House of Representatives
20 October 1955

21st Parliament · 1st Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 21st Parliament
  3. 1955

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. C. F. Adermann) took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 1727

QUESTION

COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENTS

Dr EVATT:
BARTON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Minister for Labour and National Service considered the position that arises from the introduction of legislation in the New South Wales Parliament to provide wage justice to persons working under State awards and in the Government service by restoring to them the cost of living allowances that they lost because of the freezing of the basic wage ? Has the right honorable gentleman considered that position from the point of view of the federal awards and the power of the Australian Government to intervene before the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration? Has he reached a decision on the matter? If he has, does he propose to ensure that similar action is taken in relation to the equally great, or even greater number of persons who work under federal awards?

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

– The right honorable gentleman has raised a very important matter and has addressed quite a detailed question to me, so I hope the House will give me an opportunity to give a reasonably detailed reply. I and my colleagues in the Government have given a good deal of consideration to this matter, but the question ofour attitude to an application to be made to the court by the Australian Council of Trades Unions has not yet been considered.

Dr Evatt:

– That is all I asked the right honorable gentleman. What does the Government intend to do about it?

Mr HOLT:

– No; the Leader of the Opposition asked me whether we had considered

Dr Evatt:

– I asked the Minister whether he had considered the matter, and what he intended to do about it.

Mr HOLT:

– The right honorable gentleman asked me whether I had considered the legislation that has been introduced by the Premier of New South Wales, and what action we propose to take in relation to it. I have also considered a number of statements made by the New South Wales Premier at various times in relation to this matter in order to determine what was motivating the New South Wales Government in its action. It will be recalled that in 1952, the Premier of New South Wales became very alarmed-

Dr Evatt:

– I rise to order to ensure that the question that was asked of the Minister shall be answered. I asked him what action or inaction he favoured. If the right honorable gentleman wants to make a long statement, I do not mind, so long as it is possible for me to reply. I am prepared to give him leave to make a statement later, but not at this stage, and I submit that he is out of order.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order ! It is the accepted practice to allow a Minister to answer a question in his own way. Furthermore, the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition was very comprehensive and I think that the Minister is entitled to reply to it.

Dr Evatt:

– No, it was not. It was narrowed down to one point.

Mr HOLT:

– I do not wish to take any longer than I consider necessary to cover the points raised by the right honorable gentleman, but I think that it is important to have in mind, when we are asked to take action following action taken by the New South Wales Premier, that when this matter was before him at an earlier time the Premier stated publicly -

These periodical rises are becoming fearsome. Nobody wants them because they always foreshadow price increases and a speed-up in the downward slide of living standards. The people urgently desire stabilization of waged on a reasonable basis.

That statement was made in 1952. But in 1953, after his Cabinet had carefully considered this matter-

Honorable members interjecting,

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order !

If the House does not come to order I shall take appropriate action.

Mr HOLT:

– In 1953, the New South Wales Cabinet considered this matter and issued a statement that contained a passage to the effect that Ministers felt that it could well be that increases in prices which might follow, together with increased fares, if they were found to be necessary, would offset the increases, both to its own employees and employees generally under State awards, and they would be no better off. Some employees might even be worse off.

Mr E JAMES HARRISON:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Which they are now. That is the point !

Mr HOLT:

– I could quote this statement at greater length if time permitted. The Premier went on to say in this considered statement of the Cabinet in 1953 -

An important fact which was made quite clear in the course of these discussions is that if the Government did decide that quarterly adjustments should continue this decision would only be applied to a comparatively small proportion-

Mr Curtin:

– I rise to order. Is the Minister making a statement, or answering a question ? It has become a practice that most of question time is taken up by Ministers who make long, windy statements.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– The Minister is quite in order. He is still speaking to the point raised by the questioner.

Mr HOLT:

– I come now to the attitude of the Australian Government. We have maintained consistently that, on a large industrial issue of this kind which runs right across the economy, it is important that there should be a central determination having some uniform influence and effect; and for that reason we have felt that these great issues should be determined by the one authority in Australia which is able to give some general effect and some general guidance on a matter of this kind. That authority is the Commonwealth Arbitration Court. The New South Wales Premier himself conceded that his decision could apply to only a small proportion of the workers in his own State.

Dr Evatt:

– It is not so small.

Mr HOLT:

– In 1953, the Premier said the decision could apply to only a small proportion of workers. His actual words were - a comparatively small proportion, approximately 40 per cent., of the wage earners in New South Wales.

Dr Evatt:

– Is 40 per cent. a small proportion ?

Mr HOLT:

– The Premier said so. I am using his words, not my own. Perhaps the right honorable gentleman had better sort that matter out with the Premier. It is my view that nothing creates more industrial unrest and discontent than differing conditions applying to workers who perform similar or comparable work. Because of that we have felt it important that the Commonwealth Arbitration Court, which all political parties in this country have supported over the years as the basis of our method of determining industrial issues, is the body which should determine this issue in common with other large issues affecting the economy as a whole.

page 1728

QUESTION

OVERSEAS TRADE PUBLICITY CAMPAIGN

Mr FALKINDER:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

– My question to the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture refers to a film on the Tasmanian apple industry titled The Apple Isle, produced by the Tasmanian film unit, which was shown to honorable members and senators quite recently. Will the Minister consider obtaining copies of this excellent film for use in the current publicity campaign for Australian products in the United Kingdom ? If the Minister accedes to this request, will he endeavour to have the earliest possible use made of the film in view of the coming apple and pear export season?

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

– I am advised that the film to which the honorable member has referred is excellent, both factually and for publicity purposes, and I thank him for his interest in this matter. My advice is that the film would probably lend itself to use for the purpose he suggests, and I shall be glad to inquire immediately into the possibility of acquiring copies of it for use for publicity in the United Kingdom.

page 1728

QUESTION

MOLOTOV COCKTAILS

Mr MULLENS:
GELLIBRAND, VICTORIA

– In view of the epic nature of our time and the natural desire of honorable members to toast events of great national importance, will the Vice-President of the Executive Council use his influence with the Joint House

Committee so that drink waiters may be instructed in the technique of the Molotov cocktail ?

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

– I have little knowledge of the ingredients of such a cocktail. I suggest that the matter should be referred to the Leader of the Opposition.

page 1729

QUESTION

PENSIONS

Mr J R FRASER:
ALP

– I ask the Minister for Social Services : Does the revealed increase of 10s. a week in the cost of living in the Australian Capital Territory completely nullify in advance the 10s. a week increase in pensions which is to be paid from the 27th October to age and invalid pensioners within that Territory? Has the Minister stated that the C series price index is the best means of assessing the needs of pensioners?

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

– The straight answer to the honorable member’s question is, “ No, the change has not had a significant effect upon the purchasing power of the pensions as recently increased.” Within the last two days I have had a detailed examination made of the effect of the change in the C series index on the purchasing power of the pensions. The honorable member will be glad to know that the purchasing power of the pension is still more than 8s. higher than it was when the Australian Labour party was driven out of office in 1949. So, the true answer to the honorable member’s question is, “ No “. A significant impact on the purchasing power of the pensions has not been made. In addition, I point out to the honorable member that other benefits granted by the Government give tremendous help to the pensioners. These are the construction of homes for the aged and the implementation of the national health scheme. When these benefits are taken into consideration it will be seen that the pensioner is immeasurably better off than he was in 1949.

page 1729

QUESTION

RADARS COPE PHOTOGRAPHY

Mr SWARTZ:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND

– I desire to ask the Minister for Air whether it is a fact that the recent development of radarscope photography has assisted in overcoming the problem of night photography and the taking of photographs in bad weather.

As reports indicate that this system is being developed for service use in the United States of America and the United Kingdom, is there any indication yet that the system could be of value for use by the Royal Australian AirForce?

Mr TOWNLEY:
Minister for Air · DENISON, TASMANIA · LP

– It is true that radarscope photography is useful in bad weatheror in darkness, but at the present time it is in quite an experimental stage. It is just being developed experimentally. We are not developing it in the Royal Australian Air Force at present, but we are in constant contact with people in the United States of America and the United Kingdom who are carrying on these experiments.

page 1729

QUESTION

TELEVISION

Mr WARD:
EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the PostmasterGeneral state whether the committee comprising Government members which, I understand, will consider all aspects of television, was appointed at his suggestion or with his knowledge and approval? Will he also state what the precise functions of this committee are? Is it to advise or make recommendations to him? Finally, is it a fact that senior technical and administrative officers of the department have been brought to Canberra to confer with this committee? Will the Postmaster-General make similar arrangements in respect of Opposition members who are interested in this most important subject?

Mr ANTHONY:
Postmaster-General · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– The private members of this House are very eager to assist in the functions of Government and several committees have been formed on this side of the chamber. One is considering matters pertaining to mining, another is considering taxation, another foreign affairs and so on. Yet another has been formed to consider matters relating to communications, of which television is a part. When this committee was formed I suggested that senior officers of the Postal Department should attend to answer any questions put by members of the committee. It would be a good idea if honorable members on the other side of the chamber formed a similar committee. I would be quite willing to pro vide it with similar facilities for gaining information.

page 1730

QUESTION

WATER CONSERVATION AND IRRIGATION

Mr JEFF BATE:
MACARTHUR, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister acting for the Minister for External Affairs whether, in view of the growing importance of what is known as water harvesting at the university farm at Badgery’s Creek, he will consider making our representatives abroad familiar with its implications, and also including this project in the itinerary of visitors to Australia, especially those from the arid regions of Asia and Africa. Is it a fact that this development could be of great importance in increasing the food production of Australia and of those countries where nutritional standards need improvement? Has the project been visited in the last eighteen months by 10,000 persons and a great many others whose visits have not been recorded? Have these visitors come from every country of importance and included many of the world’s authorities on intensive food production under irrigation?

Sir PHILIP McBRIDE:
Minister for Defence · WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– I agree entirely with what the honorable member says about the great importance of the work being done at Badgery’s Creek. I also agree that our representatives overseas - and especially those in Asian areas where similar work could perhaps be undertaken - should know what is being done here. I will ascertain just what information is available to our overseas representatives and I shall be prepared to consider making certain that they are fully advised of the progress that has been made. I know that a very large number of persons have visited the project, but I do not know the precise figure. I will try to ascertain more accurately just how many people visit the area each year.

page 1730

QUESTION

HAIL STORM DAMAGE

Sir PHILIP McBRIDE:
LP

– Last week the honorable member for Macarthur asked me a question about the use of rockets in breaking up hail storms. I have now been informed that a group in Queensland is, at its own expense, experimenting in this field. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization is keeping in touch with the group, and it. is believed that some work is going on in France in this field. The organization has a comprehensive programme of rain and cloud physics, and hopes that, as a result of fundamental investigations into rain physics, it will be able to understand more clearly the processes involved in hail storms. It is not, therefore, making any practical experiments with rockets at this stage, but it is watching with interest the experiments being conducted in Queensland.

page 1730

QUESTION

RESIGNATIONS OF BROADCASTING TECHNICIANS

Mr CURTIN:

– Is the PostmasterGeneral aware of the alarmingly high rate of resignations from the technical staff of the broadcasting section in New South Wales? Many of those who have resigned have come from the departmental training school, after three years’ training at the taxpayers’ expense and have gone almost immediately to outside industry. Many others have joined the section, have stayed a few weeks while being trained, and have then resigned to take up jobs in commercial stations at higher rates of pay. Will the PostmasterGeneral inform the House of the number of resignations from this section in the last eighteen months, and the cost of training these men, and will he have investigations made into the reason for this unhappy state of affairs in this most vital section of his department?

Mr ANTHONY:
CP

– Naturally, I cannot tell the honorable member offhand how many resignations there have been. There have been some, but not a great number. The fact is that in this country a person is free to choose his own job, and as long as this Government is in power he will remain free to do so.

page 1730

QUESTION

BROADCASTING

Mr LUCK:
DARWIN, TASMANIA

– Can the Postmaster-

General indicate when the proposed increase in power of broadcasting station 3LO, from 10,000 to 50,000 watts, will be carried out ? If, even with the stronger signal, fading of programmes can still be expected in the northern part of Tasmania, is it proposed to use frequency modulation, or to establish another national station, even if remotely controlled, to ensure satisfactory reception of alternative national programmes?

Mr ANTHONY:
CP

– I cannot say when the increase in the power of station 3LO will be effected. It is intended to increase the power of this station, but unfortunately, as the honorable member knows, there has been a cut in public works expenditure, and consideration will have to be given to the reduction of expenditure on broadcasting stations as well as on other works. Consequently, I cannot say what will be done in the near future in respect of station 3LO. With regard to frequency modulation, I propose, when the amending broadcasting bill is brought before Parliament, which unfortunately will not be in this sessional period, to provide that frequency modulation shall be permitted. It will be remembered that during the previous Administration a section was inserted in the act which prohibited frequency modulation entirely. I propose to remove that section. As regards the provision of a supplementary station, my reply to the honorable member’s question is similar to -that which I gave regarding the increase in power of station 3LO.

page 1731

QUESTION

DRUGS

Mr LUCHETTI:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– In view of the ever-increasing cost of pharmaceutical preparations, which is being borne directly and indirectly by the Australian people, will the Minister for Health cause an inquiry to be made into the excessive cost of life-saving drugs and medical supplies? Has the Minister seen a report by an officer of the Joint Committee for Tariff Revision to the effect that Australian manufacturers of chemical tablets are making 300 per cent, profit on drugs sold to the Australian wholesale houses? Is he aware that certain tablets costing 9£d. to make are sold for 4s. wholesale? If he has seen such a report, or if he is aware of the everincreasing cost of drugs, dressings and pharmaceutical supplies, what steps does he propose to take to protect the Australian people, and is it his intention to make greater use of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories?

Sir EARLE PAGE:
Minister for Health · COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– I shall answer the honorable member’s last question first. Full use is being made of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories in the manufacture of those products for which the serum laboratories are suited. They are not suited for the manufacture of all such products, and it would require great capital expenditure and the services of a great many more technical men to convert the laboratories for the manufacture of all these products. Regarding the cost of drugs, it may interest the honorable member to know that during the life of this Government we have been able to arrange for the manufacture in Australia of many antibiotic drugs by companies which have brought technical men to this country for the purpose. This has meant that in war-time, when we may be cut off from overseas sources, we shall have ample supplies of these drugs in Australia. The matter of cost, of course, is ultimately one to be determined by the States, which have the power to fix prices. I understand, from the figures that have been supplied to me with regard to the supply of antibiotics, that there has been a steady decrease in the unit cost to the Government ever since the manufacture of these drugs was commenced in Australia.

page 1731

QUESTION

ALUMINIUM

Mr DRUMMOND:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I desire to ask the Minister for Supply if his attention has been drawn to a recent statement by an acknowledged authority on the subject that at Oakwood, near Inverell, in the electorate of Gwydir, there is approximately 5,000,000 tons of bauxite of 38 per cent, ascertained alumina content and that in the neighbouring electorate of New England, within a not very great distance, there is probably another 5,000,000 to 10,000,000 tons. In view of the statement which has been made that it is proposed to develop power resources in Papua for the purpose of building an aluminium plant there, and in view of the grave risk involved there from a defence point of view, has the Minister given consideration to the utilization of the enormous power resources of the Clarence Valley and the thermal unit now in the course of establishment on the great coal measures of Ashford for the purposes of establishing, in a safe place, and right on the spot, with all the materials at hand, the next development of this most important industry?

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

– It has, of course, been known for a long time that there are bauxite deposits in the Inverell and New England districts. I cannot say what the quantities are, nor can I speak as to the percentages in the deposits, but my recollection is that the grade of ore in the Inverell district is quite substantially less than that of the ore which has been discovered recently in the Northern Territory. I do want to correct one thing the honorable gentleman said. There has been no proposal for the establishment of a new aluminium industry in New Guinea. All that has ever been said is that investigations are taking place to find out whether there is ample cheap hydro-electric power which could support some such industry if governments - I say “governments” - or private enterprise decided at some time in the future to engage in development of that source. The matter is very much in a preliminary stage. As to the extent of power in the New England district, one knows about the existence of substantial water resources in the gorges of the northern New England and Grafton districts. I am not quite sure whether thermal power is the answer to the question of the development of the aluminium industry. I rather doubt it.

page 1732

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL AIRWAYS PROPRIETARY LIMITED

Mr DRAKEFORD:
MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister for Civil Aviation if he can say what amounts of money have so far been advanced by the Government under the Civil Aviation Agreement Act to Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited. What is the total of the advance made to the Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited, and what is the rate of interest charged thereon? What amounts have so far been repaid, (a) of the moneys advanced, (b) of the interest on the amounts advanced, and (c) are all the amounts being met, and if not, what amounts are outstanding? For what purpose were the advances made? If the information is not immediately available, will the Minister have a statement prepared and presented to the House as early as possible?

Mr TOWNLEY:
LP

– That question obviously should be addressed to the Treasurer, not to me, hut I shall get the information for which the honorable member has asked, and let him have it, or he can put his question on the noticepaper.

page 1732

QUESTION

BANK OF NEW SOUTH WALES SAVINGS BANK LIMITED

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr C F Adermann:
FISHER, QUEENSLAND

– I have received from both the honorable member for Werriwa (Mr. Whitlam) and the honorable member for Yarra (Mr. Keon) intimations that they desire to submit definite matters of urgent public importance to the House for discussion. I have selected the matter proposed by the honorable member for Werriwa, namely: -

The application by Bank of New South Wales Savings Bank Limited for authority to carry on banking business.

Is the proposal supported?

Eight honorable members having risen in support of the proposal,

Mr Keon:

– I rise to order. I take it, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you have selected the matter proposed by the honorable member for Werriwa as being the more important of those proposed for urgent discussion. As you, sir, will recall, yesterday I proposed as a matter for urgent discussion the necessity immediately to do something about cost of living adjustments. My proposal was not supported, by members on the Opposition side of the House apart from those who belong to the party of which I am a member.

Opposition members interjecting,

Mr Keon:

– Of course it was not supported.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order ! Will honorable members maintain order?

Mr Keon:

– I then gave you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, notice of my intention to propose the same matter for urgent, discussion to-day. It is obviously much more urgent than any action proposed by the Bank of New South Wales Savings Bank Limited, and that fact is confirmed by the notice given by the honorable member for Blaxland of his intention to propose the need for cost of living adjustments for urgent discussion next Tuesday, although he refused to support my proposal yesterday. Therefore, I take it that, although Opposition members who support the proposal of the honorable member for werriwa were under duress not to support a proposal for the discussion of cost of living adjustments yesterday, they really believe that it is much more urgent than the matter proposed by the honorable member for Werriwa.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member for Yarra may not discuss the merits of the two proposals. The position is as was stated by Mr. Speaker on the 24th May last. The selection is made by the Chair pursuant to the authority given to it by the House under Standing Order 106a, which makes no provision for canvassing the opinion of the Chair given in accordance with that authority.

Mr Keon:

– Do you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, rule that we have no right to question your decision in the matter? If you do, I desire to move that your ruling be dissented from.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order ! Standing Order 106a makes no provision for canvassing the matter. . The honorable member for Werriwa may now proceed with his proposal.

Mr WHITLAM:
Werriwa

.- On the 13th September, the Bank of New South Wales Savings Bank Limited was incorporated under the Companies Act of New South Wales. On the following day, the new company made application, pursuant to section 8 of the Banking Act 1945-1953, for authority to conduct savings bank business in Australia. The Opposition raises the matter for discussion in this way because only thus can the Parliament discuss the matter at all. The 1945 act makes it plain that no legislation is required for the bank to obtain the authority. There is no provision in the act for the Treasurer (Sir Arthur Fadden), to whom the application is made, to make a report to the Parliament. The matter is urgent for two reasons. The first is that- the application represents the most radical departure in the practice of the trading banks in the 138 years that there have been private trading banks in Australia, and there will be correspondingly far-reach- ing consequences for the economy as a whole. The second reason is that the Government, in dealing with this application, will be determining its attitude to similar applications by other private banks and other institutions. It is not to be thought that, if the application of the Bank of New South Wales Savings Bank Limited succeeds, the Australian and New Zealand Bank Limited, for instance, which is almost as large, and the other banks, will not make similar applications.

Mr Osborne:

– Why not?

Mr Gullett:

– Why not?

Mr WHITLAM:

– I hear some spokesmen for some of the banks, including the honorable member for Evans (Mr. Osborne). If this application is granted, it is hard to see how similar applications by other private banks would not be granted also.

Mr Gullett:

– Hear, hear !

Mr WHITLAM:

– If applications by trading banks for this purpose are to be granted, what is there to stop department stores and so on from setting up savings banks? It is perfectly possible under this act. If the Government allows this application, it can, with equal reason, allow such other applications.

I desire to make it plain that in raising this matter I am not attacking the private banks-

Government supporters interjecting,

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order ! Honorable members must remain silent. We cannot have a debate if we are to have disturbances of this kind.

