: - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <list type="decimal-dotted">
            <item label="1.">
              <para>The following stocks of wheat were held on 1st December, 1958, by the major exporting countries for export or carryover: - </para>
            </item>
          </list>
        </answer>
        <para class="block">
          <graphic href="022131195904075_59_1.jpg" />
        </para>
        <para class="block">This is the latest date for which figures for all those countries concerned are available. </para>
        <list type="decimal-dotted">
          <item label="2.">
            <para>As planting of the next crop has not yet commenced it is not practicable to give any worthwhile forecast of its size. Unless something unexpected happens in the world political situation or extreme weather occurs in the major wheat producing areas, no significant change is expected to occur in overseas wheat prices in the next few months. Prices will be increasingly influenced by the prospects for the crop that will be harvested in the third quarter of the year in the more important importing countries. Meanwhile export prospects continue to be affected by the competition from supplies of subsidized wheat from Continental countries and by the large North American stocks. Considering the size of these stocks the prices for North American wheats have been firmly held and solong as the policies which are being pursuedin that regard are maintained there are little grounds for assuming there will be any material change in export wheat prices in the near future. </para>
          </item>
        </list>
      </subdebate.1>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Freight Rates on Meat Exports</title>
          <page.no>954</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <question>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>954</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KX7</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">WARD, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Mr Ward</name>
            </talker>
            <para>d asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <list type="decimal-dotted">
            <item label="1.">
              <para>What are present freight rates upon Australian meat exports to the United Kingdom market? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="2.">
              <para>From what date did the last increase operate? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="3.">
              <para>What changes in freight rates have become effective in each of the past five years? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="4.">
              <para>What percentage of total receipts was absorbed by freight costs in each of these years? </para>
            </item>
          </list>
        </question>
        <answer>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>954</page.no>
              <name.id>009MB</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party>CP</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MCEWEN, John</name>
              <name role="display">Mr McEwen</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- The answers to the honorable member&#39;s questions are as follows: -  1 and 2. The movements in freights on meat to the United Kingdom over the past five years are set out in the following table. The date shown is that from which the new rate came into force. Rates are in pence sterling per lb: - </para>
          </talk.start>
        </answer>
        <para class="block">
          <graphic href="022131195904075_59_2.jpg" />
        </para>
        <list type="decimal-dotted">
          <item label="3.">
            <para>The following net percentage freight increases have been made in our principal trade - that to the United Kingdom/Continent - in the past five years: - </para>
          </item>
        </list>
        <para class="block">
          <graphic href="022131195904075_59_3.jpg" />
        </para>
        <para class="block">Freights for bulk items such as wheat and sugar are determined on a charter basis and rates fluctuate for every voyage. For the last twelve months these rates have been at very low levels, and below those ruling five years ago. </para>
        <list type="decimal-dotted">
          <item label="4.">
            <para>Statistics of total freight costs are collected in respect of imports into Australia but are not collected in respect of exports from Australia. The same position applies in the case of other countries. </para>
          </item>
        </list>
      </subdebate.1>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Toy Industry</title>
          <page.no>955</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <question>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>955</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KX7</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">WARD, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Mr Ward</name>
            </talker>
            <para>d asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <list type="decimal-dotted">
            <item label="1.">
              <para>Has he ordered a further inquiry into the effect of Japanese imports upon the Australian toy manufacturing industry? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="2.">
              <para>Did the request of the Australian toy manufacturers for action to protect their industry receive the support of the Associated Chambers of Manufactures? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="3.">
              <para>When is it anticipated that the result of the inquiry will be known? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="4.">
              <para>What action has the Government taken to preserve the Australian industry in the meantime? </para>
            </item>
          </list>
        </question>
        <answer>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>955</page.no>
              <name.id>009MB</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party>CP</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MCEWEN, John</name>
              <name role="display">Mr McEwen</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- The answers to the honorable member&#39;s questions are as follows: - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <list type="decimal-dotted">
            <item label="1.">
              <para>Yes. </para>
            </item>
            <item label="2.">
              <para>The request of the Australian toy manufacturers was forwarded through the Associated Chambers of Manufactures of Australia. I would expect that it has the support of that body. </para>
            </item>
            <item label="3.">
              <para>I do not know when the result of the inquiry will be available. The matter was referred to the advisory authority on the trade agreement with Japan on 9th December, 1958. The advisory authority saw representatives of the toy manufacturers on 17th December and asked them for certain information. This information was only received on 11th March. </para>
            </item>
            <item label="4.">
              <para>The government has taken no special action at this stage. The Austraiian industry has not yet demonstrated that action is needed and in view of the length of time taken to produce the information sought by the advisory authority does not appear to be treating the matter as one of urgency. </para>
            </item>
          </list>
        </answer>
      </subdebate.1>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Canberra School Dental Services</title>
          <page.no>955</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <question>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>955</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JWX</name.id>
              <electorate></electorate>
              <party>ALP</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">FRASER, Jim</name>
              <name role="display">Mr J R FRASER</name>
            </talker>
            <para>ser asked the Minister for Health, upon notice -  </para>
          </talk.start>
          <list type="decimal-dotted">
            <item label="1.">
              <para>Did he state, on 18th September, 1958, in reply to a question on school dental services in Canberra, that there was no proposal under consideration for restriction of these services? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="2.">
