House of Representatives
4 November 1952

20^th Parliament · 1^st Session

QUESTION
- EMPLOYMENT
GENERAL AGREEMENTON TARIFFS AND TRADE
QUESTION
- COMMONWEALTH HANDLING EQUIPMENT POOL
QUESTION
- HEALTH AND MEDICAL SERVICES
QUESTION
- TAXATION
QUESTION
- IMMIGRATION
QUESTION
- CIVIL AVIATION
QUESTION
- DRIED FRUITS
QUESTION
- SOCIAL SERVICES
QUESTION
- CANNED FOOD
QUESTION
- NORTHERN TERRITORY
QUESTION
- COAL
QUESTION
- IMPORT RESTRICTIONS
QUESTION
- HOUSING
QUESTION
- WHEAT
QUESTION
- WOOL
TARIFF BOARD
BRADFIELD ELECTORAL DIVISION
- Issue of Writ
ASSENT TO BILLS
INCOME TAX AND SOCIAL SERVICES CONTRIBUTION BILL 1952
INCOME TAX AND SOCIAL SERVICES CONTRIBUTION ASSESSMENT BILL (No. 3) 1952
QUESTION
- NEW AND OPPOSED BUSINESS AFTER 11 P.M
DEFENCE TRANSITION (RESIDUAL PROVISIONS) BILL 1952
AIR NAVIGATION (CHARGES) BILL 1952
- Second Reading
- Second Reading
AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL AIRLINES BILL 1952
- Second Reading
- Second Reading
INCOME TAX AND SOCIAL SERVICES CONTRIBUTION ASSESSMENT (AIR NAVIGATION CHARGES) BILL 1952
- Second Reading
- Third Reading
BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE
DEFENCE BILL 1952
- Second Reading
CUSTOMS BILL 1952
- Second Reading
EXPLOSIVES BILL 1952
- Second Reading
SUPERANNUATION BILL 1952
- Second Reading
COMMONWEALTH ELECTORAL BILL 1952
- Second Reading
SOCIAL SERVICES CONSOLIDATION BILL (No. 2) 1952
- Second Reading
ADJOURNMENT
- Immigration - Employment - Trade - - Rail Transport
PAPERS
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
- Newsprint
- Australian Industries : Overseas Subsidiaries
- Industrial Arbitration
- Flood Damage and Relief
- Office Accommodation
- Public Service

Mr. Speaker (Hon. Archie Cameron) took the chair at 3.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 4077

QUESTION

EMPLOYMENT

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Has the Minister for Social Services any information in his possession about the number , of people in this country in receipt of unemployment benefit which relates to a later date than does the other information upon that matter which he has already given to the House ? If so, will he tell us what it is?

Mr TOWNLEY:
Minister for Social Services · DENISON, TASMANIA · LP

– The latest information that I have is that approximately 30,000 persons are in receipt of theunemployment benefit. Roughly twothirds of these persons are in the metropolitan area of Sydney, and about onefifth are in the metropolitan area of Melbourne.

Mr BEAZLEY:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I base a question to the Treasurer on the explanatory notes on the Income Tax and Social Services Assessment Bill (No. 3), at page 39, one paragraph of which begins as follows : -

One view, upon which many income tax assessments have been based, was that the transfer of interests in partnership assets, including trading stock, amounted to a. constructive disposal of those assets.

The following paragraph begins: -

A contrary view is that section 30, as at present enacted, does not apply to the transfer of a fractional interest in trading stock . . .

– I wish to ask the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture a question concerning the dried fruits industry. By way of explanation, I bring to his notice the apprehension felt amongst producers of dried fruits at the recent action of the British Government in purchasing 50,000 tons of raisins from the United States at the comparatively low price of £52 a ton. In view of the fact that American dried fruits are heavily subsidized, and that the United Kingdom is Australia’s principal export market, will the Minister make representations to the British Government in this respect during his forthcoming visit to London ?

Mr McEWEN:
Minister for Commerce and Agriculture · MURRAY, VICTORIA · CP

Mr McEWEN:
CP

– It was proposed that, upon the disbandment of the Australian Wool Realization Commission, the wool statistical service that has been conducted for years by the commission should be continued, and that it should be designated the Wool Marketing Service. That proposal led to much misunderstanding of the position, and protests were made. A few weeks ago, I received a deputation from the National Council of Wool Selling Brokers and the Australian Woolgrowers’ Council. In my discussions with the deputation, the purpose of the wool statistical service was made clear. There was a general understanding of the high importance of the statistical records compiled by the Australian Wool Realization Commission in the international wool negotiations that have taken place during the last eighteen months, upon which hinged the fate of the Australian auction system for the sale of wool. Yesterday, a conference was held in Sydney between the permanent head of the Department of Commerce and Agriculture with representatives of the National Council of Wool Selling Brokers, the Australian Woolgrowers’ Council and the Australian Wool and Meat Producers Federation. As a result of the conference, it was agreed that, for a trial period of three months, the wool statistical service now operating should be continued and that, concurrently, a method of supplying the basic information put forward by the National Council of Wool Selling Brokers should be tried. It was understood that if, at the end of the trial period, the statistical record service provided by the brokers was adequate and could be accepted both here and overseas as authentic and complete, the Government would be read to agree to this modification of the statistical service.

page 4083

TARIFF BOARD

Reports on Items.

Mr ERIC J HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944

– I layon the table reports of the Tariff Board upon the following items: -

Aluminium foil and aluminium foil paper.

Canned fish.

Copies of the reports are not yet available for circulation to honorable members.

page 4084

BRADFIELD ELECTORAL DIVISION

Issue of Writ

Mr SPEAKER:

– It is my intention to issue a writ on the 19th November for the election of a member to serve for the electoral division of Bradfield, in the State of New South “Wales, in the place of the late Right Honorable William Morris Hughes, deceased. The dates in connexion with the election will be fixed as follows: - Issue of writ, the 19th November; nominations, the 3rd December; polling, the 20th December; return of writ, on or before the 22nd January, 1953.

page 4084

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following bills reported:-

Overseas Telecommunications Bill 1952.

Nationality and Citizenship Bill 1962.

Northern Territory (Administration) Bill 1952.

Stirling North to Brachina Railway Bill 1952.

Loan (International Bank for Reconstruction and Development) Bill 1952.

Pharmaceutical Benefits Bill 1952.

Seamen’s War Pensions and Allowances Bill (No. 2) 1952.

page 4084

INCOME TAX AND SOCIAL SERVICES CONTRIBUTION BILL 1952

Bill returned from the Senate, without requests.

page 4084

INCOME TAX AND SOCIAL SERVICES CONTRIBUTION ASSESSMENT BILL (No. 3) 1952

Bill returned from the Senate, with an amendment.

In committee: Consideration of Senate’s amendment.

Clause 7 (Disposal of trading stock).

Senate’s Amendment. - At the end of clause add the following sub-clause: - “ (4.) Where -

Sir ARTHUR FADDEN:
Treasurer · McPherson · CP

– I move -

That the amendment be agreed to.

I desire to explain briefly the purpose and significance of the amendment. In clause 7, it is proposed to introduce a new section 36a into the principal act. By this amendment, the new section, as it applies to certain transactions in partnership interests between the 1st July, 1951, and the 18 th September, 1952, will operate more advantageously to the taxpayers concerned. The effect of proposed new section 36a is to treat transfers of interests in trading stock, including livestock, as disposals of that stock. Such a transfer of interests inevitably takes place on the formation or dissolution of a partnership, or on a change in the constitution of a partnership. The taxation consequence oftreating a transfer of interests as a disposal is to include the value of the stock in the assessable income of the former owner or owners, and to allow a deduction of that amount to the new owners. Under proposed new section 36a, the value of trading stock so to be taken into account will be, where all the parties to the transfer unanimously agree,thevalue ofthat stock as adopted in the income tax returnsof theformer owners. In other words, upon unanimous agreement, the parties may decide to treat the business as a continuing one, and to defer taxation upon profits arising from the stock until an actual sale has taken place. If the parties to the transfer do not unanimously agree to be treated as a continuing business, the value included in the assessable income , of the former owners and allowed as a deduction to the new owners is the market value of the trading stock. Section 36a does not give expression to any new principle in income tax law.

For many years it was thought that section 36 of the principal act required the market value of trading stock which was the subject of a transfer of partnership interests to be brought to account in computing taxable income. This interpretation of section 36 had been accepted both by the Commissioner of Taxation and by Taxation Boards of Review. It was only in November, 1951, when the High Court delivered judgment in the Rose case, that the failure of section 36, as at present enacted, to give effect to its original purpose in this connexion was disclosed. It is proposed, in the new section 36a, to give clear expression to that original purpose and, at the same time, to allow the parties to transfers of partnership interests considerable latitude in determining the incidence of taxation as between themselves. Whilst the proposed new section 36a will preserve the principle of treating transfers of partnership interests in trading stock as disposals at market value, the parties may, upon unanimous agreement, as I have already mentioned, elect to be treated on the alternative basis of a continuing business. That right of election, however, is subject to a very necessary safeguard. It will be exercisable only where, after the transfer, one or more of the former owners retain at least a 25 per cent, interest in the transferred trading stock. This safeguard is, as I have indicated, very necessary if anomalies are to be avoided. If there were no such restriction, a person disposing of his business could avoid taxation on the proceeds by the simple expedient of retaining some nominal or fictitious interest in the business. The object of the proposed limitation, therefore, is to restrict the right of election to those cases where, notwithstanding some change in ownership, there remains a substantially continuing business. The propriety of this limitation, as a general proposition, has not been seriously challenged. Representations received by the Government, however, indicate that the proposal places an unintended restriction upon some taxpayers who transferred partnership interests between the 5th November, 1951, the date of the Rose decision, and the 18th September, 1952, which was the date on which I introduced the bill. Such transactions were effected, in many instances, in the belief and on the understanding that the principles of the Rose decision would apply, and that no taxable profit would arise from the transfer. Of course, where former owners retained at least a 25 per cent, interest in the transferred stock, the parties will have the right of unanimous election to be treated as a continuing business. Under the measure as originally drafted, however, parties to transfers where an interest of less than 25 per cent, was retained by former owners would have no such right to be treated as a continuing business, even although they may have entered into their transaction relying upon the Rose judgment. The amendment which the committee is asked to accept is designed to remove any suggestion of hardship in these latter cases.

Whilst it might be justifiable to grant relief in respect only of transfers between the date of the Rose decision and the 18th September, 1952, the date on which the bill was introduced, it is proposed that the modification provided for in the amendment will operate from the first day of the year of income in which the decision was given - that is, the 1st July, 1951 - or the beginning of any accounting period substituted for that year of income. Shortly stated, the effect of the amendment will be to grant a right of election, in certain circumstances, to be treated as a continuing business, where a transfer of interests occurred “between the 1st July, 1951, and the 18th September, 1952, even if an interest of less than 25 per cent, were retained in the transferred stock by the former owners. In order that the operation of this modification may not be hampered by arbitrary restrictions, it is proposed to give the Commissioner of Taxation wide powers of discretion in determining what percentage retention of interests should qualify the parties for the right of election to be treated as a continuing business. The number of partners in the new business will be a relevant factor in making such a determination. For example, where a father took four sons into partnership at any time during the period mentioned, and retained at least a 20 per cent interest in the stock, the parties will have the right of election. Where circumstances warrant, the commissioner will be authorized to accept such an election where an even less percentage was retained. The discretionary power which is proposed to be vested in the commissioner will extend also to a determination of the bona fides of the new partnership. This is necessary to ensure that the right of election is restricted to genuine cases. The amendment provides a further safeguard in every case where the parties entered into transactions in the light of the Rose decision. I commend the amendment to the committee.

Dr EVATT:
Leader of the Opposition · Barton

– I move -

That the amendment be amended by adding at the end thereof the following proviso: - “ Provided that the section inserted in the principal act by this section shall not be construed or applied so as to increase the amount of tax that was paid, or [payable, in respect of income of the years of income which commenced on the first day of July, 1950, and the first day of July, 1951, and in the further period ended the 18th September, 1952, except insofar as may be necessary to give effect to the notice of agreement given under sub-section (2.) of the section inserted in the principal act by this section.”.

The purpose of the amendment is to deal with the matter of retrospectivity or retro-activity in the new provision. The Rose decision was given in 1951, but it was in respect of the previous income year. In other words, the transaction under review in the Rose case, which related, of course, to the transfer by partners, among themselves, of holdings in partnership assets, had reference to the previous year. The High Court held, not for the future, that the law means only that, in a transfer of partnership interests, there was no disposal of assets, and there fore such a transfer was not covered by the law. The Government has been driven, step by step, to a position that is fundamentally unsound if it really is against the retrospective operation of the taxation statutes simply to close a gap that the courts have exposed. What our amendment seeks to do is to say, in effect, “ Treat the Rose decision according to its true meaning and interpretation as covering not merely the year in which it was announced, but also the period in respect of which it was given - that is, the previous year and make the decisive point as the 18th September, 1952, when this proposal was announced by the Treasurer to the Parliament “. In other words, the Government should accept the decision of the nation’s supreme tribunal. The whole matter should be treated according to the spirit, as well as the letter, of the interpretation. Instead of that, the Government is adopting a mealy-mouthed way of attacking this problem of retroactivity. On the 9th October, the Treasurer (Sir Arthur Fadden) indicated the principle that he proposed to apply in connexion with a much more serious case, which he described as being extremely important. He said-

I desire to make it clear that the Government will, as soon as practicable, introduce legislation for this purpose, and that the legislation will certainly be made retroactive to the date of this announcement.

I am referring, not to this particular matter, but to the principle involved. The Treasurer continued -

In other words, those who, from this time onwards, seek or intend to employ these devices are put on plain notice that the legislation to be introduced willbe aimed at invalidating the action which they have in mind.

Then he said that whatever law was appropriate to deal with the problem would operate from that night the 9th October, 1952. Had the Treasurer said, in September, that the new law would operate on and from the 18th September, that would have been reasonable. The law would have operated prospectively. However, the intention is that the operation of the law shall be made retrospective. Such a decision will lead to all sorts of anomalies.

I concede at once that an attempt has been made in the Senate to meet certain criticism, but even so, the matter is to be left to the discretion of the Commissioner of Taxation. I ask honorable members to consider the following condition of the extension of the area of mitigation: - (4.) Where-

the Commissioner is satisfied that the property became, upon the change, an asset of a business carried on by a bona fide partnership of the persons by whom the property was owned after the change, sub-section (2.) of the first-mentioned section applies in relation to that change as if the reference in paragraph (b) of that sub-section to one-quarter of the value of the property were a reference to such smaller proportion of that value as the Commissioner considers reasonable having regard to the number of partners and the circumstances in which the change occurred.”.

Why should the commissioner determine whether or not the extent of ownership retained is reasonable? The only considerations that are relevant are good faith, and whether it is an honest transaction. I believe that the Treasurer and his advisers have completely overlooked one matter. Section 260 of the Income Tax and Social Services Contribution Assessment Act is a general provision, the effect of which is that if persons in partnership or any other capacity combine, by pretended transactions which are not entered into in good faith but are designed to relieve or defeat liability to taxation which would otherwise arise, the commissioner can, on approaching a court of justice, have those transactions declared void and not binding on him. That is the proper way in which to deal with this situation. The commissioner should not be given power to say, in effect, “ Oh, I do not think that is reasonable How will he know whether or not it is reasonable? It depends on the business transactions, and the relations between the partners, whether or not it is reasonable.

I submit that the Senate’s amendment, although it is an improvement on the situation, is not satisfactory. The arbitrary rule that the partner must retain 25 per cent of the value of the joint property is modified, so that his good faith will depend upon the commissioner’s determination that he is retaining what, in the opinion of that official, is a reasonable share. We should ask ourselves the broad question whether that approach should be adopted, or whether the Government should make this law operative as from September last. The High Court in the Rose case, interpreted and determined the law. The Treasurer did nothing in the matter, for practically twelve months after September, 1951. During that period, he practically told all persons concerned that the decision of the High Court would stand. He created that impression by Lis failure to take any action in the matter. Therefore, it is only right that the persons affected should obtain the benefit of the decision of the High Court in the Rose case, which merelyinterpreted the law up to the time when the Treasurer introduced the bill. The purpose of my amendment is to achieve that end. I shall read the essential words, which are as follows : -

Provided that the section inserted . . shall not be construed or applied so as to increase the amount of tax that was paid or payable in respect of incomes for the years of income which commenced the 1st day of July, 1950-

– Oh, no, I would’ not suggest that. While this alteration to the method of assessment, brought about by the Rose case, conferred an advantage on the transferor, the transferee suffered a disadvantage. When a taxpayer transferred assets on the basis contemplated by the principal act, if the book value was £10,000 and the market value £40,000, the transferor was required to pay income tax on the difference- £30,000.’ Following the Rose case, the £30,000 was transferred to the transferee so that eventually when the stock was sold the transferee would pay the tax on it. Therefore, this is not a matter of one-way traffic. It is to the advantage of the transferor but to the disadvantage of the transferee. Let as now consider what might have been behind the Rose judgment. In the Rose case, the retention was 33^ per cent., and many people have tried to work out a partnership on the basis of a retention much lower than 33J per cent. - some perhaps as low as 12 per cent, or 5 per cent. The Government decided that in all such cases there should be a reasonable retention, and determined that it should be 25 per cent. The Leader of the Opposition said that twelve months elapsed before the Government did anything about this matter. As a matter of fact, the Government is not only giving an advantage to taxpayers to the time when the Rose case was decided in November, 1951, but it is also giving that advantage, according to the Senate’s amendment, to the 1st July, 1951. Therefore, even those persons who did not lodge an objection will receive a benefit as far back as the 1st July, 1951. Honorable members and others should realize that this Government is being very generous in its attitude in this amendment.

I believe that the Treasurer’s amendment does carry out to the full the High Court’s judgment in the Rose case, but it has to be proved in all such cases that a bona fide partnership is in existence, and there must be unanimous agreement about that as between the parties. The Leader of the Opposition has suggested that it is wrong to leave the decision whether a partnership is bona fide or not to the Commissioner of Taxation. However, the right honorable gentleman did not suggest who should make the decision, and I believe that the matter of the discretion of the Commissioner of Taxation did not receive much consideration by the Labour party when it was in office for eight years. If honorable members read the history of the federal income tax law they will discover that there have always been substantial discretions within the power of the Commissioner of Taxation. My experience in dealing with the Commissioner of Taxation has been considerable, and I have always found him most reasonable in the exercise of any discretions vested in him. There will be an exercise of discretion by the Commissioner of Taxation in this matter, and through my experience I suggest that the discretion will be exercised to the advantage of the taxpayer. I support with considerable enthusiasm the amendment of the Treasurer, and I completely reject the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition. I believe that the Leader of the Opposition is merely seeking to obtain political capital out of this matter because he believes that a considerable section of the people oppose what he calls “ retrospectivity “.