Mr WHITLAM:

– Nothing which I ad vocate to-day would in any way restrict the present and traditional operations of the trading banks within the limits of the law. However, by means of this application, the private banks are instituting an attack on the savings banks, which, since 1819, when the first savings bank was established in Australia, have been in trustees’ or governmental public hands. Why has the Bank of New South Wales, after 138 years of operation, at last decided to launch into the savings bank field?

Mr Jeff Bate:

– It is never too late to mend.

Mr WHITLAM:

– Its attitude contrasts strangely with the scorn which its employees have frequently expressed for the humble activities of the savings bank, ls it because the Bank of New South Wales, now realizes that the services which it has provided for 138 years are inadequate? Is it because it believes that savings bank facilities can be increased in general throughout the country by its launching into this field? Or is it rather because the shareholders of the bank desire larger profits ? It seeks to do what it has always, with little reason, accused the Commonwealth Bank of doing, that is, to have a savings bank whose deposits it can appropriate to its own purposes. To put it bluntly, it desires to lend at 5 per cent, the savings bank deposits on which it will pay 2 A per cent, on amounts up to £500, or lj per cent, on larger amounts. The pith of Hie matter was expressed in a letter from the manager of the Bank of New South Wales at Cabramatta, in my electorate, which was published in last Monday’s: Sydney Morning Herald, in which he stated -

The Commonwealth Central Bank fixes the interest rates it will permit the trading banks to offer for deposits repayable on demand at nil per cent., while it permits its own savings bank to offer 50s. per cent, to attract identical deposits . . . The management of interest rates by the Commonwealth Bank . . . precludes the private banks from attracting a reasonable share of available deposits.

TI: p. share capital of the new bank is £10,000.000, of which £1,000,000 has already been subscribed. All the shares have been allotted to the Bank of New South Wales, except one for each of the seven directors. Those directors are the same as the directors of the Bank of New South Wales itself. The objectives for which the company has been established are set out, of course, in the memorandum of association, and the crucial clause is (,#), which reads -

Tn deposit moneys of the company, including moneys borrowed or received on deposit in such manner without any limitation as the directors think fit.

That is perfectly consistent with the proposition which I put, namely, that the object is to get hold of savings bank deposits and lend them out at double the interest which will be paid on the deposits. Every director gives “ company director “ or “ manager “ as his occupation, except one who gives his occupation as “ newspaper proprietor “. He is Mr. Vincent Fairfax, one of the cadet members of the dynasty which runs the Sydney Morning Herald and the Financial Review. One does not have to be able to solve a “Findaword” to discover why those publications are giving such ardent support to this proposition.

What of the attitude of the Government? It is, of course, pretty plain from the attitude of the claque behind the Government front bench and their vociferous interjections when I rose. But the Government itself, through its authorized mouthpieces, has been silent on this subject - or perhaps, as the questions were asked of the Vice-President of the Executive Council (Sir Eric Harrison), it would be more appropriate to say that it has been dumb. On the 28th September, in answer to a question by Senator O’Byrne, Senator Spooner said -

I certainly wish this venture good luck in the future … I should also be surprised if the Government did not encourage the new venture.

That was surprising animation and enthusiasm from a Minister who is usually so lethargic and stolid. There are, in fact, several reasons why this Government should refuse the application - it can do so under the act - or grant the application subject to conditions, as it can also do under the act. The first reason is that this application for a new savings bank is unnecessary, because the public are adequately .served, and are being increasingly served, by the savings bank facilities in this country. I shall refer mainly to the Commonwealth Savings Bank, which has 64 per cent, of the deposits of the savings banks in Australia. I do not overlook the very considerable facilities that are provided, and that are being extended, by the State Savings Bank of Victoria, the Savings Bank of South Australia, the Hobart Savings Bank and the Bank for Savings in Launceston, but, because we are directly responsible for the Commonwealth Savings Bank, and because its report came to hand recently, I shall refer mostly to that bank.

There is not in regard to savings banting, as there is in regard to trading banking, the plausible argument that we need competition, so that if the manager of one bank refuses to give us an overdraft, we can go to the manager of another bank and perhaps get an overdraft from him. A savings bank is conducted purely on a deposit and withdrawal of deposit basis. The manager has no discretion. If we have a deposit, we can withdraw it or we can add to it, but we cannot overdraw. The question of competition does not intrude into savings bank business.

I have referred to the very adequate savings bank facilities already provided. It appears from the last report of the Commonwealth Savings Bank that there are 463 branches of the bank operating throughout the Commonwealth - an increase of twelve in the year covered by the report and an increase of eight in. the previous year. The number of savings bank agencies is 4,685 - an increase of 129 in the last financial year and 113 in the year before that. In addition, there are 2,762 national savings groups hanking with the Commonwealth Savings Bank - an increase of 146 in the last financial year. There are school savings banks catering for 340,000 school children - an increase of 11,000 in the last financial year. Can it be said, therefore, that in any part of Australia there are not branches or agencies of the Commonwealth Savings Bank and that they are not catering adequately - in fact, philanthropically - for a great number of activities in immigrant camps, schools, hospitals and defence establishments, for which no other bank caters and for which none of us in our wildest dreams would imagine that the Bank of New South Wales Savings Bank would care to cater?

In addition to the fact that the new bank is unnecessary, there are many positive aspects of harm that would flow from its establishment. The first is the harm to the Commonwealth Savings Bank itself. The Commonwealth Savings Bank has deposits of £700,000,000. Of that amount, all but £70,000,000 is invested. If the deposits in the Commonwealth Savings Bank were transferred to the new savings bank - it i3 conceivable that there could be about a 10 per cent, switch to the new hank - its liquid assets would disappear.

One of two possible consequences would flow. It would have either to sell some of its investments or to suspend advances until it had rebuilt its liquid assets. Then there is the danger to the economy in bypassing the special account procedure. Recent reports of the Governor of the Commonwealth Bank have made it plain that the private banks are doing their best to flout the special account procedure which the act lays down. At the end of June, 1953, 25 per cent, of the assets of the trading banks were held liquid, and at the end of June, 1954, 21 per cent., but at the end of last financial year the proportion had dropped to 18 per cent. The Governor has pointed out that not all, but many, of the trading banks, including the Bank of New South Wales, have been flouting his requests and directions in that regard. The establishment of the proposed new savings bank would enable the Bank of New South ‘Wales, and the other trading banks, to evade the . special accounts legislation. The cash deposits would be extracted from the new savings banks, transferred to the trading banks, and used to inflate the economy.

We must also consider the loss to the public revenue. The National Debt Sinking Fund receives half of the profits of the Commonwealth Savings Bank; last year the fund received £552,458. Various State governments that formerly controlled savings banks which have been amalgamated with the Commonwealth Savings Bank receive payments each year under the amalgamation agreement. In that way, they received £750,985 last year. Harm would also be done to public bodies. Municipal, county and shire councils are permitted by the Australian Loan Council to raise money at a certain interest rate and on certain terms, but the Treasurer does not guarantee to find the money. It is left to them to find the money on the public market, and traditionally the savings banks have provided much of it. Let us take New South Wales as an example. Last year, more than one-third of the money that shire, municipal and county councils were able to borrow came from the Commonwealth Savings Bank.

Lastly, harm would be done to the building societies, because £4 out of every £5 that Australian building societies receive comes from the Commonwealth Savings Bank, which at present has £75,000,000 on loan to building societies or to private individuals on the Credit Foncier system.

I am indebted to the House for allowing me to raise this matter, which is of great importance to the economy. I submit that, for the reasons I have stated, the Government should either withhold the authority which, if granted, would also have to be given to all private banks, or that it should give the authority on one of two conditions. The Bank of New South Wales savings bank and trading bank should be kept entirely separate, or the sa vings bank should make advances on the same basis and in the same proportion as the present public savings banks have clone over the 136 years of their existence.

Mr MENZIES:
Prime Minister · Kooyong · LP

– It is quite true that a few weeks ago the Bank of New South Wales made an application to carry on, through a specially incorporated body, the business of savings banking. That application was made to the Treasury. As all honorable members know, the Treasurer (Sir Arthur Fadden) has been out of the country on official business, and returned only yesterday. The secretary to the Treasury, who is the principal technical adviser to the Treasurer on these matters, will return to Australia within the next two days. The senior assistant secretary, Mr. Randall, who is the acting secretary of the Treasury, has, unfortunately, been out of action for three weeks because of illness. Therefore, this matter has not yet received the consideration to which it is entitled.

The honorable member for Werriwa (Mr. Whitlam) has put a careful and reasoned case, but there are very powerful considerations to the contrary. If I may say so, I have a preference for discussing these matters at a time when my mind is fully informed on the factors that must be taken into account. We shall be in a position to discuss the matter very soon, because the persons who are directly concerned and to whom, in the case of the Treasury, the application was made, will be in a position to confer with the Government, to advise it, and to arrive at the views that are thought to be proper. If an opportunity presents itself, the view of the Government will be presented to the House in due course. I should have thought that that would have been the time for honorable members to discuss the application, if a discussion were thought to be necessary. I do not propose to engage in a discussion on the matter when my mind lacks clarity on it. It is a subject of great importance and substantial principle, because, not only does it concern one bank, but it may concern many.

It is perfectly clear from what I have said that this debate is premature. What an absurd position it would be for the Treasurer to have to engage in a discussion on an application submitted to the Treasury when he has not had the faintest opportunity of consultation in either the technical or the political fields.

Mr JOSHUA:
Leader of the Anti-Communist Labour party · Ballarat

– Mr. Deputy Speaker-

Motion (by Sir Eric Harrison) put -

That the business of the day be called on.

The House divided. (Mr. Deputy Speaker - Mr. C. F. Adermann.)

AYES: 55

NOES: 45

Majority . . . . 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 1737

MR. E. J. WARD, M.P

Notice of motion No. 1, in the name of Dr. Evatt for the rescinding of the vote of the House, suspending the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) called on, not moved and discharged.

page 1737

QUESTION

STEEL

Mr KEON:
Yarra

.- I move-

That this House appoint a select committee to investigate the shortage of steel in Australia, with particular reference to the export of urgently needed steel products, the failure of the steel industry to meet current requirements and plan adequate expansion of the industry to meet further requirements, the effect of the monopoly held by the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited of all known high grade iron-ore resources and the establishment of further steel production plants in Australia.

I have spoken of this matter in this House on a number of occasions, and apparently it is considered by many honorable members to be something of a joke. In fact, it is a matter of first-class national importance. Surely it must be obvious that the whole base of our economy, the whole base of any industrial economy, and the base of our defence, is steel production. The measure by which we can develop this country in the future will be determined almost entirely by the extent to which we develop our steel production facilities. I hope that the members of this Parliament who represent electorates in South Australia will participate in the debate and support the motion, because, as they know, the South Australian Government, and the South Australian Director of Mines, Mr. Dickinson, in particular, have been campaigning very vigorously for years for the establishment of further steel production plant in South Australia, outside the present monopoly control exercised by the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited and other companies. Mr. Dickinson’s efforts, however, unfortunately have received very little support in the quarters in which they should have received support. I am not concerned with whether the expansion of the steel industry takes place in South Australia, or in New South Wales, or in some other part of Australia; but I am concerned that this Government should take steps to see that the establishment of more steel production plants is immediately put in hand.

I do not desire to waste the time of the House by pointing out our deficiencies in steel production. I have directed a number of questions to the Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner) during the present session, and he has given me various estimates of our steel requirements, both present and future. From that information it is quite obvious that, even when the present plans of the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited for expansion have been implemented, we shall still be many hundreds of thousands of tons short of our steel requirements, and will have to continue to import steel at almost double the price at which it can be produced in Australia. May I, by way of digression, point to one very peculiar feature of the present steel situation - one which has some bearing on the question of the establishment of steel plants, but nevertheless is a problem in its own right. I refer to the amazing fact that we are importing steel at a very high price at the same time as we export to other countries our own steel, which we need here. On the 30th August, 1955, I received answers to n series of questions that I had directed to the Minister for Trade and Customs regarding the imports and exports of steel. The Minister furnished me with a list which showed the various items of iron and steel that we import, as well as those that we export. I was amazed to discover from that list that we are importing the following items: - Scrap; powder; ferro-alloys ,(not processed beyond ingot stage) ; ingots, blooms, slabs, billets, &c. ; bar and rod ; angles and tees ; hoop; strip, band or ribbon; plate and sheet - plain, corrugated (not galvanized), tinned (including terne plate), galvanized (flat and corrugated), plated, polished or decorated ; pipes, tubes and fittings therefor; structural iron and steel (girders, beams, joists, &c.) ; railway and tramway track material; castings and forgings; and wire.

The list also showed that we are exporting quantities of almost every one of those items, as well as importing them. For the life of me I cannot see any sense, or any rhyme or reason, in a country, which can produce steel at the cheapest price in the world, exporting some of that steel at the same time as it is importing the same commodity at prices practically double the price at which it can be produced locally. On the one hand we are importing steel and thereby causing a drain on our dollar resources and our overseas resources generally ; on the other hand we are exporting steel that we need here. I have sought in many quarters explanations of this strange anomaly, but the only answer that I can find is that the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited insists on the export of this steel in order to preserve its overseas markets. Why does the company want overseas markets? We can use here every single ounce of steel that it can produce, and even if it expands its plant - even if it were to double its plant - I think it would be correct to say, having in mind the future development of this country, that even then we could continue to use every ounce of steel the company would be likely to produce. Therefore, the argument that the company exports this vitally needed steel in order to protect its export markets is so much nonsense. The company does not need to protect its export markets, because it can sell every ounce of steel it now produces, and will be able to sell every ounce of steel it will produce when it has expanded its plant. As far as we can see, that will continue to be the position in our lifetime. There is no necessity for the company to worry about export markets of any kind. If the countries to which we are exporting steel require it, why should not they have to import from elsewhere steel which we are importing at a high price? Why should we provide them with cheap steel and make up the leeway in our requirements by importing steel at a high price? If New Zealand, to which we export a fair quantity of steel, wishes to import steel, why should it not have to import steel from Japan, Britain, and elsewhere, and pay the high prices that we are now paying for steel from those sources? Why should we provide New Zealand with cheap steel, which we require here, while we are importing steel from Japan, Britain, and elsewhere at a high price? I put it to the Minister for Supply that, having in mind the statements that were made recently by the Prime Minister on the urgent necessity for conserving our overseas balances, the people of Australia are entitled to a statement from the Government on its attitude to the export of steel. Everything that we are exporting is in urgent need in Australia. It is a most extraordinary set of circumstances that we export cheap steel and import dear steel. As far as quality is concerned, there is not much difference.

Mr Jeff Bate:

– Are there not different types of steel?

Mr KEON:

– Yes, but I have a schedule from the Minister showing that for every type of steel that we import, we export certain quantities of the same type. It is crazy. It is only done at the insistence of the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited. However, I shall leave that matter, hoping that the Minister can provide the House with an explanation of the extraordinary set of circumstances which exist in relation to the import and export of steel.

I shall turn now to the necessity for the establishment of additional steel plant in this country. I am only interested in dealing with the necessity for the expansion of steel production. I am not interested in the subject of nationalization. I am not interested in arguing whether the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited is efficient or inefficient. But I am interested in impressing upon the Government the necessity to take action to put in hand, now, plans for the extension of the steel industry. Of course, that cannot be done unless the Government is prepared to act in co-operation with the State governments. I am sure that the Government would receive the utmost co-operation from the South Australian Government to end the present monopoly of high-grade ore resources which is enjoyed by the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited. The position with which we are faced is quite simple. The first fact, which no one can controvert, is that we are short of a vital basic material - steel. Members of the Australian Country party, in particular, are aware of the effect of the shortage, of steel on primary industry. That shortage is having a similar effect on all industries. The second fact, which cannot be controverted, is that even when all the plans of the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited for expansion are completed and the company’s plant is producing at full capacity, the output of steel will be up to a million tons short of our annual requirements.

Mr Beale:

– No.

Mr KEON:

– I base that statement on the figures which have been given to me by the Minister for National Development. Mr. Dickinson, the Director of Mines and the Government Geologist in South Australia, and I suppose one of the most knowledgeable men in the steel industry in Australia, made the following statement in a speech to the Constitutional Club in Melbourne: -

In 1950 a comprehensive review of the iron and steel industry was undertaken by the Commonwealth Ministry of National Development and an estimate of a demand amounting to 2.83 million ingot tone was arrived at after most detailed investigation. This demand was equivalent to a per capita, requirement of 750 lb.

In other words, 750 lb. of steel are rerequired per head of the Australian population. Mr. Dickinson continued -

This figure represents a realistic and authoritative estimate of what was clearly a. peak requirement of steel works products at that time. Again, it did not include the steel in manufactured imported goods.

He went on to say -

The total capacity of the Australian steel industry was then 1.9 million ingot tons or nearly 1 million short of the estimated demand.

That was in 1950.

Mr Beale:

– Our production has greatly increased since then.

Mr KEON:

– So has our demand.

Mr Beale:

– The figures do not support the honorable member.

Mr KEON:

– Our demand for steel and steel products has increased almost to the same extent as the productive capacity of the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited has increased. But whether that is so or not, I will give to the Minister the replies that were given to me in this House a few weeks ago when I asked what was the estimated increase in consumption of steel for the next five years. In reply, the Minister for Supply said -

Assuming a continuation of present economic conditions, consumption could reach 2,500,000 tons by I960.

That is a much lower estimate than that which was given by the Department of National Development in 1950, but let us assume it to be correct. I then asked what was the annual production of steel, including steel products. The answer was -

Local production of steel products in 1955 is expected to be approximately 1,700,000 tons.

In other words, the production would be 1,700,000 tons as against an anticipated demand of 2,500,000 tons.

Mr Beale:

– No. That is the figure for 1960. The honorable member has two separate sets of figures.

Mr KEON:

– I ask the Minister to wait until I have read all the questions and the answers to them. My next question was -

What will be the production of steel, including steel products, when all current plans for the expansion of the steel industry are completed.

The answer was -

Steel production capacity will be about 2,100,000 tons per annum when current plans for expansion are completed.

That left a deficit of approximately 400,000 tons in 1960, on the figures of the Department of National Development.

Mr Beale:

– I do not think that the answer was intended to mean that. I do not think that construction should be placed upon it.

Mr KEON:

– All I can say is that the answer I got from the Minister for National Development was that the anticipated demand for steel and steel products in 1960 would be 2,500.000 tons. In saying that, I do not think that he could mean anything else but that the demand for steel and steel products in 1960 would be 2,500,000 tons. It cannot mean anything else. I then asked what our steel production capacity would be at that time, when all current plans would have been completed. The answer was, 2,100,000 tons. That is not capable of any other interpretation than that the output of steel will be 400,000 tons short of requirements when all the present plans have been carried out. That is the position that the Government has to face. It is the position which the Australian people have to face. But it cannot be faced until this Government is prepared to do something in conjunction with the State governments. The main State concerned is South Australia and the Government of that State is prepared to cooperate in relation to this monopoly and the high-grade ore resources that are held by the Broken Hill Proprietary Com pany Limited.

Mr Thompson:

– - If the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited were to extend to Whyalla, it would be all right with the South Australian Government. That is all that it wants.

Mr KEON:

– I am disappointed to hear that statement, because I believe that what we need is competition. This company has a monopoly of a basic commodity which is essential to the development of the nation, and it is holding back the production of that commodity. This is a matter in which the Government’s own policy in relation to monopolies should be invoked. That policy, as announced by the Prime Minister, but never given effect, is that, where the Government finds that a monopoly is adversely affecting the development of the country, action would be taken to end that monopoly. The Government has never attempted to do that, but perhaps the Minister for Supply will give us a surprise by saying that the Government intends to do something about this monopoly. I have emphasized that we are short of steel and that, even when all projected plans are completed, we shall still be importing at a very high price a basic material that could be produced in Australia. I hope that the Government will fake this matter out of the hands of the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited, and will take steps to establish a new steel plant.

Whenever one talks about this subject one is greeted by a shocked silence on the part of supporters of the Government. That any one should criticize the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited is apparently regarded as outrageous. An article in the Sydney Morning Herald of 30 th August is typical of the attitude that is being adopted. In discussing the provision of new steel plants it speaks of the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited almost with reverence, as if it was unthinkable to criticize that organization. One can see Mr. Pringle wringing his hands in despair at the prospect. Any one would think that the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited was the pillar of perfection, the golden calf before which all should bow down and worship. The Sydney Morning Herald’s attitude is akin to the amazing attitude that has been adopted by the Government. The Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited is apparently a very efficient and profitable industrial enterprise. Let us leave it there and not argue about that beyond saying that its plans for steel production will not meet our requirements in the future. But let us do something about it and establish another steel industry. That cannot, of course, happen at present because the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited has all Australia’s high-grade iron ore resources by the throat. Under State legislation every known high-grade iron ore deposit in this country is set aside for the use of the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited, the steel monopoly. Obviously, we cannot persuade other people to come here and establish a steel industry when all the raw materials are in the hands of a monopoly.