              <para>Is it a fact that school dental services have, since then, been considerably restricted and that no government school in Canberra now has a dentist on duty for more than two days a week? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="3.">
              <para>In view of his previous statement that there had been no limitation of funds, will he state what reasons exist for the curtailment of school dental services?- </para>
            </item>
            <item label="4.">
              <para>Have circulars been sent to parents asking them to allow their children to remain after school hours for dental treatment? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="5.">
              <para>What is the (a) total enrolment in ail schools at which dental services are provided and (b) present ratio of pupil patients to dentists on a yearly basis, and in each case how do the figures compare with conditions prevailing when he gave his answer in September, 1958? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="6.">
              <para>By how much has school enrolment increased in 1959, compared with 1958? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="7.">
              <para>Has there been any increase in the employment of (a) dentists and (b) dental nurses and dental assistants in the school dental service? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="8.">
              <para>How many are now employed in each category? </para>
            </item>
          </list>
        </question>
        <answer>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>955</page.no>
              <name.id>JU8</name.id>
              <electorate>OXLEY, QUEENSLAND</electorate>
              <party>LP</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">CAMERON, Donald Alastair</name>
              <name role="display">Dr DONALD CAMERON</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- The answers to the honorable member&#39;s questions are as follows: - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <list type="decimal-dotted">
            <item label="1.">
              <para>Yes. </para>
            </item>
            <item label="2.">
              <para>No. </para>
            </item>
            <item label="3.">
              <para>Temporary staff shortages created difficulties early in the school year. </para>
            </item>
            <item label="4.">
              <para>Yes. 5. (a) Schools, 7,732; pre-school centres, 1,450; total, 9,182. (b) Total enrolment increased from 8,647 to 9,182, pupil patient to dentist ratio decreased from 1,244 to 1,149 to one. </para>
            </item>
            <item label="6.">
              <para>535. </para>
            </item>
          </list>
          <para>7. (a) Yes. (b) Yes. </para>
          <list type="decimal-dotted">
            <item label="8.">
              <para>Eight dentists, nine dental nurses. </para>
            </item>
          </list>
          <para>Homes for the Aged. </para>
        </answer>
        <question>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>955</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K9M</name.id>
              <electorate>HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">JOHNSON, Leslie</name>
              <name role="display">Mr L R Johnson</name>
            </talker>
            <para>son asked the Minister for Social Services, upon notice - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <list type="decimal-dotted">
            <item label="1.">
              <para>What organizations or institutions have received benefit under the provisions of the Aged Persons Homes Act? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="2.">
              <para>What was the extent of the benefit in each case and at what date was each grant either approved or paid? </para>
            </item>
          </list>
        </question>
        <answer>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>955</page.no>
              <name.id>KZE</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party>CP</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">ROBERTON, Hugh</name>
              <name role="display">Mr Roberton</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- The answer to the honorable member&#39;s questions are as follows: -  1 and 2. The information sought by the honorable member is shown in the schedule set out hereunder. Whilst I deplore the amount of time and effort which has been necessary to prepare this information, I nevertheless welcome the opportunity to place on permanent record in &#34; Hansard &#34; evidence of the splendid achievements of the Government in providing finance for the housing of our aged citizens. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </answer>
        <para class="block">
          <graphic href="022131195904075_61_0.jpg" />
        </para>
        <para class="block">
          <graphic href="022131195904075_64_8.jpg" />
        </para>
        <para class="block">
          <graphic href="022131195904075_66_10.jpg" />
        </para>
        <para class="block">
          <graphic href="022131195904075_67_11.jpg" />
        </para>
        <para class="block">
          <graphic href="022131195904075_68_12.jpg" />
        </para>
        <para class="block">
          <graphic href="022131195904075_70_14.jpg" />
        </para>
        <para class="block">
          <graphic href="022131195904075_71_15.jpg" />
        </para>
        <para class="block">
          <graphic href="022131195904075_72_16.jpg" />
        </para>
        <para class="block">
          <graphic href="022131195904075_73_0.jpg" />
        </para>
      </subdebate.1>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Grenfell-street Post Office, Adelaide</title>
          <page.no>968</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <question>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>968</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KQY</name.id>
              <electorate>ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">SEXTON, Joseph</name>
              <name role="display">Mr Sexton</name>
            </talker>
            <para>n asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <list type="decimal-dotted">
            <item label="1.">
              <para>Is it practicable to meet the convenience of a large number of people by installing post office boxes in the Grenfell-street Post Office, Adelaide? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="2.">
              <para>Is the installation of the boxes contemplated; if so, when is it anticipated that the work will be commenced? </para>
            </item>
          </list>
        </question>
        <answer>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>968</page.no>
              <name.id>KCA</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party>CP</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">DAVIDSON, Charles</name>
              <name role="display">Mr Davidson</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- The answer to the honorable member&#39;s question is as follows: -  1 and 2. The provision of private letter boxes at Grenfell-street Post Office, Adelaide, would involve major alterations to the building and the high cost of undertaking this work would not be justified at present as there are vacant boxes available for rental at the General Post Office. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para class="block">Land Settlement of Ex-servicemen. </para>
        </answer>
        <question>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>968</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JSU</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BRYANT, Gordon</name>
              <name role="display">Mr Bryant</name>
            </talker>
            <para>t asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice: - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <list type="decimal-dotted">
            <item label="1.">
              <para>How many soldier settlers have been settled on the Loxton irrigation area, South Australia? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="2.">
              <para>How many of these settlers are still farming their blocks? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="3.">
              <para>What was the purchase price of the land? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="4.">