Mr CALWELL:
Melbourne

.- The honorable member for Petrie (Mr. Hulme) said that he supports the amendment of the Treasurer (Sir Arthur Fadden) “with considerable enthusiasm “. He did not say that he supported it with whole-hearted enthusiasm.

Mr Hulme:

– I shall say that now.

Mr CALWELL:

– The honorable member for Petrie has good reason to qualify his enthusiasm. He knows that the average primary producer does not want this legislation, any more than anybody else wants legislation which lays down that what was a legal act a couple of years ago is now illegal, and that he must pay much more than he would have had to pay under the original legislation.

Sir Arthur Fadden:

– Does the honorable member say that the law should not lie altered?

Mr CALWELL:

– I believe that decisions should be made to alter the law if evasions have been made, or if the High Court decides that a law which has been considered to be valid is in fact invalid. However, I consider that a law should be altered only from the date on which the Parliament approves of its alteration. If it is discovered that certain people have been deliberately evading the law, there is a general provision in the Income Tax Assessment Act to enable the Commissioner of Taxation to recover what has been wrongly withheld from the Treasury. But an amending measure can be introduced if the occasion is considered to be sufficiently serious to warrant such, action being taken. That course was followed by the Chifley Government which introduced retrospective legislation and applied such legislation in instances in which it was obvious that attempts had been made to evade tax and to cover up such attempts. A person who acted honestly and then found, as a result of a High Court decision, that what had been completely lawful was in future to be regarded as being unlawful could not be said to have evaded payment of tax. The Treasurer should be prepared to consign what has already happened to the dead past. I do not know the sum that is involved in instances that are covered by the decision of the High Court in the Rose case. The Treasurer has not given that information to the committee.

Members of the Australian Country party, when next they go to the country, will have a lot of explaining to do if they wish to justify their action in supporting retrospective legislation that will hit honest men who do not de liberately attempt to evade payment of tax, but to whom the Treasurer now says, in effect, “ Well, there is a certain decision by the High Court which has to be taken care of and you have topay back money as from a date that will be considerably prior to November,. 1951 “. Whilst the amendment now before the committee represents an improvement on the Government’s original proposal, all that it does is to say that there shall be a. benefit tothe party concerned only if the party retains what the Commissioner of Taxation thinks is a reasonable share. The commissioner is to be the finalauthority in this matter, and there can be no appeal from his decision. Why does not the Government make provision for the party concerned to retain an honest share? Why must this matter be left solely to the commissioner to determine? This is not much of a concession to make to the honest trader, who is in partnership with members of his family. The Senate’s amendment is still bad because like that which the Government originally proposed it includes the objectionable’ phase of retrospectivity. The proposed amendment should operate as from September, 1952. The Treasurer, if hewishes to do so, can refer to the case of a newspaper company in one of the capital cities which transferred certain moneysto an employees’ benefit fund, and out of that fund proposed to pay tax free to one of its proprietors half of the sum that was transferred. It has been stated that the sum involved was £20,000. That sort of thing should be stopped, but such a case is not ‘comparable with that of a primary producer who, as a member of a partnership, operated under section 36 of the principal act and, until the decision in the Rose case, was never obliged to pay tax in respect of a disposal of property made within that partnership.

The position that has arisen is interesting, because the Commonwealth Committee on Taxation had suggested that transactions that are to be covered by this amendment should be brought within section 36. The High Court gave its decision in the Rose case and, subsequently, the Treasurer referred the matter back to the committee for further consideration and the committee, in its report which it furnished on the 3rd April last, adhered to its view that a disposal of trading stock for the purposes of a partnership should be brought within section 36. The committee attached to its report a draft amendment, but the Government’s first proposal went further than the recommendation that the committee made. I am not so sure that the Government’s present proposal also does not go further than that recommendation. The incidence of tax imposed by this amendment, even retrospectively, is far wider than the committee ever recommended. The Treasurer has landed himself in trouble in respect of this and other instances of retrospective legislation. I am not concerned about the other cases, because I do not know the degree to which they actually involve evasion; but I submit that transfers made by primary producers could not possibly involve attempts to defraud the revenue of the kind which it is insinuated have been made in dealings by persons other than primary producers. Therefore, the new law should apply as from the date on which the Treasurer originally announced that it would apply and should not cover primary producers as well as all other persons who, it has been alleged, have knowingly or unknowingly, evaded payment of tax. The new law should not be applied to primary producers in the way that it is proposed to apply it to other persons. The observation that the Leader of the Opposition made was perfectly fair and proper. I have no doubt the Treasurer himself, if he were in Opposition, would make a similar observation. When the Curtin and Chifley Governments introduced legislation of this kind, he criticized the retrospective provisions. The Vice-President of the Executive Council (Mr. Eric J. Harrison), or any other supporter of the present Government, when he was in Opposition, never missed a chance to protest against the retrospective application of legislation. Honorable members opposite will have an uphill fight to justify this proposed provision before the people. Certainly, they will not justify it before the primary producers who, in any event, are now fed up to the teeth with the present Government and to whom this proposal will be the last straw.

Mr FREETH:
Forrest

.- I trust that the honorable member for Melbourne (Mr. Calwell), if he should ever attain to the treasury bench, will not attempt to protect taxpayers in general with the same childlike faith that he has just exhibited. Obviously, he knows very little about this proposal. He said in a large and airy fashion that as a result of this amendment there could be no evasion of tax.

Mr Calwell:

– I said that there could be little, if any, evasion of tax.

Mr FREETH:

– It is interesting to learn that the honorable member is prepared to condone minor evasions of tax.

Mr Calwell:

– I said that primary producers are honest.

Mr FREETH:

– The amendment proposed by the Treasurer (Sir Arthur Fadden) turns, in general, on the principle of retrospectivity, in particular, upon a judgment that the High Court delivered on the 5th November, 1951. The Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Evatt) has proposed an amendment to the Government’s proposed amendment, to which he has objected on two grounds. His first objection is in respect of the area and scope of tax transactions that are covered by the High Court’s decision in the Rose case ; and his second objection is in respect of the discretion that is to be given to the Commissioner of Taxation in deciding matters of this kind. I wonder what the right honorable gentleman’s attitude was in 1947 when the Chifley Government introduced an income tax assessment bill which corrected a technical defect that had been disclosed in relation to tax on dividends received from ex-Australian companies? Speaking on that measure, Mr. Chifley said -

Since 1941, these dividends have been included in the assessable income of the Australian resident shareholder, who has been entitled to a deduction of the ex-Australian tax paid on the dividend. A decision delivered last week by the High Court is to the effect that dividends from ex-Australian companies which are subject to ex-Australian tax are exempt from Commonwealth tax. While remedying the defect disclosed by the court’s decision, it is proposed to modify the basis of assessment.

The remedy went back to the 1st July, 1946. Had the right honorable gentleman decided to rectify the defect for the full period of its operation, the amendment would have been made retrospective to 1941. However, he was influenced by the fact that, prior to the decision of the court, people had acted in accordance with the law as they then interpreted it. In this instance, persons who made partnership transactions prior to the decision in the Rose case acted in accordance with the law as it was then interpreted. Mr. Chifley considered that persons who had acted in good faith on the basis of a court decision were entitled to the benefit of that decision, but that others were not entitled to the benefit. The Leader of the Opposition now proposes that the effect of the Government’s amendment should apply to all transactions of the tax year prior to the announcement of the Rose decision, when taxpayers could not have known that the court would interpret the law as it did. At that time, taxpayers must have accepted the law as it had been laid down by several decisions of taxation boards of review. Therefore, the amendment proposed by the Opposition is completely illogical.

Dr Evatt:

– Does the honorable member know which year the decision in the Rose case referred to?

Mr FREETH:

– Yes, the income year that ended on the 30th June, 1951. Any taxpayer who entered into a partnership transaction during that year must have believed that he would be liable to taxation on the market value of his stock, because he could not foresee the decision of the High Court on the 5th November, 1951. The right honorable gentleman suggests that it is the duty of the Government to give back a certain amount of tax on the ground that such a taxpayer might have been able to foresee a pending High Court decision. I have never heard such a suggestion before, and I do not think that the right honorable gentleman can expect it to be taken seriously.

The second ground for his objection to the Senate’s amendment is the proposal to vest discretionary power in the Commissioner of Taxation. He stated correctly that section 260 of the principal act provides a remedy that may be exercised by the Commissioner in the event of a deliberate tax evasion by conspiracy. However, the right honorable gentleman must be well aware of the extreme difficulty of securing a conviction under the terms of that section. The point at issue is that the Commissioner of Taxation has a duty to protect the taxpayers generally against the activities of persons who rightly should be taxed, but who, in fact, evade tax. It is much more difficult to prove that a deliberate attempt has been made to evade tax than it is to extend the principle of this section to cases which properly should come within the provisions of section 36 in relation to the disposition of property. The honorable member for Melbourne suggested that there could be no evasion of tax. I understand that, after the High Court gave its decision in the Rose case, over 3,000 new partnerships were entered into in New South Wales alone. What percentage of these arrangements provided that 25 per cent, of the property should be retained in the original ownership we do not know. However, any of them could have retained only .01 per cent, of the original interest in the ownership, and, technically, they might have been able to get by under the terms of the decision of the Rose case. I have used the qualification, “technically”, because the High Court in the Rose case simply laid down that the formation of a partnership did not come within the provisions of section 36 of the Income Tax and Social Services Contribution Assessment Act. However, we should remember that the decision in that case was based upon a certain set of facts. The court might well have reached a different conclusion if a different set of facts had been submitted to it. The Leader of the Opposition has said, in effect, that he does not object to the idea of a bona fide partnership having to be established, but that he objects to the Commissioner of Taxation having discretion to decide whether or not a bona fide partnership has been established. The decision must be made at some stage. Either it must be laid down in the act by specifying a certain figure - and the Government proposes that 25 per cent, shall apply in the future - or it must be left open to litigation, a process that involves an undesirable state of uncertainty. The two objections raised by the Leader of the Opposition cannot withstand close examination. In the first place, he has said that taxpayers are entitled to have the benefit of a legal decision only if they have acted in good faith on that decision. In this instance, taxpayers could have acted in good faith 011 the court’s decision only after the 5 th November, 1951. Any suggestion that individuals who acted prior to that date are entitled to the benefit of the decision is fantastic.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honorable member’s time has expired.

Mr TOM BURKE:
Perth

This amendment affords me an opportunity to deal with the general principle of retrospective legislation. The puritans on the other side of the chamber have taken advantage of every opportunity in the press and in the Parliament to say that they will have nothing to do with retrospective taxation legislation. The Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Evatt) qualified the Opposition’s stand to-day, but the qualification was entirely foreign to an unequivocal statement that he made in the press recently about the dangers and the dreadful consequences of such legislation. The Leader of the Labour party in the Senate made a similar statement. He had the audacity to say that the Labour party had never been responsible for retrospective income tax legislation. Let me put some of the facts upon record. I have been the victim of a scurrilous attack by the press in connexion with retrospective taxation legislation, and the press has been aided and abetted by the puritan attitude that has been adopted by the Labour party to the matter.

A classic example of retrospective taxation legislation is the amendment of the taxation laws that was proposed by the late Mr. Chifley in 1944. At that time, there was evidence of legal tax avoidance by the expedient of acquiring ownership of, private companies which, in previous years, bad made substantial losses, and using the entities so acquired to carry on new and profitable businesses. The effect of that expedient was to enable the losses of the old businesses to be carried forward and to be treated as deductions from income earned by the new businesses in later years, even though the ownership of the companies had completely changed. An appropriate amendment of the law was made. The late Mr. Chifley said that it was designed to prevent that legal method of tax avoidance. The amending measure was enacted on the 3rd April, 1944, but it applied retrospectively to the 1st July, 1941.

On another occasion, the High Court delivered a judgment, the effect of which was to exempt from Australian income tax dividends received by Australians from ex- Australian companies. The judgment of the High Court was delivered on the 20th March, 1947. Legislation was drafted by the Chifley Government to overcome the effect of the judgment of the court. The legislation, which was enacted on the Srd June, 1947, applied retrospectively to all assessments posted to taxpayers on and after the 20th March, 1947 - the date of the judgment. In effect, the benefit of the judgment was preserved only for the successful appellant and for other taxpayers whose objections or appeals upon similar grounds has not been determined.

In 1948, when claims had been advanced that, by reason of an apparent defect in the law, payments of social services contributions were deductible under the concessional allowance provisions, the Chifley Government, in which the present Leader of the Opposition was Attorney-General, introduced legislation to remove any grounds for such claims. That legislation, enacted in 1948, was made retrospective to the 1st July, 1945. The first income tax assessment bill presented by the late Mr. Chifley as Treasurer was brought before the Parliament in December, 1941. It made provision for the disallowance of concessional deductions for children in respect of whom child endowment was payable, and for the substitution of a rebate for the deduction previously allowed in respect of payments made in response to calls by mining companies on their shareholders. Both those amendments of the law applied to assessments of income for the year that commenced on the 1st July, 1940. The record of the Labour party proves that the statements that honorable gentlemen opposite have made recently about retrospective taxation legislation are sheer political humbug.

In 1948, the Chifley Government presented a bill that was intended to rationalize the code for the taxation of the profits of private companies, and, in particular, to correct an anomaly that had existed since 1934. The legislation became operative on the 22nd December, 1948, but it applied retrospectively to assessments of income for the year that commenced on the 1st July, 1947. That is the record. The Leader of the Opposition was then Attorney-General, the ministerial head of the legal department that was responsible for the drafting of that legislation, yet he has the audacity to try to make the country believe that the party that he leads is opposed to retrospective taxation as being against the best interests of the country and the taxpayers generally. That is the undeniable record which we place before the Parliament, which shows the political hypocrisy of the party opposite when it tries to cash in, with the dirty newspaper organization that has attacked me, with respect to retrospective taxation.

All I have to say in conclusion is that there have been more dissension, confusion and political hypocrisy with regard to this measure than any one could have believed possible. In all the circumstances the measure does nothing other, and it will be proven to do nothing other, than give a retrospective concession to all those taxpayers who come within its ambit. Nobody will be detrimentally affected by it. Everybody will be benefited by it, except people who have not lodged their tax returns at the proper time, and nobody can look after that kind of person. No taxpayer who has lodged his return for the financial year 1950-51 and has been assessed, or will be assessed, prior to the Crown assent to this measure, will be affected. As far as people to whom the Rose decision applies are concerned, the Government has made the provision retrospective to the 1st July, 1951. The only modification that has been made to the original measure is to remove what might be - and it only might be - some disadvantage in cases where a lesser proportion than 25 per cent of the partnership assets has been retained and there has been disagreement between the contending parties. As the honorable member for Petrie (Mr. Hulme) rightly said, the Government had to consider both parties to such transactions. The Rose case did not go far enough. The court had to decide only one point of law, and it left, still unresolved, the broad issue of the disposal of the partnership assets. The honorable member for Petrie rightly said that we had to give consideration to two parties. There are always at least two parties to a contract. For every transferor there is at least one transferee. We had to hold the scales of justice evenly and wisely between the parties. The best way to do so was the most practical way, which was to provide them with an opportunity for agreement by election, and to have a safeguard whereby fictitious transactions that would be to the disadvantage of the revenue could not be entered into Twenty-five per cent, retention was, therefore, considered to be a reasonable percentage having regard to all the facts, particularly in the Rose case, in which a percentage of 33 was the salient retention. I realized, after the measure had been introduced and had been canvassed and debated, that there were genuine cases in which the 25 per cent retention principle might be harsh. That is the reason why the amendment has been introduced, and why we are pleased, as a Government, to accept it.

Mr CREAN:
MELBOURNE PORTS, VICTORIA · ALP

– Mr. Chairman-

Motion (by Mr. Eric J. Harrison) put -

That the question be now put.

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr. C. F. Adermann.)

AYES: 59

NOES: 45

Majority … . . 14

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put -

That the amendment (Dr. Evatt’s) to the amendment be agreed to.

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr. C. F. Adermann.)

AYES: 45

NOES: 0

N oes . . . . 59

Majority . . 14

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Resolution reported; report adopted.

page 4097

QUESTION

NEW AND OPPOSED BUSINESS AFTER 11 P.M

Motion (by Mr. Eric J. Harrison) proposed -

That Standing Order 104 - 11 o’clock rule - be suspended until the end of this week.

Mr CALWELL:
Melbourne

.- The Vice-President of the Executive Council (Mr. Eric J. Harrison) has not given the House any reasons for the submission of the motion. Does he believe in legislation by exhaustion, or does he propose to give honorable members a reasonable opportunity to deal adequately with all the weighty measures that are still upon the notice-paper? This indecent haste on the part of the Government to complete the sessional period must have its origin in its defeat in Flinders recently, or the troubles that the Government will meet in other places. Why cannot we sit for a few more days?

Mr.Beale. - That is a whopper!

Mr CALWELL:

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! That matter is not relevant to the motion.

Mr ERIC J HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944

– I am merely reminding Opposition members of the true position. The provision of “ Grievance Day “ has nothing to do with this motion. I remind the honorable member for Melbourne that when I was sitting in the comfortable chair that he is uow occupying, members of the Opposition at that time were subjected to a number of all-night sittings until we all reached a state of complete exhaustion. Labour Ministers retired to their offices, rested on their settees, and returned refreshed to the chamber, but private members were completely exhausted. Since this Government has been in office, there have been fewer all-night sittings than under any previous government. During this sessional period, we have had only one late night. To-night may make the second late night for the period if Opposition members insist on talking at great length in an attempt to gain party political capital. As I have explained, the reason for this motion is simply to allow the Government, should it so desire, to introduce legislation between the hours of 11 p.m., and midnight.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 4099

DEFENCE TRANSITION (RESIDUAL PROVISIONS) BILL 1952

Motion (by Mr. Menzies, through Mr. McBride) agreed to -

That leave be given to bring in a bill for an act to give the force of law to certain regular tions and orders, and for other purposes.

Bill presented by Mr. McBride, and read a first time.