If the Government is sincere in its expressed desire to improve the steel position it should take some action. A number of courses are open to it. It could act in conjunction with South Australia. It could, as I suggested the other day, make an arrangement with the French Government regarding the iron ore deposits at New Caledonia. The last time that I raised this matter a representative of the steel industry in this House told me that I was speaking so much nonsense, and that iron ore from New Caledonia could not be used. I admit my limited technical knowledge of this subject but recently I read, in what should be an authoritative American magazine, an article indicating that a process had been developed by which iron ore with a high nickel content could be treated in certain types of furnaces. I am suggesting, not that ore from New Caledonia should be used in the existing furnaces, but that a new steel plant, capable of using that ore, should be constructed. No one can deny that such ore can be used in suitable furnaces. That is one easy way in which the Government could take action. A French combination of various heavy industries, whose name eludes me for the moment, has recently established steel plants throughout the world. In five months it established a complete plant in Brazil and another in a second South American country. According to literature issued by the group it is prepared to come to Australia and establish a similar steel plant here. If the Minister could only get up out of his chair and get on with the job another steel industry could be operating in Australia within twelve months.

Mr Daly:

– That is asking a lot of the present Minister.

Mr KEON:

– I agree with the honorable member for Grayndler (Mr. Daly) that it is expecting a good deal of the Minister, but if he wished to leave a. monument

Mr Drummond:

– Perhaps it should be of steel.

Mr KEON:

– It could well be a new steel production plant. However, because I feel that this Government’s attitude is the same as that of the Sydney Morning Herald, and that we are not likely to get any action from it, I suggest that a committee of this House should be formed to inquire into the subject. It should comprise honorable members from States that are interested in this question. I have in mind, especially, honorable members from South Australia and from the coal-mining districts of New South Wales. They are vitally interested in the development of steel production because it could provide the answer to their immediate problem of lack of demand for coal. The House should appoint a non-party committee to examine the matters that I have referred to in my proposal. First, the committee should investigate the shortage of steel, with particular reference to the exportation of steel .products urgently needed in Australia. Some answer must be given by the Government to the continuance of this crazy state of affairs, under which we export our own steel and import other steel at a much higher price. I hope that the Minister will be able to provide that answer when he speaks in a few moments.

Secondly, the committee should investigate the failure of the steel industry to meet current requirements or to plan for adequate expansion. We are entitled to say to the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited, “ You have a monopoly. Even if we are not going to break your monopoly you must accept the responsibilities that go with monopoly power “. Of course, one would wish that the Government would remove the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited’s monopoly power, but as it is not likely to do that, surely we ought to be able to say to this organization, “As the price of your monopoly you must expand your productive capacity to meet the needs of Australian industry “. The present state of affairs is costing Australia millions of pounds each year and is greatly hindering our development and the fulfilment of our plans for the future welfare of Australia. A thousand and one projects throughout Australia. - bridges, dams and so on - are being delayed because of the shortage of steel. There is no State where urgent public works are not being delayed for this reason. All that the Government does, when one points out these things, is to fall to its knees and say, “ Thank heavens we have the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited”. Apparently it is not good enough for urgent developmental works to be held up because the steel monopoly is unable to meet our requirements. If it cannot do this, it must go. That is not socialism, but straight-out common sense of the kind that any Australian would support.

I put it to the Government that its first action should be the establishment of the committee that I have suggested. The duty of the committee should be to investigate the failure of the industry to meet current requirements and plan for adequate expansion. In doing this the committee would, of course, have to investigate the effect of the monopoly on the establishment of other steel production plants. I do not wish to labour the subject, but it is disheartening to talk about this urgent matter month after month, and year after year, and find it treated as a joke. It is, I suppose, one of the most urgent developmental problems with which we are faced, but people cannot be bothered taking an interest in it. The only reply that one gets is that the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited produces steel more cheaply than it can be produced anywhere else in the world. It makes one almost desperate about the matter, and I hope that honorable members will receive better treatment from the Minister in relation to it to-day.

It is not a problem that is incapable of solution. All Australia’s development depends, in the final analysis, on the production of steel. That is equally true of housing, machinery, primary production or anything else. The Minister must agree that, so far as defence is concerned, a country without steel production capacity cannot produce modern implements of war. The whole of Australia’s development and defence is bound up with the expansion of our steel production capacity, and the governments of Australia have a responsibility to say to those who are enjoying an absolute monopoly in this field, “If you are to continue to enjoy that monopoly you will have to expand your productive capacity to meet national requirements “. They should make no bones about it. Is our national development to be held up simply because the directors of Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited say, “ “We are not going to risk another couple of million. Steel demand may fall in the next few years “. Is our national development to be circumscribed simply because of the will of a group of directors who, no matter how estimable they may be, are simply private industrialists producing a product that they hope to sell at a profit? That must not happen, especially at the present time, when the Government is howling about the need to preserve overseas balances, and is plunging the country into an economic crisis because of the demands that imports are making upon those balances. It has a special responsibility to do something about the matter. If we really got on with the job and really tried, I suppose that within twelve months we could have another steel production plant working in this country, and thus saving Australia millions of pounds. We might not be able to do it immediately, because it would take some time to establish the steel plants. Of course, the present Government would probably take twelve years, but I am suggesting that it could be clone in twelve months by a govern ment that was determined to do it. We are spending millions of pounds that we cannot afford every year for imports. Looking at the list of imports and exports for the year ended the 30th June, 1.955, I find that we imported £9,4S3,234 worth of plain plate and sheet steel, all of which could be produced in Australia. We imported £14,346,563 worth of corrugated and tinned plate and sheet. The total amount spent on steel imports was about £50.000,000. It is a scandal that with the iron ore resources we have, and with our ability to produce steel already proven by the operations of the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited and its staff and its experts, we are spending that vast sum of money on imported steel. It is a . national scandal, and I hope that this Government will do something about it.

The motion proposes the appointment of a committee which should be representative of all sides of the House, because it is a matter in which members on all sides of the House representing all walks of life are vitally interested. I hope the House will carry the motion. We cannot leave the future development and welfare of Australia to the will of the directors of the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited because of their control over the steel producing capacity of Australia. The Minister for Supply (Mr. Beale) must agree that projects in his department are to-day being held up because of shortages of steel, and he must also agree that unless we break that bottleneck, which is caused largely by the monopoly control by the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited of all the high-grade iron ore sources in Australia, our future development will be cramped and our defence capacity will be gravely affected. I submit that the Government has a responsibility to the people of Australia to do something about the matter, and I hope that the Government proposes to support the motion.

Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER:
Mr. Bowden

– Is the motion seconded?

Mr Joshua:

– I second the motion.

Mr BEALE:
Minister for Supply · Parramatta · LP

– The Government welcomes the raising of this matter by the honorable member for Yarra (Mr. Keon). It has been mentioned in this House on several occasions in a sporadic and piecemeal way, and this occasion gives the Government the opportunity to put the whole story of steel production and steel requirements in Australia, and of what is being done and will be done, into a complete and compendious statement.

I do not know how the honorable member for Yarra got the idea that this matter is being treated as a joke. He may have been referring to some of the gentlemen on the opposite side who are members of the party to which he lately belonged, and who guffawed or laughed when he was speaking. I assure him that nobody on the Government side treats the matter of steel and steel production as a joke, and I hope that what I have to say hereafter will indicate not only that we have done well but also that we have encouraged the companies concerned to do well, and that as a government we have been concerned with ensuring that there is an ample supply of this vital strategic metal for the needs of Australian industry.

The third matter to which I shall refer, before I reach the main argument, is the position of the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited. Neither I nor any member of the Government is here to cast bouquets at or to defend or apologize for that company or any corporation of that kind. The facts which I shall narrate will themselves prove or disprove that the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited is a worthy Australian institution.

Mr Keon:

– That is not the argument.

Mr BEALE:

– The honorable member for Yarra did make slighting remarks concerning that company as he went along, and although the Government is not here to defend the company, which does not need to be defended because its record will speak for or against it as the case may be, I am bound to offer the personal opinion, arrived at after a long association with the company, that it is a great Australian enterprise. It is one of the very great institutions of this country, to which we owed an enormous amount in World Wai1 II. It is led by able and patriotic men like, for instance, Mr. Essington Lewis, upon whom both this Government and the Labour Government itself leant very heavily in time of war, and to whom I believe Labour leaders as well as Liberal leaders were deeply grateful for the work that he did. That is all I wish to say on that point. I think that this matter is best debated on the facts, without our remarks being coloured or slanted by any emotional propaganda about “ corporations “, “ monopolies “ and things of that kind.

On the main argument, the honorable member for Yarra puts a fair case on the need to increase steel supplies. I do not quarrel with his general propositions. The first thing to be said in answer to his argument is that, of course, the Australian Parliament has control over neither the production nor the distribution of steel. That is not backing away from the problem, because I shall show how little we have backed away from it in my following remarks. But with regard to this idea that the Australian Government must do something, does the honorable gentleman really want the Government to go into the business of building a steel industry, having regard to the experience we have had in the past? If it is a matter of encouraging others to increase production, I am with him, but does he really want us to set up a socialized steel indus-“ try? I thought that governments in Australia had burnt their fingers enough on that sort of proposition in the past. State and Federal governments know perfectly well that if we try to increase the production of steel in that way we shall waste an awful lot of the taxpayers’ money, because governments are not, of their nature, capable of building up great institutions of that kind.

Mr Keon:

– Having in mind the experience of the Bell Bay project, we might agree with the Minister.

Mr BEALE:

– The honorable member has mentioned Bell Bay, which is the classic example. We have actually rescued the Bell Bay project and turned it into an efficient institution. But the ideas with which that undertaking was commenced were classic socialist ideas, and it was those ideas that largely led to the troubles through which we passed.

Mr KEON:

– Does the Minister think that the Bell Bay plant will be a success in the future?

Mr BEALE:

– Yes, due to the action of this Government.

Mr Keon:

– Then why not do likewise with the steel industry?

Mr BEALE:

– I do not think that, even if the Australian Government has the power, governments should try to embark upon the establishment of a new steel industry. We are fairly well aware, as a government, of the facts of this matter. We have frequent discussions with leaders of the steel industry about the level of production, about the kind of items that should be produced, about the shortages, and the areas and compartments in which there are shortages ; and the steel industry, from my own personal experience, is as co-operative and helpful as it can possibly be. I say, therefore, that a select committee, the appointment of which was the first proposition of the honorable member, would not be able to obtain any information which is not already available to the Government. It would serve no useful purpose at all.

The next point mentioned by the honorable gentleman is the matter, often raised and much debated, of exports. There is great misunderstanding on this point. Our export policy as a government - and do not blame the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited for it because this is a matter in which the Australian Government acquiesces, I might say - is that except for items in surplus production exports are confined to two markets. One of them is New Zealand. I shall deal with the limit of that market in a moment. The other is the Australian external territories. Nobody will deny that they are really part of Australia, and, therefore the question of export does not really arise.

Mr Wentworth:

– They are looked on in the same way.

Mr BEALE:

– Of course, they are! Papua is, in law and in fact, part of Australia, and the Territory of New Guinea is, in fact, part of Australia.

As to New Zealand and certain islands in the Pacific, they have traditionally relied on Australia as a supplier of some of their requirements for very many years. New Zealand has bought steel from Australia ever since production commenced in this country somewhere about 1915. But exports to New Zealand represent a most trifling proportion of Australia’s production. As an illustration of how the honorable member for Yarra has really been beating the air in trying to pretend that this is a critical proportion of our exports, I point out that our exports to New Zealand this year represent somewhat less than 4 per cent, of our production.

Mr Keon:

– But it represents millions of pounds.

Mr BEALE:

– The honorable member can say it represents millions of pounds, but it is less than 4 per cent, of our total production. Ever since 1914 or 1915, we have traditionally supplied New Zealand with part of its requirements. New Zealand is a fellow dominion, and there are many reasons why we should continue to help it at least to that extent. This is not a wicked conspiracy by the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited in an attempt to retain that market. It is partly a matter of comity between governments, and a desire to help. If the matter came to me for decision, I should hesitate very much before taking a step which would cut New Zealand off from this quite microscopic part of our production.

Mr Keon:

– I believe that 4 per cent, is not microscopic.

Mr BEALE:

– We have to live and to look to the future, and that is what we are doing. I think that when the honorable member for Yarra reflects upon it, he will realize that that is probably the weakest and least successful of the arguments he has put up. It has to be remembered that New Zealand is also a very valuable market for other Australian products. There has to be give-and-take in these matters. We cannot live in a vacuum, and say that we shall have the trade exactly as we want it. There must be some degree of balance and friendly understanding. Who will say that a country like New Zealand, especially as its supply of these products is such a small proportion-

Mr Whitlam:

– They should be in the Commonwealth.

Mr BEALE:

– I am not sure that I disagree with the honorable member for Werriwa (Mr. Whitlam). I have never yet met a New Zealander who would agree with that proposition! However, we are trying, by understanding, friendship, and give-and-take, to make that the effect of our arrangement.

I remind honorable members that it should not be overlooked that the production of some steel products in this country has increased very greatly. In fact, some items of steel are in surplus at the moment. How many hundreds of millions of pounds are sunk in the steel industry, I do not know, but it is not possible to run such a great industry as that and have the precise and correct proportions of extrusions, angle iron, bars or any of the other multitudinous items of production running through at the precise rate required to meet the precise demand at a precise moment. That is not possible. There must be shortages at one time and surpluses at another. I know that quite ‘ a number of items of steel are in surplus at the moment.

Mr Keon:

– What about steel posts?

Mr BEALE:

– These items include most specifications of steel plates, nails, wire, gas and water piping. Next year, we hope there will be some surplus production of steel sheets, including gal vanized iron, of which New Zealand will take quite a substantial proportion.

Mr Thompson:

– Did the Minister say a. surplus of galvanized iron?

Mr BEALE:

– I said that we hope there will be a surplus production of steel sheets, including galvanized iron, next year. But that is next year, and I. should say that it would not be right to take the line that New Zealand should have only our surplus production and nothing else.

Passing on from that matter, I want to deal with the point which is really the essence of the honorable member’s motion. I refer to the alleged failure of the steel industry to meet urgent requirements and to plan adequate expansion to meet future requirements. Everybody knows that the local production of many steel products is not sufficient to meet our demands. We have suffered that from time to time, but it is not true that the industry’s plans for expansion are inadequate. In a moment, I hope to quote some figures which will show how dramatic and enormous those plans are.

Mr Keon:

– The Minister had better see the Minister for National Development, and get his story lined up with that of the honorable senator.

Mr BEALE:

– The honorable member for Yarra makes his interjections bitterly because his arguments are being knocked over one by one. I have sufficient faith in the honorable member’s sweet reasonableness to hope that the feast of reason and a flow of soul which I am trying to pour on him now will at least partly convert him from the view he formerly held.

The installation of steel-making plant and equipment, as everybody knows, is an enormously costly business. It is not just done on twopence-half penny ; these people put hundreds of millions of pounds into the work, and it takes a long time to bring the project to fruition. I think the strip mill which the Prime Minister opened at Port Kembla a few days ago was planned in 1945 or 1946. That should give honorable members some idea of the magnitude of the task, particularly in times of shortage of materials, when the economy of the country is so heavily strained, as it has been in Australia ever since the war. These are the physical, not financial problems, which not only governments but also private industry face in trying to deal with these matters.

Mr Keon:

– The French could build one in twelve months.

Mr BEALE:

– The work has been restricted, not by a lack of finance, but by a lack of physical resources in Australia. Nevertheless, there has been a marked expansion of the industry during the post-war period and, as I shall itemize in a moment, a great deal more is planned for the future.

Here are some figures that honorable members ought to have. Since 1949, the steel industry has spent more than £50,000,000 on plant and equipment. That is pretty big money in anybody’s language. I repeat that more than £50,000,000 has been spent on plant and equipment by this company which the honorable member for Yarra has been accusing of being niggardly and of neglecting its responsibility as a supplier of steel. A significant feature of that expenditure was an increase of 28 per cent, in ingot steel making capacity alone. That is not the only thing. They have increased by more than one-quarter the ingot steel making capacity of their plants. In addition to that, we know, because we have read about it, of the opening of new mills which has meant a big increase in mill rolling capacity. Let me itemize what has been done, because this cannot be known unless the story is told in detail.

To achieve these results, the industry, since the war, has completed the following big projects, as well as a number of minor ones: - At Cockatoo Island in Western Australia - that is the Yampi Sound iron ore deposits project - the industry has installed modern mining and bulk handling facilities for iron ore at a cost of more than £1,000,000. I invite the honorable member for Yarra to go to Cockatoo Island, and have a look at the place.

Mr Keon:

– What about enabling honorable members to go there?

Mr BEALE:

– The honorable member ought to go. I happen to have had the good fortune to go there. Any one who is honest with himself cannot fail to be very deeply impressed with the enormous developments that have taken place and are still in progress. The Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited has put £1,000,000 into that place since the war. In South Australia, there has been an expansion of iron ore operations in the Middleback Ranges, and the construction of iron ore carriers at the Whyalla shipbuilding yards. The Iron Knob deposits near Whyalla, in South Australia, are rapidly running out, as every one knows, and the company has been pouring money into other developments, including Yampi Sound, in Western Australia, and the Middleback Ranges, also near Whyalla in South Australia. Let it not be said that the company has not had the vision and foresight to go ahead. Its very existence depends on its developing iron ore deposits if it can do so, and it has been very active in developing them. At Port Kembla, in New South Wales, the company has spent more than £7,000,000 on coal mines adjacent to the Port Kembla steelworks. The honorable member for Yarra should go and see those mines.

Mr Keon:

– I have seen them.

Mr BEALE:

– I am sure the company would be glad to take him through the highly mechanized underground mines. I am aware that some honorable members opposite would hope that something might fall on him while he was in the mine, but I do not hope for that. I hope he would have a very interesting day and would return to this House full of pride in the great national developments that are taking place. The industry has reconstructed the blast furnaces at Port Kembla and increased their capacity from 1,000 tons a day to 1,200 tons a day. Also at Port Kembla, it has constructed new blast furnaces with a capacity of 1,500 tons a day, and two openhearth furnaces, which have increased ingot capacity by 350,000 tons a year.

Mr Keon:

– Our requirements are still not being satisfied.

Mr BEALE:

– The honorable member should not interrupt so much. He knows that these facts nullify his argument.

Mr Keon:

– Steel is still in short supply.

Mr BEALE:

– The developments that I have mentioned are facts. At Port Kembla, the company has erected a battery of by-product coke ovens, a new development, at a cost of hundreds of thousands of pounds. A plate and hotstrip mill with an annual capacity of more than 1,000,000 tons is well on the way to completion. Additional materials handling equipment has been installed, and an 80-in. reversing mill for the production of about 100,000 tons of bright steel sheets a year is in operation. [Extension of time granted.] I thank the House for its indulgence. The company has installed a continuous cold reduction mill with a capacity of almost 600,000 tons of steel sheets per annum. At Newcastle, it has reconditioned three blast furnaces and modernized the rolling mills. At Geelong, in Victoria, it has installed a wire drawing mill with an annual capacity of 125,000 tons of heavy gauge wire. At Kwinana, in Western Australia, the company has constructed a steel fencepost mill with a capacity of 1,500,000 steel fence posts a year.

Some idea of the effects of the expansion of the steel industry may be gained from the following figures of steel imports. In 1938-39, we imported 154,000 tons of steel. By 1950-51, imports had increased to 926,000 tons a year. Although demand has been increasing yearly, imports have progressively declined since 1950-51. In 1951-52, they totalled 889,000 tons, in 1952-53, 342,000 tons, and in 1953-54, 241,000 tons. Those figures illustrate the remarkable things that the company has been doing to overtake the shortage of steel. In 1950-51, imports represented nearly 50 per cent. of our total steel requirements. It is estimated that in 1954-55 they represented about 25 per cent. of our total requirements. After the cessation of hostilities there was plenty of competition, as we all know, in a thousand ways, for labour, coal and other materials. The steel industry, like every other industry, had its difficulties. The shortage of materials was the greatest bottle-neck in this industry as in many others. Of course, during the war, industry was too busy on defence work to undertake the great expansion that it has since undertaken and would steadily have been pursued had the war not intervened.

I have just told the House that the steel industry spent more than £50,000,000 up to the present time since the war, and I enumerated the ways in which that money had been spent. I now tell the House that the companies have recently announced that, in the next five years, they expect to spend another £67,000,000 on the expansion of the industry. In this connexion, they have the following projects in hand. At Kwinana, a merchant steel mill with an annual capacity of 50,000 tons is under construction. At Newcastle, preliminary work is proceeding for the construction of a new skelp mill at a cost of between £4,000,000 and £5,000,000. At Port Kembla, there are under construction two open-hearth furnaces, which will increase ingot steel production by 350,000 tons a year. The total installed ingot steel capacity at Port Kembla will then be 1,600,000 tons. It is planned to complete these furnaces by the end of 1956. A primary rolling mill to roll ingots for the new hot-strip mill will be installed at a cost of between £8,000,000 and £9,000,000, and it is planned to begin production of hot-dip tinplate by 1958. This is a consummation of achievement devoutly to be wished for. It is something for which we all have yearned for years. The plant will be in production by 1958 and will produce tinplate at the rate of 70,000 tons a year. At Whyalla, additional ore carriers are being built.