              <para>What was the nature and cost of capital works carried out to establish the settlement? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="5.">
              <para>What was the average cost of the houses erected? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="6.">
              <para>What repayments are demanded from the settlers? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="7.">
              <para>What is the final cost of the blocks to the settlers and how is this amount computed? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="8.">
              <para>Are these charges in accordance with the requirements of the act under which the scheme was established? </para>
            </item>
          </list>
        </question>
        <answer>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>968</page.no>
              <name.id>JLR</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party>CP</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">ADERMANN, Charles</name>
              <name role="display">Mr Adermann</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- The answers to the honorable member&#39;s questions are as follows: - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <list type="decimal-dotted">
            <item label="1.">
              <para>270. </para>
            </item>
            <item label="2.">
              <para>254. </para>
            </item>
            <item label="3.">
              <para>&#163;80,402. </para>
            </item>
            <item label="4.">
              <para>To 28th February, 1959, costs of the Loxton project are: (a) Headworks including pumping stations, channels, pipemains drainage, &#38;c, &#163;1,170,878; (b) development of blocks- including clearing, grading irrigation piping, buildings, trees, vines, &#38;c, &#163;3,152,822. Some further expenditure will be incurred to complete the project. </para>
            </item>
            <item label="5.">
              <para>Houses were built under various contracts over several years, the costs being included in 4(b). 6, 7 and 8. Under the terms of the legislation for War Service Land Settlement, valuations of holdings allotted to eligible ex-servicemen are made by officers appointed by the Commonwealth and State in consultation for the purpose. In making the valuations, the officers are required to have regard to the need for the proceeds of the holding (based on conservative estimates over a long-term period of prices and yields for products) being sufficient to provide a reasonable living for the settler after meeting such financial commitments as would be incurred by a settler possessing no capital. Only a proportion of the holdings at Loxton have reached the stage of development at which valuations can be made. These valuations have been made in accordance with the above requirements of the legislation. The valuations include (a) the annual rent payable on the land comprising the holding and (b) a capital sum covering all improvements on the holding, including buildings. Advances made to purchase plant are added to the capital sum and the full amount is repayable over 40 years with interest at33/4 per cent. Valuations vary between blocks according to area, types of planting, &#38;c. It is already evident the costs of the project will exceed the sum of the valuations of all holdings. This excess will be written off and shared by the Commonwealth and State in terms of the legislation. </para>
            </item>
          </list>
        </answer>
        <question>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>969</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KCB</name.id>
              <electorate>BRADDON, TASMANIA</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">DAVIES, Ronald</name>
              <name role="display">Mr Davies</name>
            </talker>
            <para>s asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <list type="decimal-dotted">
            <item label="1.">
              <para>Are soldier settlers on King Island facing difficulties because of (a) rising costs and falling farm incomes and (b) the Commonwealth Government&#39;s failure to rehabilitate the returned servicemen at 1946 values? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="2.">
              <para>Will he give consideration to (a) writing off basic machinery to costs of development, (b) writing off structures, structural improvements and live-stock to 1946 values, and (c) permitting the option of purchase to be taken up on the value of the blocks at the time of occupation? </para>
            </item>
          </list>
        </question>
        <answer>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>969</page.no>
              <name.id>JLR</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party>CP</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">ADERMANN, Charles</name>
              <name role="display">Mr Adermann</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  The answers to the honorable member&#39;s questions are as follows: - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <list type="decimal-dotted">
            <item label="1.">
              <para>Soldier settlers on King Island, like many other primary producers, are feeling the effects of falling incomes without a corresponding movement in costs. Settlers under the war service land settlement scheme, many of whom have received 100 per cent. financing and have been on their holdings for comparatively short periods, have had little opportunity to build reserves to tide them over such circumstances. The position is under investigation to find means of helping settlers <inline font-style="italic">to</inline> overcome the difficulties which have arisen from what I believe to be a shortterm problem of imbalance of the cost/return ratio. 2. (a) During the examination of the actions necessary to stabilize the position of the settlers, consideration will be given as to whether writing off basic machinery is warranted. (b) Structures and structural improvements essential to the efficient working of a holding are sold to the settler at 1946 values under existing procedure. Justification does not appear to exist, however, for a similar writing down of advances made for the purchase of stock that may be traded and of which the selling value is subject to substantial short-term fluctuation. (c) Option prices for holdings are determined at cost or market value whichever is less at the time of allotment or of the completion of planned works whichever is the later. </para>
            </item>
          </list>
        </answer>
      </subdebate.1>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Subsidies to Aero Clubs</title>
          <page.no>969</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <question>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>969</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JWX</name.id>
              <electorate></electorate>
              <party>ALP</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">FRASER, Jim</name>
              <name role="display">Mr J R FRASER</name>
            </talker>
            <para>ser asked the Minister  representing the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <list type="decimal-dotted">
            <item label="1.">
              <para>What conditions govern the grant of Commonwealth subsidy through aero clubs for the training of pilots? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="2.">
              <para>Are payments of subsidy restricted to trainee or student pilots who are British subjects? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="3.">
              <para>If so, what is the reason for continuing this discrimination against unnaturalized New Australians who may later be called on to fight in defence of this country and who are required to undertake national service training? </para>
            </item>
          </list>
        </question>
        <answer>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>969</page.no>
              <name.id>KWH</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party>LP</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">TOWNLEY, Athol</name>
              <name role="display">Mr Townley</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  The Minister for Civil Aviation has replied as follows: - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <list type="decimal-dotted">