Mr McBRIDE:
Minister for Defence · Wakefield · LP

– by leave - I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The House will be glad to learn that the object of the bill is to dispose of, once and for all, the few surviving national security regulations and orders. For the last half dozen years, successive Defence (Transitional Provisions) Bills, each prolonging for a year at a time the gradually shrinking bulk of national security regulations and orders, have been a feature of the end-of-the-year sittings. We have seen the last of them. The Government proposes to replace them with a new act, which will keep on foot for varying periods the small residual groups of regulations and orders which are listed in the schedules, and which will not have to come before the Parliament again.

One group of regulations, three in number, which are listed in Part I. of the First Schedule, willbe continued for only the first six months of 1953. The first is the Apple and Pear Acquisition Regulations. Their only function now is to authorize the board to complete the re-assessment of compensation for fruit acquired during the war, in accordance with a judicial decision. The reassessment is nearly complete, but cannot be finished before the end of December, when under the present Act, the regulations would expire. The other two regulations in this first group - the War Deaths Regulations and regulation 66 of the General Regulations - will be replaced by regulations under permanent legislation which is now before the Parliament - the Defence Bill 1952 and the Explosives Bill 1952. It may not be possible to bring these bills into operation and promulgate new regulations under them until the early part of next year. The proposal to continue the existing regulations is designed to avoid a gap. The two orders listed in the Second Schedule will be continued until the end of 1953, and will then lapse if not earlier revoked. They are the Cordage and Fibre Order and the Jute Goods Order. The transition from emergency conditions has not progressed as rapidly or as far, in respect of these matters, as it has in most other directions. I am advised that the continuance of these orders will command general consent in the industries to which they relate.

There remains the group of regulations listed in Part II. of theFirst Schedule. Broadly, the position with these is that they do not draw their support from the defence power, and that they are not now needed except for winding up or for transitional purposes. However, it is not quite clear how soon they can be replaced or dispensed with. In these cases, therefore, no time limit has been fixed. Indeed, no time limit is necessary, because their continuance does not depend on an emergency or on emergency powers. I shall say a word or two about each of them. The group of General Regulations, which are listed first, authorizes the continued occupation of property of which possession was taken during the war, and provides the necessary machinery for assessing compensation. These are necessary only for winding-up purposes. So also is the last item listed in this group (regulation 2 of Statutory Rule 205 of 1945), an external territories regulation which will permit the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory to finalize certain proceedings transferred from the external territories during the war years.

The Shipping Co-ordination Regulations permit the exercise of certain powers in relation to interstate and overseas shipping, and will eventually be replaced by permanent legislation. The Industrial Property Regulations are being progressively incorporated in the revised patent trade marks and designs legislation which is being prepared, and of which the first act has already been passed, though not yet proclaimed to commence. It is convenient to keep these regulations on foot in the meantime, but no question of principle is involved. Just to complete the list, I mention that regulation 62 of the Supplementary Regulations belongs strictly to the industrial property group. The remaining supplementary regulation - number 100 - is evidentiary, and will, of course, disappear with the regulations to which it is incidental. With these limited groups of exceptions, the re mainder of the National Security Regulations, which were continued into 1952 by the Defence (Transitional Provisions) Act 1951, will all expire at the end of the present year. The bill contains the appropriate saving provisions. As I have said, the bill disposes finally of the remnants of the national security miscellany. Honorable members, I am sure, will attend its obsequies without lamentation. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Dr. Evatt) adjourned.

page 4100

AIR NAVIGATION (CHARGES) BILL 1952

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 29th October (vide page 3874), on motion by Mr. Hasluck -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Declaration of Urgency.

Mr ERIC J HARRISON:
Vice-President of the Executive Council and Minister for Defence Production · WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944

– I declare that the Air Navigation Charges Bill 1952 is an urgent bill.

Motion (by Mr. Eric J. Harrison) agreed to -

That the bill be considered an urgent bill.

Sitting suspended from 5.50 to 8 p.m.

Allotment of Time.

Motion (by Mr. Eric J. Harrison) proposed -

That the time allotted in connexion with the bill be as follows: -

for the second reading, until 8.5 p.m. this day.

for the committee stage, until 8.50 p.m. this day.

for the remaining stages, until 9 p.m. this day.

Mr DRAKEFORD:
Maribyrnong

– The allotment of time proposed for consideration of this measure and two cognate measures is ridiculously inadequate. It is proposed to allow only five minutes for the second-reading debate on this bill. Obviously, the Government is determined to silence the Opposition and to ‘ prevent it from exposing the designs of the Government under these measures. Such action is most reprehensible. The Government will live to regret this denial of free speech to members of the Opposition. This bill and two cognate measures should be discussed exhaustively, particularly having regard to the strong difference of opinion that exists between the Government and the Opposition on the matters with which they deal. Apparently, some Government supporters are satisfied that the Government is taking the proper course; but the Opposition regards this measure as a foul bill.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member must deal with the proposed allotment of time.

Mr DRAKEFORD:

– I repeat that greater opportunity should be given to the House to debate measures that are so important as these bills are. In the period of five minutes, which is to be allotted for the second-reading debate, one could barely mention the principles of these bills. If I were permitted to do so, I should describe the Government’s action in much more forcible terms. I was not given any indication that the Government intended to limit discussion on these measures. My colleagues and I have prepared copious notes, and we should be given the opportunity to place our views before the House and the people. I protest against this contemptuous treatment of the Opposition. It is clear that the Government is unable to stand up to criticism of the proposals that are contained in these measures. During the 25 years that I have been a member of Parliament I cannot recall an occasion on which a Government has shown such contempt for the Opposition.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member’s time has expired.

Mr OSBORNE:
Evans

Question put -

That the motion (vide page 4100) be agreed to.

The House divided. (Mr. Speaker - Hon. Archie Cameron.)

AYES: 56

NOES: 45

Majority . . 11

AYES

– I have put the question, but if there is any doubt about the matter, I shall be happy to put it again.

Mr ERIC J HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944

– There is no doubt about it.

Mr Calwell:

– Yes, there is.

Question put; -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The House divided. (Mr. Speaker - Hon. Archie Cameron.)

AYES: 57

NOES: 46

Majority . . . .11

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

The bill.

Mr DRAKEFORD:
Maribyrnong

– The bill proposes to reduce airroute and other charges that were regarded by the Department of Civil Aviation, when I was Minister in charge of that department, as fair and legitimate charges, and in conformity with similar charges made in most of the other parts of the world. I should like to know the reason for the indecent haste of the Government to secure the passage of this measure. Is the Government under an obligation to push the bill through the Parliament by a specified date so that the financial benefits that certain interests will derive from it can be paid then?

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Adermann).Order! The time issue is not relevant to the question before the Chair.

Mr DRAKEFORD:

– The bill provides for the collection of air-route charges at rates lower than those that were specified in the regulation that authorized their imposition originally. Some airlines objected to the original charges on the ground that they were too high, and other companies objected to paying airport dues or air-route charges of any kind.

Those companies, year in and year out, have been using facilities provided by the people of this country, but they have not paid a cent for them. The Government proposes that the sum that the Department of Civil Aviation considers that they owe in respect of these charges shall be reduced by two-thirds, and that, in the future, the charges payable shall be one-half of those that were specified originally.

Some airlines raised no objection to paying the charges that were imposed first. They could not do so with justice, because they knew that they would be railed upon to pay similar charges if they operated services to, for instance, the United States of America. I ask the Minister for Territories (Mr. Hasluck) to say whether Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited paid air-route charges and airport dues at San Francisco andVancouver when it was operating a trans-Pacific service for British Commonwealth Pacific Airlines. I venture to, say that the company had to pay them in those cities, but in this country it was permitted to evade payment because it instituted an action in the High Court. This Government so favours Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited that it is willing to permit the past debt to be forgotten. Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited is to be called upon to pay only £337,000 for air-route charges, although it owes approximately £1,000,000.

The Department of Civil Aviation did not impose the charges for the purpose of making a profit. They cannot be described as unreasonable charges, because they compare favorably with those made by other countries. They were intended to provide only 20 per cent, or 30 per cent of the cost of the construction and maintenance of aerodromes and of the provision of air-route and airway facilities, meteorological services and search and rescue services maintained or operated by the Commonwealth. For many years those facilities have been used practically free of charge by Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited - the largest and most favoured private airline in Australia. That company evaded payment of the charges because it raised legal objections to paying them. The case was finally disposed of without having been brought to trial. The Government has every reason to be ashamed of not having brought the case to trial, because the odds were in favour of a decision being given against Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited. It is unforgiveable for the Government to permit the company to get away with a failure to pay charges in this country that it has had to pay elsewhere. While Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited operates an air service for Air Ceylon, it has to pay air route charges and airport dues in countries other than Australia in which its aircraft lands, but, in Australia, it escapes payment.

The fact that we have been unable to collect air route charges from Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited probably has prevented the Department of Civil Aviation from obtaining revenue from overseas airlines, because, under an agreement that we have made with other countries, we cannot charge, for instance, American and Canadian operators more than we charge our own operators. We have not charged our operators anything for the use of our aerodromes and air route and other facilities, although they have had to pay for them in other countries. It is a recognised airline principle that charges should be imposed for the use of those facilities, which, in Australia, are very good. Overseas airline companies recognize that such charges are part of their operating and working costs, but in this country they have been allowed to use our facilities free of charge. When the Department of Civil Aviation was preparing the table of charges, it investigated conditions in other countries.

Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited and the Ansett company - which is the only other major privately owned airline in this country - decided to lodge with the High Court of Australia an objection to the payment of the charges, but the action was not brought to trial. This Government could have brought the action to trial at any time during the last three years, but, instead, it has been devising ways and means by which to favour Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited and to help that tottering private enterprise to stand up against the competition of a government airline, which honorable gentlemen opposite said at one time could not succeed. They laughed at the idea of a successful government airline, but it has been demonstrated in this country that such an airline can be run successfully and that a private airline cannot compete with it unless it is propped up by guaranteed loans of public money, made without the consent of the people. I suggest for the consideration of the Minister for Territories and those who are advising him that they should analyse the basis upon which the Department of Civil Aviation founded its scale of charges. They will find that the department has a record of the facts upon which the original charges were based. How can honorable gentlemen opposite justify the action of the Government in permitting Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited to avoid the payment of charges that are recognized elsewhere as fair?

Some airlines in this country are receiving fairly large subsidies, and I agree that they should do so. Many of the subsidies have been increased in recent times. The air route charges that were originally prescribed have been included in those subsidies. Under this legislation, some of those companies will receive a refund of payments made in respect of charges which they regarded as legitimate. The companies may not have been very enthusiastic about the charges when they were imposed originally by the Chifley Government, but I cannot remember any whole-hearted protest being made against them, other than by Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited and the Ansett company.

There has been a lot of talk about the pioneering of air routes in this country. The real pioneers were the companies that received subsidies in the early stages of air transport in Australia. The MacRobertson-Miller organization was the first pioneer of commercial airlines in this country, and Qantas was the second. Australian National Airways

Proprietary Limited came into the field later, and exploited air services between our capital cities.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honorable gentleman’s time has expired.

Mr HASLUCK:
Minister for Territories · Curtin · LP

– This is a very short measure and, to my mind, rather a simple one. It consists of a few brief clauses and a few schedules. Honorable members will recall that during my second-reading speech on the Civil Aviation Agreement Bill I made reference to the decision of the Government to reduce air route charges in order to relieve all airlines in Australia of the heavy burden that the payment of those charges imposed upon them. It was decided that the air route charges payable up to the 1st July,’ 1952, should be reduced by 50 per cent., and that those payable after 1952 should be reduced to an even greater degree. This bill is designed to give effect to that decision. In the three schedules, the exact means by which the decision can be carried into effect are set out. Furthermore, the bill introduces one other proposal inasmuch as it gives power to amend the schedules by regulation if necessary. The purpose of that provision is to give flexibility to the operation of the act, so that if it be found necessary to raise the air route charge because of increased costs of the services provided it will be possible to do so by regulation without the necessity of going through the lengthier ‘ processes of introducing and passing a bill. That regulation-making power is limited to the purposes of this bill, and must not be used in a way that is inconsistent with the bill.

The meat of the bill is contained in the schedules. The first schedule deals with the charges payable by the holders of airline licences in respect of all operations conducted by them. Honorable members will know that the Air Navigation Regulations provide for the conduct of regular public transport operations by the holders of charter licences in certain circumstances. These are also charged in accordance with the First Schedule. The method of charging for those operations is generally similar to that which has operated in the past. Each aircraft is given a unit charge depending on the weight of the aircraft, and each route israted having regard to the nature and extent of the facilities and services onthat route.

Mr Beazley:

– Why retain any’ charges ?

Mr HASLUCK:

– The honorablemember’s question suggests that he is at variance with other members of his party on that matter.

Mr Beazley:

– That is true, but will the Minister answer the question?

Mr HASLUCK:

– The argument in favour of retaining charges is that services are provided, and that some charge should naturally be made for such services. We - cannot make an exact and neat calculation of the amount of an air route charge in relation, say, to the capital cost of the services provided. As the line of the Government’s argument proceeds, honorable members will realize that an air route charge which had a precise relation to the cost of furnishing the services would perhaps, in certain instances, be too onerous for the operators to carry. The Government could levy a charge that has an exact relation to the cost of the services provided or it could levy no charge at all. It has chosen to levy a charge, but to make it a moderate one that will be within the capacity of the airline operators to meet. I emphasize that the bill does not discriminate between one set of operators and another. The provisions apply equally, without favouritism or preference, to all airline operators who come within the ambit of the various schedules. In the case of Trans-Australia Airlines and those operators who have in the past paid air route charges, there will be a refund of the amount paid in excess of the new rate struck. Other operators who have not paid air route charges will become liable for the amount now levied on them.

I return now to my discussion of the schedules to the bill. The unit charge to which I have referred is ascertained by multiplying the aircraft charge by the route rating. The First Schedule also makes provision for charges in respect of the landing of aircraft arriving from outside Australia and the take-off of aircraft departing from Australia. Another provision relates to flights that may be made for the purpose of testing aircraft. Honorable memberswill realize that in the operation of air transport services it is necessary to conduct a variety of test flights for the purpose of ensuring the airworthiness of the aircraft and the competence of its crew. As such flights are necessary in the interests of safety it is not desired to make charges in relation to them. The First Schedule provides for their exemption from any charge.

The Second Schedule deals with charges payable by the owners of aircraft registered under the Air Navigation Regulations who are not covered by the First Schedule. Here again, the scheme is broadly the same as that which has been operating in the past.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! The time allotted for the committee stage of the bill has expired.

Question put -

That the bill be agreed to, and that the bill be reported without amendment.

The committee divided. (Thechairman - Mr. C. F. Adermann.)

AYES: 55

NOES: 45

Majority . . . . 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 4108

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL AIRLINES BILL 1952

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 29th October (vide page 3874), on motion by Mr. Hasluck -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Declaration of Urgency.

Mr.ERIC J. HARRISON (Wentworth - Vice-President of the Executive Council and Minister for Defence Production) [8.58]. - I declare the Australian National Airlines Bill 1952, to be an urgent bill.

Motion (by Mr.Eric J. Harrison) put -

That the bill be considered an urgent bill.

The House divided. (Mr. Speaker - Hon. Archie Cameron.)

AYES: 58

NOES: 44

Majority . . 14

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Allotment of Time.

Mr ERIC J HARRISON:
Vice-President of the Executive Council and Minister for Defence Production · WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944

– I move -

That the time allotted in connexion with the bill be as follows: -

for the second reading, until 9.10 p.m. this day.

for the committee stage, until 9.55 p.m. this day.

for the remaining stages, until 10.10 p.m. this day.

Because of the demonstration that was staged by the Opposition during, the debate on the previous bill, I consider that I should explain the reasons for the proposed allotment of time. The purpose of the brief period for the secondreading debate is purely to give an opportunity for the procedure that has to be followed.

Mr Beazley:

– I rise to order. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether the VicePresident of the Executive Council (Mr. Eric J. Harrison) is in order in referring to the debate on the previous bill, which has been passed by the House. I also submit that the right honorable gentleman is not in order in defending the introduction of the “ guillotine “, since no objection has been raised to it.

Mr.SPEAKER. - Order ! The VicePresident of the Executive Council is in order to date.

Mr ERIC J HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944

– I direct attention to the fact that the honorable member for Fremantle (Mr. Beazley), who poses as the champion of free speech, desires to deny me the right to explain the reasons for the allotment of time in connexion with the consideration of this bill. I hope that the “ Student Prince “ will, in future, follow the advice that he gives to his boys, which is that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. The Australian National Airlines Bill 1952 is one of three bills that are supplementary to the Civil Aviation Agreement Bill 1952 which was passed by the House last week. You, Mr. Speaker were witness to an arrangement between the Government and the Opposition that the second-reading debate on the Civil Aviation Agreement Bill 1952 should cover the second-reading debate on the Australian National Airlines Bill 1952 and the other two supplementary bills. That arrangement was honoured by the Government, but it has been dishonoured by the Opposition.

Motion (by Mr. Ward) proposed -

That the honorable member for Wentworth (Mr. Eric J. Harrison) be not further heard.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! I point out that the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) is entitled to submit that motion if he so desires, but that each member who speaks on the proposed allotment of time is limited to five minutes.

Mr Beazley:

Mr Turnbull:

– I rise to order. The honorable member for Grayndler has said that the Government and members on this side of the House have got something from the national airways. I submit that the honorable member should be asked to withdraw that statement.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I ask the honorable member for Grayndler to comply with the request of the honorable member for Mallee.

Mr DALY:

– If the honorable member for Mallee did not receive anything for what has taken place, I apologize to him.

– Order !

Question put -

That the motion (vide page 4108) be agreed to.

The House divided. (Mr. Speaker - Hon. Archie Cameron.)

AYES: 55

NOES: 45

Majority . . 10

In division:

Honorable members interjecting,

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 4108).

Mr.DRAKEFORD (Maribyrnong) [9.19]. - Mr. Speaker-

Mr SPEAKER:

– That is so.

Question put -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The House divided. (Mr. Speaker - Hon. Archie Cameron.)

AYES: 56

NOES: 45

Majority . . 11

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

The bill.

Mr HASLUCK:
Minister for Territories · Curtin · LP

– “With all due respect to the honorable members who have contributed to the preliminary discussion of this measure, I suggest that we have spoken about many things which are not contained within the bill. It is now my purpose to try to present as clearly as I can what exactly are the provisions of the measure.