From the foregoing, it will be seen that the forward planning of the steel companies provides for large-scale development of the industry. If no unforeseen contingencies occur and the industry is able to proceed with its plans, it is expected that, in the year 1960-61, the production of steel products will he approximately equal to the demand. This is a very good achievement. It does not mean that to-day we have all the steel we want. But we also want more of many other things that we do not have in this country. There has been a war and acute shortages of materials and labour. Australia is bursting at the seams in many different places with great national development works, and that situation creates strain. Having regard to the facts that I have stated, I am sure the House and the honorable member for Yarra will agree that very great and meritorious work has been done by the steel industry in Australia in meeting the demands upon it and in providing for the future.

I turn now to the talk about a monopoly. It is a blessed word like Mesopotamia; it is designed to evoke emotional and irrational responses. The attitude of the steel industry in Australia is that if some one wants to start another steel enterprise he may have God’s blessing and go ahead. It has been said that enough iron ore is not available. There are not unlimited deposits of iron ore in Australia.

Mr Whitlam:

– The Minister is much better on radio-active ores.

Mr BEALE:

– The honorable member for Werriwa may be right. Australia is not a country very rich in iron ore deposits. We read statements to the contrary in some books or we hear some one spouting from a platform about our great natural iron ore reserves, but the fact is that there are not unlimited deposits of iron ore. Any one who wishes to start a steel enterprise must first be able to obtain supplies of that raw material. One should not blame the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited for having made sure of continuity of supplies of iron ore in an industry into which it has put hundreds of millions of pounds. It has obtained from State governments of all political colours leases of deposits at Whyalla, the Middleback Ranges and Yampi Sound. The iron ore deposits at Yampi Sound are those, by the way, which a Labour government desired to lease to Japan in the ‘thirties, which course was prevented by the Attorney-General of Australia at the time, Robert Gordon Menzies. Let us not forget that.

Mr Daly:

– That is not right.

Mr BEALE:

– That is dead right. It is right on the line. Any one who wishes to start a steel industry must not only have enough iron ore but it must also be able to find perhaps £100,000,000 or so for the venture. Those are the physical and financial difficulties which have to be faced.

Mr Keon:

– After all the Minister has said, we are still short of steel and he has not done anything about it.

Mr BEALE:

– Of course we are short of steel. That was not the honorable member’s thesis. His thesis was that we are short of steel because of the machinations of the monopolistic Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited. I have blown that argument to pieces and shown that far from that being the case, the company has done a noble national work in extending the industry and has poured in millions of pounds and will continue to do so. To that end it will have, as it has had at all times, the very active cooperation and encouragement of this Government.

There is one other matter. It has been said that because the company has a near-monopoly - it has not a complete monopoly - the interests of Australia have in some way been detrimentally affected. Let us not forget that the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited still produces if not the cheapest steel, very nearly the cheapest steel in the world.

Mr Keon:

– Because of the price at w hich it obtains iron ore.

Mr BEALE:

– That does not indicate that the company is working detrimentally to the interests of Australia. In fact, it has operated in such a way as to keep down steel prices. We shall do what we can within our sphere, which is very limited, to encourage anybody to come into the steel industry, but he will have to spend a lot of money. That is a matter which naturally causes many persons to hesitate, although there is a shortage of steel and a demand here for it. The position is simply that others have not come in because too much money is involved. The honorable member says that it is because the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited has iron ore deposits tied up.

Mr Keon:

– That is right.

Mr BEALE:

– What about the famous New Hebrides iron ore which he has mentioned? Why don’t newcomers use that?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr C F Adermann:

– Order! The Minister’s extended time has expired.

Mr JOSHUA:
Leader of the Anti-Communist Labour Party · Ballarat

– The motion moved by the honorable member for Yarra (Mr. Keon) is a very timely one. He made out a perfect case for a complete inquiry now into this subject. Most of the time of the Minister for Supply (Mr. Beale) has been taken up with a eulogy of the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited, and in the few minutes which are allowed to me I say first that we do not deplore whatever efforts have been made honestly by that company. However, we say that its steady and responsible approach to the steel problem has been too steady, too quiet, and not compatible with the great expansion which is taking place in Australia at the present time. This is evident from the figures for imports and exports. For example, last year we exported steel to the value of £6,500,000, which shows that there is an overseas market for our steel. However, not only did we fail to meet our own demand but we also imported steel to the value of £50,000,000.

Mr Keon:

– The Minister described that as microscopic.

Mr JOSHUA:

– That is the present situation, but we must consider also our motor industry. General Motors-Holden’s Limited proposes to build a factory in Victoria at a cost of £20,000,000. “What will be this company’s additional requirements of steel in the future? There is no doubt that our present imports of steel are slight in comparison with the amount we should need if this quantity were not supplemented by huge imports of motor cars, which are manufactured mainly of steel. We hope that the motor vehicles we need will be manufactured in Australia, so rendering unnecessary imports of manufactured vehicles. A complete overhaul of the steel industry is more than necessary, especially as there is excess production in our coal industry.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! As it is now two hours after the time fixed for the meeting of the House, the debate on the motion is interrupted. The honorable member for Ballarat will have leave to continue his speech when, the debate is resumed. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day under general business for the next day of sitting.

page 1749

CIVIL DEFENCE COUNCIL BILL 1955

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 2nd June (vide page 1371), on motion by Mr. Wentworth -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Dr EVATT:
Leader of the Opposition · Barton

, - This matter came before the House some time ago. I had commenced my observations, and I do not wish to add very much to-day. I think that it would perhaps refresh the memory of the honorable members if I referred to the fact that the honorable member for Mackellar (Mr. Wentworth), who presented the bill, suggested quite correctly that the advent not only of the atomic bomb but especially of the hydrogen bomb made it necessary to have a complete overhaul of the whole defence organization and arrangements in Australia. I think that that is a sound proposition. It does not necessarily result in the conclusions which the honorable member for Mackellar advocated earlier in this House when he favoured the device of ending this competition in atomic warfare by starting a preventive war. I think that he has probably modified those views since then, and I shall say nothing further about them. The bill simply proposes the establishment of a council including, I think, six representatives of the Commonwealth and twelve of the States. The Commonwealth representatives are to be mostly appointed by the Minister for Defence, and the State representatives by the respective State governments. This council, comprising approximately eighteen members, would have statutory powers to call evidence but it would simply advise the government of the day. In my observations I have suggested that all that the honorable member seeks to do can be achieved by establishing a committee of the House to confer with the Department of Defence. I fear that such an organization as that proposed by the honorable member, being a statutory body with independent power to call evidence, would take away from the Government the powers and responsibilities which it should be exercising. If the

Government were serious about civil defence, one could give more attention to the bill, but it is not serious. In a huge vote of £180,000,000 or £190,000,000, the amount voted for civil defence, I think, is about £200,000 or £300,000.

Mr Calwell:

– Chicken feed !

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

– Why does the -right honorable gentleman not write to Molotov about it?

Dr EVATT:

– I shall be very interested to hear the observations of the Vice-President of the Executive Council (Sir Eric Harrison) on Molotov. He prefers a local traitor to the head of a State.

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

– I do not prefer to get in touch, with the Foreign Minister of a country that has definitely set out to rule the world and has engaged in espionage in this country.

Dr EVATT:

– The Vice-President prefers what he did when he brought into this House a letter stolen from the British Cabinet.

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

– -I did nothing of the sort.

Dr EVATT:

– The right honorable gentleman did so, together with two other members of the present Cabinet. I shall give him a Molotov cocktail if he wants it.

Mr Haylen:

– Hear, hear!

Mr Keon:

– I am afraid that the Leader of the Opposition has given one to his party.

Dr EVATT:

– The Vice-President of the Executive Council is a very unhappy man to-day. When he indulges in humour, it is the last infirmity of that particular mind. When I was interrupted by this diversionary tactic of the right honorable gentleman, I was saying that the vote for civil defence was only £200,000 or £300,000 in a total vote of nearly £190,000,000. Therefore, the conclusion is irresistible that the Government is not serious about civil defence. Is that because the Government has been advised that there is no real defence against the hydrogen bomb ? My own belief is that there is no real defence. But I do not say that something could not be done to mitigate the devastation caused by such a bomb. That, in a sense, is the proposal contained in the bill. It is a proposal to take action to see that at any rate some lives will be preserved in the event of an atom bomb or a hydrogen bomb attack. If the Government takes the view that there can be no real defence against atomic attack, it should be engaged all the time in doing its utmost to encourage international conciliation to prevent the use of atomic weapons, and to establish a proper sytsem of inspection and control.

But events have passed the Government by. The Great Powers have met, with (hat end in view. One of the most remarkable letters on the subject was the letter written to the Russian Government by President Eisenhower recently, in which he accepted certain suggestions for the inspection of armament plants in both the United States of America and the Soviet Union. So events are moving rapidly. I believe that the leaders of the Great Powers have seen that the peoples of the world will be destroyed and that their great cities will be laid waste, unless an agreement not to use atomic weapons can be arrived at - an agreement which could be effective only in conjunction with a system of inspection and control. I remember the whole of the controversy on the subject very well. The Labour movement has always advocated such a system of inspection and control. The Russians objected to it for many years, because they believed that it would be an undue interference with the internal government of their country. I think that view has been modified. That is one very important aspect of this matter.

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

– The right honorable gentleman forgets that since then correspondence has passed between him and Molotov.

Dr EVATT:

– It is nice to see this temporary Harrison-Keon coalition. I am. sure the Australian people will draw their own conclusions from it.

Mr Keon:

– What about the McIotovEvatt coalition?

Dr EVATT:

– What about the PetrovKeon coalition and a few others that I could name? It is in the morning that there is a sharp reaction from the night before, and sometimes it is not so good.

The approach, of the honorable member for Mackellar to this problem is completely logical. He says that the use of atomic and hydrogen bombs would cause great devastation. He asks : What should be done to prevent it? The Government should either take active steps to develop an adequate civil defence organization, or, if it believes that there can be no real defence against atomic attack, it should change its international policy to one of establishing international conciliation and goodwill. But it is doing neither of those things.

The honorable member for Mackellar is right in emphasizing the importance of civil defence. My suggestion is that we should not agree to set up a statutory council, but that we should insist that the Government appoint a committee to deal with civil defence, consisting not only of members of the Parliament, but also of people expert in the subject who could advise the Minister for Defence for the time being. With a statutory body, the machinery would be cumbersome. It would be a formal body, without much real weight in the community. It would not help us to find a solution of the problem. But I think that if a committee were appointed, some progress would be made. I should like to see the committee so constituted that the members could address themselves to two problems. Is it possible to organize in this country a satisfactory civil defence organization, in view of the devastation that could be caused by the new bombs? If that is possible, what should be done? Those questions are related intimately to the view which the Government takes of the international position and the prospect of negotiating a firm agreement for the control and prevention of the use of weapons of mass destruction. But on all those matters, the Government has done nothing.

The honorable member for Mackellar, whatever his views may be on international affairs, is obviously intent on the establishment of an adequate civil defence organization. Therefore, I do not think his proposal should be just brushed aside. I think it would be proper to establish a committee that could do the work of the council that he envisages, without necessarily having statutory support.

The essence of the bill is to be found in clause 14, which deals with, the functions of the council. All the other provisions are only machinery provisions. In clause 14, the functions of the council are stated to be, first, to inquire into and examine possible measures for the protection of the civilian population of Australia against the consequences of armed attack by an enemy of the Commonwealth or the agents of such an enemy. That function, quite obviously, should be performed by the Government, which should have plans ready for the protection of the civil population of Australia in the event of atomic attack. That is the plain duty of the Government. The courts of this country have laid it down over and over again that the protection of the national security can be entrusted only to those to whom it has been committed. The Government cannot delegate to any other body its responsibility for the defence of this country. If I wanted to describe the duty of the Government in that connexion, I should choose the words contained in clause 14 of the bill. , But the fact is that the Government is not doing its duty. It is establishing an explosives factory at St. Mary’s at colossal expense, but it is not simultaneously making provision for the protection of that area from atomic attack. That shows that there has been no real planning by the Government.

Another duty of the council specified in clause 14 is to devise plans for ensuring the maximum survival of the people of Australia in the event of such an attack and for maintaining the existence of organized government and society in Australia in that event. That indicates the view of the honorable member for Mackellar of the devastation that could be caused by atomic weapons. With his special knowledge of the subject, he knows what the effect of one atomic bomb dropped on a city would be. One atomic bomb of the latest type is equivalent in explosive power to 20,000 tons of T.KT. One such bomb would almost completely destroy a city, and two would finish the job. The bill refers to “ the maximum survival of the people of Australia “ and to maintaining “the existence of organized government and society in Australia “ in the event of atomic attack.

Those words give us a very good idea of what would happen to the great and beautiful cities of the world in the event of an atomic war. They are the kind of words that would convince any doubter that something must be done to solve the problem at the point at which it must be solved.

The bill proposes that the third function of the council shall be to consider the measures of preparation which should be undertaken for these purposes, and, in particular, to make plans for the coordination of Commonwealth and State public services. All those things are desirable. They are primarily the responsibility of the Government. It is because the honorable member for Mackellar feels a sense of desperation at the inactivity of the Government and its neglect of this problem that he has been forced to bring the bill before the House. I do not wish to discourage him, but I suggest that, instead of the elaborate machinery proposed in the bill, we should appoint a committee that would serve very much the same purpose, remembering always that the Government cannot delegate its responsibility in the matter to any other body. Such a committee would force the Government to take some action, at any rate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The time allotted for the precedence of general business has expired. The right honorable gentleman has leave to continue his speech when the debate is resumed. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day under general business for the next day of sitting.

Sitting suspended from lB.Ji-5 to 2.15 p.m.

page 1752

MEAT EXPORT CONTROL BILL 1955

Motion (by Mr. McMahon) agreed to-

That leave bc given to bring in a bill for an act relating to the Australian Meat Board.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr McMAHON:
Minister for Social Services · Lowe · LP

– by leave - I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to provide for the foreshortening of the term of office of certain members of the Australian Meat Board in the event of the board being reconstituted. Under the Meat Export Control Act 1935-1953, the term, of office of ten members of the board representing meat producers, meat exporting companies and meatworks employees, is three years. Their present term of office will expire on the 6th November, 1955. New appointments will be made to take effect as from, the 7th November, 1955.

There is a growing feeling that the membership of the board, which was decided in 1946, should be revised, to take account of more recent developments in the meat export trade, particularly in the light of the great increase of beef exports. Primary producer organizations concerned in meat production consider that there is a case for reviewing the industry representation and the federal council of the Graziers Association has appointed a committee which I understand will report soon on this matter. The Government is prepared to consider the legitimate desires of the industry in regard to the board, and, indeed, believes that their e is a case for review of the board’s structure. It is not the intention of the Government to move in this matter until the industry’s views are fully known. However, in view of the possibility of a reconstruction of the board during the next three years, the Government wishes to make it clear, by means of legislation, that the period of office of the new appointees may be foreshortened. The present bill accordingly provides that, if the board’s membership is reconstituted during the next three years, the period of office of all members other than the chairman is automatically terminated. The present appointment of the chairman was for a firm period of five years, and does not expire until the 6th November, 1956.

The bill, in fact, foreshadows the Government’s intention to examine carefully the representations of the industry organizations, and honorable members should therefore note that it is quite likely that the Meat Export Control Act 1935-1953 will be amended in the near future. I commend the bill to honorable members.

Mr Pollard:

– What is the opinion of the present members of the board on this matter ? Does the Minister not think that we are entitled to know that?

Mr McMahon:

– The opinion of other people connected with it is that this is a wise measure.

Mr Pollard:

– But the Minister does not tell us what the members of the board think.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clause 1 (Short title).

Progress reported.

page 1753

TOBACCO INDUSTRY BILL 1955

Motion (by Mr. McMahon) agreed to-

That leave be given to bring a bill for an act to establish a TobaccoIndustry Trust Account and for purposes connected therewith.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr McMAHON:
Minister for Social Services · Lowe · LP

.- by leaveI move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to establish a Tobacco Industry Trust Account, the funds from which will be used to finance an expansion of tobacco research and advisory activities. The funds available in the trust account will be obtained from tobacco growers, tobacco manufacturers, and from Australian Government contributions.

Tobacco has been grown in Australia on a commercial scale since the early part of last century and, although in the past there have been periods of rapid expansion, the industry has suffered a series of setbacks over the years. These checks to development have, in certain cases, been attributable to pests and diseases, to production on unsuitable soil types, to inferior strains of tobacco, to poor curing techniques and, in others, to marketing difficulties and price instability. As honorable members are aware, a most important measure of stability has been introduced into the market in recent years by providing for lower rates of import duty when imported leaf is blended with a specified minimum percentage of Australian leaf, as determined by the Government. At the same time, improved cultural practices and increased “knowhow “ have resulted in the production of a higher quality leaf and a more satisfactory production per acre. The industry itself - both growing and manufacturing interests - is of the opinion that the future outlook is more encouraging than at any previous period. Nevertheless, supported by State governments and the Australian Government, they agree that tobacco research and advisory services should be intensified in order to capitalize on the gains made to date.

An expansion of the Australian tobacco-growing industry is important to the general development of Australia. Particularly is this the case in encouraging the closer settlement of those areas having poor, sandy soils but with climatic conditions suitable to tobacco culture. Furthermore, some of the areas which offer the greatest opportunities for the expansion of tobacco leaf production, for example far north Queensland, are regarded as regions of strategic importance. Tobacco production is one of the few agricultural industries which to-day can be successful in these areas and, as such, offers scope for attracting and holding population in the region. Moreover, the land and water resources of these regions can be utilized more intensively in the production of tobacco leaf than in the cultivation of any other dollar-earning or dollar-saving crop. Quite apart from the importance of the tobacco industry, and its continued expansion, to the development and diversification of rural production in many areas of northern Australia is the contribution it can make to the conservation of overseas credits. The importation of tobacco leaf and tobacco products made necessary by the present low level of production in Australia is a not insignificant item in the current balance of payments picture. Last year, for example, the purchase of tobacco leaf and tobacco products from overseas cost Australia £17,300,000 foreign exchange, £10,800,000 of which represented dollar expenditure.

Customs and excise arrangements designed primarily to stimulate the use of Australian-grown leaf and to provide a profitable market for growers have, especially since 1951-52, helped to encourage the manufacture of tobacco products in Australia. Manufacture has expanded from 32,100,000 lb. in 1951-52 to 43,600,000 lb. in 1954-55, an increase of 11,500,000 lb., or 36 per cent, in three years. The development of this secondary industry is at present mainly dependent upon imported leaf, and it has therefore been necessary during that period to increase expenditure on the importation of tobacco leaf. In 1954-55 the value of leaf imported was £14,700,000, of which the dollar content was £10,800,000. The increase in expenditure on imported leaf has, nevertheless, been more than offset by the decrease in the value of imported tobacco products during the same period. The scope for saving foreign exchange can be appreciated when it is realized that in 1954-55 Australia produced 6,500,000 lb. of leaf, which represented only 14 per cent, of the total tobacco leaf used in manufacture in Australia in that year.

The Australian consumer has become accustomed to blends, particularly in cigarettes, which are based primarily on the American type of flue-cured leaf. The most suitable substitute for this type of leaf, and the most suitable filler for use in Australian blends, is Australian leaf. Therefore, an expansion of the production of quality leaf in Australia along sound lines would make possible a significant reduction in imports of dollar tobacco leaf. In 1952 the Commonwealth, and all State governments concerned, decided that an appreciable increase in tobacco production was warranted and was practicable. Tobacco-growers have responded to this objective and the area under production has increased from about 6,000 acres in 1950-51 to 9,380 acres in 1954-55. One of the most important features in this increase in production has been the marked improvement in the quality of the leaf produced.

The growth of the industry to date has not been rapid, but this is not surprising in a primary industry which requires such an exacting knowledge of the handling of its products, if quality production is to be achieved. The Govern ment appreciated that if an orderly development of the industry were to occur, tobacco-growers needed some assurance of a satisfactory market for their product, both in respect of the volume of production and the price received. It was realized that an element of security was needed if growers were to be in a position to undertake a long-range development programme, particularly in an industry where initial establishment costs are relatively high. To provide an element of security and to ensure that the use of Australian tobacco would not increase the price of tobacco products to the consumer, the Government has used the device of a lower rate of duty on imported leaf in those cases where the imported leaf is blended with a prescribed percentage of Australian leaf. As I have previously stated, it is the Government’s intention, as a matter of policy, to vary the prescribed percentages in such a way that there will be a market for all usable leaf grown in this country. This Government has progressively increased the prescribed percentages over the last four years from 3 per cent, on cigarettes and 5 per cent, on tobacco in 1951-52 to 7^ per cent, on cigarettes and I7i per cent, on tobacco in 1955-56.