            <item label="1.">
              <para>Commonwealth assistance to pilots is granted through approved aero clubs and flying schools in two forms - (a) an hourly rate for flying carried out, and (b) a licence issue bonus on the attainment of private or commercial licence or an initial instructor rating. In the case of student pilots, the hourly rate and private pilot licence issue bonus are restricted to persons who have not attained the age of 30 years. Beyond this no age limits apply. </para>
            </item>
            <item label="2.">
              <para>The agreement between the Commonwealth and the flying training organizations provides for automatic assistance to British subjects but unnaturalized New Australians will be included provided that they can satisfy the Director-General of Civil Aviation that they intend to become Australian citizens. These &#34; approved aliens &#34; receive precisely the same assistance as British subjects. A number of &#34; approved aliens &#34; currently receive assistance under this provision. </para>
            </item>
            <item label="3.">
              <para>In view of the answers to questions 1 and 2 this does not apply. </para>
            </item>
          </list>
        </answer>
      </subdebate.1>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Audit Act</title>
          <page.no>969</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <question>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>969</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>6U4</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">WHITLAM, Gough</name>
              <name role="display">Mr Whitlam</name>
            </talker>
            <para>m asked the Treasurer, upon notice: - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <list type="decimal-dotted">
            <item label="1.">
              <para>Has a review of the Audit Act been advocated by successive Auditors-General in every annual report since 1952? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="2.">
              <para>Did the Prime Minister in 1952 promise to amend the act? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="3.">
              <para>Did the Treasury in 1957 advise the AuditorGeneral that amendments to the act would be ready for consideration by Parliament in the autumn session of 1958? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="4.">
              <para>When will the amendments be brought before the Parliament? </para>
            </item>
          </list>
        </question>
        <answer>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>969</page.no>
              <name.id>009MC</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party>LP</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">HOLT, Harold</name>
              <name role="display">Mr Harold Holt</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  The answers  to  the honorable member&#39;s questions are  as  follows: - 1 and 2. Yes, but in his original report the Auditor-General said: - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <quote>
            <para class="block">The Audit Act originally received Royal Assent on 7th August, 1901. In the intervening 51 years it has been amended on many occasions, but it has not received the comprehensive examination which the passage of time has indicated to be necessary. </para>
            <para class="block">At the same time the Auditor-General drew attention to the re-drafting of Treasury Regulations, the drafting of Oversea Account Regulations and the preparation of substantial additions to the Treasury Instructions. </para>
            <list type="decimal-dotted">
              <item label="3.">
                <para>The Auditor-General was advised that that was the anticipation. </para>
              </item>
              <item label="4.">
                <para>The amendments have not yet been presented to Parliament because it has not proved practicable yet to complete what I am sure all honorable members will appreciate is a very substantial task. Nevertheless, within the limits of available staff much has been accomplished; instructions have been sent to the Parliamentary Draftsman for a series of amendments to the Treasury Regulations; the Treasury Instructions have been revised and re-issued; the Oversea Accounts </para>
              </item>
            </list>
            <para class="block">Arrangements  have been approved and are in force and a major section of the Audit A.t, namely, that relating to the Trust Fund, has been the subject of intensive inquiry by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts which completed  its  Report in November, 1957. A perusal of the report of the Joint Committee Of Public Accounts amply demonstrates the amount of preliminary examination that is required before decisions can be made to seek amendments to the existing provisions of the Audit Act. In addition, to the progress which I have listed, the form of the Finance Statement,  the  procedures for parliamentary consideration of expenditure from the Advance to the Treasurer and the timetable for the preparation of these statutory documents have been substantially revised and improved. The work is proceeding within the limit of the staff that is available for the purpose and, in accordance with the undertaking of the Treasurer, the substance of major alterations will be discussed with the Joint Committee of Public Accounts. The legislation will be brought before the Parliament as soon as possible. </para>
          </quote>
        </answer>
      </subdebate.1>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Superannuation</title>
          <page.no>970</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <question>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>970</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KX7</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">WARD, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Mr Ward</name>
            </talker>
            <para>d asked the Treasurer, upon notice - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <list type="decimal-dotted">
            <item label="1.">
              <para>Is it a fact that the late <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Charles</inline> James Stebens retired from the Postmaster-General&#39;s Department on account of ill health in May, 1954, and was granted a Commonwealth superannuation pension? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="2.">
              <para>Was <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Stebens</inline> at the time of his retirement, because he had divorced the wife whom he had married in 1933, deemed to be a single man? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="3.">
              <para>Did <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Stebens</inline> remarry his former wife in August, 1954, three months after his retirement and was he advised that, in the event of him pre-deceasing his wife, she would be ineligible for a superannuation pension as the marriage had occurred after his retirement? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="4.">
              <para>Is it a fact that since <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Stebens&#39;s</inline> death in December, 1958, his widow&#39;s application for the payment of a pension has been rejected? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="5.">
              <para>Was <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Stebens</inline> a contributor to the Superannuation Fund for some 30 years and did he benefit under the scheme for only approximately four and a half years? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="6.">
              <para>If the position is as stated, has <inline font-weight="bold">Mrs. Stebens</inline> been justly treated; if not, what action does he propose? </para>
            </item>
          </list>
        </question>
        <answer>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>970</page.no>
              <name.id>009MC</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party>LP</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">HOLT, Harold</name>
              <name role="display">Mr Harold Holt</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  The answers to the honorable member&#39;s questions are as follows: - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <list type="decimal-dotted">