Mr Beazley:

– I rise to order, Mr. Chairman. I ask whether it will be possible for the Minister to answer questions which may arise during the discussion in committee, if he speaks first.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Adermann).The honorable member is out of order.

Mr HASLUCK:

Motion (by Mr.Calwell) put -

That the Minister for Territories (Mr. Hasluck) be not further heard.

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr. C.F. Adermann.)

AYES: 45

NOES: 55

Majority . . . . 10

AYES

NOES

– He vetoed the purchase of new aircraft when he was Minister for Civil Aviation.

Mr DRAKEFORD:

– It has been said that an order for the purchase of six Vickers Viscount aircraft for TransAustralia Airlines lay on his desk for six months and was not approved because the acquisition of those aircraft would have put Trans-Australia Airlines ahead of Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited. At any rate, the activities of Trans-Australia Airlines were restricted, as they will be restricted by this bill. Under clause 6 (4.), the Treasurer will be able to demand immediate repayment by the Australian National Airlines Commission, this is, TransAustralia Airlines, of its capital. That is a shocking provision. The situation will be similar to that which would exist if a bank were able to foreclose on an overdraft at any time. I strongly object, as a representative of the people, to the Treasurer having the power to close down an air service that is operating in the interests of the people. Every reasonable person agrees that it is to the advantage of the people that Trans-Australia Airlines should continue to operate. The government airline in New Zealand provides a splendid example of the success of such undertakings. It operates almost exclusively as a monopoly. A government in that dominion similar to the present Australian Government clamoured for the abolition of New Zealand’s national airline, but eventually did not interfere with. it. Last year, the organization showed a clear profit over working expenses of £149,000. The only other airline that operates in New Zealand is a small service across the strait between the two main islands.

Trans-Australia Airlines should be allowed to operate under the conditions that were laid down by the Labour Government. We did not try to wipe out Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited, as has been alleged.

Mr McBride:

– Nonsense !

Mr.DRAKEFORD.- The honorable gentleman knows nothing about the matter. I was Minister for Civil Aviation when Trans-Australia Airlines was established, and I am well acquainted with the facts. The Government and its supporters cannot point to any decision made by the Labour Government against the interests of Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited.

Mr McBride:

– The High Court saw to that.

Mr.DRAKEFORD. - The High Court ruled that Trans-Australia Airlines could not be allowed to operate as a monopoly. The Labour Government accepted that decision and treated Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited as a competitor with Trans-Australia Airlines. When the private company foully influenced the big trustee companies, the banks, the insurance companies and other organizations to instruct their employees not to travel by Trans-Australia Airlines services, and not until then, the Labour Government replied by directing government employees to use TransAustralia Airlines services. Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited has been crying about that decision ever since. It has been a complete failure from a commercial standpoint. I have never believed that the companyhas suffered heavy financial losses, but it is not operating as profitably as it formerly operated. Therefore, its shareholders have asked the Government to come to their rescue in return for the influence that they have been able to exert in the political field on behalf of the Government parties. That is why this bill is being pushed through the Parliament with as little discussion as possible. Manymembers of the Opposition want to ask questions of the Minister in charge of the measure, but we know that they will not have a chance to do so because, if I resume my seat, some honorable member on the Government side of the House will obtain the call from the Chair and will waste the remainder of the time left for the committee discussion. The time allotted for consideration of the measure in committee was deliberately restricted so that the public would not have an opportunity to learn about its provisions. Clause 8 provides that sections 38 and 39 of the principal act shall be repealed and that the following section shall be inserted: -

– (1.) For the purposes of this Act, the profits of the Commission for a financial year are the amount (if any) remaining after deducting from the revenue received or receivable in respect of that financial year the expenditure incurred in respect of that financial year. (2.) For the purposes of the last preceding sub-section, the expenditure of the Commission includes -
1. charges and expenses accrued but not paid;
2. provision for obsolescence and depreciation of assets;
3. provision for insurance;
4. provision for staff superannuation; and
5. provision for income tax and social services contribution.

No company operating on a strictly commercial basis would be restricted as the Government proposes to restrict TransAustralia Airlines by means of that provision. The Minister for Territories has said that the Government proposes to place the organization as nearly on a commercial basis as possible.

Mr Hasluck:

– That is so.

Mr.DRAKEFORD. - The fact is that the Labour Government established it on a truly commercial basis. This Government proposes to hamper its operations and to strangle it to death if possible.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! The time allotted for the committee stage has expired.

Question put -

That the bill be agreed to and that the bill be reported without amendment.

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr. C. F.Adermann.)

AYES: 55

NOES: 44

Majority . . . . 11

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Report adopted.

Motion (by Mr. Hasluck) put -

That the bill be now read a third time.

The House divided. (Mr. Speaker - Hon. Archie Cameron.)

AYES: 57

NOES: 45

Majority . . . . 12

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 4118

INCOME TAX AND SOCIAL SERVICES CONTRIBUTION ASSESSMENT (AIR NAVIGATION CHARGES) BILL 1952

Debate resumed from the 29th October (vide page 3874), on motion by Mr. Hasluck -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Mr ERIC J HARRISON:
Vice-President of the Executive Coun cil and Minister for Defence Production · WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944

and Social Services Contribution Assessment (Air Navigation Charges) Bill is an argent bill.

Motion (by Mr.Eric J. Harrison) put -

That the bill be considered an urgent bill.

The House divided. (Mr. Speaker - Hon. Archie Cameron.)

AYES: 56

NOES: 44

Majority . . . . 12

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Allotment of Time. mr. ERIC J. HARRISON (Wentworth - Vice-Presidentof the Executive Coun cil and Minister for Defence Production) [10.15].- I move-

That the time allotted in connexion with the bill be as follows: -

This is a supplementary bill upon which second-reading speeches have already been made, and I suggest that honorable members may care to direct their attention to the clauses of the bill when it reaches the committee stage.

Question put. The House divided. (Mr.speaker - Hon. Archie Cameron.)

AYES: 56

NOES: 44

Majority . . 12

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 4118).

Question put -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The House divided. (Mr. Speaker - Hon. Archie Cameron.)

AYES: 58

NOES: 44

Majority.. 14

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved is the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

The bill.

Mr DRAKEFORD:
Maribyrnong

.- This is the last of three bills that are supplementary to the bill which provides for the rationalization of air services. They are, in the view of the Opposition, part of a plan to benefit private commercial airlines. Whilst the bill may contain some beneficial clauses, because it is part of that plan we will not have it at any price. I wish to know why this particular government instrumentality, Trans-Australia Airlines should be called upon to pay income tax when the Postal Department and other similar government concerns pay no income tax. As a matter of actual fact Trans-Australia Airlines pays a very large amount in taxes, a fact to which it directs attention in its current annual report, at page 19, which shows that it pays in fuel tax alone1s. 6d. in respect of every £1 that it earns. It has paid in fuel tax alone,1s. 6d. on each of the £7,047,000 that it has earned, and in addition it has paid air route charges and pay-roll tax.

Mr Freeth:

– What did Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited pay?

Mr DRAKEFORD:

– The honorable member for Forrest (Mr. Freeth) may have that information, but it has not been made available to the Opposition. He does not support the contention that we should be permitted to have any knowledge of that matter. I suggest that he and his colleagues are doing their best, whether consciously or unconsciously, to conceal the workings of Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited as much as possible. We should like to know how much that enterprise has paid. We know what Trans-Australia Airlines has paid, but I do not know for certain whether Government supporters have been informed of the amount that

Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited has paid. Sir Edward Nixon, at the request of the Government, compiled the report on the financial position of Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited and Trans- Australia Airlines, and the honorable member for Forrest has the audacity to ask me to inform him of the amount that Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited is paying. How can I be expected to have that information? Why should Government supporters be permitted to know more than we are allowed to know about the amount that Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited is paying ? This Parliament is rapidly being reduced to a position where the Government says, “ We will put through this legislation as quickly as possible without allowing the Opposition an opportunity to express its views. That state of affairs would not be tolerated in any other Parliament. Only one Opposition member will be able to make an adequate speech on this bill.

I direct attention to the following passage in the latest report of TransAustralia Airlines : -

In ] 947-48, the year in which air route charges were first imposed, payments by TransAustralia Airlines to Commonwealth Revenue in respect of Fuel Tax totalled £330,000. This amount has increased year by year, the payment in 1951-52 being £535,000.

That is a substantial slice out of the revenue of Trans-Australia Airlines. I do not desire it to be placed in such a favorable position that other companies cannot compete with it. However, as soon as the decision of the High Court was given, we allowed it to compete with them in every possible way.

Mr Hamilton:

– That is not so.

Mr DRAKEFORD:

– We provided that Trans-Australia Airlines should compete with the other companies without restriction. Some Government supporters have been bludgeoned into voting for this legislation. Earlier they announced that they would not support any interference with Trans-Australia Airlines. They will be reminded of their attitude at the next general election. They are not really in favour of this legislation, but they are silenced by the Government’s policy. Some of them indicated their intention to speak on these measures, but they have withdrawn rather than express views totally different from those that they expressed on previous occasions. I do not believe that some Government supporters like this bill. I can hardly believe that they are convinced of the merits of this legislation. Even the eloquent speech of the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) last week on the Civil Aviation Bill 1952 could not convince anybody who chose to analyse it. On that occasion, the right honorable gentleman engaged in special pleading.

– The Opposition has not been given that information. The honorable member asserts it.

Mr FREETH:

– The Opposition may or may not believe it, but it is a fact. If the Labour party wishes Trans-Australia Airlines to operate in fair competition with Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited, it should agree that the conditions governing the competition should be the same. The suggestion of the honorable member for Maribyrnong that this legislation is a beneficial act to Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited seems to indicate that TransAustralia Airlines cannot operate so efficiently as Australian- National Airways (Proprietary Limited. I do not propose to labour that point, but point out that the whole of the argument advanced by the honorable gentleman falls to the ground. It was obviously manufactured for the purpose of trying to give TransAustralia Airlines protection which would put it on a better footing than Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited.

The honorable gentleman also directed attention to other matters such as the fact that Trans-Australia Airlines paid a certain amount in petrol tax and air route charges. Naturally, TransAustralia Airlines has paid those taxes, and obviously, Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited pays petrol tax and pay-roll tax at the same rates. Why should not the two organizations be placed on a comparable basis? The argument advanced by the honorable member defeats itself. He says that TransAustralia Airlines pays all those taxes, and complains that it has to pay “another tax that Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited has paid for years. I support the bill.

Mr KEON:
Yarra

Mr WILSON:

– The Opposition has made it clear that it is determined, if and when it has the opportunity, to establish a socialist monopoly in this country.

Mr Keon:

– Would the honorable member agree to have a general election on the point*

Mr WILSON:

– We, on this side of the committee, are always prepared to fight a general election on the issue of socialism. The ‘Labour party had the biggest thrashing that it has ever had in this country over socialism, and we shall fight it on that issue any time it likes. This bill and others that have been before the committee to-day, are designed to establish free competition. I remind honorable members opposite that three out of every four employees in Australia are employed by private enterprise. I also remind them that the attitude of the Labour party has shown that its desire to create a monopoly in airline operations is merely the forerunner of its attempts to create monopolies in the medical profession, banking business and other fields of activity. This Government, which believes in private enterprise and free competition, does not oppose State ownership in proper cases. We are not abolishing Trans-Australia Airlines, which we recognise as an effective service. We believe in competition between Trans-Australia Airlines and Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited. Both companies are rendering magnificent service to the people, and we propose to maintain that excellent service which is infinitely better than the service provided by the monopolist State railways or other monopoly transport services in this country. We have heard much during this debate about the merits of TransAustralia Airlines. I do not deny that it is an effective concern, but no one should hold the idea that it has been a great and profitable government undertaking. The Auditor-General’s report about the company’s finances was distributed to honorable members to-day. The Auditor-General states that during the year ended the 30th June, 1952, Trans-Australia Airlines suffered a loss of £74,438. Its accumulated loss to the 30th June, 1952 is now £870,000. Honorable members opposite have mentioned school equipment. Would it not be much better if that £870,000 had been spent on school equipment rather than that it should have been lost on a government enterprise ?

– I repeat that this bill is designed to provide for fair and free competition. Honorable members opposite have shown by their attitude that the Australian Labour party does not want fair, or free, competition but desires solely to establish a socialist bureaucracy under which a few persons would be enabled to push the people around and deprive them of their right of choice.

Dr EVATT:
Leader of the Opposition · Barton

The honorable member for Sturt (Mr. Wilson) claimed that this measure is designed to encourage active competition between TransAustralia Airlines and Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited. That statement is completely incorrect. This measure is the culminating point of a number of bills that will practically end competition. The honorable member also said that the Australian Labour party favours the establishment of a monopoly. The truth is that the Government favours the establishment of monopolies if they can be conducted for private profit. That is why the shipping combine on the Australian coast and the overseas shipping combine, which own Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited, will receive the benefit under this measure. Apparently, Government supporters do not mind exploitation so long as it results in the making of private profit. All their talk about monopolies is untrue, because they favour the establishment of monopolies so long as private profit will result therefrom. It is clear from this bill that we are reaching a stage at which the whole legislative power of this Government, which is supported by parties which favour monopolies and exploitation for private profit, is being used in the interests of those who stand to gain such profits.

I suppose there has never been a precedent for this measure. The bald position is that for the last five years Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited, which is owned by the shipping combines, has in defiance of a regulation delayed payment of a sum in respect of air-route charges amounting to approximately £1,000,000. Under a cognate measure, that company is to be let off with the payment of £330,000 in respect of such charges. That means that the Government is putting into the pockets of those who own Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited a sum in excess of £600,000. In addition, under this measure, that company will not be obliged to bear the full tax liability in respect of that sum. The Government is putting TransAustralia Airlines out of the picture. Under a cognate measure the Government proposes to lend £4,000,000 of the people’s money to the shipping combines that own Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited and that sum cannot be recalled for a period of ten years ; but, at the same time, the whole of the capital of TransAustralia Airlines, which is owned by the people, the profits of which revert to the people, may be recalled at a moment’s notice.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! The right honorable gentleman must confine bis remarks to the bill.

Dr EVATT:

– I am joining issue with the honorable member for Sturt in respect of the Government’s plan as a whole. I deny that the Government proposes to establish free and fair competition. Indeed, every proposal under this measure and cognate measures will put a stop to active competition. But, at the same time, the Government is doing everything in its power to ensure that the shipping combines which own Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited and which are making enormous profits shall get the full advantage of these measures. Under this bill alone, the advantage that those companies will derive during the next fifteen years will be worth probably, from £5,000,000 to £6,000,000.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! The time allotted for the committee stage has expired.

Question put -

That the bill be agreed to and that the bil) be reported without amendment.

The House divided. (The Chairman - Mr. C. F. Adermann.)

AYES: 55

NOES: 43

Majority . . . . 12

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put -

T’hat the report be adopted.

The House divided. (Mr. Speaker - Hon. Archie Cameron.)

AYES: 57

NOES: 44

Majority . . 13

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Third Reading

Motion (by Mr. Hasluck) put -

That the bill be now read a third time.

The House divided. (Mr. Speaker - Hon. Archie Cameron.)

AYES: 57

NOES: 44

Majority . . . . 18

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time.

page 4129

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE

The following bills were returned from, the Senate without amendment: -

Re-establishment and Employment Bill 1952. Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Bill 1952. Canned Fruits Export Control Bill 1952. Canned Fruits Export Charges Bill 1952. Wool Use Promotion Bill 1952. Dairying- Industry Bill 1952.

page 4129

DEFENCE BILL 1952

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 24th October (vide page 3727), on motion by Mr. McBride -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Mr POLLARD:
Lalor

.- This is a small measure, but it is of consider-‘ able importance. It provides for the amendment of section 124 of the Defence Act by the omission of certain provisions and the insertion of two sub-sections to authorize the making of regulations in order to facilitate proof of death of members of the forces and of persons who have served in areas that have been involved in war. There is no reason why exception should be taken to the bill, and the Opposition will support it.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and reported from committee without amendment or debate; report adopted.

Bill - by leave - read a third time.

page 4129

CUSTOMS BILL 1952

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 24th October (vide page 3729), on motion by Mr. Eric J. Harbison -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Mr POLLARD:
Lalor

.- This important bill to amend the Customs Act will empower the Government ‘to make regulations in order to cope with a new situation that has arisen as a result of the development of air transport. A large volume of imports is now brought to Australia, by air and discharged at airports. Therefore, it is essential that the customs authorities should have greater power than is now provided by the Customs Act to police the entry and despatch of goods by air. The bill also includes provisions to facilitate the removal of goods from bond by importers for the purposes of exhibition in show cases and similar places. Other provisions refer to gifts and aircraft stores and will enable the Department of Trade and Customs to protect the revenue by policing the use of such commodities. Generally, the measure will remove anomalies that have become apparent as a result of the passage of time and the expansion of air transport services. The measure is very extensive and the House should have been given an opportunity to consider it in detail. However, it does not include any objectionable, provisions and the Opposition will not oppose its passage.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

The bill.

Mr CALWELL:
Melbourne

– I refer to the power, which will be conferred upon the Governor-General by clause 7, to make regulations to prohibit the importation of goods. I have no doubt that that power already exists, but it is to be exercised by prohibiting the importation of goods absolutely, by prohibiting the importation of goods from specified places, and by prohibiting the importation of goods unless specified conditions or restrictions are complied with. There is a good deal of public interest in the question of restrictions upon the importation of goods. At the present time, the Government, by regulation, is prohibiting the importation of goods in excess of 20 per cent, of those within a certain category, and 40 per cent, of those within another category. This might be an appropriate time for the Vice-President of the Executive Council (Mr. Eric J. Harrison) to say when the Government intends to let trade flow a little more easily, so that a lot of factories that are now closed can be re-opened and a lot of people who are now out of employment as a result of the Government’s import policy can be re-employed, which is much to be desired. It is proper that attention should be drawn to the fact that never before in Australian history have import restrictions been applied for so long. At only one other period in the history of Australia has a total prohibition upon the importation of goods been maintained for a period. That was in the days of the Scullin Government, and it was only for a short period.

We have no information about when the Government proposes to lift the restrictions that are now in force. As far as we know, the restrictions may remain in force for another year or for another two years. Doubtless, when the Vice-President of the Executive Council leads his cohorts in the Bradfield byelection campaign, he will be asked many questions about that matter. He would save himself much time if he made the position of the Government clear now.