On the production side, the Commonwealth, through its tobacco leaf production grant, has already assisted in the development of the tobacco-growing industry. This grant is being used to encourage expansion in tobacco research and investigation undertaken by State Departments of Agriculture. The grant was reintroduced after World War II., as from the 1st July, 1947, for a period of five years. This Government, realizing the importance of the work being conducted, extended the grant for a further five years as from the 1st July, 1952, and increased its amount from £10,000 to £15,000 per annum. The money is made available on a £l-for-£l basis to States interested in tobacco production. The funds available have assisted the States to increase the tempo of their investigations into the problems of the tobacco-growing industry. The result is that three experiment stations are being established in Queensland; one is already in operation in Victoria and another in Western Australia.

Although the average yield an acre has increased from 660 lb. for the four years ended 1945-6 to 890 lb. for the three years ended 1953-54, it is still well below the average of more than 1,300 lb. for New Zealand and the United States of America. Diseases and pests are largely responsible for this disparity. There is a number of individual farms in all areas where an average of 1,200 lb. of saleable leaf an acre has been obtained over a period of years, whilst some farms have recorded yields of 1,700 to 2,000 lb. an acre in a single year.

Field blue mould causes the greatest loss in Australia. In the 1945-46 and 1947-48 seasons it was responsible for a total loss on the majority of farms in Victoria. An indication of the present importance of this disease can be gauged from the loss that occurred during the 1954-55 season in Victoria. In that State it was expected, from the plantings made, that there would be a production of at least 2,500,000 lb. of usable leaf, but only about 720 lb. of such leaf was harvested. This represented a loss of approximately £1,000,000 to these growers. It is generally considered that Australia could produce, if the present preventable losses were corrected, an average yield of at least 1,000 lb. an acre. If this is accepted it means that the Australian tobacco-growers lost over £2,000,000 during the 1954-55 season - a loss which we would aim to prevent through the development of satisfactory control measures. Moreover, if an average yield, of 1,000 lb. an acre were obtainable, the increased return to the grower would in itself be a. major incentive to the expansion of the industry.

The State Departments of Agriculture and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization are already carrying out a breeding programme to develop a strain of tobacco resistant to blue mould, and are investigating the control of this disease in the field. My department is assisting in the development of equipment for the application of control measures, and is importing prototype machinery for experimental purposes. Already there is evidence that a satisfactory control of this major pest may be achieved. Whilst there have been some significant technical advances in recent years, investigations leading to these advances have indicated little more than the basic principles to be followed. lt has now become necessary to expand the investigations further if the full benefits are to be obtained from the progress that has already been made.

As honorable members are aware, the Government, as part of its drive for greater production and a lowering of costs in rural industries, agreed to make available up to £500,000 per annum for the five years ending 1956-57 under the Commonwealth Extension Services Grant. This year the Government has extended the period to 1959-60. Initially, £200,000 of the grant was made available, and it was indicated that further amounts were dependent upon adequate additional contributions being made by the States and/or industries concerned. This year, in view of the extent to which the States have expanded their expenditure on advisory activities, the Government has made £300,000 available. The expenditure of these moneys has resulted in a very gratifying increase in agricultural extension activity throughout the Commonwealth. Because of acute shortages of technically trained agriculturalists the expansion has not been, and cannot be, as dramatic as originally might have been supposed. Despite this, however, State expenditure on technical services has increased by more than £1,000,000 since 1951-52, and the number of technical personnel employed has increased by 420 officers, an increase of 18 per cent. By offering to furnish further large grants, particularly if adequate additional contributions are made by industries themselves, the Government is encouraging self-help in an industry’s own problems. The Government has shown itself fully prepared to assist in this way and has held discussions with representatives of several industries who are desirous of taking advantage of this offer to increase research and investigation.

It is therefore with real pleasure that I am able to report that the tobacco industry has decided to qualify for special assistance under the grant. The proposition which has been put to the Government by that industry represents a concerted approach to the industry’s problems by growers and manufacturers alike. In developing a workable plan, I am certain that growers and manufacturers have gained a better understanding of each other’s problems, and this exercise in growermanufacturergovernment co-operation augurs well for the future of the industry.

The proposal for an expanded tobacco investigation and extension programme had its origin in the discussions of the Tobacco Advisory Committee established by the Australian Agricultural Council. At meetings of this committee, on which growers, manufacturers, the States and the Commonwealth are represented, agreement was reached on a programme of work which should he undertaken. It was estimated that this programme would involve a capital expenditure of £168,000 and an annual maintenance expenditure of £63,000. Tobacco manufacturers have agreed to provide half the capital costs of the scheme and the Commonwealth Government to contribute the other £84,000. Insofar as maintenance costs are concerned, tobacco manufacturers have offered to contribute approximately £2S,000 per annum, and tobacco-growers £14,000 per annum. The Commonwealth has agreed to provide the remaining £21,000 per annum in addition to the amount of £15,000 at present being provided under the tobacco leaf production grant and the expenditure on the existing work being undertaken by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization.

In order to meet its contributions to the annual costs of the programme, the industry has asked the Commonwealth to introduce legislation imposing a special levy on each pound of leaf sold by growers and on each pound of Australian leaf purchased by manufacturers. The rates of levy, at least in the initial stages, will be -£d. per lb. from growers anc! Id. per lb. from manufacturers. Later in the proceedings I will ask leave to introduce the legislation necessary to implement these levies.

The Australian Agricultural Council has recommended a workable administrative procedure, to which the industry has agreed. The procedure envisages the creation of a Tobacco Industry Trust Account which is the purpose of this bill. Contributions from the industry and the Commonwealth will be placed in this account. After considering the recommendations of the Tobacco Advisory Committee, the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture will authorize payments to finance agreed programmes of work by Commonwealth departments, universities and other approved institutions and to supplement State investigation and extension programmes. Although the actual control of the research programme and advisory activities will be the responsibility of the specific organizations to which finance is made available, the provision of funds for a coordinated programme would be under the authority of the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture.

It has been demonstrated that goodquality leaf can be grown in Australia. The purpose of this bill is to provide funds to finance programmes designed to increase production, to improve the quality of leaf produced and to raise the yield per acre. I am firmly convinced that the work to be financed from the trust account can have a significant effect in reducing the present overseas expenditure on tobacco. In this way it will offset a further drain on our overseas reserves as the total consumption of tobacco products continues’ to increase. There is a vast market for tobacco products in the countries surrounding Australia and already a recently established American company has indicated its interest in developing an export trade in Australian manufactured tobaccoes and cigarettes to these areas.

It will be appreciated that a programme of research and investigation as contemplated by this measure can do much to increase the efficiency of the industry and make our products competitive in such markets. If we are able to increase our production of suitable leaf, there would appear to be nothing to prevent Australia from developing the tobacco manufacturing industry as an earner of overseas exchange. We are fortunate that there have been a number of tobaccogrowers throughout Australia who have been confident that an efficient tobaccogrowing industry could be established. These growers have maintained their interest and stuck to the industry through very difficult times. They have built a solid foundation for further expansion. Without such growers there would never have been the development there is to-day and therefore they deserve our thanks and gratitude. This Government has declared its intention to establish the tobacco-growing industry permanently on a profitable and expanding basis. We have never let up in working to that end, and we can now say that this objective seems to be well in sight. I commend this bill for the favorable consideration of the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Bruce) adjourned.

page 1757

TOBACCO CHARGES ASSESSMENT BILL 1955

Motion (by Mr. McMahon) agreed to -

That leave he given to bring in a bill relating to the assessment and collection of certain charges on tobacco leaf grown in Australia.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr. McMAHON (Lowe- Minister for

Social Services) [2.42]. - by leave - I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill, which I foreshadowed in my second-reading speech on the Tobacco Industry Bill 1955, is to provide the administrative machinery for the collection of levies which growers and manufacturers have asked the Government to introduce. The bill defines the persons liable to pay the charges imposed under the three tobacco charge bills which will be brought down subsequently. It will be noted that responsibility for the payment of growers’ levies will rest with the brokers handling the sale of the product. Tobacco-growers’ associations are in agreement with the procedure. In addition, provision is made for the same brokers to collect manufacturers’ levies subject to special agreement by the manufacturers concerned. In general, manufacturers have indicated that they would prefer this procedure. However, manufacturers may pay their own levies direct to the Government, if they so desire.

The funds so collected would be appropriated into the Tobacco Industry Trust Account to assist in financing the research and extension programme, to which I referred when introducing the Tobacco Industry Bill 1955. I commend the bill for the favorable consideration of the House as a necessary supplement to the Tobacco Industry Bill 1955.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Pollard) adjourned.

page 1757

TOBACCO CHARGES

In Committee of Ways and Means:

Mr McMAHON:
Minister for Social Services · Lowe · LP

– I move -

PartI. - Charge on Australian Tobacco Leaf Sold to a Manufacturer.

That a charge be imposed on all Australian tobacco leaf which, on or after the first day of January, One thousand nine hundred and fifty-six, is sold to a manufacturer.

That where tobacco leaf that has been sold to a manufacturer on or after the first day of January. One thousand nine hundred and fifty-six, is again sold to a manufacturer, the charge be not imposed on that tobacco leaf by reason of the last-mentioned sale.

That where tobacco leaf on which charge has been imposed by the Act passed to give effect to Part III. of this Resolution is sold to a manufacturer, charge be not imposed by the Act passed to give effect to this Part of this Resolution on that tobacco leaf by reason of that sale.

That the rate of the charge be -

One halfpenny for each pound of tobacco leaf; or

where a lower rate prescribed by regulations under the Act passed to give effect to this Part of this Resolution is applicable - that lower rate.

That the Governor-General be empowered to make regulations prescribing a rate of charge lower than the rate specified in subparagraph (a) of the last preceding paragraph and that those regulations may limit the application of a rate prescribed by the regulations to a period specified in the regulations.

PartII. - Charge on Australian Tobacco Leaf Purchased by a Manufacturer.

That in this Part of this Resolution, “ growers’ co-operative association” mean an association incorporated under the law of a State or Territory of the Commonwealth and having a capital divided into shares, being an associationthe rules of which -

require that the shares be held exclusively by, or on behalf of, growers; and

prohibit the quotation of the shares for sale or purchase at a stock exchange or in any other public manner.

That a charge be imposed on all Australian tobacco leaf which, on or after the first day of January, One thousand nine hundred and fifty-six, is purchased by a manufacturer, not being a growers’ co-operative association which, during the year that ended on the thirty-first day of December next preceding the date of the purchase, purchased from its shareholders not less than nine-tenths of the Australian tobacco leaf purchased by it during that year.

That where tobacco leaf that has been purchased by a manufacturer on or after the first day of January, One thousand nine hundred and fifty-six, is again purchased by a manufacturer, the charge be not imposed on that tobacco leaf by reason of the lastmentioned purchase.

That the rate of the charge be twice the rate of the charge for the time being in force under the Act passed to give effect to Part I. of this Resolution.

PartIII. - Charge on Australian. Tobacco Leaf drown by a Manufacturer and Appropriated by him for Manufacturing Purposes.

That a charge bo imposed on all Australian tobacco leaf -

grown by a manufacturer; and

on or after the first day of January,

One thousand nine hundred and fifty-six, appropriated by him for manufacturing purposes.

  1. That the rate of the charge be -

    1. where the manufacturer grew in Australia not less than nine-tenths of the Australian tobacco leaf used by him in manufacture during the year that ended on the thirty-first day of December next preceding the date on which the tobacco leaf is appropriated by him for manufacturing purposes - the rate of the charge for the time being in force under the Act passed to give effect to Part I. of this Resolution; and
    2. in any other case - twice the rate of the charge so in force.

Pari I V. - Interpretation

  1. That expressions used in this Resolution have the same meanings as in the Tobacco Charges AssessmentBill 1955.

The purpose of this motion, is to place a charge on Australian-grown tobacco leaf. Honorable members will recall that, as I mentioned earlier, the Government has been requested by the industry to impose a charge on Australian-grown tobacco leaf. Tobacco manufacturers and growers have agreed to make these contributions towards the maintenance expenditure associated with the proposed programme for the expansion of tobacco research, investigation and advisory services. Provision has been made in the Tobacco Charge Bill (No. 2) 1955, with the con currence of manufacturers and growers, to exempt a growers’ co-operative association which purchases nine-tenths of its requirements of Australian leaf from its own members.

Both manufacturers and growers have agreed that manufacturers who obtain from their own farms over 90 per cent. of the Australian leaf which they use should not be liable for both taxes. It was suggested that such manufacturers would pay only the “ grower’s rate “ as in the Tobacco Charge Bill (No. 1). Where they obtain less than 90 per cent. from their own farms, grower-manufacturers would be subject to the manufacturers’ rates on all Australian leaf used. The Tobacco Charge Bill (No. 3) provides for these cases.

This smallindustry has set a useful example to our larger rural industries.

Progress reported.

page 1758

TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN AUSTRALIA, RHODESIA AND NYASALAND

Mr McEWEN:
Minister for Commerce and Agriculture · Murray · CP

– I lay on the table the following paper : -

Trade Agreement between the Governments of the Commonwealth of Australia and the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland. and move -

That the paper be printed.

Certain tariff proposals associated with the agreement will be presented later in the sitting. Preferences have been ex- changed between Australia and Rhodesia for many years. As Crown colonies, both Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland have been given preference in Australia since the Ottawa Agreement. The exchange with Southern Rhodesia dates from the Australia-Southern Rhodesia Trade Agreement 1941. The two Rhodesias and Nyasaland became a federation in 1953 and powers of external trade were transferred to the federation which decided to introduce a new tariff on the 1st July, 1955, and the trade agreements entered into by the separate territories were to lapse on this date. The federation suggested to the Commonwealth Government that there might be mutual advantage in extending the previous individual agreements and moulding them into a new preferential agreement between Australia and the federation. The Commonwealth Government agreed with this suggestion and accepted an invitation for an Australian trade delegation to visit Salisbury. The delegation was led by Mr. H. F. B. Heyes, First Assistant Comptroller-General of the Department of Trade and Customs.

The talks were conducted in a very friendly atmosphere and resulted in an agreement acceptable to both parties. The new trade agreement was signed on behalf of both governments on the 30th June, 1955, and, in order to have the concessions accorded to Australia included in the new tariff operating on the 1st July, the federation agreed to implement its concessions immediately, on condition that the concessions in the Australian tariff were also implemented. The concessions given by Australia were implemented on the 6th. July. The agreement has since been ratified by the Government of the federation.

The federation is undergoing an unprecedented phase of development and expansion. The European population has doubled since the war and now stands at more than 250,000. The total population is nearing 7,000,000. All sections of the community are sharing in a period of prosperity resulting largely from the high returns from copper and tobacco, the two principal export commodities. There is a heavy demand for foodstuffs and consumer goods of many kinds, and capital equipment. Imports are running at around £150,000,000 annually and are tending to increase.

The principal suppliers have been the United Kingdom and South Africa. Australia’s share has not been large, being of the order of £2,000,000 to £2,500,000 per annum, or less than 2 per cent, of the total imports. Australia is, however, the federation’s chief source of wheat and processed milks and these two items usually account for over 90 per cent, of our total exports to the federation. The federation buys about 60,000 tons of wheat each year and Australia supplies SO to 90 per cent, of this quantity. Some Canadian wheat is imported for blending purposes but our chief potential competitor for the federation market is Argentina.

It is of particular importance to Australia that our hold on the federation market be maintained because it is one of the few remaining outlets for bagged wheat. All exports of wheat for the federation are drawn from South Australia, that being a bagged wheat State The main processed milk produce exported from Australia to the federation is full-cream, powder milk, for which there is a growing demand in the copperbelt area of Northern Rhodesia. The Australian product is the most popular at present but it has been assisted to some extent by the restriction of United States milk products by import licensing. Australia also sends smaller quantities of full-cream condensed milk and skim milk to Rhodesia. There is a useful export trade in a number of other items including butter, cheese, canned and dried fruits, canned meats, canned vegetables, confectionery, xanthates, tallow, bolts and nuts and agricultural machinery. Australian exports to the federation reached a record level of £2,700,000 in 1953-54. Wheat accounted for £2,100,000 and milk products for a further £300,000 of this total. Exports fell to £2,200,000 in 1954-55 due, principally, to smaller shipments of wheat.

It has been apparent for some time that possibilities exist for Australia to gain a greater hold in the markets of Africa. In an attempt to stimulate exports the Commonwealth Government sponsored an Australian trade mission to Southern and Eastern Africa last year and more recently opened a new Trade Commissioner post in Salisbury, capital of Southern Rhodesia. The Australian trade delegation was instructed to seek tariff concessions on all commodities now exported from Australia to the federation and on a number of further commodities in which trade might develop. In these aims the delegation was quite successful. In return, the Government made no new concessions but agreed to extend to the whole federation some of the concessions which were being given to one or more of the separate territories. I will deal in detail with these concessions later.

Turning to the concessions which the federation granted to Australia, an examination of the schedules will show that these are most comprehensive. Broadly speaking, the concessions received from the federation are of two types. The first type of concession is a guarantee of free entry with, in respect of the principal items in the trade at present, a bound margin of preference over nonCommonwealth suppliers. Bound margins of preference on wheat and on fullcream powder milk should assist Australia to maintain its present strong hold on the Rhodesian market for these products. Under the Australia-Southern Rhodesia trade agreement, Australia received a margin of preference on wheat and processed milks, hut suspension of duties from time to time robbed the preferences of their effectiveness. Under the new agreement, the federation has undertaken not to reduce the margins without prior consultation with Australia.

Other commodities on which Australia will receive a margin of preference over non-Commonwealth suppliers are tallow, full-cream condensed milk, skim milk powder and potassium and sodium xanthates. All these goods, with the exception of skim milk powder, are guaranteed free entry. Free entry is to be accorded to other items, including butter, mutton and lamb, agricultural machinery and dairy utensils.

The second type of concession granted by the federation was to undertake that specified Australian goods would receive the lowest rate of duty accorded to similar goods from any other country. This treatment was promised in respect of more than 80 commodities, a full list being given in Part 2 of Annexure 1 to the agreement.

The new federation tariff has four columns, and the lowest rate applies to the United Kingdom and colonies. The second lowest rate is charged 021 goods from British dominions and, in the absence of a. special agreement, this rate would apply to all Australian products. In respect of goods listed in Part 2, however, Australia will pay either the rate applicable to the United Kingdom or any lower rate which the federation may have negotiated with any other country. In practice this will mean either the United Kingdom or South

Africa. In the absence of a special agreement, South African goods would be subject in the federation tariff to the British dominion rate of duty. The federation has, however, agreed to admit South African goods at either the United Kingdom rate or at the United Kingdom rate less a rebate of 10 per cent.

For some time before the new federation tariff was introduced, most South African goods had entered Southern Rhodesia free of duty, as it was proposed that the two countries should form a customs union. This idea has now been dropped, and the effect of the agreement that Australia has negotiated with the federation will be to place Australian exporters on an equal tariff footing with South African exporters on all items of export interest or potential export interest to Australia. In many cases South Africa has been Australia’s chief competitor, and the removal of the disparity in duty rates should enable Australian exporters to strengthen their hold and, in some instances, to break into the federation market.

The principal concession made by Australia was to extend to Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland the preference of 9d. per lb. on unmanufactured tobacco granted to Southern Rhodesia in the 1941 agreement. Southern Rhodesia has been an important source of Virginia-type tobacco since the war, when the dollar shortage forced Australian manufacturers to supplement the quotas of tobacco available from the United States. The Australian public has readily accepted the blend of Australian, United States and Southern Rhodesian tobacco, and the availability of Southern Rhodesian tobacco has enabled the saving of millions of dollars. The United States is, however, still easily our principal supplier. In 1954-55, for instance, total imports of tobacco were 43,000,000 lb. Of this quantity the United States supplied 29,000,000 lb. and Southern Rhodesia 10,000,000 lb. Australian production in 1953-54 was 7,600,000 lb.

Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland are producers of tobacco, but neither has exported to Australia in any quantity. The extension of the preference of these colonies is unlikely to result in any great increase in supplies from the federation, as exports are controlled at present. Quotas are made available to the United Kingdom and to Australia. The other concessions made by Australia were to undertake to admit from the whole federation, at the British preferential tariff rate of duty, asbestos, chrome ore, fruit juice, tung oil, essential oils and beeswax. This merely continues tariff treatment previously granted to one or more territories of the federation.

I would stress, in relation to all the concessions granted by Australia, that they do not in any way prevent the Government from increasing the level of duties on any item concerned. They merely guarantee, in the case of tobacco, that the federation product will be charged a rate of duty 9d. perlb. less than the British Preferential Tariff rate and, in the case of the other commodities concerned, that the federation products will not be charged any higher rate of duty than that applicable to similar goods from the United Kingdom.