            <item label="1.">
              <para>Yes. </para>
            </item>
            <item label="2.">
              <para>
                <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Stebens</inline>was not married at  the  date of his retirement. </para>
            </item>
            <item label="3.">
              <para>Yes. </para>
            </item>
            <item label="4.">
              <para>No application was received by the Superannuation Board from <inline font-weight="bold">Mrs. Stebens</inline></para>
            </item>
            <item label="5.">
              <para>Yes. </para>
            </item>
            <item label="6.">
              <para>
                <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Stebens</inline>divorced his wife in November, 1958, and whilst he  was  retired in May, 1954, he did not remarry until August, 1954, that is  to say.  some three months after his retirement. It is a provision common to all the superannuation schemes of Australian governments that no pension is paid to the widow of a marriage contracted after the date of the employee&#39;s retirement. Although <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Stebens,</inline> for an earlier part of his service with the Commonwealth, was married to <inline font-weight="bold">Mrs. Stebens,</inline> I do not think that that justifies a distinction from any other marriage contracted by a pensioner. The payment of pension to widows of marriages contracted after the employee&#39;s retirement from service would mean increased rates of contribution, additional payments by the Commonwealth, and, inevitably, a similar burden upon contributors to State pension funds and State governments. </para>
            </item>
          </list>
        </answer>
      </subdebate.1>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Indonesia</title>
          <page.no>970</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <question>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>970</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KX7</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">WARD, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Mr Ward</name>
            </talker>
            <para>d asked the Minister acting for the Minister for External Affairs, upon notice - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <list type="decimal-dotted">
            <item label="1.">
              <para>Is he satisfied that the arms and equipment of all descriptions which are being supplied by the United States of America, Great Britain and Russia to Indonesia are not in excess of that nation&#39;s internal security needs? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="2.">
              <para>Was the Australian Government consulted by either the United States of America or Great Britain before commitments were entered into by these nations for the supply of arms to Indonesia; if so, what viewpoint was expressed on behalf of this country? </para>
            </item>
          </list>
        </question>
        <answer>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>970</page.no>
              <name.id>126</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party>LP</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BARWICK, Garfield</name>
              <name role="display">Sir Garfield Barwick</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  The answers to the honorable member&#39;s questions are as follows: - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <list type="decimal-dotted">
            <item label="1.">
              <para>Having regard to the fact that Indonesia is a widely dispersed archipelago and to the kind of military problems faced by its Government in dealing with currently active dissident forces in various parts of the country, the equipment so far supplied by the United States and the United Kingdom may be considered as generally in conformity with Indonesia&#39;s internal security requirements. Equipment from Communist bloc countries is of a different order, including as it does, jet aircraft for example. The level of arms in Indonesia and the way in which they are used are naturally matters which its neighbours take notice of, and we in Australia have welcomed the statement by the Indonesian Foreign Minister, <inline font-weight="bold">Dr. Subandrio,</inline> that force should not be used in the settlement of territorial differences. </para>
            </item>
            <item label="2.">
              <para>The honorable member may be assured that Australia&#39;s views on the whole question of the supply of arms are well known to other governments, including the Indonesian. </para>
            </item>
          </list>
        </answer>
      </subdebate.1>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australian Military Uniforms</title>
          <page.no>970</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <question>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>970</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JSU</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BRYANT, Gordon</name>
              <name role="display">Mr Bryant</name>
            </talker>
            <para>t asked the Minister for the Army, upon notice - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <list type="decimal-dotted">
            <item label="1.">
              <para>How many Citizen Military Force units have tested the proposed new army dress in such a manner as would enable a considerable number of officers and other ranks to express an opinion upon it? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="2.">
              <para>What is the aesthetic value of the web belt? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="3.">
              <para>Why has it been adopted as part of the walking out dress? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="4.">
              <para>Why are shorts not under consideration for wear in southern Australia? </para>
            </item>
          </list>
        </question>
        <answer>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>971</page.no>
              <name.id>K7J</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party>LP</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">CRAMER, John</name>
              <name role="display">Mr Cramer</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- The answers to the honorable member&#39;s questions are as follows: - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <list type="decimal-dotted">
            <item label="1.">
              <para>The proposed new dress for the Army has not yet been tested by either Regular or C.M.F. units. The forthcoming &#34; user &#34; trials of sample items have been designed to gain opinions on materials, design, wearing and laundering qualities, &#38;c. The items need to be worn continuously in order to produce valid opinions and this precludes C.M.F. personnel participating directly as subjects in the trials at this stage. The items will be worn by a limited number of representative members of the Regular Army, including some members of Regular Army cadres of C.M.F. units. Some C.M.F. officers and other ranks will therefore be able to see and express views on the several articles to be tried. It is expected that, as a result of the user trials and study of all suggestions and comments, firm proposals for the new dress will be made. </para>
            </item>
            <item label="2.">
              <para>The forthcoming user trials will determine the aesthetic and other values of the newly designed web belt. </para>
            </item>
            <item label="3.">
              <para>Nothing has yet been adopted as part of the new walking out dress. Adoption of any item is subject to its being proved suitable as a result of user and later, troop trials, being approved by the Military Board and agreed, from the financial point of view, by the Treasury. </para>
            </item>
            <item label="4.">
              <para>Shorts are not under consideration for wear as a normal item of dress in southern Australia because of the comparatively unpredictable and changeable climate and the necessity, for financial reasons, to restrict the range of garments on issue to soldiers to that which is necessary. </para>
            </item>
          </list>
        </answer>