Mr ERIC J HARRISON:
Vice-President of the Executive Council and Minister for Defence Production · WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944

.- The effect of the repeal and re-enactment of Division 1 of Part 4 will be that goods which are now prohibited imports will be prescribed in the regulations. At the present time, goods which are prohibited imports are enumerated in the Customs Act, in the Customs Regulations and in the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations. The powers already in this division, which relate to prohibiting the importation of goods absolutely or from specified places or subject to certain conditions or restrictions being complied with, are proposed to be re-enacted. A new paragraph has been included which provides that the importation of goods may be prohibited unless licensed in terms of the regulations, and that such licence may be subject to conditions or requirements to be complied with before or after importation. Provision is made also for the furnishing of securities for compliance with the legislation, and for compliance with the conditions of requirements to which the licence is subject. That is all the amendment is designed to do. The Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies), in his reply to a question that was addressed to him to-day about overseas balances, made it perfectly clear that the Government is watching import restrictions very carefully, and that, when the time is right to take the necessary action to lift them, we shall certainly take such action.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment ; report adopted.

Bill - by leave - read a third time.

page 4130

EXPLOSIVES BILL 1952

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the Sth October (vide page 2688), on motion by Mr.

Hasluck - i

That the bill be now read a second time.

Mr TOM BURKE:
Perth

.- The Opposition has no objection to the bill as it appears on the surface. 1 understand, however, that several, if not all, of the State governments have expressed some concern about it. A regulation, called regulation 66, was promulgated in war-time to facilitate the handling and transport of explosives. The Minister for Territories (Mr. Hasluck), in his second-reading speech on the measure, has pointed out that it. is intended to continue regulation 66, though in statutory form, because it is necessary in peace-time, as in war-time, to avoid delay arising from normal methods of handling explosives. The bill appears to relate only to Commonwealth explosives, which are explosives required or utilized by the Commonwealth for defence purposes. Clause 2 defines the meaning of the phrase “ Commonwealth explosives “.

The Minister, in his second-reading speech, said also -

It has been found necessary, therefore, to continue the operation of regulation 06 up to the present time. A review recently made at the direction of the Government revealed the need for the Australian Government to have permanent powers governing the safe and expeditious movement of explosives to meet the defence requirements of the Commonwealth in both peace and war.

The Opposition does not quarrel with that statement. But, as I have said already, several, if not all, of the State governments have expressed concern about . the measure. From what we have heard from our colleagues in State parliaments and from members of the Senate who have been associated with the handling of explosive materials, it appears that safety factors are involved. In a letter that I have been given by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate it is stated -

The Tasmanian Government, under certain circumstances, are concerned with the possibilities under this bill. Their first concern appears to be the hazards associated with handling munitions. They believe that, in an endeavour to get expedition, the Government may be sacrificing safety and indulging in unnecessary hazards. We seek an assurance from the Minister and from the Government that no safety measures will be sacrificed in order to get expedition.

It is clear to the House that steps taken to handle munitions expeditiously could cause a great tragedy. An explosion could occur, the results of which would be much worse than would be slower handling of explosives with better safety precautions. Some, if not all, of the State governments believe that Commonwealth intervention in this matter might slow down and not expedite the handling of explosives. In the opinion of some State governments, the effect of the operation of the measure could be to delay the turn-round of ships and the general handling of explosives.

At this stage, we cannot say whether the objections of the State governments have been met. We do not know whether the State governments have been consulted upon the matter, or whether they have agreed with what the Government now proposes and with an amendment which, I understand, will be moved in the Senate. We ask the Government to give full consideration to representations made by the States. The State governments have issued regulations and installed facilities for the handling of explosives. After long experience, they have evolved the safety measures that are required. Their wishes should be considered, and their methods of handling explosives should be taken into consideration. This is a measure upon which unanimous agreement should be reached between the Commonwealth and the States. It may be said that the Opposition should have ascertained whether the objections raised by the States have been met, but I point out to the House that, until half an hour ago, honorable members on this side of the chamber were unaware that the Government intended to proceed with the measure. Some time ago, we were told that the measure had been deferred, pending consultation in an endeavour to achieve unanimity of opinion among the various authorities. We have not been told whether such unanimity has yet been achieved. We are concerned only ‘ that the methods of handling explosives shall be such as to ensure, not only expedition but also the maximum degree of safety.

The Minister for Mines in the Tasmanian Government, in a letter addressed to Senator McKenna, has said that if the measure is to be used solely to expedite the handling of Commonwealth -supplies for military and other purposes, there appears to be no valid objection to it, but the Tasmanian Director of Mines, in a memorandum, has pointed out that if the measure is intended to cut across the powers of the States with regard to ordinary commercial cargoes, some real difficulties may arise. The Opposition says that those matters ought to be resolved, in consultation with State authorities, to the satisfaction of all concerned. There appears to be no reason why that should not be done. Itmay be said by the Minister that the powers envisaged by the bill were exercised by a Labour government in war-time. That is true. But in war-time we sacrificed many things for the sake of expedition. The urgent need for haste that exists in war-time does not necessarily exist in peace-time also. Therefore, we ask that the claims of the States be met, and that the arguments that they have put forward be examined, so that the measure in its final form will represent a unanimous agreement between the States and the Commonwealth.

Dr EVATT:
Leader of the Opposition · Barton

– I wish to supplement the remarks that the honorable member for Perth (Mr. Tom Burke) has made about this measure, which is not an unimportant one. In time of war, the Commonwealth has complete authority, not only in relation to explosives but also in relation to the places in which explosives may go. If a Commonwealth explosive, or an explosive which the Commonwealth is using or is about to use, has to go to a certain place in time of war, the Commonwealth, under the defence power, can control the wharf there. But there are clauses of this measure which, unless they were operated in co-operation with the States - which means with the consent of the States - could not be justified under the defence power. Let me give an illustration. The definition of Commonwealth explosives covers ordinary explosives which are in the possession, control or ownership of the Commonwealth. It includes explosives that are capable of being used by the naval, military or air forces of the Commonwealth. It could cover an explosive of which the Commonwealth did not intend .to take possession. It would probably be held that the defence power did not give the Commonwealth authority over any explosive simply because it was capable of being used by the Commonwealth for defence purposes. Almost any explosive could come within that definition.

Clause 5 (2.) (6) proposes that the Commonwealth shall have power to make regulations for or in relation to the mooring, berthing or other movement of vessels, and vessels in the vicinity of vessels, in which Commonwealth explosives are, or. are to be, loaded. Such regulations would give the Commonwealth power, not merely over the transport of the explosives to a vessel in a truck but over surrounding places which were under the complete control of a State. Clause 5 (2.) (e) would authorize the issue of regulations relating to the handling of substances other than Commonwealth explosives at, in or upon a place, vehicle, aircraft or vessel at, in, upon or in the vicinity of which there were Commonwealth explosives. This provision is an attempt to apply, in time of peace, regulations that were valid in time of war when the defence power of the Commonwealth were so extensive. It is a most doubtful method, and the lesson to be learned from it is simply that those regulations cannot safely operate, from the legal point of view, in the various States without the consent of the State departments that control explosives. If, however, that position is safeguarded, there can be no objection to the bill. It is essential, however, that there be co-operation between the Commonwealth and States in this matter. Without such co-operation the Commonwealth might attempt to exercise powers that could be held to be invalid. Given co-operation between the Commonwealth and the States, however, Commonwealth action would not be challenged.

Mr POLLARD:
Lalor

.- I support the views of my two colleagues that we, as an Opposition, cannot reasonably take exception to the Commonwealth’s assumption, by act of Parliament, of effective control over Commonwealth explosives and, for that matter, over all explosives. I take it that it is the intention of the bill, although rather vaguely defined, to control, in certain circumstances, explosives belonging to State governments, semi-government authorities within a State, and private enterprise in the various States. I believe that this is the first measure to deal with explosives that has ever been put on the Commonwealth statute-book. It is true that during the war we had the National Security Act and the regulations thereunder, which empowered the Commonwealth to take effective control over the movement, storage and safe handling of explosives. The point I wish to emphasize is that whilst an apparently effective control of explosives operated during the war, there might have been an element of good luck as well as good management in the effectiveness of that control. It is an outstanding fact that in no State of the Commonwealth has there ever been a really serious explosion as a result of the bad handling, storage, or movement of explosives under State control. Possibly that statement is also true in respect of Commonwealth explosives. The Minister’s second-reading speech included no assurance to this Parliament that the Commonwealth authorities who will police the measure will take every care to ensure that the authorities in the various States which have so successfully dealt with this problem in the past will be consulted effectively regarding the future control of explosives. No assurance is given that fire brigades, who after all, are the authorities which have to take the risks when there is an explosion in a port or harbour or explosives reserve, will be consulted in respect of any regulations that it is proposed to make. I wish to emphasize for the information of the House and of the authorities that will administer the legislation that the Commonwealth should go to very great lengths to ensure that there shall be the most effective co-operation in the future between the Commonwealth and the State authorities that administered the control of explosives so efficiently in the past, as well as with fire brigades. Unfortunately, public welfare has been endangered in the past as a result of a lack of co-operation between governmental authorities within the States, and between the Commonwealth itself and State authorities. Sometimes actual disaster has overtaken people as the result of the utter disregard of the need for such co-operation.

Mr Jeff Bate:

– The honorable member said only a moment ago that no disasters had occurred in the States. Why is he wasting time ?

Mr POLLARD:

– If the honorable member for Macarthur (Mr. Jeff Bate) had a little more intelligence he might have been able to .divine the point that I am leading up to. I was about to give a concrete example of such a lack of co-operation as I have mentioned. It does not directly affect explosives, but it is a pertinent example of past cases of carelessness that have resulted from lack of co-operation between two State authorities, which has occasioned great loss of life and property. The co-operation for which I plead would obviate such damage and loss of life. I refer to the fact that in Victoria there has been almost a complete lack of co-ordination between Victorian railway authorities and the Forests Commission of Victoria in respect of the fire-burning activities of the railway authorities. The Victorian Railways Department is now very active in its desire to co-operate with the forestry authorities in order to avoid future disasters in Victoria, because in a recent court case heavy damages were awarded against the railway authorities. I wish to emphasize that without a high degree of cooperation in regard to explosives between the Commonwealth and States, disasters could easily occur. That statement does not nullify my previous remark that in the. past we have been very fortunate in that we have had no serious explosions in this country. My electorate includes the Altona explosives reserve, which, under State control, has shipped and stored explosives for as long as I can remember. When World War I. broke out I was called on, as a member of the Citizen Military Forces to go on guard duty at the Altona explosives reserve. That reserve ie still there. The work of the State; authorities in the control of explosives has been most effective, and I hope, that the Commonwealth will ensure that every care and consideration will be given for human life and the protection of .property in the future. Other countries ‘havesuffered shocking disasters caused by explosives. Everybody remembers theHalifax disaster. The Commonwealth^ freedom from serious explosions in ports and harbours .during the last war wass perhaps due more to good luck than to. good management. I hope that we shall’ not thereby be lulled into a false sense df” security, and that the staff established topolice the law, and the Minister in charge of that staff, will take every care ‘toensure that there shall be the utmost co-operation between all the interested authorities. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr HASLUCK:
Minister for Territories · Curtin · LP

– in reply - The bill relates to Commonwealth explosives only, and “ Comonwealth explosives “ are defined in it as meaning explosives - which are the property of, or are in the possession or control of, the Commonwealth -and are for use, or are capable of being used -

by the naval, military or air forces, of the Commonwealth; or
1. otherwise for, or for purposes related to, the defence of the Commonwealth;

This is not a general measure regarding; explosives, but relates solely to Commonwealth explosives. The second point that I wish to deal with is that raised! by the honorable member for Perth (Mt. Tom Burke). It is true that, following the introduction of this measure, representations were made by various Austraiian harbour authorities and, I think, in two» cases, by State governments as such, regarding the provisions of the bill for the making of regulations. Those harbour authorities and governments wanted it to be made clear in the measure that the actual allocation of berths, the movements of vessels in ports and the safety measures that were to be taken in ports, would remain the functions of the appropriate harbour authorities. It was never intended that this bill should interfere with the powers of the harbour authorities, but, in order that the position might be made abundantly clear, a series of conferences was held between representatives of the harbour authorities and representatives of the Commonwealth departments concerned with the movement of explosives. As the result of those discussions agreement has been reached on a number of amendments to clauses 5 and 6. These amendments will preserve to the harbour authorities the internal control of their ports and will also enable the Commonwealth to provide for the safe and expeditious handlingofCommonwealth explosives. Provision will also be made for consideration to be given by the Commonwealth, before regulations under this bill are drafted, to any recommendations made by the harbour authorities. Those twomatters are both to be expressed in amendments to be introduced when the bill is before the Senate. The reason for the proposal to introduce the amendments in the Senate instead of in this chamber is simply that that procedure will achieve a certain economy both of time and expense in relation to printing. Any amendments to be moved in the other chamber will be submitted in due course to this House. I assure the House that the amendments to clauses 5 and 6 will produce the results I have mentioned. I also wish to add that the existing legislation under which consultation must be had with the appropriate harbour authorities before orders are made, will be continued in relation to orders made under this bill. In that connexion I direct the attention of the House to the fact that in the past three years twelve orders have been made under the existing legislation, and all of them were made after consultation, and in complete agreement, with the State authorities concerned. That system will certainly continue. I also wish to assure the honorable member for Perth that no safety measure will be sacrificed simply for the sake of gaining more speed in” handling. The whole purpose of the measure is to ensure safety and to make it absolutely certain that any expedition in handling will not be achieved at the expense of the requisite standard of safety. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr Tom Burke:

– Did the State authorities approve of the amendments to be moved in the Senate?

Mr HASLUCK:

– I can assure the honorable member and the House that the amendments which are to be introduced in the Senate have the approval of the State harbour authorities which were consulted, and of the two State governments.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and reported from committee without amendment or debate; report adopted.

Bill - by leave - read a third time.

Sitting suspended from 12 to 12.80 a.m.

Wednesday, 5 November 1952

page 4134

SUPERANNUATION BILL 1952

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 30th October (vide page 3965), on motion by Sir Arthur Fadden -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Mr TOM BURKE:
Perth

– The Opposition offers no objection to this bill. As the Treasurer (Sir Arthur Fadden) has explained in his secondreading speech, it is complementary to a bill that amends the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act. The measure now before the House makes provision for contributors to the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Fund, to transfer their rights to the Superannuation Fund, if such persons are appointed to the Public Service or to an approved Commonwealth authority. It appears that no compulsion is used; the basis of the arrangement is purely voluntary. If a former member of the defence forces obtains employment with the Commonwealth and elects to transfer his right to the Superannuation Fund, he may do so. The amendment appears to be reasonable.

The Treasurer has pointed out that, at least in normal times, when unemployment does not exist - and, indeed, unemployment should not exist in this country - there is no reason why persons who retire from the defence forces at a relatively early age, should not be employed in the service of the Commonwealth for a considerable part of their still useful lives. For the reasons I have given, the Opposition offers no objection to the bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time,and committed pro forma; progress reported.

Message recommending appropriation reported.

In committee (Consideration of

Governor-General’s message) :

Motion (by Mr. Townley) agreed to -

That it is expedient that an appropriation of revenue be made for the purposes of a bill for an act to amend the Superannuation Act 1922-51.

Resolution reported and adopted.

In committee:

The bill.

Mr CALWELL:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP

– It is unfortunate that the Government has given notice, in recent times, to a number of members of the defence forces, who were re-engaged for an additional three years, not long ago and have since been told that they must retire from the services when they attain the age of 55 years. It is doubtful whether those persons will derive any benefit from this legislation. I do not know whether the Minister for Social Services (Mr. Townley), who is in charge of the bill, can examine this matter overnight, before the measure is considered by the Senate, in order to see whether the interests of such persons can be protected. Many of them are clerks in the permanent forces, and they have been informed that their services are to be dispensed with, and that, in addition, they must vacate at an early date the premises in which they are now living. I do not know whether the provisions of this legislation can be given effect at an earlier date than is now contemplated.I ask the Minister to examine that matter, because we should not do an injustice to men who feel that they are already suffering an injustice because they are to be retired earlier than the conclusion of the period for which they re-enlisted. Nearly all the persons concerned are ex-servicemen of World War II. We should be generous to them, and not tryto economize at their expense.

Mr TOWNLEY:
Minister for Social Services · Denison · LP

.- The purposes of this legislation are fairly clear. One amendment is designed to exclude from the Superannuation Fund or the Provident Account scientists who are contributors to the United Kingdom Federated Superannuation System for Universities. The second purpose of the bill is to permit contributors to the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Fund, who may retire from the defence forces, to contribute to the Superannuation Fund at the same rate as they were contributing to the other fund, should they be retained in the service of the Commonwealth. Consequently, this amending legislation will apply only to those members of the defence forces who eventually enter the Public Service or are appointed to an approved Commonwealth authority. I undertake to bring the matter raised by the honorable member for Melbourne (Mr. Calwell) to the notice of the Treasurer (Sir Arthur Fadden).

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill - by leave - read a third time.

page 4136

COMMONWEALTH ELECTORAL BILL 1952

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 30 th October (vide page 3966), on motion by Mr. Kent Hughes -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Mr CALWELL:
Melbourne

– This is a quaint little measure. Its purpose is to help the Government in connexion with the Senate elections to be held next year when many of its supporter’s will be touring Europe. The Minister for the Interior (Mr. Kent Hughes), feeling that the votes of those persons, and of many thousands more persons will be necessary if the Government is to win the Senate election, has produced this bill which he has described as one to extend the facilities for the purpose of enabling those travelling abroad to cast postal votes. The bill states that the Chief Electoral Officer may appoint an assistant returning officer for a portion of a division, Or at a place outside Australia. I direct attention to the words “ at a place outside Australia “.

– Does the Minister think that the Government will need their votes ?

Mr KENT HUGHES:
CHISHOLM, VICTORIA · LP

– Some people overseas may wish to vote for the Labour party. Anyway, the purpose of the bill is to give all Australians a chance to vote without going through the rigmarole of sending messages through the mail backwards and forwards; I cannot understand why the honorable member for Melbourne opposes a measure that is designed to facilitate the exercise of democratic rights.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and reported from committee without amendment or debate; report adopted.