        <question>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>971</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JSU</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BRYANT, Gordon</name>
              <name role="display">Mr Bryant</name>
            </talker>
            <para>t asked the Minister for Supply, upon notice - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <list type="decimal-dotted">
            <item label="1.">
              <para>Is it a fact that changes are contemplated in Army dress? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="2.">
              <para>In view ofthe need to sponsor a wider use of woollen materials, will he discuss with the Minister for the Army the question of producing better quality materials than those at present used in Australian Army uniforms? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="3.">
              <para>Why are present Army uniforms not comparable with civilian suitings in respect of quality of materials? </para>
            </item>
          </list>
        </question>
        <answer>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>971</page.no>
              <name.id>KIF</name.id>
              <electorate>PETRIE, QUEENSLAND</electorate>
              <party>LP</party>
              <role>Minister for Supply</role>
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">HULME, Alan</name>
              <name role="display">Mr Hulme</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- My colleague, the Minister for the Army has provided the follow ing answers to the honorable member&#39;s questions: - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <list type="decimal-dotted">
            <item label="1.">
              <para>It is a fact that changes are contemplated in Army dress. New proto-type uniforms have been developed by the Department of Supply, reviewed by the Army Head-quarters Dress Committee and approved by the Military Board as a basis for trials. Small quantities of these uniforms are now being manufactured ready to go out to user trial, so that the troops themselves may comment on the material and design aspects. Until these results of the trial are known, and the financial implications of any change fully studied, no firm decision can be taken. </para>
            </item>
            <item label="2.">
              <para>This has already been done. The Departments of Supply and Army have worked in close collaboration for some time on this project, and with the help of all branches of the industry, have produced and thoroughly tested many new cloths. A selection of those with most appeal has been made by the Army and these have been specially manufactured by industry and incorporated in the new uniforms to go for trial. The present issue summer uniform for rank and file is wholly of cotton and of course is not comparable with civilian clothing made of other fibres. However, the present review aims at an improved summer uniform. </para>
            </item>
            <item label="3.">
              <para>The woollen and worsted materials at present in use in Army uniforms are manufactured to a very precise specification as to wool quality, cloth construction, dye fastness and finish. Furthermore, on many occasions, manufacturers have stated that the very high standards demanded by the Commonwealth are far more exacting than any they encounter in normal civilian trade. </para>
            </item>
            <item label="4.">
              <para>The proto-type summer uniform about to be placed under user trials envisage replacing a wholly cotton material by a considerable usage of wool. </para>
            </item>
          </list>
        </answer>
      </subdebate.1>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australian Military Forces</title>
          <page.no>971</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <question>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>971</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JSU</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BRYANT, Gordon</name>
              <name role="display">Mr Bryant</name>
            </talker>
            <para>t asked the Minister for the Army, upon notice - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <list type="decimal-dotted">
            <item label="1.">
              <para>What active formations compose the Citizen Military Force? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="2.">
              <para>What Units compose these establishments and where are their head-quarters located? </para>
            </item>
          </list>
        </question>
        <answer>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>971</page.no>
              <name.id>K7J</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party>LP</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">CRAMER, John</name>
              <name role="display">Mr Cramer</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- The answers to the honorable member&#39;s questions are as follows: - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <list type="decimal-dotted">
            <item label="1.">
              <para>The Citizen Military Forces consist of three divisions, plus certain non-divisional units. These are dispersed throughout Australia, and are &#34; grouped &#34; into active formations as under: - </para>
            </item>
          </list>
          <para>Two infantry divisions. </para>
          <para>Three (independent) infantry brigades. </para>
          <para>Two artillery formations. </para>
          <para>Two engineer formations. </para>
          <para>Three formations designated Head-quarter Groups.  2. (a) East infantry division consists of three infantry- brigades plus supporting armour, artillery and other arms and service units. The headquarters of one infantry division is in New South Wales; the other is in Victoria. (There is an infantry brigade in South Australia. It is part of the infantry division which has its head-quarters in Victoria. (b) Each infantry brigade consists of three infantry battalions. The head-quarters of the three (independent) infantry brigades are located in Queensland (two) and Western Australia (one). (c) The artillery and engineer formationsconsist of groupings of non-divisional units of their respective arms. The head-quarters of one artillery and one engineer formation are in New South Wales. There is also one of each in Victoria. (d) Headquarters groups consist of groupings of nondivisional units not controlled by other Citizen Military Force head-quarters. These three formations are located (one each) in Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia. </para>
        </answer>
      </subdebate.1>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Rail Transport</title>
          <page.no>972</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <question>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>972</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JSU</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BRYANT, Gordon</name>
              <name role="display">Mr Bryant</name>
            </talker>
            <para>t asked the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <list type="decimal-dotted">
            <item label="1.">
              <para>What interest and pay-roll tax payments were made by each of the Australian railway systems in each of the last ten years? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="2.">
              <para>Upon what basis are these interest charges computed? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="3.">
              <para>To whom are interest payments made? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="4.">
              <para>What is the indebtedness which incurs the interest? </para>
            </item>
          </list>
        </question>
        <answer>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>972</page.no>
              <name.id>KIF</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party>LP</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">HULME, Alan</name>
              <name role="display">Mr Hulme</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- The Minister for Shipping and Transport has furnished the following reply: - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <quote>
            <para>1.- </para>
          </quote>
        </answer>
        <para class="block">
          <graphic href="022131195904075_77_0.jpg" />
        </para>
        <para class="block">
          <graphic href="022131195904075_77_1.jpg" />
        </para>
        <para>2 and 3. The Payment of Railway Interest. - The payment of railway interest is not uniform in all States and the general principle is that the rate of interest on State indebtedness as a whole is ascertained each year by the State Treasurer and this rate is applied to railway loan indebtedness. A portion of debt handling charges is allocated against the railways. The Financial Agreement Act 1928-1944 provides that the Commonwealth and the States make annual contributions of 2s. 6d. per cent. and 5s. per cent, respectively towards redemption of debt existing at 30th June, 1927, and further annual contributions of 5s. per cent. each towards the redemption of debt created since that date. In addition the States make an annual contribution of4&#189; per cent. on the face value of securities redeemed from their sinking funds. The contributions of the Commonwealth and the States in respect of the States&#39; debts are not accumulated but, subject to the Financial Agreement, are applied by the National Debt Commission to the redemption of the public debts of the States, the redemption of loans raised by the Commonwealth for and on behalf of the States and the repurchase of securities issued in respect thereof. Responsibility for interest payments upon railway capital transfers made to State governments is borne wholly by State treasuries. They also assist their respective railway authorities to meet commitments in respect of interest and sinking fund payments on capital remaining on railway books. The foregoing is a general appreciation of the situation, but there are differences as between the States. The more important ones are - </para>
        <list type="lowerroman">
          <item label="(i)">
            <para>New South Wales. - Payment of interest and other capital debt charges is arranged in consultation with the Treasury either quarterly or at such times as the cash position of the department permits. When the capital debt charges are not met in full from railway funds the balance becomes a debit to the Consolidated Revenue of the State. </para>
          </item>
          <item label="(ii)">
            <para>Victoria.- Since 1st July, 1955, the full interest bill has been met from railway revenue. </para>
          </item>
          <item label="(iii)">
            <para>Queensland. - Sinking fund and debt handling charges do not concern the Railway Department, being solely the function of the State Treasury. </para>
          </item>
          <item label="(iv)">
            <para>South Australia. - Railways are debited with calculated amounts, according to the value of existing assets. </para>
          </item>
          <item label="(v)">
            <para>Western Australia. - The Western Australian Government Railways are not billed with interest by the State Treasury or any other body. Interest is. however, raised in the railway books. </para>
          </item>
          <item label="(vi)">
            <para>Tasmania. - Interest on loan moneys is paid at the State rate of interest. Amounts provided for depreciation are invested with the State sinking fund. The Treasurer is reimbursed from the Depreciation Fund for sinking fund contributions payable to the National Debt Commission in respect of Transport Commission loans. </para>
          </item>
          <item label="(vii)">
            <para>Commonwealth Railways. - Whilst the Commonwealth Railways is debited in the Treasury Accounts with interest and sinking funds on all capital funds provided from loan raising, it is not debited with any proportion of the debt handling charges. </para>
            <list type="decimal-dotted">
              <item label="4.">
                <para>Net loans funds on which interest was payable by Australian railway systems as at 30th June, 1957- </para>
              </item>
            </list>
          </item>
        </list>
        <para class="block">
          <graphic href="022131195904075_78_0.jpg" />
        </para>
      </subdebate.1>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Commonwealth Offices, Newcastle</title>
          <page.no>973</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <question>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>973</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KFG</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">GRIFFITHS, Charles</name>
              <name role="display">Mr Griffiths</name>
            </talker>
            <para>s asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <list type="decimal-dotted">
            <item label="1.">
              <para>How many Commonwealth departments have offices at Newcastle? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="2.">
              <para>Which are they, and where are the offices situated? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="3.">
              <para>How many of these offices are owned by the Commonwealth? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="4.">
              <para>In respect of the offices which are leased, what is the weekly rental in each case and who are the landlords? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="5.">
              <para>How many Commonwealth officers are employed in each set of offices? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="6.">
              <para>What rental is paid for the Commonwealth Parliament Offices in the C.M.L. Building? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="7.">
              <para>Does the Commonwealth own land at Newcastle; if so, where is it situated and what is its value? </para>
            </item>
          </list>
        </question>
        <answer>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>973</page.no>
              <name.id>JXI</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party>LP</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">FREETH, Gordon</name>
              <name role="display">Mr Freeth</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- The answers to the honorable member&#39;s questions are as follows: - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <list type="decimal-dotted">
            <item label="1.">
              <para>Thirteen. </para>
            </item>
          </list>
        </answer>
        <para class="block">
          <graphic href="022131195904075_79_0.jpg" />
        </para>
        <list type="decimal-dotted">
          <item label="3.">
            <para>Customs House is Commonwealth owned. </para>
          </item>
          <item label="4.">
            <para>See 2. </para>
          </item>
          <item label="5.">
            <para>See 2. </para>
          </item>
          <item label="6.">
            <para>&#163;1,103 per annum. </para>
          </item>
          <item label="7.">
            <para>Lot 4 in Hunter-street West, near Denisonstreet, containing143/4 perches. This land was acquired on 29th June, 1955, at a cost of &#163;18,430 as a site for an office building for the Department of Social Services. </para>
          </item>
        </list>
      </subdebate.1>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Commonwealth Offices, Adelaide</title>
          <page.no>974</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <question>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>974</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>2V4</name.id>
              <electorate>HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA</electorate>
              <party>ALP</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">CAMERON, Clyde</name>
              <name role="display">Mr CLYDE CAMERON</name>
            </talker>
            <para>n asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <quote>
            <para>Where are the premises situated in Adelaide for which the Commonwealth pays a rental of &#163;1 10s. per square foot? </para>
          </quote>
        </question>
        <answer>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>974</page.no>
              <name.id>JXI</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party>LP</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">FREETH, Gordon</name>
              <name role="display">Mr Freeth</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- The answer to the honorable member&#39;s question is as follows: - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <quote>