Bill - by leave - read a third time.

page 4138

SOCIAL SERVICES CONSOLIDATION BILL (No. 2) 1952

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 23rd October (vide page 3660), on motion by Mr. Townley -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Mr HAYLEN:
Parkes

– - The Opposition does not oppose this measure, but I take this opportunity to make a few remarks that are pertinent to it. Although the -Minister for Social Services (Mr. Townley) is in charge of the measure, it has a slant that relates to immigration because its object is to legalize a practice that has been in vogue since 1947. I refer to the provision of social services benefits to immigrants and the making of a deduction from such payments in respect of the board and lodging of immigrants at departmental hostels which are now controlled by Commonwealth Hostels Limited. A vast difference exists between the reason for making such payments to immigrants in 1947 and that which exists for making them to-day. In 1947, it was merely a matter of assimilating immigrants who were flowing into this country at a time when they could be readily absorbed in industry; and were boarded at hostels until employment was found for them. In those days, immigrants seldom had to wait longer than six weeks - in many instances the period was much shorter - before they were placed in industry. During that period they were given a rudimentary grasp of the language and were conditioned to some degree to’ help themselves when they went to work in primary or secondary industry. To-day, however, these hostels are becoming the last resort of the immigrant who is unemployed. Therefore, it is appropriate to refer to the immigration position as a whole.

This bill provides that a proportion of social services benefit payable to immigrants shall be retained by the hostel authority acting for the Government, and that the remainder of the benefit shall be made available as pocket money to them. The provision of accommodation at hostels - this applies to both restricted immigrants and British immigrants - is becoming something of a racket. Originally, it was intended that the hostels scheme, which has not previously come before the Parliament for consideration, was to be only a phase through which the immigrant passed to work that was available in abundance. That condition no longer applies. Whilst it might be fairer to increase the unemployment benefit payable to immigrants, such a proposal cannot be considered because under it immigrants would receive benefit in excess of the rate being paid to Australians who happen to be unemployed. The immigration plan in general has deteriorated with the result that to-day these hostels are merely holding camps for immigrants who are unemployed, whereas previously they were staging camps through which immigrants passed as hurriedly as possible to an economy that was demanding men and women to fill a long list of jobs in numerous categories. To-day, when there are at least 100,000 persons unemployed in this country, the position has radically changed. These immigrants have been brought to Australia under contract which I for one, when I was engaged directly in immigration matters, thought was a guarantee of work for two years. The mere fact that the department has asked that the practice of making deductions in . respect of board from social services benefit be legalized is an indication of the widespread discontent that now exists among many immigrants. Recently, riots, or demonstrations, by Italian immigrants have occurred.

Mr Gullett:

– Send them back to their own country.

Mr HAYLEN:

– Having brought them here, we have a responsibility, in decency, to ensure that something is done for them. The charter of the immigrant was concise, clear, and unanswerable. They have said, in effect, “ If you cannot give us the jobs you promised to give us, send us back home “. On that point, they are at one with the honorable member for Henty (Mr. Gullett). The hostels are now crowded, and the authorities concerned now ask to be given power legally to retain in respect of board and lodgings a proportion, of social services benefits payable to immigrants. The Government must admit that it cannot have a full or reduced scheme, or even the unhappy remnants of a once vast immigration scheme, without the prerequisite of full employment. There must be jobs available for immigrants who look for them. Unfortunately, jobs are not now available and, as a consequence, this hostel problem has arisen. Recently, a number of Italian immigrants marched from their hostel into .Sydney and demanded of their consul that either jobs be found for them or they be repatriated to Italy. According to some reports, those immigrants had been unemployed for periods up to ten weeks. They pointed out that they did not come to Australia either to live in a hostel or to draw a dole.

Mr Townley:

– I rise to order. I submit that the honorable member is not dealing with the bill before the Chair.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I ask the honorable member to confine his remarks to the bill.

Mr HAYLEN:

– I bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and I dare say that the Government is very happy that this is such a restricted bill. I have wandered a little in order to seek an explanation of why the bare bones of a bill like this should be brought down at this time of the morning. Perhaps the reason is the Government’s anxiety in connexion with the crowded hostels. Since the debate has been restricted I shall content myself by saying that there is nothing wrong with the business principle involved, but there is a great deal wrong with the immigration system, which has gone to pot. The bill is merely a futile attempt to stop up some of the holes. If the Government wants to get back from the immigrants the value of the food that it has given to them while they have been withering away in crowded hostels, it should restore a condition of full employment. The Opposition in general has no objection to the measure as a machinery measure, and gives it its support.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and reported from committee without amendment ordebate; report adopted.

Bill - by leave - read a third time.

page 4139

ADJOURNMENT

Immigration - Employment - Trade - - Rail Transport

Motion (by Mr. Eric J. Harrison) proposed -

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

– I desire to take this opportunity to direct the attention of the House to a most serious and urgent matter, upon which I had expected the Minister for Immigration (Mr. Holt) to make a statement to-day. It is the situation that arises out of the disturbances by Italian immigrants in Sydney. They protested against the Government’s refusal to carry out the promise that it made to them when it induced them to come to Australia. The serious aspect of the matter is that the. Minister- has endeavoured to get around the difficulty by once again using the old stock argument that the Communists have been responsible for stirring up the trouble. On the other hand the Italian Consul in Sydney has made definite statements that these men have no fixed political opinions, and that all they want is work. The Consul stated that, in any case, they were not Communists when they left Italy. The logical inference to be drawn is that if they have been influenced towards communism it is as a result of their treatment by the present Government, which has refused to honour its promise to provide them with work. The Minister admitted in a statement that he issued to the press that the Government is under a moral obligation to find work for these people. Initially, he tried to escape any responsibility by saying that there was no legal obligation on the Government to provide them with work. Australian exservicemen and others have been dismissed from various government establishments, including Royal Australian Air Force stations, and replaced by Italian immigrants. The Minister has admitted to almost 300 such dismissals. If there is p. moral obligation on the Government to provide employment for Italian immigrants who have been brought to this country, there is an even more compelling obligation on the. Government to provide work for Australian ex-servicemen. The Government is not honouring that obligation. It proposes now to scatter the unfortunate people that have been brought to Australia on false pretences throughout the country areas, where, supporters of the Government hope, they will have less opportunity to take direct -action and demonstrate against the Groyer.nment. /Although the labour position in this country was already very acute, the Minister proceeded overseas and signed further immigration agreements to bring additional immigrants to this country. The Government now hopes that some of the immigrants may be absorbed in harvesting work, which is a seasonable occupation, and that it may be able to find a few other jabs for them here and there. The Minister for Social Services (Mr. Townley) stated in answer to a question in the House yesterday that 30;000 persons are registered for unemployment benefit. If we multiply that number by four, we may gain a picture of the true position, which is, that approximately 120,000 people are unemployed in this country and eager to obtain work. Many of them are ex-servicemen. The Minister for Immigration has stated that there is a moral obligation on the Government to provide work for the immigrants. Certainly there is an obligation on the Government to find work for immigrants that it has brought to this country under false pretences. But there is also an obligation on the Government to provide work for Australians, particularly ex-, servicemen, to whom the Government has promised so much. The Minister has also stated that, as the Government could not cut off the immigration scheme completely, it reduced the proposed intake during this financial year from 160,000 to 80,000 immigrants. It was mere guess work on the part of the Government to conclude that that number of jobs was available for skilled men, and that there were no skilled men here seeking them. The press of foreign countries is now very critical of the attitude of the Australian Government to the immigra- tion plan; I prefer to think of it as an immigration scheme, because there has been no actual planning at all. That is my great complaint in regard to it. The Government has set out to get numbers regardless of quality and whether or not there is adequate housing available in Australia “for the immigrants.

Before the Parliament goes into recess the Government should tell the House and the people what it proposes to do to fulfil the promises that it has made to the immigrants, and also what it proposes to do to absorb unemployed Australians. Many women, including single girls, who are dependent on their earnings for their livelihood, have been dismissed from government departments. The various State governments have been compelled to dismiss many employees who have been engaged on public works. Despite this state of affairs, the Government still persists in bringing immigrants to Australia. Why was not immigration completely cut off .until the country had had an opportunity to absorb all of the immigrants who were already here? I do not think the Minister will deny that the immigration programme has been highly inflationary. It has placed an additional strain, for example, on our educational and hospital facilities and upon our food supplies. Furthermore, it has swollen the ranks of the unemployed.

The Labour Government argued that, if Australia was developed rapidly, we could absorb additional settlers without damaging the economy. But this Government is not planning development. It is carrying out a programme of deflation and. throwing men out of work on essential undertakings while, at the same time, it continues to bring thousands of immigrants to the country. It is of no avail for the Minister to try to dismiss the disturbances in Sydney by saying merely that they are due to Communist agitation. The Italian Consul-General denies that assertion, and no sensible member of the community will accept it as an explanation of the trouble. It is true that the Communist party as a political organization is fully alive to the advantages that it can gain from every such situation. But it did not bring the immigrants to Australia. ‘ It did not promise them employment. It did not promise the community that full employment would be preserved. Responsibility for the honouring of those promises rests with this Government, and it cannot escape that responsibility merely by saying that the Communists are stirring up trouble. There will be much more trouble unless the Government carries out its undertaking to provide full employment both for Australian citizens and for new settlers. Before the Parliament goes into recess, the Minister should submit some practical plan to us instead of indulging in long, wordy statements such as he has been accustomed to make and for which lie is now being criticized by newspapers that normally support the Government. That is the only course of action that will satisfy the immigrants. One can readily understand their feelings. No doubt they have families to support overseas. They were brought to Australia on the understanding that they would be provided with work. Now they are housed in hostels under very unsatisfactory conditions and with very little money with which to provide the necessaries of life that are not supplied at the hostels. The Government should act by calling a halt to immigration immediately.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member’s time has expired.

Mr GULLETT:
Henty

.It seems to me to be absurd, simply because a few hundred Italian immigrants have seen fit to stage some sort of a riot in Sydney, to condemn the whole immigration scheme, which this Government, in fact, inherited, for better or for worse, largely from the Labour Government. It is rather unsatisfactory, and even contemptible, of the honorable member for Melbourne (Mr. Calwell), who was the great champion of immigration, and other honorable members opposite to sit back quietly and give tacit support to the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) when he declares that the whole immigration programme should stop. The honorable gentleman expressed a point of view, but we must make up our minds that, if the whole immigration programme does stop, we shall lose this country in the course of the next 50 or 100 years. We cannot’ possibly maintain it as a white man’s country at our present rate of intake. That is the hard core of the matter, whether we like it or not, and nobody realizes the fact more clearly than does the honorable member for Melbourne. We bring immigrants to Australia, not necessarily because it delights us to do so, but because we know that we must do so. I return to the subject of the disturbances in Sydney. I say that Italians are unsatisfactory as immigrants. Let us not bring any more of them to our country. If those who are here are trouble-makers, let us send them back to Italy. It is all very well for the honorable member for East Sydney to say that there are no Communists among them. How does he know that? If he will consult the results of the last general election in Italy and see what proportion of the population voted for Com.munists, he must surely agree that, amongst the thousands who have come to this country, there must be some Communists. Of course there are very many Communists among them. I say now, as I always have said, that we have made a grievous mistake in placing the accent on numbers in our immigration programme. Of what service is it to the defence of this country to bring thousands of men of that sort here? Where will they be in time of trouble? The situation is absolutely ludicrous. The time has come for us to run the rule over our sources of immigration. Unless we do so and put an end to this policy of bringing people to Australia from here, there and everywhere, simply because they think they would like to come here, we shall find ourselves in the not distant future, like South America, nothing better or worse than another “ dago “ nation.

Mr CALWELL:
Melbourne

– I should not have risen to engage in the debate but for the display of racial bigotry by the honorable member for Henty (Mr. Gullett). I consider that the people who have come to Australia in recent times, under the present Government and under the Chifley Government, have been, with very few exceptions, well chosen by our selection officers, medical officers and security officers abroad. The vast majority of them have made good in Australia or will make good. Contemptuous references to people from Italy as “dagoes” are just the sort of vulgarian, brutal-

Mr Gullett:

– Fascist?

Mr CALWELL:

– Well, it does smack of fascism. That sort of talk is designed to prevent the assimilation of these immigrants. People may talk of German immigrants as “ Huns and apply other derogatory expletives to Lithuanian, Estonian and Latvian immigrants, but the truth is that there flows in the veins of most Australians of second-generation birth the blood of two or three different races. There are few Australians of pure English, Scots, Irish or Welsh descent. A mixture of bloods makes for virility. We should take note of the example of the United States of America, because that country is the leading power in the world to-day, and we are glad to recognize it as such. We are wondering at the moment whether the next President of the United States of America will be a man with the not very Anglo-Saxon name of Eisenhower. That gentleman is a very distinguished American. The attitude of the Labour party on immigration was clearly defined in a statement that the Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Evatt) made at the beginning of the current sessional period. The right honorable gentleman declared then that, because of economic conditions, immigration ought to be temporarily restricted to the families of those who are already in the country and to individuals with special skills. Of course, we cannot interfere with those who pay their own way or whose passages are paid for by relatives and friends. That is the policy that the Labour party has defined, and I see no reason why I should rise in order to explain it whenever the honorable member for Henty makes a wild and irresponsible attack upon some group of immigrants or comes, unsolicited, to the defence of the Minister for Immigration (Mr. Holt). I think that the Minister could do very well without the doubtful assistance that the honorable member thrusts upon him. This talk of sending people back to their native countries will not help to solve our problems. They are here. We should make them happy. We should try to employ them. I believe that the trouble that this Government is experiencing in the absorption of immigrants is due to economic factors and the absence of full employment. I agree with the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) that an immigration scheme can function only if we have full employment - not over-full employment, but full employment. If we are to have a number of people continuously out of work we shall run into difficulties such as the United States of America has experienced from time to time. Since 1924, that country has restricted immigration to approximately 150,000 persons a year. - I hope that we shall never be obliged to adopt that policy. I believe that unless we fill this country we shall lose it. I wish to see immigration succeed. I do not want to see people unhappy in Australia. Nobody in this country defends what those Italians did in their recent demonstrations, but all over Australia there is a tremendous wave of sympathy for them in their present predicament. It seems to me that they would be quite happy if they were properly employed, and I hope that the Minister for Immigration (Mr. Holt) will be able to find ways and means to employ all those who are being brought here.

In my opinion the Minister is wise in temporarily restricting the numbers of immigrants coming here both this year and next year. However, under no circumstances should we say to British or non-British persons who wish to come here under their own steam, “ These doors are shut to you “. They cannot be shut. There will always be failures with immigration schemes. I remember well the words used in the House of Lords by young Lord Tweedsmuir when he was discussing the question of British immigrants returning to the United Kingdom from Canada and Australia. He said, “ These people are displaying more wishbone than backbone “. That may not be true in every instance, but it has a general ring of truth about it. A number of people who came here in the gold-rush days did not make good at the diggings, but fortunately they were relatively few. Many of those who did not have the money to go back stayed on, and we are now proud that they did so. I think that future* generations will be proud that under the last three parliaments we have brought people to Australia to help to develop the country.

In my opinion, the Minister and the Government should devote all their energies to the solution of the problems which confront Australians and nonAustralians alike. Let us not make a distinction between the Australian and non-Australian who happen to be out of work. If we do so we shall generate an antagonism to immigration which is most undesirable. I can sympathize greatly with Australians who are out of work and who consider that immigrants are being assisted by being given a certain amount of temporary work. The Government, at an early date, might perhaps see what it can do to reduce the number of unemployed Australians in order that those who are hostile to immigration shall not be able to carry on their work of poisoning public opinion against it. I do not know whether or not Communists incited- the Italians recently. There may have been some Communist influence, although I have seen no evidence and have heard nothing to convince me that the Communists precipitated the riot. However, they may have taken advantage of the situation. Of course, they would not be true to their political philosophy and their outlook if they did not try to exploit every opportunity to discredit immigration. The Communists do not want immigration to this country to succeed.

Mr ERIC J HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944

– I hope that the honorable member is addressing these remarks to the honorable member for East Sydney (“Mr. Ward).

Mr CALWELL:

– The honorable member for East Sydney is entitled to his views, which he stated very temperately here to-night. We on this side of the House do not try to prevent honorable members from expressing their opinions about questions generally. I have indicated action which the Government might take in this matter and which accords with the attitude of the Opposition towards immigration as outlined earlier m this current sessional period by the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr HOLT:
Minister for Labour and National Service and Minister for Immigration · Higgins · LP

– The honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) has initiated a discussion on the general question of immigration, with particular emphasis on some aspects of it. His own hostility to immigration is of long standing and has been demonstrated in a special form during the term of office of this Government. His repeated attacks on immigration, in which he has used any episode that could be diverted or twisted for his purpose, have become notorious. I do not imagine for one moment that he is making these attacks merely because he -feels strongly about the general question of immigration. In his long association with this Parliament he has never missed an opportunity to stir up bitterness and resentment by one section of the Australian community against another, if he thought that by doing so he could gain some political advantage. I am glad to find that in the attacks which he has made 30 repeatedly on our immigration programme he has not had behind him the general support of the members of the Opposition. I respect the attitude once more displayed by the honorable member for Melbourne (Mr. Calwell) in his sober analysis of the situation as he sees it. It is only in the spirit of a national approach to one of the most vital national questions of our generation that we can hope to make this programme succeed. If we do not make it succeed, we shall justly earn the condemnation of any later generation of Australians which is placed in peril by the failure of our efforts.

I point out to the honorable member for East Sydney, who has stated that there should be some planning on immigration, and who has accused us of a haphazard approach and a mere search for numbers, that a very influential, respected and capable body of men was, in the first instance, appointed by the Government of which he was a member, and they enjoy the confidence of the present Government. I refer to the Immigration Planning Council. They have the immigration programme constantly, under review. I am glad to be able to say that as recently as yesterday the council, having met again, endorsed the programme and the policies which this Government is carrying out. This matter is not simple, as I think my predecessor knows. We have to face the difficulties as they arise from time to time, in the most practical and useful way possible. Whatever criticisms the honorable member for East Sydney may make, I am glad to be able to tell the House that in the last few days not merely has our policy been endorsed by the Immigration Planning Council, but that a sober and responsible body, the Federal Congress of the Returned Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen’s Imperial League of Australia, has also commended the Government for going ahead with the fullscale immigration programme. The league has urged us to continue with that programme. If we want support from another consequential source, it is to be found in the fact that only to-day I received from the National Council of Women advice that at the biennial conference of the council the immigration policy of the Government had been commended. The council resolved that the Government should be urged to resume full-scale immigration as soon as economic conditions permit.