            <para>Mutual Life Building, VictoriaSquare, for the Postmaster-General&#39;s Department. Rental includes cleaning and rales and taxes. Floor coverings and Venetian blinds are supplied by the owner. </para>
          </quote>
        </answer>
      </subdebate.1>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Royal Australian Air Force School, Malaya</title>
          <page.no>974</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <question>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>974</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KX7</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">WARD, Edward</name>
              <name role="display">Mr Ward</name>
            </talker>
            <para>d asked the Minister for Air, upon notice - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <list type="decimal-dotted">
            <item label="1.">
              <para>What methods were adopted in selecting teaching staff for the Royal Australian Air Force School in Malaya? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="2.">
              <para>Who was responsible for the selection and what qualifications did they possess which made them suitable for the task? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="3.">
              <para>What qualifications were regarded as essential in selecting this teaching staff? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="4.">
              <para>Were all applicants interviewed; if not, in what manner was it decided which applicants were to be eliminated without interview? </para>
            </item>
          </list>
        </question>
        <answer>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>974</page.no>
              <name.id>KMD</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party>LP</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">OSBORNE, Frederick</name>
              <name role="display">Mr Osborne</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- The answers to the honorable member&#39;s questions are as follows: - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <list type="decimal-dotted">
            <item label="1.">
              <para>The vacancies were advertised in the New South Wales and Victorian Education Gazettes. The advertisements indicated the teaching qualifications required and the conditions of service. Applications received were examined by officers of the Department of Air and representatives of the two Education Departments, who prepared a list of applicants to be called up for review. </para>
            </item>
            <item label="2.">
              <para>The selections were made by the Principal Education Officer of the Royal Australian Air Force and the Chief Administrative Assistant of the Air Member for Personnel. They were assisted in Victoria by the Chief Inspector of Primary Schools and one of his assistants, and in New South Wales by a representative of the Director of Primary Education. </para>
            </item>
            <item label="3.">
              <para>A number of factors were taken into account, including teaching experience, teaching qualifications, personality, appearance, health and general suitability for the climate and the environment. Some consideration was given to the extracurricular activities which the selected teachers could help to promote at the R.A.A.F. Base. Previous service experience was also taken into account. </para>
            </item>
            <item label="4.">
              <para>No. Too many applications were received for them all to be interviewed; over 400 from Victoria and over 50 from New South Wales. The selection panels made short lists of teachers considered most suitable for interview. In doing so they gave due regard to reports received from district inspectors of the two Education departments on the teaching ability of the applicants. </para>
            </item>
          </list>
        </answer>
      </subdebate.1>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Commonwealth Loans and Finance</title>
          <page.no>975</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <question>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>975</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JSU</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BRYANT, Gordon</name>
              <name role="display">Mr Bryant</name>
            </talker>
            <para>t asked the Treasurer, upon notice - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <list type="decimal-dotted">
            <item label="1.">
              <para>What funds have been made available to the States from Commonwealth sources to supplement loan funds in each of the last ten years? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="2.">
              <para>What procedure is adopted to carry out this operation? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="3.">
              <para>What interest is charged? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="4.">
              <para>What amounts have been received in interest in each year? </para>
            </item>
            <item label="5.">
              <para>What were the sources of the funds employed? </para>
            </item>
          </list>
        </question>
        <answer>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>975</page.no>
              <name.id>009MC</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party>LP</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">HOLT, Harold</name>
              <name role="display">Mr Harold Holt</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- The answers to the honorable member&#39;s questions are as follows: - </para>
          </talk.start>
          <list type="decimal-dotted">
            <item label="1.">
              <para>Since 1951-52 when the Commonwealth first supported the Loan Council borrowing programme by subscribing to special loans, Commonwealth special financial assistance to State works and housing programmes has been as follows: - 2 and 5. This special assistance has been provided mainly from amounts appropriated from the Consolidated Revenue Fund to a number of Trust Accounts within the Commonwealth Trust Fund, and from the Australian currency counterpart of overseas loans. At the end of each financial year since 1951-52, investments have been made from these sources into special Commonwealth loans, which have not been available for public subscription. The proceeds of these special loans have been allocated mainly to State loan programmes for works expenditure, and to the Commonwealth loan programme to finance advances to the States under the Housing Agreement between the Commonwealth and the States. However, the proceeds of the special loans have also been applied in part to other Commonwealth loan commitments such as war service land settlement. </para>
            </item>
            <item label="3.">
              <para>Special loans have normally been issued at the same rates of interest as those applying to the immediately preceding Commonwealth public loan raised in Australia. </para>
            </item>
            <item label="4.">
              <para>As mentioned in the answer to 2 and 5 above, the proceeds of special loans are used for a number of different purposes. The subscriptions made to the special loans by the Commonwealth Trust Fund are not specifically identified with these different purposes. Moreover, some of the securities issued in the special loans have since matured and have been dealt with in public conversion loans, together with maturing securities originally issued in other Commonwealth loans. Some of the holdings of these securities by the Trust Fund have been converted into new loans at rates of interest different from those for the original investments, and others have been redeemed. The investments of the Trust Fund have also been varied by purchases and sales of securities. </para>
            </item>
          </list>
          <para>It is accordingly no longer possible to identify a particular portion of the States&#39; outstanding debt as being held by the Commonwealth Trust Fund, and it is therefore not possible to calculate the amount of interest being paid by the States to the Commonwealth each year as a result of the special assistance to State works and housing programmes. </para>
        </answer>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
  </answers.to.questions>
</hansard>