I mention those matters because it is good to know that there are people of realistic and sober mind in the community, who appreciate that continued immigration is vital to the security and development of the country. If we ever abandon that objective because of any difficulties that may occur - and which will inevitably occur from time to time - then we shall, because of cowardice, laziness or lethargy, betray those who have the right to expect a better service from us.

It is true that the Government has been through a worrying time because of the fact that there are in this country more immigrants, particularly Italian immigrants, than available work opportunities. That fact has been made the subject of criticism. It has been put, by implication, that the Government must have known, when it arranged for these immigrants to come here, that the opportunities would not exist, or that if they did not exist, the Government should be attacked because it has not waved its magic wand and created work opportu nities for them. At the time that our planning arrangements were made for these immigrants to come to Australia, approximately 147,000 work vacancies were registered with my department. Every major industry in Australia, including the transport services, was short of labour. I recollect that, at that time, the railways alone had lodged request with my department for approximately 20,000 additional nien. We were under pressure from all directions to providethe labour which our expanding industries needed. We made our plans accordingly. We arranged for immigrants to come nor only from Italy but also from other countries, such as Holland, and, to a lesser degree, Western Germany. We had at ail times made the influx pf British immigrants of top priority, and we were obtaining what immigrants we could from the United Kingdom. However, the economy decline, which has beset this country since the price of wool fell to approximately half the previous price, has not been brought about by the Government. Indeed, the policies of the Government have been extraordinarily successful in offsetting the effects of the decreased wool price on the economy as a whole. The release of credit, and the propping-up of the works programme? of the States by the unprecedented provision of £135,000,000, are some of the positive measures to sustain the employment level of the country. Those honorable members opposite, who now point to our unemployment level of approximately 2 per cent, and speak of it in term, of recession and economic doom, may live to regret the day that they attempted to persuade the Australian community of the truth of those assertions. They know in their hearts that such a. small level of unemployment indicates that the country is in a ‘remarkably sound position. We derive no satisfaction from the fact that a substantial body of men is unemployed.

When we found that a decline in the demand for employment of immigrants was becoming apparent, we took immediate action to cut off the flow of immigrants. We notified the governments concerned to halt the flow as quickly as it could be stopped. To some extent, we met the wishes of the governments concerned by allowing a carry-over of people who had sold their belongings and who would have been put to some hardship had they not been able to come. It is for that reason that we still have a few hundred more immigrants to come from Italy before these arrangements are concluded. Subject to that, we did everything we could to halt the movement of immigrants, and the numbers are approximately 5,000 less on that account. Most of them have been successfully absorbed, some in temporary seasonal work but many in permanent occupations. [Extension of Lime granted.] I do not wish to detain the House but merely to get th.(acts straight. The honorable member for East Sydney spoke of the need to create additional work opportunities. The difficulty of so doing was stressed by his colleague, the honorable membur for Melbourne, who said that he did not wish to take discriminatory action in favour of one section of the community as against another. The honorable member for East Sydney apparently wants action to be taken to absorb these Italian immigrants and in .some way to avoid dislocation in other parts of the economy. That problem is by no means as simple as it looks. J assure the House that the Government is taking such measures as it is able to take to remedy the position. In the last few days arrangements have been made in country districts which should have the effect of absorbing a considerable number of those who are now looking for employment.

Finally, let me deal with the charge that we have put these disturbances down to the influence of Communists. I do not say that the Communists have been directly or completely responsible for the demonstrations that have occurred. J assure the House that we have plenty of evidence of Communist activity and interest in trying to stir up these young Italian immigrants. I am certain that, for the most part, the immigrants do not know the people, or the background of the people, who have been trying to stir them up in that way. But we know their background, and we know what they have been up . to. “We know that they have been exerting such influence as they can to cause trouble. I do not suggest for a moment that these immi grants, who were carefully selected and screened by us, are themselves Communists, or realize that they have been made the tools of Communist interests. But the Communist activity is there, and we are watching it as closely as we can.

The charge that this trouble represents in some way a failure of our immigration programme is nonsensical. In the postwar years, this country has absorbed about 700,000 immigrants. Only a fractional percentage of that number has been in a position of difficulty during recent weeks. For most of that time, this particular group of immigrants have not been out of work. They have been provided with work as a result of a special allocation of funds that was made by this Government, in order to mitigate any hardship from which they were suffering. It is of interest to note that similar difficulties are not being experienced by immigrants of other nationalities. This year, we have received as many Dutch immigrants as Italians. We have had no difficulty in placing the Dutch people in employment. I think the explanation, at least in part, is that Dutch immigrants have a better knowledge of English than have Italian immigrants. Finally, I say that the interests of the nation would be served better by honorable members if, instead of trying to use every minor development that occurs in relation to a large immigration programme to criticize and discredit the Government and to weaken the confidence of the people in that programme, they acted with a sense of national responsibility, and tried to give the people h balanced view of the great strength and advantage that has come to Australia as a result of an immigration programme which has -been implemented by governments of tooth political complexions, with a full sense of their responsibility to this generation and to the generations that will follow it.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

, - I regret very much the personal attack that has been made by the Minister for Immigration (Mr. Holt) upon the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward). I deplore the attitude that Government members adopt- whenever that honorable gentleman attempts to present his point of view. It is to be regretted, also that the Minister saw fit to speak for the members of the Opposition and to say that, on this question, the honorable member for East Sydney has not the general support of his colleagues. The honorable member did not condemn the immigration policy to-night. He condemned only the action of the Government in bringing immigrants to this country and not finding work for them. On this subject every member of the Opposition is in complete agreement with the honorable member for East Sydney. We consider that the Government ought not to continue to bring large numbers of immigrants to Australia for whom it cannot find work. We do not contend that immigration should cease.

I support completely the attitude of the honorable member for Melbourne (Mr. Calwell). The Opposition believes that Australia must have as large a number of immigrants as possible, but that they should be given work. That is the point of view of the honorable member for East Sydney. If the Government wishes to be able to obtain immigrants it must be able to provide them, with work. Whenever the honorable member for East Sydney protests in this House against the failure of the Government to provide work for immigrants, honorable members opposite allege that there is a difference of opinion between that honorable member and the honorable member for Melbourne. We on this side of the House are completely united in our opinion that immigrants should be provided with work. This is a young and rich country and it is an absolute disgrace to every honorable member that we have to admit to the world that we are not able to provide full employment for immigrants. There is no reason why this country should not be able to provide full employment for at least 25,000,000 people and the’ sooner we get them here the better. Only because of bad government are we unable to find full employment for our 8,500,000 people. The Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holt) said that at the commencement of the immigration scheme 140,000 jobs had been available. On the 3rd of October the Minister acting for the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. McBride) stated that 20,650 vacancies were registered with the Commonwealth Employment Service. Can one believe that figure to be true? When it is compared with figures provided by the Department of Social Services serious discrepancies are noticeable. Which of the two departments can be relied upon to give the correct figures? How much longer must the Australian people be bamboozled with a lot of figures which are completely false or which have been badly compiled ? On the 15th October, the Minister for Labour and National Service declared in a public statement that the employment picture of September had a brighter tone than that of August. He made that statement just before the Flinders by-election but a byelection is no excuse for trying to fool the people into believing that unemployment is non-existent or that it is decreasing when the opposite is true. In the course of the same statement the Minister was forced to admit that the number of people in receipt of unemployment benefit was 27,595. Although the Minister commenced his statement with the announcement that the employment picture had a brighter tone, the Minister for Social Ser. vices (Mr. Townley) has now been forced to admit that there are over 30,000 persons unemployed.- Instead of the picture having a brighter tone, it is becoming worse. As the honorable member for West Sydney (Mr. Minogue) said, the actual number of people unemployed would be about 120,000 although they would not all be in receipt of unemployment benefit. In the course of the statement to which I have referred the Minister for Labour and National Service said that at the 27th September the number of people in receipt of unemployment benefit in Victoria was 7,010 whilst in reply to a question which I asked the Minister for Social Services he stated that there were 7,033 persons in receipt of unemployment benefit in Victoria at that date. There was not a great difference between those two figures but the mistake indicates how little reliance can be placed on the rest of the Minister’s statement. The Minister for Labour and National Service stated that 954 people were in receipt of unemployment benefit in South Australia but the Minister for Social Services said that there were only 903 in that State in receipt of the benefit. The Minister for Labour and National Service said that 306 persons were in receipt of unemployment benefit in Tasmania whilst the Minister for Social Services said that there were 297 so situated. Apparently two responsible government departments have not been able to compile figures that coincide. The Minister for Labour and National Service said that 43,770 males and 13,062 females had registered for employment at the 26th September, a total of 56,832 persons. He added -

Because of procedural changes for checking whether applicants recorded as unplaced are still seeking employment it is not possible to make a valid comparison between the numbers registered for employment at 26th September and the numbers in previous months.

Then, by a careful use of words, he made it appear that the number of people seeking unemployment benefit was gradually diminishing. He said -

A valid comparison can be made of the weekly averages of the numbers registering for employment who claimed that they were unemployed. In September the weekly average was 11,238 or 1,000 less than the average for August.

He did not state that he was referring to new registrations for employment. He did not state that although another 11,238 people registered as unemployed each week only 4,275 were placed in employment, leaving 6,963 who remained unemployed. If we take that figure as a criterion, the number of unemployed is increasing at the rate of nearly 7,000 a week. I believe that the Minister for Labour and National Service will soon issue another statement for public consumption in view of the by-election that is to be held shortly in the Werriwa electorate. I suggest that before he issues that statement he should confer with the Minister for Social Services in order that he may inform the public of the facts and not issue a statement which, by a clever use of language, will make it appear that all is well. I take a very serious view of the position. I am very seriously concerned with the fact that this Government is destroying completely the magnificent immigration scheme that was instituted by the honorable member for Melbourne (Mr. Calwell) when he was Minister for Immigration in the Chifley Government. I believe that the shabby way in which immigrants have been treated in this country since this Government came into office has been to the detriment of this nation.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable gentleman’s time has expired.

Mr JEFF BATE:
Macarthur

– The honorable member for Hindmarsh (Mr. Clyde Cameron) has attempted to justify the Labour party’s cry that unemployment is increasing and that the nation is heading towards a depression. Surely this is not a time to be gloomy, to lose confidence in Australia or to do anything, for mere political advantage, that would cause ‘ panic. Surely this is a time when we should reaffirm our faith in this nation and grasp the opportunities that lie ready to our hand to increase our production and our markets and so increase employment and make Australia as prosperous as it should be. We know that the volume of retail sales in .Sydney is increasing tremendously, and that the public is buying to such a degree in Melbourne to-day as to give every indication that the coming Christmas will be a record Christmas in that city. Increased sales by retail stores will increase employment in tanneries and textile and other factories. Surely this is a time when .we should be ready to go on with the work of developing this country by taking the opportunities that are ready to our hands, so that immigration and employment may be maintained. However, incidents are happening in the electorates of some honorable members that give us cause for disquiet. I refer to the fact that Italians are being given employment in service establishments while Australians who have worked in these establishments and who have their homes near them, have lost their jobs. A constructive approach to the problem of employing Italian immigrants should be adopted. Such immigrants are men who could be housed in hostels or in work camps for two or three years, instead of being given temporary employment in service establishments. They could be employed in some big national work such as the construction of a railway through central Australia deep into the beef country. Mr. Beatty, an officer of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, who gave an address to honorable members recently, after having made a full investigation of the beef industry, told us that the answer to the problem of the beef industry was transport. At this time, when sleeper-getters are being put out of work or put on parttime work, and timber workers are also looking for full-time employment, we should make a start on a railway through central Australia. The necessary timber and labour are now available. Italian immigrants would not be averse to going into workers’ quarters in central Australia. At the moment they are doing only a few weeks’ work at a. time.Fifty Italians atNowra have been put on to bushfire work, and their employment has caused temporary unemployment among Australians in Nowra. Italians would be willing and grateful to take the opportunity to go to central Australia to work on a railway line into the beef country. The necessity for that line provides an opportunity for some constructive and creative action that would be of value to us and to future generations. The railway blueprints are ready, and it would only be a matter of getting these men up into centra] Australia. There are plenty of sleepers stored in ports on the north coast and south coast of New South Wales, and a start could be made in moving them towards central Australia. We do not disagree with the honorable member for Hindmarsh that we must have immigration. It is true, however, that when the immigrants whose employment is at present a problem started on their voyage to this country jobs were available for them, but almost overnight the situation changed temporarily, and it is difficult to find work for them. In such a situation we should go ahead with national work of the kind that I have suggested.

Motion (by Mr. Eric J. Harrison) put -

That the question be now put.

The House divided. (Me. Speaker - Hon. Archie Cameron.)

AYES: 53

NOES: 20

Majority . . . . 33

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

page 4148

PAPERS

The following papers were pre sented : -

Audit Act - Finance - Supplementary Report of the Auditor-General upon other accounts for the year 1951-52.

The Budget 1952-53 - Papers presented by Sir Arthur Fadden, K.C.M.G., M.P., for the information of honorable members in connexion with the Budget of 1952-53.

Taxation - Thirty-first Report of the Commissioner of Taxation, dated 31st December, 1951, together with Statistical Appendices.

Ordered to be printed.

Canned Fruits Export Control Act - Twentysixth Annual Report of the Australian Canned Fruits Board, for year 1951-52, together with Statement by Minister regarding the operation of the Act.

Dairy Produce Export Control Act - Twentyseventh Annual Report of the Australian Dairy Produce Board, for year 1951-52, together with Statement by Minister regarding the operation of the Act.

Dried Fruits Export Control Act - Twentyeighth Annual Report of the Dried Fruits Control Board, for year 1951-52, together with Statement by Minister regarding the operation of the Act.

Egg Export Control Act - Fifth Annual Report of the Australian Egg Board, for year 1951-52, together with Statement by Minister regarding the operation of the Act.

International Monetary Agreements Act - Annual Report on operations of the Act, and insofar as they relate to Australia, of the International Monetary Fund Agreement and the International Bank Agreement, for year 1951-52.

Judiciary Act - Rule of Court, dated 27 th October, 1952.

Seat of Government Acceptance Act and Seat of Government (Administration) Act - Regulations - 1952 -

No. 15 (Education Ordinance).

No. 16 (Public Baths Ordinance).

Services Trust Funds Act - Australian Military Forces Relief Trust Fund - Fifth Annual Report for year 1951-52.

Sugar Agreement Act - Twenty-first Annual Report of the Fruit Industry Sugar Concession Committee, for year ended 31st August, 1952.

Wine Overseas Marketing Board - Twentyfourth Annual Report of the Australian Wine Board, for year 1951-52, together with Statement by Minister regarding the operation of the Act.

House adjourned at 2.2 a.m. (Wednesday).

page 4149

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated: -

Newsprint

Mr Keon:

n asked the Treasurer, upon notice -

What amount of dollars has been provided for the import of newsprint in each year since 1945?
What amount of dollars has beenprovided or what expenditure has been authorized for the purchase of newsprint during the current year to date?
If any increase has taken place, what is the reason?

Sir Arthur Fadden:
CP

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows : -

The importation of newsprint from the dollar area for each financial year since the1st July, 1945, are set out hereunder: -

The allocation covering the licensing of newsprint from the dollar area is made on a tonnage basis and the tonnage authorized for the licensing year which commenced on the 1st April, 1952, is 20,000 tons. The price of newsprint varies according to the size and specification, but the average c.i.f. price per ton may be taken as £A.85..
The quantity of dollar-area newsprint authorized for the current licensing year represents a reduction of 20per cent. on the quantity authorized for the previous licensing year. (There is a considerable time-lag between the authorization of import licences and the importation of the goods. As the import statistics given in (1) above indicate, a substantial part of the 25,000 tons of dollar-area newsprint authorized for the 1951-52 licensing year ending in the 31st March last had not been imported into Australia by the 30th June, 1952.)

Australian Industries : Overseas Subsidiaries

Mr Ward:

d asked the Treasurer, upon notice -

What Australian industries have established branches or subsidiaries overseas?
In what countries have these investments of Australian capital been made?
What is the total amount of capital involved?
In what fields of manufacture are these industries engaged?
Is any of the products of these industries sold on the Australian market?

Sir Arthur Fadden:
CP

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows: - 1, 4 and 5. This information is not available. 2 and 3. The Commonwealth Statistician has estimated that as at the 30th June 1951, the net assets of overseas branches of Australian companies (excluding banks and life assurance companies) amounted to£ A.6,800,000.Of this amount,£A.3,000,000 was held by branches operating in New Zealand, and £ A.800,000 by branches operating in the United Kingdom. The amount of investment by Australian companies in subsidiary companies overseas is not known. The Commonwealth Statistician has. however, estimated that as at the 30th June, 1951, the total amount of paid-up capital held by the Australian companies (excluding banks and life assurance companies) in overseas companies was £A,14,700,000. Of this amount £A. 5,400,000 was held in New Zealand companies and £A,4,300,000 in United Kingdom companies. No information is available concerning overseas investments of Australian partnerships and individuals.

Industrial Arbitration

Mr Peters:
BURKE, VICTORIA

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

What unions have invoked the use of(a) the Chifley Government’s legislation for the control of union ballots by the Registrar of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration, and (6) the Menzies Government’s legislation in respect of the same matter?

Mr Menzies:
LP

– The Attorney-General has supplied the following information : -

In 1949, the Chifley Government inserted into the Conciliation and Arbitration Act section 96a, which enables a member of an organization to apply to the Industrial Registrar for a court investigation into the election conducted by the organization or branch. Nineteen applications have been made under section 96a to the Industrial Registrar. Of these, eighteen were made before the 19th July, 1951, when the present Government’s legislation (mentioned below) came into operation. The organization or branches in respect of which application has been made to the Industrial Registrar are -

New South Wales Branch of Federated Clerks Union of Australia.

Tasmanian Branch of Federated Clerks Union of Australia. (Three applications. )

Sydney Branch, No. 1, of Boilermakers Association of Australia.

South Australian Branch of Federated Clerks Union of Australia.

Victorian Branch of Federated Clerks Union of Australia. (Two applications.)

Newcastle Branch, No. 4, of Boilermakers Association of Australia.

Federated Ironworkers Association of Australia. (Three applications.)

Sydney Metropolitan Branch of Federated Ironworkers Association of Australia. (Two applications.)

Waterside Workers Federation of Australia.

Tasmanian Branch of Australian Workers Union.

Queensland Branch of Federated Storemem and Packers Union of Australia.

Victorian Branch of Australasian Society of Engineers.

Eleven of the applications were granted by the Industrial Registrar and referred to the court and in six of these cases the court found) irregularities had occurred.

The Chifley Government also inserted into the act, section 96m, which enabled the Industrial Registrar on application by an organization to conduct an election for officers in the organization or branch. The present Government recast section 90m with effect from the 19th July, 1951, but continued this particular provision. Before the 19th July, 1951, it was invoked by only one organization, namely, the Victorian branch of Federated Clerks Union. Since that date it has been invoked on fifteen occasions by the following organizations or branches: -

Victorian Branch of Federated ClerksUnion of Australia.

Victorian Branch of Australasian Society of Engineers.

Federated Marine Stewards and Pantrymen’s Association of Australasia. (Twoapplications. )

Federated Ironworkers Association of Australia. (Two applications.)

Port Pirie-Whyalla Branch of Federated Ironworkers Association.

Newcastle Branch of Federated Ironworkers Association.

Adelaide Branch of Federated Ironworkers Association.

Western Districts (New South Wales) Branch of Federated Ironworkers Association.

Victorian Branch of Federated Ironworkers Association.

Queensland Branch of Federated Ironworkers Association.

Sydney Metropolitan Branch of Federated Ironworkers Association.

Tasmanian Branch of Federated Ironworkers Association.

Port Kembla Branch of Federated Ironworkers Association.

Thirteen of the applications made by the organizations have been granted, one refused, and one application is still pending.

The present Government also extended section 96msoasto enable a specified number of members of an organization to request the Industrial Registrar to conduct a ballot for officers. This provision has already been invoked on sixteen occasions in respect of elections in the following organizations or branches: -

Sydney Metropolitan Branch of Federated Ironworkers Association of Australia.

Federated Marine Stewards and Pantrymen’s Association of Australasia. (Three requests. )

Victorian Branch of Australian Railways Union. (Two requests.)

New South Wales Branch of Australian Workers Union. (Two requests.)

Tasmanian Branch of Australian Builders Labourers Federation.

Victorian Branch of Australian Builders Labourers Federation.

New South Wales Branch of Amalgamated Postal Workers Union of Australia.

New South Wales Branch of Blacksmiths Society of Australasia.

New South Wales Branch of Federated Marine Stewards and Pantrymen’s Association of Australasia.

Victorian Branch of Federated Marine Stewards and Pantrymen’s Association of Australasia.

The Industrial Registrar has refused eight of the abovementioned requests.

This information discloses that the present Government’s additionto section 96m has greatly reduced the importance of the Chifley Government’s section 96a, which has only once been resorted to since the present Government’s changes in section 96m. As we said at the time, prevention is better than cure. Of the 31 applications under section 96m, sixteen are wholly attributable to the present Government’s addition. The remaining fifteen were (made under provisions common to both governments, but only one was made before we amended the act.

Flood Damage and Relief

Mr Daly:

y asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Is it a fact thatsevere floodings were recently experienced in various parts of New South Wales and that the State Government, following an initial contribution to meet the needs of local government bodies involved in restoration work,soughtthe co-operation of the Commonwealth Government in contributing on a basis of a £l-for-£l grant?
Is it a fact that the Government has declined to co-operate andhas called upon the New South Wales Government to make funds available from Commonwealth Aid Roads Act moneys?
Is it also a factthat many local government bodies are finding themselves in a parlous financial position as a result of reduced allocation of funds, and that the employment of a considerable number of council employees is endangered?
If so, will he confer with the Treasurer on the necessity for reviewing the decision which has been conveyedto the New South Wales Government in respectof flood damage, and also take other stepstoensure that local government bodies in all States are assured of sufficient finance to maintain roads in a satisfactory condition, and also to preserve continued employment?
Yes.
Successive Commonwealth governments have followed the policy of confining Commonwealth flood relief payments to grants for relief of personal hardship. If it became a standard practice to make grants to assist in the repair of State or local authority assets damaged as a result of floods or other causes, the Commonwealth would be committed to the principle of accepting insurance risks on these assets. The Commonwealth therefore considers that as a general rule the cost of repairing such assets should be met either from funds raised by the authorities themselves or from funds provided by the Commonwealth in accordance with existing Commonwealth-State financial arrangements. Thus in the present instance the Premier of New South Wales has been reminded that any portion of the Commonwealth aid roads payments may be allocated by the State to local authorities for the repair of flood-damaged roads and bridges. These payments to New South Wales increased from £1,948,000 in 1948-49 to £4,173,000 in 1951-52. The Government has given very careful consideration to this matter and does not propose” to vary its decision. 3 & 4. As responsibility for local authority matters rests with the respective State governments it would be beyond the province of. the Commonwealth to make grants direct to local authorities or to assume responsibility for their financial stability. It might be noted, however, that, in the current financial year, Commonwealth payments from Consolidated Revenue to the States will exceed £180,000,000 whilst the Commonwealth has also agreed to arrange special assistance of up to £135,000,000 in respect of the Loan Council programmes - a total of more than £315,000.000. The extent to which local authorities benefit as a result of this Commonwealth assistance is a matter for each State government to decide.

Commonwealth Hostels Limited.

Mr Menzies:
LP

s. - On the 18th September the honorable member for Phillip (Mr. Fitzgerald asked the following question : -

Isthe Prime Minister in a position to inform the House the decision made as the result of the petition he received from employees of Commonwealth Hostels Limited? I point out that all those persons were public servants who transferred to this organization with the promise of security in their employment less than twelve months ago. Fourty-two of those persons, some of whom are married ex-servicemen with families. Is the Prime Minister aware that positions within the service of Commonwealth Hostels Limited are at present being filled by young immigrants who have recently arrived in Australia? Cannot these jobs be given to the 42 employees who have received notices of dismissal?

Since the honorable member asked his question I have ascertained that, when the company took over the management of Commonwealth Hostels in January, 1952, permanent officers employed in the Hostels Division of the Department of Labour and National Service were given the option of accepting employment with the company or of remaining within the Department itself. When they elected to accept such employment they were granted leave of absence from the Public Service by the Public Service Board and were employed under conditions which were fully explained to them in writing before they commenced employment with the company. In the case of temporary employees, the services of those who wished to accept employment with the company were terminated by the department and engaged by the company, again under conditions which were fully explained. There has been some reorganization recently in the administrative staff of the company in its central and regional offices as a result of which the services of a number of employees have been terminated. Where such employees have been permanent officers of the Public Service, arrangements have been made either for the department to re-employ them or for them to be placed in other branches of the Commonwealth Public Service. The re-organization has also resulted in a number of employees not permanent officers being retained by the company but in positions of a lower status. Persons who were temporary employees of the Commonwealth Public Service severed their connexion with the Public Service when they took up employment with the company and were employed on conditions laid down by the company. It is for the company, exercising the normal rights of management, to determine whose services shall be terminated.

Office Accommodation

Mr Ward:

d asked the Prime Minister. upon notice -

What office accommodation available to Ministers in Canberra and elsewhere has been refurnished since the Government took office?
In what instances were cocktail cabinets and wall-to-wall carpets included in this refurnishing and what was the total cost to the Commonwealth ?

Mr Menzies:
LP

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows : -

The following office accommodation available to Ministers has been refurnished since this Government took office: -

Canberra -

Minister for Territories - Carpet square, desk and wardrobe.
Minister for External Affairs - Suite of furniture.
Prime Minister - Carpeting some sections of suite.
Postmaster-General - Carpets.
Minister for the Navy and Air - Table and chair.

Sydney -

Minister for Supply - Suite of furniture.
Minister for External Affairs - Suite of furniture.
Minister for Territories - Suite of furniture.
Minister for Transport - Settee.
Minister for the Navy and Air - Rugs and chair.

Melbourne -

Minister for National Development - Suite of furniture.
Minister for Supply - General furniture.
m ) Attorney -General - Carpet.
Minister for External Affairs - General furniture.

Brisbane -

Minister for the Army - Table and carpet square.
Minister for Trade and Customs - Suite of furniture.

Adelaide -

Minister for Shipping and Transport - Carpet square, desk, lounge chairs, cabinet.

Perth-

Minister for Territories - Carpet square, table.

The above do not all represent cases of complete refurnishings. Some of them are single items of replacement, others (e.g., the Minister for Territories) represent the furnishing of new offices.

In no instances were cocktail cabinets included in the items of furniture supplied. Wall-to-wall carpets have bean laid in the following rooms and suites in Parliament House: -

Government -

Prime Minister.

*Minister for Health.

*Minister for the Interior.

*Treasurer.

*Minister for External Affairs.

*Minister for Supply.

Postmaster-General.

*Cabinet Room.

Senator Rankin.

Opposition -

*Leader of the Opposition.

*Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna).

Officers of the Parliament -

Mr. Speaker.

Mr. President.

*Clerk of Committees (Representatives).

Clerk of the House of Representatives

Library ( Basement ) .

*Second Clerk Assistant (Representatives ) . (Items marked * represent cases where the wall-to-wall carpets were requisitioned by the Labour Government in. 1948. The work was merely completed since this Government took office.) In. addition to the above, wall-to-wall carpets have been laid in the following ministerial rooms in other cities: -

Sydney -

Minister for Supply.

Minister for External Affairs.

Minister for Territories.

Melbourne -

Minister for National Development.

Minister for Supply.

Attorney-General.

Minister for External Affairs.

Brisbane.

Minister for Trade and Customs.

The detailed cost of the wall-to-wall carpets has notbeen obtained in view of the amount of work involved in dissecting the large number of requisitions and invoices concerned.

DOLLARS.

Mr Menzies:
LP

s. - On the 9th October, the honorable member for Ballarat (Mr. Joshua) asked the following question: -

Yesterday I received a reply to a question upon notice that I addressed to the Minister for National Development. The question sought information as to the amount of hard currency expended on the purchase of motor spirit for each of the last five years. Those figures have not been supplied to me. Will the Prime Minister gay if he has a direct knowledge of the amount of this important expenditure of dollars and, if not, will he endeavour to obtain it and make it available to honorable members?

Further to my promise to have the information made available, I now advise the honorable member that the following table shows the f.o.b. value of imports into Australia of petroleum and shale spirit, including petroleum and shale naphtha; benzine, benzoline, gasoline, pentane and petrol (for practical purposes this can be said to constitute motor spirit) : -

As has been pointed out by the Minister for National Development, these figures should not be interpreted as showing the dollar and non-dollar cost of motor spirit imports. Imports from the dollar area can be taken as costing 100 per cent. dollars, but there is also a dollar element in imports from other sources the extent of which cannot be ascertained because oil payments are dealt with through central accounts in London.

Public Service

Mr Ward:

d asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Is it a fact that a certificate of proficiency issued to a trainee under the Commonwealth reconstruction training scheme upon the successful completion of a course in clerical work is not recognized by the Commonwealth Public Service Board, which rejects applications for employment where the applicant has not passed the leaving certificate examination?
If so, will he take action to correct this anomalous position?

Mr Menzies:
LP

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows : - 1 and 2. The certificates of proficiency issued to clerical trainees under the Commonwealth reconstruction training scheme is not accepted for appointment as clerk in the Commonwealth Public Service. Investigation into the standard of the course in each State showed that unless trainees went on to complete public examinations they did not reach a standard equivalent to the examination set down in the Regulations to the Commonwealth Public Service Act 1922-1947 which prescribe examinations accepted in the case of returned soldiers for appointment as clerk, the minimum being the intermediate standard. Although the minimum qualification required from nonexservicemen is the leaving certificate examination or its equivalent, the qualification has been reduced in the case of ex-servicemen to the intermediate or its equivalent.

War Criminals.

Mr Menzies:
LP

s. - On the 29th October, the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) asked the following question. : -

Will the Prime Minister say whether all of the nations that contributed to victory in the last world war were consulted upon the decision to release convicted war criminals before completion of their sentences ? If so, what view was expressed by the Australian Government? If those nations were not consulted, has the Australian Government made any protest against the release of such war criminals? If such action has not been taken, can it be assumed that this Government approves of the course that is being followed T

It is assumed that the question refers to the recently announced release of Field Marsha] Kesselring and other’ convicted German war criminals. The answer is “ No “. Major German war criminals were convicted by international tribunals and others by special national courts. Sentences imposed by the international tribunal at Nuremburg can only be reviewed by the four powers - United Kingdom, United States of America, France and Union of Soviet Socialist Republics - acting in concert. No persons convicted by this tribunal have been released before the completion of the sentence passed on them. Regarding persons convicted by national tribunals, this Government has followed the policy adopted by the Chifley Government, which decided that the review of sentences was a matter solely within the competence of the appropriate national legal authorities. The cases of persons in Germany who have been released on parole or who have had their sentences reduced, have been reviewed by advisory bodies representative of the Allied powers acting under the authority of the respective governments. It appears that reductions were granted wherever there appeared a legitimate basis for clemency, for example, where the sentence was not in keeping with the sentences for crimes of similar gravity in other cases ; where the reduction appeared justified on the grounds of the relatively subordinate authority and responsibility of the defendants; where new evidence, not available to the court, supported such clemency; or in some cases because of the acute illness of the prisoner or other special circumstances of a similar nature. The Australian Government feels that the review of individual cases can be appropriately dealt with by the Allied authorities concerned.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 4 November 1952, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1952/19521104_reps_20_220/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives 4 November 1952

QUESTION

EMPLOYMENT

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Mr TOWNLEY:Minister for Social Services · DENISON, TASMANIA · LP

GENERAL AGREEMENTON TARIFFS AND TRADE

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH HANDLING EQUIPMENT POOL

Mr GORDON ANDERSON:KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr BEALE:Minister for Supply · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

QUESTION

HEALTH AND MEDICAL SERVICES

Mr DAVIDSON:DAWSON, QUEENSLAND

Mr MENZIES:Prime Minister · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · LP

QUESTION

TAXATION

Mr BEAZLEY:FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Sir ARTHUR FADDEN:Treasurer · MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · CP

Mr SPEAKER:

Sir ARTHUR FADDEN:

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Mr WHEELER:MITCHELL, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr HOLT:Minister for Immigration · HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

Mr FAIRBAIRN:FARRER, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr HOLT:

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Mr WATKINS:NEWCASTLE, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr McMAHON:Minister for Air · LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

Mr FALKINDER:FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

Mr HASLUCK:Minister for Territories · CURTIN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

QUESTION

DRIED FRUITS

Mr DOWNER:ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr McEWEN:Minister for Commerce and Agriculture · MURRAY, VICTORIA · CP

QUESTION

SOCIAL SERVICES

Mr FITZGERALD:PHILLIP, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr TOWNLEY:LP

QUESTION

CANNED FOOD

Mr ROBERTON:RIVERINA, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr McEWEN:MURRAY, VICTORIA · CP

QUESTION

NORTHERN TERRITORY

Mr NELSON:NORTHERN TERRITORY, NORTHERN TERRITORY

Mr McEWEN:CP

QUESTION

COAL

Mr DUTHIE:WILMOT, TASMANIA

Mr MENZIES:LP

QUESTION

IMPORT RESTRICTIONS

Mr WILSON:STURT, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr MENZIES:LP

QUESTION

HOUSING

Mr CREMEAN:HODDLE, VICTORIA

Mr TOWNLEY:LP

QUESTION

WHEAT

Mr FULLER:HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr McEWEN:CP

QUESTION

WOOL

Mr BRIMBLECOMBE:MARANOA, QUEENSLAND

Mr McEWEN:CP

TARIFF BOARD

Mr ERIC J HARRISON:WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944

BRADFIELD ELECTORAL DIVISION

Issue of Writ

Mr SPEAKER:

ASSENT TO BILLS

INCOME TAX AND SOCIAL SERVICES CONTRIBUTION BILL 1952

INCOME TAX AND SOCIAL SERVICES CONTRIBUTION ASSESSMENT BILL (No. 3) 1952

Sir ARTHUR FADDEN:Treasurer · McPherson · CP

Dr EVATT:Leader of the Opposition · Barton

The CHAIRMAN:

Dr EVATT:

House of Representatives
4 November 1952

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Mr TOWNLEY:
Minister for Social Services · DENISON, TASMANIA · LP

Mr GORDON ANDERSON:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr BEALE:
Minister for Supply · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

Mr DAVIDSON:
DAWSON, QUEENSLAND

Mr MENZIES:
Prime Minister · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · LP

Mr BEAZLEY:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Sir ARTHUR FADDEN:
Treasurer · MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · CP

Mr WHEELER:
MITCHELL, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr HOLT:
Minister for Immigration · HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

Mr FAIRBAIRN:
FARRER, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr WATKINS:
NEWCASTLE, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr McMAHON:
Minister for Air · LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

Mr FALKINDER:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

Mr HASLUCK:
Minister for Territories · CURTIN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

Mr DOWNER:
ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr McEWEN:
Minister for Commerce and Agriculture · MURRAY, VICTORIA · CP

Mr FITZGERALD:
PHILLIP, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr TOWNLEY:
LP

Mr ROBERTON:
RIVERINA, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr McEWEN:
MURRAY, VICTORIA · CP

Mr NELSON:
NORTHERN TERRITORY, NORTHERN TERRITORY

Mr McEWEN:
CP

Mr DUTHIE:
WILMOT, TASMANIA

Mr MENZIES:
LP

Mr WILSON:
STURT, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr MENZIES:
LP

Mr CREMEAN:
HODDLE, VICTORIA

Mr TOWNLEY:
LP

Mr FULLER:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr McEWEN:
CP

Mr BRIMBLECOMBE:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND

Mr McEWEN:
CP

Mr ERIC J HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944

Sir ARTHUR FADDEN:
Treasurer · McPherson · CP

Dr EVATT:
Leader of the Opposition · Barton

Mr HULME:
Petrie

Mr J R FRASER:
ALP

Mr ERIC J HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944

Mr CALWELL:
Melbourne

Mr FREETH:
Forrest

Mr TOM BURKE:
Perth

Sir ARTHUR FADDEN:
McPhersonTreasurer · CP

Mr CREAN:
MELBOURNE PORTS, VICTORIA · ALP

Mr CALWELL:
Melbourne

Mr MORGAN:
Reid

Mr ERIC J HARRISON:
Vice-President of the Executive Council and Minister for Defence Production · WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944

Mr ERIC J HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944

Mr ERIC J HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944

Mr McBRIDE:
Minister for Defence · Wakefield · LP

Mr ERIC J HARRISON:
Vice-President of the Executive Council and Minister for Defence Production · WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944

Mr DRAKEFORD:
Maribyrnong