The delegations exchanged assurances to the effect that neither country would accept surplus disposal commodities of interest to the other without prior consultation. The Australian Government was concerned at the possibility that the United States might offer the federation wheat or processed milks on concessional terms, and the federation has an interest in learning of any proposal to supply tobacco to Australia on a non-commercial basis. This is the first agreement of the kind entered into by the Australian Government. The agreement is for three years, and unless notice of termination is given by either party six months before the expiry of that period, it will remain in force until six months after notice of termination is given. The agreement provides for review at intervals not exceeding two years.

I am confident that the new trade agreement will give an impetus to Australian exports, and will strengthen the close economic and political ties between two rapidly developing members of the British Commonwealth of Nations.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Pollard) adjourned.

page 1761

TARIFF PROPOSALS 1955

Customs Tariff (Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland Preference)

Amendment (No. 1)

In Committee of Ways and Means:

Mr McEWEN:
Minister for Commerce and Agriculture · Murray · CP

–

I move - [Customs Tariff (Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland Preference) Amendment (No. 1).] {: type="1" start="1"} 0. -- (1.) That, in these Proposals - " Collector " have the same meaning as in the Customs Act 1901-1954 ; " the Customs Tariff " mean the Customs Tariff 1933-1954, and include that Act as amended from time to time or as proposed to be amended from time to time by a Customs Tariff alteration proposed in the Parliament ; " the Federation " mean the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland ; " the proposed Act " mean the Act passed to give effect to these Proposals ; " the Schedule " mean the Schedule to these Proposals. (2.) That a reference to the British Preferential Tariff in Column 3 of the Schedule be read, in respect of goods in relation to which the expression is used, as a reference to the rate of duty which, under section eight of the Customs Tariff, applies to goods of that kind which are the produce or manufacture of the United Kingdom. 1. That the proposed Act be deemed to have commenced at nine o'clock in the forenoon, reckoned according to standard time in the Australian Capital Territory, on the sixth day of July, One thousand nine hundred and fifty-five. 2. That, after the commencement of the proposed Act, duties of Customs be imposed, in accordance with the Schedule, on goods described in Column 2 of the Schedule which - {: type="a" start="b"} 0. have been shipped in the Federation for export to Australia. 3. That, for the purposes of the last preceding paragraph, goods shipped at the port of Lourenco Marques or the port of Beira in Portuguese East Africa for export to Australia be deemed to have been shipped in the Federation for export to Australia if there is produced to a Collector a certificate in writing signed by an officer of Customs in the service of the Government of the Federation certifying that the country of origin of the goods is the Federation. 4. That the duties of Customs imposed on goods under these Proposals be in lieu of the duties of Customs imposed on those goods under the Customs Tariff. 5. That the duties of Customs imposed under these Proposals be charged, collected and paid to the use of the Queen for the purposes of the Commonwealth of Australia on all goods subject to those duties which have been or are imported into Australia after the commencement of the proposed Act or have been or are imported into Australia before, and have not been or are not entered for home consumption until after, the commenement of the proposed Act. 6. That the Customs Tariff (Southern Rhodesian Preference) 1941 and the Customs Tariff (Southern Rhodesian Preference) 1948 be repealed as from the time of commencement of theproposed Act. 7. That the Customs Act 1901-1954 be incorporated and read as one with the proposed Act. The proposals I have just introduced are complementary to the trade agreement recently concluded between Australia and the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland and are designed to give effect to the tariff concessions which Australia has undertaken to accord to certain goods the produce or manufacture of the federation. A text of the trade agreement concerned was tabled by me earlier to-day, when I also took the opportunity to deal in some detail with the various features of the agreement. I, therefore, feel that the committee would not wish me to cover all that ground again. The proposed tariff concessions relate to fruit juices, unmanufactured tobacco, beeswax, tung oil, citrus oils, crude asbestos and chrome ore. In each case, other than that of unmanufactured tobacco, the proposals provide that the goods shall be dutiable at the rate in force under the British Preferential Tariff. On unmanufactured tobacco the rate of duty proposed is 9d. per lb. less than the British Preferential Tariff rate. Apart from tung oil, which is already free of duty from all sources, the concessions now proposed have been in operation for a number of years in respect of one or other of the territories of the federation. The tariff proposals, therefore, merely extend existing preferential treatment to cover the federation as a whole. A comparative statement which has been circulated to honorable members sets out in concise form the proposed duties as compared with the duties previously in force. It is hoped that there will be an opportunity to debate these proposals later in the session. Progress reported. {: .page-start } page 1762 {:#debate-23} ### AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY AND JERVIS BAY (LANDS ACQUISITION) BILL 1955 {:#subdebate-23-0} #### Second Reading Mr.KENT HUGHES (Chisholm- Minister for the Interior and Minister for Works) [3.5]. - I move- >That the bill be now read a second time. This bill has already been dealt with in another place, and it is supplementary to the Lands Acquisition Bill 1955, which we passed and sent to another place. Its purpose is to repeal certain provisions contained in various acts operating in the Australian Capital Territory and the Jervis Bay Territory. The sections of those acts which it is intended to repeal deal with the question of compensation that should be paid for land compulsorily acquired for the purposes of the Seat of Government. Under the existing sections, it is provided that the compensation that shall be paid for land to be acquired within the Territory shall not exceed the value of the land on the Sth October, 1908, and in other cases the value as at the 1st January, 1914. Acquisition to-da,y under these terms is considered not to be in accordance with the Constitution and the principle that acquisition shall be on just terms. Therefore, provision has been made in the bill to alter that, and also to protect any acquisitions that may have been made prior to the passing of the Lands Acquisition Act 1955 in that such an acquisition will proceed to finality under the laws existing prior to the passing of this bill. {: #subdebate-23-0-s0 .speaker-KEE} ##### Mr KENT HUGHES:
Minister for the Interior · CHISHOLM, VICTORIA · LP -- Practically none. There has been very little acquisition. I cannot remember any specific case that has taken place during the time I have been Minister, but I am subject to correction on that. There have been no actual complaints about it. But when the Lands Acquisition Bill 1955, which was passed by this House, was being debated in another place, this matter was brought up, and it was considered that it would be advisable to repeal the sections and make it all in accordance with the just terms principle of the Lands Acquisition Bill 1955, because that bill contains provision foa- the acquisition of land in those territories and consequently, these sections referred to are now not only considered to be unfair if we retain them, but also to be redundant. That is all there is in the bill, which has been gone through carefully by the legal minds in another place. I do not know whether the honorable member for Lalor **(Mr. Pollard)** has had an opportunity to look at the bill. {: .speaker-KYC} ##### Mr Pollard: -- No. {: .speaker-KEE} ##### Mr KENT HUGHES: -- If the honorable member had had that opportunity I thought that perhaps we could proceed with the debate; but if he has not, then he can move that the debate be adjourned. Debate (on motion by **Mr. Pollard)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 1763 {:#debate-24} ### NORTHERN TERRITORY (ADMINISTRATION) BILL 1955 {:#subdebate-24-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-24-0-s0 .speaker-ZL6} ##### Mr HASLUCK:
Minister for Territories · Curtin · LP -- I move - >That the bill be now read a second time. This bill is complementary to the Lands Acquisition Bill, which, when passed, will apply in the Northern Territory as did the Lands Acquisition Act 1906-1936. The present bill provides, however, that, in its application to the Northern Territory, the new Lands Acquisition Act will be administered by the Minister controlling the Northern Territory and not necessarily by the Minister controlling Commonwealth acquisitions elsewhere. This will enable one Minister to have the responsibility for all matters relating to Crown lands of the Territory. The necessity for such a provision had been obscured in previous years by the fact that the Minister for the Interior, who administered the Lands Acquisition Act, was also responsible for the administration of the Northern Territory, whereas since 1951 the Territory has been placed under the administration of a Minister for Territories. The bill also provides that dealings connected with acquisitions made or agreed to be made under the existing legislation before the new acts come into force will be completed under the existing provisions. Power is preserved to provide for resumptions of Crown leases upon just terms or in accordance with the conditions of those leases and existing provisions of this nature are continued. In the course of proceedings in. another place, the Government accepted an amendment which specifically provided that the principle of " just terms " which the Commonwealth is required by the Constitution to apply in acquisitions should be applied in any resumptions of land in the Northern Territory. It will be recognized, however, that when land is held under leasehold and the lease itself contains provisions, accepted by the leaseholder, as part of the conditions of his tenure, that the land may be resumed in certain contingencies or for certain purposes, then it is fully in keeping with the principle of " just terms " to resume land in accordance with the provisions of that lease. Therefore, the amendment which the Government accepted in another place, and which is incorporated in the bill before this House, provides that resumption of land held under leases granted by or on behalf of the Crown shall be in accordance with the provisions of those leases or otherwise on " just terms ". Because some doubts have been expressed as to the validity of Territory ordinances empowering acquisitions of land and resumptions from leases, a provision has been included which will make quite certain the validity of acquisitions and resumptions made under those ordinances. The bill also puts beyond doubt the power of the Commonwealth to acquire land for the purposes of the Territory, as distinct from Commonwealth purposes, and expressly provides that lands in the Territory acquired under the Lands Acquisition Act may be dealt with as Crown lands under the appropriate Territory ordinances. Doubt had been expressed on that point because when the Lands Acquisition Act was first passed in 1906 the Northern Territory did not exist as a Commonwealth territory and it might therefore have been argued that the expression " public purpose " only covered purposes of the Commonwealth as a federal government. Of course, honorable members will appreciate that in a Commonwealth territory, the Government has to serve local purposes comparable to those which are served within the boundaries of a State of the Commonwealth by the State Government. The effect of the bill will also be to repeal those provisions of the Northern Territory (Administration) Act which limited compensation for the unimproved value of land in the Territory acquired by the Government to an amount not greater than the unimproved value of the land at the 25 th November, 1910, the date of the passing of the original act. Debate (on motion by **Mr. Pollard)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 1764 {:#debate-25} ### STATES GRANTS (SPECIAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE) BILL 1955 {:#subdebate-25-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed from the 30th August *(vide* page 168), on motion by **Sir Arthur** Fadden - >That the bill be now read a second time. {: #subdebate-25-0-s0 .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr CALWELL:
Melbourne .- When this matter was last before the House on the 30th August, I offered the view of the Opposition that although we did not oppose the measure, we thought it was niggardly. As honorable members know, the bill provides for an additional payment of £16,200,000 to the States for this financial year. The total grant to the States was, for 1954-55, £150,000,000. Of course, the States have refused to accept the amount offered by the Commonwealth as a satisfactory contribution by the Commonwealth towards the maintenance of their services. They consider that the Commonwealth should disgorge a large portion of its surpluses and allow the States to spend the money so made available. I was a Minister in the Curtin and Chifley Governments, and I have never yet known a government to hand over its surpluses to the States. I do not think any Commonwealth government ever will hand over its surpluses to the States. Indeed, the present Government has a very good reason for wishing to retain its surpluses. According to information that I have received from the Treasury, treasury-bills outstanding at the 30th September last totalled no less than £180,000,000. When the Chifley Government was in office during World War II., treasury-bills had to be discounted. I think it was necessary to raise £343,000,000 in that way. When the war ended, unspent moneys from loans, surplus loan raisings and revenue surpluses were all used in liquidating the large amount of treasury-bills outstanding, and the sum outstanding when the Chifley Government was defeated in 1949 was less than £100,000,000. I can readily understand why the Treasurer **(Sir Arthur Fadden),** particularly with the worsening economic condition of the country, does not want to hand over any surpluses that he can use very properly in liquidating this liability of £180,000,000. The amount of treasurybills outstanding is not likely to decrease in the coming months. If anything, it will probably increase, because our revenues are declining, our expenditure is increasing and will continue to increase, and the trade balance, according to some economists, will show a deficit of approximately £100,000,000 in the current financial year. I wish now to make a few remarks about Commonwealth and State relationships. We live in a nominal federation, which is growing weaker with the passing of the years. It is not that the Australian Parliament, no matter what government has been in office, has deliberately set out to encroach on the powers of the States. It is not that the States have failed to honour their obligations. Two world wars, a severe depression, the agreement between the Commonweallth and the States to establish the Australian Loan Council and the Australian people's ratification of the agreement by a constitutional amendment in. 1928, and the acceptance of the Chifley Government's social services proposals at a referendum in 1946, all have thrown additional obligations on the Commonwealth and have depreciated the importance of the States. No State government can now raise money independently by way of either internal or external loans, and the Commonwealth has placed upon it the obligation- to pay a certain proportion of the interest on loans raised and a certain amount towards the repayment of the moneys borrowed. The High Court of Australia, by its interpretation of the Australian Constitution, and particularly by its decision in. regard to uniform taxation in 1942, also has whittled away the powers of the States. Unif orm taxation has come to stay. The Australian Labour party believes in the maintenance of uniform taxation, but it believes also that the States should be given sufficient funds with which to discharge their obligations under State laws. In recent times, it has been suggested that Victoria, for one, might go to the Privy Council, if it can get so far, in an attempt to upset the decision of the High Court in regard to uniform taxation. However, most State Premiers, whatever may be their political complexions, take the realistic view that uniform taxation is here to stay and that a new deal between the Commonwealth and the States in financial *matters must* be obtained by agreement. The Australian Labour party would like to see an alteration of the powers of both the Commonwealth and the .States, and it regrets that, during this sessional period, a committee has not been appointed to review the Constitution. Honorable members on both sides of the House have a rather chilly feeling that death is lurking round the corner somewhere and that the twenty-first Parliament is about to expire. Therefore, it is not of much use to talk about an all-party committee at this stage. However, I hope that when the twenty-second Parliament meets such a committee will be appointed. {: .speaker-ZL6} ##### Mr Hasluck: -- Why take that view? Will the honorable member give us his arguments? He might get one. {: .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr CALWELL: -- Might get an election ? {: .speaker-ZL6} ##### Mr Hasluck: -- No. The honorable member might get a committee. {: .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr CALWELL: -- I should prefer an election and a committee, hut one cannot have both at this stage. I have no doubt that, in due course, the committee -will come. {: .speaker-K7J} ##### Mr Cramer: -- Which would the honorable member prefer ? {: .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr CALWELL: -- If I thought an early election would eliminate the honorable member for Bennelong **(Mr. Cramer),** I would have it next Saturday. {: .speaker-K7J} ##### Mr Cramer: -- There is no chance of that. {: .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr CALWELL: -- I admit that there is no hope of that happening in the near future. Sooner or later, the financial relationships of the States and the Commonwealth must be resolved. In my view, this can be done only by an alteration of the Constitution. I should like to see the relationships based on the Canadian principle. The founding fathers of' our federation could not get that arrangement at the time of federation. As Professor Butlin has stated recently, Australians were federationists only for a day. Australians at heart are not federationists. In the Canadian arrangement, the delegated powers are exercised by the States, or provinces as they are called there, and the residual powers are exercised by the commonwealth or confederation. In the Canadian system, the rights of the states to levy taxes are better protected than are the rights of the States under the Australian Constitution. It may yet be that some day - and the sooner the better - we shall have a reorganization of powers in the Australian system, because all power cannot be centralized in Canberra. We in Australia cannot have' a unitary system on the lines of the systems in Great Britain and New Zealand. We must always have States or provinces, and in my view the more really self-supporting provinces we have the better it will be for Australia. But the power of those provinces to raise revenues must be protected under the Constitution, as indeed the rights of municipalities to raise revenues should also be protected by provisions in a written constitution for each State or province. However, I am getting a little away from the bill, which is designed to validate an agreement that has been entered into between the Commonwealth and the States and has been accepted by the States under protest. Whatever may be the result of the next general elections and of the general elections that will follow three years later, I have no doubt that, because of constitutional alterations, High Court judgments and the added expenditure thrown on the Commonwealth by the two world wars to which I have referred, no State government will ever be really satisfied with what it gets. In any event, the Commonwealth has to take a broader view than any State government can take, because the Commonwealth is responsible for the development and the defence of the northern portion of the continent, particularly the Northern Territory, and therefore it has to consider matters that the States do not necessarily have to consider and, in more parochial moments, have refused to consider. {: #subdebate-25-0-s1 .speaker-JQ7} ##### Mr BLAND:
Warringah .- I wish to make a few comments upon the remarks of the honorable member for Melbourne **(Mr. Calwell)** on this bill, which is designed to validate an agreement to make to the States grants totalling £250,000,000, or almost £20,000,000 more than was granted last financial year. This indicates the extent to which the States are becoming more and more dependent upon the beneficence of the Commonwealth. In a sense, this particular method of granting to the States money to enable them to do things which need to be done is, to my way of thinking, a measure of decentralization. If the Commonwealth so wished, it might do these things itself. I think that that would be a catastrophe. The giving of money to the States does enable a certain degree of decentralization to take place, and it means that things are being done at the local government level, or even at the State level, which otherwise might be done here at the central level. The whole problem is one of extraordinary importance from the political and administrative point of view. The more items that clutter up a Minister's table in Canberra the more is the time of the Parliament lost in doing the work that has to be done. Already every one is feeling the strain. Not only are individual members caving in under the strain but the lives of Ministers must be becoming intolerable with the burden of work which, has to be done, all because we will insist on bringing everything to Canberra. I should like to start at the other end and consider what we can do at the local government and State levels, leaving the thinking to the Commonwealth, and also those jobs, such as research work, which are not done by the States but which ought to be done. Those activities should be concentrated here and the actual work of doing things ought to be left at the State or local government level. The honorable member for Melbourne was speaking on his old theme. He would prefer a continuation of a scheme in which uniform taxation is retained. This would at once necessitate thinking out afresh all the political implications of such a policy. His idea is that if we got rid of uniform taxation and the necessity to return moneys to the States, as under present conditions, we might be able to obtain a redistribution of functions along the lines of the Canadian system. I suggest that in so doing he is pursuing a will-of-the-wisp, because anybody who knows the financial relations between the provincial and central governments in Canada knows that that system provides no solution at all. The Rowell-Sirois report, which has gone into these matters, preferred the much more attractive system we have in Australia. That is one of the extraordinary things. Those conditions which prevail furthest away from one always seem to be the best solution. Canada, which has not any solution of these problems under its present system, is looking to the Australian method of grants to the States as a. way out of its difficulty. The problem really resolves itself into this : As the Commonwealth gains more and more control of the finances, it has to give more and more to the States to enable them to perform their functions. That means an inevitable attempt, as mentioned by the honorable member for Melbourne, to redistribute all the functions of government, and then to allocate the resources to those activities according to the capacity of the people. One has to look at government in terms of a partnership. The various functions have to be allotted to that level of government which is most capable of doing the particular job which is required to be done. Working on that allocation of functions, one asks, " What is the sort of thing which might best be done by local government, by the provincial or State government, and by the central government?" Having determined that, the resources are allocated. That means that we have to reconsider the whole basis of our taxation with a view to seeing whether we cannot obtain a more equitable distribution by a new means of raising taxes. I do not want to feel that the House will be stampeded into simple methods of dealing with these things. For example, I do not want the establishment of another loan council or grants commission or something of that character. I do not want another agency which will be interposed between the governments. That would lead to confusion worse confounded. On the other hand, if we do not abandon uniform taxation and give the States freedom to raise their own taxes, we shall be forced to consider some other kind of administrative technique in order to ensure that the resources are adequate for the various functions that have to be performed by the several governments. I think it would have been only fair to the House to have had this bill explained in more detail in terms of the new amounts which are being made available to the States. An increased amount of £20,000,000 is being paid this year, which brings the total to £250,000,000, as against £230,000,000 last year. In every direction one notices an increase in the amounts which are being paid. Whether it be in relation to tax reimbursements or merely in relation to assistance for various activities, the same story is being told. We ought to be told of the implications of all this. We ought not to be altogether indifferent to the implications. If we proceed in this fashion, then as I have repeatedly said in this chamber, the end of the federal system as such may be seen. The honorable member for Melbourne is not at all disturbed about that. He desires unification, but if we are to have unification we need an entirely different scheme of parliamentary government from that which we have. Parliamentary government in the form we have at the present time would not be able to cope with the things which would have to be done if we insisted on taking away the autonomous rights of States. Year by year we become more and more involved and find ourselves more and more unable to reach a solution, because of the magnitude of the vested interests which are being consolidated under the present system. In consequence of that; I do plead for the appointment, as sought by the honorable member for Melbourne, of a parliamentary committee to investigate the matter. If there were an all-party convention I should have no hope that the Labour party would renounce its doctrines of centralization and unification. T do not feel that we would proceed very far under such a convention, but we should see that the ground is explored and that the problems are presented so that the people may see them and take such steps as are required to deal with a tangle which has become more and more difficult to unravel. {: #subdebate-25-0-s2 .speaker-JF7} ##### Mr BEAZLEY:
Fremantle .- The honorable member for Warringah **(Mr. Bland),** in the course of his speech, ?poke about the Labour party's view of centralization. I think that the honorable member ought really to carry his analysis of this doctrine of centralization a little further. It is not for me to speak for the Labour party in Queensland, but the impression I gained when I visited that State and visited branches of the Labour party there, was that it was a party which wa? strongly opposed to centralization. It is also a fact that in the early days the Australian Labour party was always strongly opposed to centralization. The reason for its acceptance of the doctrine of centralization is, I think, quite simple. With the kind of legislative councils that were in some States, it became perfectly clear that it was impossible to pass through those parliaments the kind of legislation in which the Labour party was interested. The upper houses of certain State parliaments were deliberately weighted against the Labour point of view. Under those circumstances the more activities that were transferred from the State to the federal sphere, where the Labour party had a chance of having a majority in both Houses, the more likely it was that the kind of legislation in which the Labour party was interested would be passed. In Queensland there is no legislative council, and if a Labour government is in office it is also completely in power. The State Government is an instrumentality through which the Labour party can obtain the kind of legislation in which it is interested. I believe that, as we have a reform of legislative councils in the States, we shall find that the tendency of mind of the people who support Labour, as far as wanting sovereignty in local affairs is concerned, will not be markedly different from, the tendency of mind of the people who support the Liberals. If the Liberals are intellectually honest, I think they will recognize that the kind of legislation and the kind of things in which they and many of their supporters are interested are defended by legislative councils with the kind of constitution that exists in certain places. I think that is the root cause of a difference of philosophy on the subject of centralization. {: .speaker-ZL6} ##### Mr Hasluck: -- If the Labour party has a socialist objective, must not it be a unificationist party? {: .speaker-JF7} ##### Mr BEAZLEY: -- I do not see that that necessarily follows. The other point that I should like to mention is the point that was made by the honorable member for Melbourne **(Mr. Calwell)** when he asked for an examination of the Constitution. In 1929, a very exhaustive examination of the Constitution was made by royal commission. I suppose that, in sum, the evidence that was given before that royal commission represents one of the most masterly studies of the working of a federal constitution that has ever been made. One may have to wade through an immense quantity of material in reading it, but in reading it one does get a very clear picture of the operation of the federal Constitution. There is no question that, until the outbreak of World War II., the essential way in which federation operated was as follows: - We had two highly industrialized States, New South Wales and Victoria. We had a series of Australian governments which, irrespective of their political colour, strongly believed in high tariffs. The high tariffs created secondary industries, predominantly in those two States. They created, therefore, high incomes in those two States. The fiscal policy of the Commonwealth did not favour agriculture, and the predominantly agricultural States fell behind. If, for instance, the tariff policy of the Commonwealth insisted that the States should use railway lines made in New South Wales, at a much higher price than railway lines that could have been imported from the United Kingdom, then upon the revenues of Western Australia, which had immense problems of railway development, was imposed a heavier charge to attain a given result. Before the introduction of uniform taxation, the fiscal policy of the Commonwealth operated against the less populous States, the agricultural States, by making dearer all the equipment produced by secondary industry - I speak in particular of railway lines - which they had to use. Because the tariff policy of the Commonwealth created in two States high incomes derived from secondary industries, the revenues of those States were, to that extent, much more buoyant. However, it was always implicit in federation that the more highly developed areas- should assist in the development of the less developed areas. What happened was that, although the tariff policy of the Commonwealth created secondary industries in New South Wales and Victoria and, therefore, higher incomes in New South Wales and Victoria, when the uniform taxation system was applied, the revenue from the tax on income in those States was paid to the Commonwealth and the Commonwealth disbursed it, much more evenly, among the States. Therefore, New South Wales and Victoria necessarily have become restive under this system, because they see potential revenues denied to them. The Premiers of those States never make the further analysis that those revenues are possible largely because the tariff policy of the Commonwealth has created industries there, and that that policy undoubtedly has imposed higher costs upon the predominantly agricultural States. I do not make that a point of interstate dispute. The issue became sharper during the depression. During the depression, the farmers of Western Australia were encouraged to believe that their sufferings were due to an eastern States' plot. Consequently, they voted for secession. However, it was impossible to tell the farmers of the eastern States that their sufferings were due to an eastern States' plot. They were told by certain movements that their sufferings were due to a city plot. So we had the development of the new States movement. The supporters of the movement in New South Wales said, " If only we could get rid of that wicked Sydney and that wicked Newcastle and form a State of our own, we would be better off ". But the root of the new States movement and the Western Australian secession movement lay in the fact that, before the war, agriculture suffered under the tariff policy of the Commonwealth. Whilst it is true to say that, as far as the minor States are concerned, uniform taxation has got rid of that disability to a considerable extent, there are still elements of unfairness in the system. It would be quite right if this Parliament looked at the system critically. Let us take, for instance, the grant to New South Wales, which is more than £61,000,000, and the grant to Victoria, which is a little over £39,000,000. The ratio of the population of New South Wales to that of Victoria is not 61 to 39. There are not 61 people in New South Wales for every 39 people in Victoria. Proportionately to population, Victoria suffers from this grant. A certain element in the suffering of Victoria is due to the fact that, for a long time before the war, the Dunstan Government was in power in that State. It was a government which was extremely niggardly in its expenditure on social services. It was a government which believed in low taxation, a low level of social services expenditure and so on. I do not quarrel about that. The people of Victoria re-elected that Government, and doubtless it reflected to some extent their point of view at that point of time. But if we start off, as in fact we have done, taking as a basis the expenditure of that Government at the time when1 uniform taxation came in, it means that, no matter what opinions may be held subsequently by succeeding Victorian governments, they are, to that extent, hogtied by their own history. They are hogtied by the fact that the grants have a certain relationship to the levels of expenditure on social services and other matters at the time when uniform taxation was introduced. There is another point that is important. This year, the Commonwealth has dealt sympathetically with New South Wales. It is making an extra grant of £2,000,000 to New South Wales because of the sufferings in that State due to floods. It was not legally necessary for the Commonwealth to do that. It would bo quite possible for a government to be in power that would not do it. We ought to recognize that the Commonwealth, because it has the power to make that kind of decision or not to make that kind of decision, is, in fact, an impediment to the States in dealing with any special problems or special emergencies that may arise. We can shift from a flood, which is outside political control, to something which is within political control. Suppose the Commonwealth disapproves of the action of a State government which intervenes in a basic wage case, and, because of that intervention, helps to cause the level of wages in the State to rise, together with expenditure on the Public Service and public works projects. The Commonwealth, because it disapproves of the political philosophy underlying that intervention, can impede the State from obtaining additional revenue. If uniform taxation were not in operation, the State would have to increase its taxes in order to meet the increased expenditure caused by that kind of decision. It would have the responsibility for doing that within its own borders. So we see that this system can operate in two ways. It can make a State act irresponsibly in relation to such an intervention. The Commonwealth, through its grants, can show its disapproval of an action by a State government, notwithstanding that it is a sovereign government which has the support of the people. The Commonwealth Government, by increasing the grant, which I think is generous and realistic, has quite clearly prevented a sharp issue arising in Commonwealth and State relations. {: .speaker-ZL6} ##### Mr Hasluck: -- It is very reassuring to have that opinion regarding New South Wales. {: .speaker-JF7} ##### Mr BEAZLEY: -- Why? {: .speaker-ZL6} ##### Mr Hasluck: -- I take it that the honorable member's reassurance is that there will be no sharp issue in Commonwealth and State financial relationships in New South Wales. {: .speaker-JF7} ##### Mr BEAZLEY: -- I am not sure; I do not know. But I think that the Government's additional grant must clearly tend to prevent a sharp issue of the kind that I have mentioned. I certainly do not think, as at this moment, that New South Wales has, comparatively to other States, any ground for complaint about the grant that this Government has made. Any State Premier who does his job is a professional complainer, and I do not say that the Premiers will not make critical statements. {: .speaker-ZL6} ##### Mr Hasluck: -- Such statements would be unjustified. {: .speaker-JF7} ##### Mr BEAZLEY: -- The realistic adjustment of the grant to meet the change of the value of money will prevent a sharp issue from arising. I point out again that the problem of Commonwealth and State financial relations, including uniform taxation, is potentially explosive. {: #subdebate-25-0-s3 .speaker-KEN} ##### Mr FAIRHALL:
Paterson .- I should like to say a few words about the subject of uniform taxation, because it seems to me that in this country no other subject is more capable of distorting the pattern of government. We are all aware of the fact that in 1942, when the war was making inroads on our revenue, a special committee that had been established to consider the matter recommended that the field of income tax should pass to the Commonwealth for the duration of the war and for one year thereafter. The Australian Labour party did not agree, but it saw the possibility of using the opportunities presented by the war to advance the socialist theory, and it regarded uniform taxation as a grand club with which to beat federalism to death. {: .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr Calwell: -- That is completely wrong. {: .speaker-KEN} ##### Mr FAIRHALL: -- It is not wrong, because the honorable member for Melbourne **(Mr. Calwell)** has stated, " We believe in unification". {: .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr Calwell: -- I did not say that. {: .speaker-JF7} ##### Mr Beazley: -- The honorable member for Melbourne said just the opposite. He said that he did not believe in unification. {: .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr Calwell: -- I believe in the formation of more States and provinces. {: .speaker-KEN} ##### Mr FAIRHALL: -- Then the honorable member does not agree with the policy of his own party, which **Mr. Chifley** made quite clear when he stated, "We are determined that uniform taxation shall be with us permanently ", and when he so arranged the taxation system that it could never revert to the position that obtained prior to 1942. {: .speaker-K7J} ##### Mr Cramer: -- The honorable member for Melbourne said that he agreed with uniform taxation. {: .speaker-KEN} ##### Mr FAIRHALL: -- I think that is so, but we are not going to argue about that. The Labour party was not disturbed by the recommendation of the taxation committee, because it was a great step forward towards unification, the centralizing of power in Canberra, and towards socialism. One of the more baneful effects of thi? situation was that the State government? were placed in a position where they could make unlimited demands on thi Commonwealth, and they, in effect, became the martyrs if the Commonwealth did not bow down. They found themselves in possession of a universal cover for inefficient administration, and they used that cover. Even more dangerous was the invitation that this situation gave to the State governments to play politics, particularly in view of the fact that since 1949, a Liberal- Australian Country party coalition has been in office in the federal sphere, and so many of the States have been under the control of Labour governments. It has become good tactics anil good propaganda for the States to bash the Federal Government at every possible turn on its economic policy. The States have made themselves martyrs in the eyes of the Australian people, who am not well versed in the intricacies of the financial agreement and the Constitution, and the workings of the Australian Loan Council. Through constant propaganda, they have built up the idea that the wicked Federal Government is preventing the States from handing out all sorts of magnificent benefits to the people. Governments do not hand out anything. They simply collect taxes from the people, and arrange for the distribution of the money so raised in a form that will produce some so-called benefit. It is always the taxpayer who pays. The Commonwealth has been forced to give way in the face of this mounting public pressure that has been created by very clever propaganda. Although the States had agreed to the reimbursement formula, pressure was applied, and in 1.950 this Government gave way and inaugurated the scheme of supplementary grants. That was an open admission that the reimbursement formula was not adequate. Let us be honest about this matter. If the reimbursement formula is not adequate, and if it is out of line with modern times, let us by all means re-hash it, but let the Commonwealth not be placed in the position each year of having to decide what grants it will make. No matter how much the Commonwealth gives to the States by way of supplementary grants, it will never be enough, and the Commonwealth will always be attacked. When the process of retreat begins, we do not know where it will end. Not only was the Commonwealth forced into the position of having to make supplementary grants, but also it was not very long before it was obliged to forgo its 20 per cent, entitlement to public loan raisings and since then, it has had to finance the Commonwealth public works programme out of revenue. As a result, the taxation bill that the people of Australia are footing to-day is approximately £100,000,000 more than it ought to be and would be if we were financing our public works programme as we should, out of loan raisings. Only recently the New South Wales Premier, **Mr. Cahill,** took note of the alleged Commonwealth surplus of £70,000,000 for last year, and said how strange and how unfortunate it was that the Commonwealth should have such a surplus while the State was in deficit and was forced to carry out its works programme with loan money for which it had to pay interest. We are probably working up to the stage whore, at the next meeting of the Loan Council, **Mr. Cahill,** if he, unhappily for New South Wales, is still in office, will come to Canberra and demand that his works programme shall be financed out of federal revenue. That would be the logical development of this line of thought. {: .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr Calwell: -- If **Mr. Cahill** is not in office, a Liberal Premier will do the same thing. {: .speaker-KEN} ##### Mr FAIRHALL: -- A Liberal Premier would not do anything of the sort, because he would have too much respect for healthy financial arrangements. We in this country have fallen into the error of believing that the only useful forms of national development come within the public works programme, and so all this money is directed into that channel. At a time of over-full employment, more and more money is simply going back into the system to increase costs without producing any greater result. In other words, it is inflationary in the extreme. Yet this Government is bowing down before the pressure of the State governments in the face of public disinterest and, if I may use the term, public ignorance of the real problem that lies behind the present financial arrangement. Nothing is nearer or dearer to my heart, and I am sure to the hearts of many other Government supporters, than the fact that what we might describe as being the private works programme is being hindered. Every effort that tends to increase production, and to make industry more efficient is, in the very best sense of the term, national development. To drain off from income or profit another £100,000,000 to finance public works is to produce inflation and to close down the private works programme which is quite as effective, if not more effective, than the public works programme. The annual spectacle of the pilgrimage of State Premiers to Canberra, when they invariably demand a lot more than they know they can possibly get - because they are realists - always produces the same result. When their demands are not met they set up a howl in the press in their own States to the effect that, once again, the wicked federal Government has stopped them from carrying out the programmes that they promised the electors they would carry out. So, once again, the blame comes back to Canberra, once again up goes the well-worn umbrella to cover inefficient State management. As the honorable member for Fremantle **(Mr. Beazley)** has pointed out, the State Premiers have become professional complainers, and, of course, the New South Wales Premier is not backward in that respect. {: .speaker-KFQ} ##### Mr Gullett: -- He is the leader of them. {: .speaker-KEN} ##### Mr FAIRHALL: -- Yes, if the honorable member likes to put it that way, **Mr. Cahill** is the top man among the professional complainers. This annual wrangle between the Federal and State governments about money has, I believe, done more than anything else to cultivate the deplorable public attitude of cynicism towards all governments. The people see this sham fight over money year after year in Canberra, and have come to think of all governments as being responsible for it. This is another contribution to the decline of responsible governments in this country, which is going on whether we like it or not. The other point is that, where there is no clear line of demarcation between the responsibilities of the State and Federal governments for certain things, how can we prevent the judgment of the people from becoming blurred? If. while State election campaigns were under way, the people knew the fact1 about the economic arrangements between the State and Federal governments, and if their picture of the division of responsibilities between the States and the Commonwealth had not been completely blurred, I suggest that nothing on earthwould shelter the New South Wales Government, as one instance, from the chill wind of public disapproval. But thos* facts, of course, are hidden from tb>« general public. The Constitution specifies the power): allocated to the Federal Government. The popular supposition is that the federal Government has all power, and passes certain powers to the States. Of course, the reverse is true. The State? existed as sovereign States before the Commonwealth came into being, and they allocated certain specified and quite limited powers to the Commonwealth. Amongst the powers that the States retained are powers over health, education, roads, flood mitigation and that son of thing. Yet one cannot pick up a newspaper nowadays without finding that the Australian Road Council *if* demanding that the Federal Government, stand up to its responsibilities in respect of roads. The present Government recognizing that the States have failed miserably in regard to the provision of institutions for the mentally ill, has felt obliged to make a grant in order te relieve the lot of mentally ill people in the States. The fact that it has done so out of concern for the welfare oi mentally ill people has given some support to the erroneous suggestion that the Federal Government has a responsibility in the matter of the provision of such institutions as mental asylums Because these great services like education, roads, health, national development, water conservation and irrigation, and so on, are in a deplorable condition in almost every State, they are referred to as constituting a state of national emergency; and, of course, the word " national " having a federal connotation, the whole picture, and the whole appreciation of these things in the mind of the public, are being distorted, and people are laying on the Commonwealth's doorstep the responsibility for the present deplorable situation in respect of these activities. It is quite true that section 96 of the Constitution empowers the Parliament to grant financial assistance to any State on such terms and conditions as it thinks fit. But this section was surely never intended to be an avenue down which the States would drive towards passing to the Commonwealth all the responsibilities that they retained when the powers to be given to the Commonwealth were specified in the Constitution. We know that it will be tremendously difficult to straighten out this tangle. The cynical New South Wales Government has made two quite characteristic suggestions. Of course, when **Mr. Cahill** and **Mr. Bolte** are talking about their respective States of New South Wales and Victoria resuming their taxing powers, **Mr. Cahill** is the one who does the shuffling on this issue. Not so long ago he made a proposal for a resumption of the States' taxing powers provided the Commonwealth vacated a tax field that was yielding £280,000,000 of revenue annually, at a time when the New South Wales reimbursements under the income tax reimbursement formula were only £135,000,000. In other words, the New South Wales Government's price for restoring State sovereignty in the economic field was that it should be endowed with a revenue twice as large as it would get under the income tax reimbursement formula to which it had agreed. Currently, with an election looming in New South Wales, **Mr. Cahill** is rather anxious to resume State taxing powers provided he has to levy income tax only on those whose income is above £800 a year. Of course! All his political strength comes from people whose incomes are £800 ayear or less. In other words, his supporters are not going to be touched by State income tax, and once again he will be blaming the Federal Government for his lack of money. This constitutes the most cynical approach that I have ever 3een adopted to a broad, important and vital national problem. It is unbecoming of anybody who presumes to lead public opinion. I think that the time has come when there ought to be some public agitation on this matter, and when the Commonwealth must make some move to rid itself of this perpetual burden that it bears of sheltering the inefficient States from public criticism, and to get away from a situation that is distorting the entire picture of government in this country. When I came into this place I wanted very much to be a federalist, but I have been here long enough now to become a realist. I realize that State governments talk about wanting the return of their income taxing powers, whilst not really wanting them back at all. I know very well that the States are in a position to load the taxation situation so that the burden would become heavier and responsibility for it would reappear on the Federal Government's plate. We can no longer allow a continuance of this fight between federalism and unification, trying to carry on the myth of federalism when, in fact, we have financial unification. We have to get away from this fiction of sovereign States whose approach to this situation is that they demand all the rights of sovereign States but wish to absolve themselves of the responsibilities attendant on the enjoyment of those rights. I do not know how long this situation can be allowed to continue, but I want to say that I should like to see some definite steps taken to resolve it one way or the other. Either we go back and do what we can - and we are not entirely without powers and means of persuasion - to restore the previous situation, or we enlarge our field of direct responsibility. I should like to see the Federal Government give the States back their income taxing powers, and let the responsibility for collecting revenue from income tax lie with those who expend that revenue, but if we do not agree to that, then I should not mind seeing the Federal Government retain income taxing powers under the uniform system, provided that it takes over the responsibility for those matters on which the public funds are to be expended. I think that we have a situation where the Federal Government raises the revenue, takes the responsibility for doing so and attracts to itself the public odium for imposing taxes, while the State governments shelter behind it but have all the freedom in the world to spend that revenue irresponsibly. So long as we have a situation in which the States are expending money in relation to the collection of which they have no responsibility, we stall continue to have this distortion of good politics which, ultimately, will go a long way towards the destruction of responsible government in Australia. {: #subdebate-25-0-s4 .speaker-JAG} ##### Mr CREAN:
MELBOURNE PORTS, VICTORIA · ALP -- I should like to spend a few minutes in discussing this important matter which, as the honorable member for Paterson **(Mr. Fairhall)** has indicated, arose out of the inadequacy in 1955 of the uniform tax reimbursement formula which was evolved seven or eight years ago. It was envisaged then that special grants would be made ultimately on a per *capita* basis, but each year, since the formula was devised, it has been necessary to make these additional grants over and above the formula grant. At least I agree with the honorable member for Paterson that the formula needs, as he phrased it, rehashing. The difficult problem is, how is it to be rehashed? The States, of course, are not satisfied and, irrespective of its political colour, each State government expresses every year its dissatisfaction with the amounts allotted to it by the Commonwealth. We of the Labour party believe in the system of uniform taxation as being the most just and equitable method of raising taxes. But we concede that there will always be some differences of opinion about how what is collected by the central source of government should be distributed among the various States which still have many important avenues requiring the expenditure of money. The honorable member for Paterson seemed to be critical about the fact that the Commonwealth pays for its public works out of revenue. In fact, he seemed to be rather critical about the level of public works performed by the Commonwealth. I disagree with him in both respects. To my mind, it is sound financial common sense for a government to pay for its public works, as far as it can, out of revenue. I suggest that if one reads carefully between the lines of the budget speech which was delivered by the Treasurer **(Sir Arthur Fadden)** recently, and if one reads the economic homily that was delivered by the Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies)** on what has been called the " crisis of the nation ", which seems to have evaporated in the few weeks since that speech was delivered, one comes to the conclusion that there has been .rather too much private development in the economy as a whole. I agree that there has to be both public and private development in this country. But because of the size of Australia and its population, more national works will have to be provided on a government basis than is the case in some other countries. Take, for example, the railways of Australia, which are conducted as public utilities, whereas, in some countries, such as Canada and the United States of America, such facilities are provided on a private basis. A railway service can be provided in either way. But I suggest that if railway development in Australia had been left to private enterprise we would have had a much less adequate railway system than we now have. I have made this next point before. The Commonwealth is the only government that has the luxury choice as to whether its public works shall be paid for out of revenue or loan moneys. That desirable choice is not available to the States. I suggest that the total amount of money which is to be spent on public works in Australia, whether out of revenue or out of loan moneys, should be pooled, and a. proportionate amount of the total sum available from revenue should be allocated to the States. I think that in this financial year £100,000,000 worth of public works is to be paid for by the Commonwealth out of revenue and, therefore, is free of interest; whereas the level of States works is at about, £200,000,000. Roughly, two-thirds of the aggregate of public works that have to be constructed in Australia will be done by the States, which have to use loan moneys for the purpose, whilst the Commonwealth, which will construct only one-third of all public works, will have interest-free money available to it for this purpose from revenue. Why should not the Commonwealth provide some of the total amount for the States out of revenue and free of interest ? This would mean lower construction costs for the various facilities that are provided by the States. The Commonwealth itself could then bear some proportion of the interest charges payable on the money that has to he raised on the loan market. The States have the thin end of the stick all the time. It is said that we should not regard ourselves as Victorians or South Australians but primarily as Australians because works, regardless of the State in which they are done, help to promote national development. If an examination were made of the financial picture in Australia, it would be found that roughly two out of every three pounds that are spent by the States in the various channels of governmental activity are provided from Commonwealth sources. About £200,000,000, in one way or another, is collected by the Commonwealth in revenue, but is disbursed to the States. Only about £100,000,000 is raised by the States as their own revenue. It is easy to say, as the honorable member for Paterson has said, that financial irresponsibility results when one government collects revenue and another government spends it. Of course, the financial irresponsibility is often determined largely by the attitude of particular members to the State Government which happens to be spending. In the last issue of *Australia in Facts and Figures,* No. 45, an analysis is given, on page 53, of the social services expenditure of the States. In the year ended the 30th June, 1954, the social services expenditure of the States aggregated about £141,000,000. ' That amount covered education in all its fields including kindergarten, primary, secondary and tertiary; it covered health, hospitals and charities; it covered law, order and public safety. On page 54 of this publication, an analysis is provided of these various expenditures according to the States and showing the *per capita* expenditure in each State. It is interesting to note the variety of ways in which the various States spend the money that is allocated to them. For instance, the expenditure a head of population on education in New South Wales in 1953-54 was £7 17s. 8d; in Victoria it was £7 ls. 5d. ; in Queensland it was £6 ls. 4d. ; in South Australia it was £7 5s. 8d. ; in Western Australia it was £8 13s. 9d. ; and in Tasmania it was £8 18s. 5d. Those figures reveal quite a range of expenditure *per capita* on education in the various States. Some of the difference is due to the fact that a State such as Western Australia has a great area and a small population. Consequently, the *per capita* expenditure there is greater than it is in other States. The most interesting comparison is to be made in connexion with health, hospitals and charities. In New South Wales the average expenditure on these services a head of population was £5 9s. ; in Victoria it was £4 17s. 7d. ; in Queensland, £6 16s. 3d.; in South Australia, £4 18s. 8d. ; in Western Australia, £6 8s. lOd. ; and in Tasmania it was £6 8s. 2d. There is a considerable range of expenditure extending from Victoria, where the figure is £4 17s. 7d., to Queensland, where it is £6 16s. 3d. Various States, according to their wisdom, decide to spend more on education and less on health, and I suppose that in each State the citizens regard the amount provided as inadequate in both spheres. The only government that now has any mobility in the extension of services is the Commonwealth. What the States can do is limited by the amounts that the Commonwealth allows to them. If honorable members examine the Estimates that we have just passed, they will see, under the heading of Miscellaneous Services, that the Commonwealth is contracting to spend £25,800,000 this year whereas, in the previous year, in that same sphere, it spent only £20,000,000. I suggest that a statement which was made by the Commonwealth Grants Commission in its twenty-first report would be of particular significance to the honorable member for Moore **(Mr. Leslie).** It is an indication of how the Commonwealth, through various devices, is controlling the development of the States for purposes of parsimony rather than national development I shall quote from paragraph 195 of the 21st report of the commission - >In reply to a question by the Commission, the Treasury representatives explained that it was not suggested that the Commission should conduct an intensive investigation into the efficiency of State administrations with a view to determining whether greater economies could be effected. It was thought, however, that the whole field of miscellaneous expenditure should be kept under general surveil-lance and that particular items or categories of expenditure should be scrutinized in detail if there were any significant departure from normal trend. If Western Australia, for example, decided that its library or adult education facilities had not kept pace with those of other States, and that it ought to spend another £500,000 in this field next year, the Commonwealth Grants Commission might well say, " That is miscellaneous expenditure upon a luxury and you could well do without it ". I suggest that, at the moment, so far as the proper working out of State and Federal relations is concerned, the pressure is being felt at the margins. If the Commonwealth wants another £1,000,000 for a project it has no difficulty in getting it. If one looks at the budget one finds a vague item of £1,000,000, which was a subsidy paid two years ago upon the importation of coal. To-day we are faced with a glut of coal. That sum was paid to the various private undertakings which handled the coal at that time. The Commonwealth had no difficulty in getting that money, but if, in Victoria, we want an extra £100,000 for library development the State Government must scratch around everywhere to get it. I know that from my own experience. That sort of thing has a baleful influence on the development of Australia. New facilities will always be required in our growing community and State governments will always be faced with the same problem. At the moment we must accept the pattern of Commonwealth-State ' finance. I do not believe that we should accept it for all time, but at least it will remain for some years. Flexibility and justice must obtain in Commonwealth-State dealings. I suggest that, at the moment, neither of those factors obtains. The Commonwealth has the luxurious choice of providing for capital works out of revenue. If it wants an extra £1,000,000 it has no difficulty in finding it, but if the States wish to engage in developing new amenities they have nowhere to turn for extra finance. The Commonwealth Grants Commission is casting a shadow over South Australia, Tasmania, and Western Australia by saying, "If you indulge in any of these new miscellaneous activities we will scrutinize them very carefully". What right has the Commonwealth Grants Commission to tell the citizens of those States that they cannot enter a particular field of development without first considering the position in other States ? Surely, sometimes, wisdom is to be found in the smaller States. Wisdom is to be found here, in some honorable members from South Australia, Tasmania, and Western Australia. Surely, upon occasion, those States will be able to show the way to the other States, and set a pattern that the remainder of the Commonwealth would do well to follow ; but these gloomy gentlemen who sit on the Commonwealth Grants Commission will doubtless say, " No, it is too extravagant in the light of what the Commonwealth will give ". On this side of the chamber we believe in the uniform taxation system, and consider it just and equitable, but we have never said that it does not present us with problems. Those problems need to be met from the point of view not of Victorians, New South Welshmen or West Australians, but of Australians generally. They must be considered in the light of the development of this great continent of which we are all citizens and for the welfare of which we, in this Parliament, are primarily responsible. {: #subdebate-25-0-s5 .speaker-L19} ##### Mr LESLIE:
Moore -- I was very glad to hear the honorable member for Melbourne Ports **(Mr. Crean)** refer to the inquiry by the Commonwealth Grants Commission into the operations of the three smaller States, as they are generally termed. Earlier I referred to the fact that it was unfortunate that the commission had based its inquiries and decisions upon a comparison between the services provided in those States and those provided in Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland. I said that that was a completely wrong basis, and I am very glad to find that that view enjoys the support of honorable members from the other States, because eventually it may lead to an alteration of the system. However, there is a lot of misunderstanding about uniform taxation. I think that if we took a census of public opinion we would find that though most people believe in the centralization of the taxing authority and the payment of taxation to one body only, they object very strongly to the present system, under which the Commonwealth collects all the tax and hands is out to the States. No one wants a return to the old system, under which each State collected its own taxes, and then the Commonwealth took its share. That system was replaced by one under which there is only one taxing authority. {: .speaker-KVT} ##### Mr Thompson: -- We had that before uniform taxation. We had only one collector. {: .speaker-L19} ##### Mr LESLIE: -- No one wants to return to the filling in of a multitude of forms. There has been such misunderstanding and such misconception about taxation that it will soon be imperative for the States and the Commonwealth to meet and clear the air. Even State members of parliament are often not fully appreciative of the relationship between the Commonwealth and the States. Unfortunately, those who are aware of it often disseminate wrong and misleading information for purely political purposes. I appeal once more to the Government, and to the Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies),** to call, as early as possible, a conference to straighten out the financial relation between the 'Commonwealth and the States. I do not, of course, suggest that there should be a big convention, or that the Constitution should be altered, but the longer a conference of the kind that I have described is deferred the greater will become the problem. Moreover, if it is not held, there will be an increasing danger that too much power will be centred upon this Parliament - power that it was never intended to have. If we go back in history we find that this Parliament was intended to be a co-ordinating parliament, not an overriding, sovereign body denying to the States powers that are rightly theirs. We have got right away from the original conception of federation. I agree that some alterations have been necessary in view of the changed circumstances since the early days of federation, but I do not think that now, or at any time in the future, we are likely to need a centralized authority such as this Parliament is becoming. There has never been a more appropriate time than now to strengthen these relationships between the Commonwealth and the States. It is an extremely urgent matter, and it should be done before the position becomes more complicated and, perhaps, some irreparable damage is done to the relationships between the States and the Commonwealth. Year by year the States bear less and less responsibility for their actions. They are in the happy position of being mere spenders of money, and the longer that the situation continues the longer they will want it to continue. We cannot allow any more time to elapse before we come to some understanding, and before we clean up the financial mess that at present exists, so that the States, as sovereign bodies, will be responsible for their activities. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. {: .page-start } page 1777 {:#debate-26} ### COMMONWEALTH AID ROADS BILL 1955 {:#subdebate-26-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed from the 24th August *(vide* page 66), on motion by **Sir Arthur** Fadden - >That the bill be now read a second time. {: #subdebate-26-0-s0 .speaker-KYC} ##### Mr POLLARD:
Lalor .- The measure now before the House, which seeks to amend the Commonwealth Aid Roads Act 1954, is of paramount importance to the people of Australia. It is unfortunate that the title of the bill does not indicate to the Parliament and to the people that its main purpose is to provide the sum of £150,000 for purposes of road safety, to be expended by the respective State authorities on any or all of such measures as they consider would make a contribution towards the lessening of the shocking toll of the roads in Australia. When introducing the bill, the Treasurer **(Sir Arthur Fadden)** informed this Parliament that last year the revenue from petrol tax amounted to £24,242,000, and that of that sum £800,000 was to be allocated for strategic roads, mainly those leading to defence establishments. He also said that the sum of £100,000 was to be provided for road safety work. A conference with Transport Ministers was held recently and after consideration of this very grave problem of road safety it was agreed - somewhat reluctantly, perhaps - that the amount of £100,000 should be increased to £150,000. It was apparently pointed out by the Commonwealth authorities, no doubt through the Treasurer himself, that the additional £50,000 would be granted provided the States understood that it would be taken from the total sum available from petrol tax revenue for purposes of road construction and maintenance. When the facts surrounding the toll of the roads are considered, no responsible Australian citizen can be other than horrified, and the apparent unconcern with which the position is accepted is appalling. There is, I think, in the possession of every member of this Parliament an excellent booklet produced by the Australian Road Safety Council. It is the report of the **chairman, Mr. T.** G. Paterson, who has done sterling work in connexion with this matter. The report shows that in Australia last year 2,042 persons were killed in road accidents, 46,773 persons were injured and maimed, there were 93,480 reported accidents, and the economic loss to the nation was estimated at the staggering amount of £30,000,000. The report states" that human grief and suffering were beyond all assessment. In this Parliament we find now that there are some twenty members, or even fewer, present to consider the provision of money to attempt to lessen the toll of the road, which last year caused the death of over 2,000 of our fellow citizens, injury to 46,000, and economic damage of £30,000,000. {: .speaker-JRJ} ##### Mr Bowden: -- It was mostly their own fault. {: .speaker-KYC} ##### Mr POLLARD: -- In many cases that was so, but the fact remains that there was a grave economic loss, and the provision of £150,000 to cope with the situation seems to me an appallingly poor effort. I know that the States bear a responsibility, as do municipalities. I know that citizens, individually and collectively, bear a responsibility, but this problem has become one of the gravest national consequence. Let us consider the matter from an angle that may be more likely to illustrate the gravity of the problem. Let us imagine that an enemy appeared each year off the coast of Australia, and systematically, year by year, blew off the face of Australia a town with a population of 2,000 people. We may go further. Of the 46,000 who were injured in motor accidents we may consider that at least 10,000 were grievously injured and incapacitated for life, so we can imagine an enemy each year blowing off the face of Australia a town with a population of 3,000. This Parliament would not then deal with the situation by making available £150,000 to cope with the menace. No doubt thousands of troops would be made' available. All the paraphernalia of war would be made available. There would be depots; preventive measures would be taken; armaments would be provided; and millions of pounds would be made available to prevent any enemy from destroying the equivalent of 3,000 lives, to say nothing of £30,000,000 worth of damage to the property of the citizens of this country. Yet we meet here, and provide only £150,000 to cope with this problem ! Let us have a look at the matter in another way in relation to any of our inland towns. Take the flood areas of New South Wales, or the forest areas that are susceptible to bush fires. Assume that in such places there was annually, without diminution - in fact on an increasing scale - an incidence of loss equal to the disappearance of a township. If, from any of those causes, 2,000 people were killed and 10,000 were grievously maimed, and an economic loss of £30,000,000 was sustained, every State Premier and, indeed, every responsible authority in Australia interested in the preservation of human life would be demanding that this Parliament take drastic measures to cope with this menace and to save this fearful loss. Yet, because the loss takes place in a sinister manner, because half a dozen lives are lost this week-end and a few thousand pounds worth of damage is caused that week-end, because it has become commonplace to read of these tragedies and of the maiming of a few hundred people every month, we go on our way. And this national Parliament says that £150,000 is our contribution to the endeavour to reduce this frightful national loss! We should do something more about it. This is not a party political question. Of course, I have to say that it was the Chifley Administration which took the first steps to render some aid. The honorable member for East Sydney **(Mr. Ward)** was Minister for Transport at the time. I think that the amount provided was £100,000, but the action, though welcome, was inadequate. The sum we are providing now is £150,000, yet the toll goes on every day, every week, and every month in the year until 3,000 lives are lost, 10,000 people are maimed seriously and £30,000,000 worth of damage is done. I emphasize that we sustain an economic loss of £30,000,000 annually, yet the best we can do is to provide £150,000 towards reducing the toll. The amount made available last year was £100,000. With this assistance, magnificent work has been and is being done by the authorities who are administering the spending of the money, but that is not enough. Consider the Victorian roads as an example. I travel over them constantly. Every hour, every day, every week, one sees the traffic regulations being flagrantly broken. Sometimes they are broken by desperate people, sometimes by people in a hurry, sometimes by thoughtless people and sometimes by intoxicated people. To a lesser degree, one sees the traffic regulations broken inadvertently, but there is a difference and distinction in. that respect. One can generally see whether it is a matter of forgetfulness or a matter of neglect. There is a vast difference between forgetful people, and the people we all meet on the road who cut in, who chop in, who indulge in excessive speeds and who pass other cai'3 at double lines. The glaring fact is that there is an insufficient number of police or other authorities to ensure that such offenders are dealt with as they ought to be dealt with. There are insufficient authorities to see that those offenders are dealt with in the same proportion as we would deal with an enemy who was responsible for taking the lives of our people. Much greater thought should be given to this problem in the future than has been given to it in the past. It is true that, in recent years, State governments have tightened up their traffic regulations, but that action will not solve the problem unless we have an effective force to police those regulations, and suitable penalties. It is no solution unless State governments can afford, and are willing to spend sufficient funds to provide manpower to police those regulations in order to save human lives. The belief is - I have heard it in Victoria only recently - that there are insufficient police, insufficient traffic men, only because the Victorian governments, irrespective of their political colour, say that they cannot afford to provide them. That being the case, it then becomes a national problem, and it is a problem that ought to be dealt with in the most vigorous way indeed. I am quite aware of the fact that road accidents cannot be entirely eliminated. Many of them are caused by human, frailties, human errors of judgment and mechanical breakdown. All sorts of accidents occur inadvertently from all sorts of circumstances that are beyond human control, but the vast majority of accidents, as the honorable member for Gippsland **(Mr. Bowden)** has said, are the result of people's own fault, and the fault of others with whom they happen to come into collision on the roads. {: .speaker-JRJ} ##### Mr Bowden: -- Speed and booze! {: .speaker-KYC} ##### Mr POLLARD: -- Quite true! Speed and booze! It is unfortunate, but true, that very often it is the flower of our youth who are involved in road accidents. It is a characteristic of youth to be adventurous. It was the young men of the Air Force who performed acts of daring during the war. At a certain age, we are willing to dare anything; but, unfortunately, because of that characteristic, many of those who are involved in these accidents are the flower of our manhood. Something of a more drastic character has to be done. There must be more education, more policing and more publicity. Every possible medium must be used to achieve the purpose, and money should not be the difficulty that is deterring the authorities who are policing these things from acting efficiently and promptly. {: #subdebate-26-0-s1 .speaker-KMD} ##### Mr OSBORNE: -- There should be proper enforcement of the law. {: .speaker-KYC} ##### Mr POLLARD: -- Exactly, but men ave required if we are to enforce the law. In addition, we must have education and publicity. A vast amount of magnificent work has been done by .the road safety councils, but more is required. There are many and various reasons for accidents. Some are the result of carelessness. Very often they occur because the driver of a vehicle is fatigued and falls to sleep.' I have experienced fatigue when I have been on the road. I have driven motor cars extensively for over 30 years, and I have travelled at all hours of the night. I have found myself going to sleep at the wheel. I have talked to myself. Honorable members might not think that strange. I have whistled to myself. I have got out of the car and run up and down the road in an endeavour to overcome the tendency to fall asleep at the wheel. {: .speaker-KIF} ##### Mr Hulme: -- We would not be surprised at anything the honorable member did. {: .speaker-KYC} ##### Mr POLLARD: -- This is not a matter for joking. I have done all those things, and I suppose most honorable members have had a similar experience. I am sure, when we read, as we frequently do in the press, a report that a car has left a straight stretch of road, that the cause of the accident has been fatigue on the part of the driver. People do go to sleep at the wheel and perhaps run into a tree before they know where they are. They have only to fall asleep for a second, and they are gone. I often wonder why these road safety councils do not lay more emphasis on fatigue as a cause of road accidents. I cannot understand why there are not more hoardings put up at dangerous places, and on city buildings or perhaps at railway stations with such warnings as, "Beware of fatigue - Pull up your car - Have ten minutes' sleep ". I have tried that remedy when I have been driving. I have been fatigued, and have found that the only thing to do is to pull up, put my cushion in the corner and go to sleep. I can assure honorable members that one is staggered upon finding that one has slept for half an hour when it has felt like only ten minutes. Sleep is the only remedy. I have never seen enough emphasis placed by the press or others charged with responsibility of administering this subject upon the danger of fatigue. That is important, but there is something more important still. I am satisfied that the owners of transport vehicles in this country do not know all the laws of the respective States. I am quite satisfied that perhaps hundreds of transport drivers are at the wheel too long and that fatigue is the cause of many of the accidents in which heavy transport vehicles are involved. Birt fatigue does not affect only road transport operators. During World War II., when Ministers left this Parliament, sometimes at 10 o'clock or 11 o'clock at night, to be driven by a Commonwealth driver to Melbourne in eight hours - I did it on rare occasions myself under heavy pressure of public business - I marvelled that Ministers and drivers were not killed. That accidents were rare on those long and arduous trips, without any relief at the wheel is a tribute to the skill, capacity and vigour of the Commonwealth drivers. I did not like to spend long hours on the road, and I made it my practice, whenever it could be done, to break the journey for the night at Albury to give the driver a rest. It is remarkable that many people who employ drivers, or who do not own motor cars, have not the faintest conception of the strain imposed on the person who drives on our roads to-day. I am satisfied that many accidents in which hired drivers are involved are due to fatigue. Private drivers should be subjected to more warnings and publicity about the dangers of driving for long periods and becoming fatigued, and the regulations in relation to hired drivers and transport drivers, which provide that no man shall drive the huge vehicles, that are so numerous on our roads, for more than a certain number of hours at a time, should be more rigidly policed. I make a strong plea for an effort to arouse the nation to a consciousness of the shocking death-roll and the dreadful economic loss that is caused by road accidents. The Australian forces suffered more than 2,000 casualties on the morning of the landing at Anzac, and when Australian troops, in Korea or anywhere else, suffer severe casualties the whole nation is horrified because the losses are publicized with large headlines in the press and by various other means. However, relatively little notice is taken of the fact that approximately 2,000 deaths a vear occur in road accidents. If the problem were tackled with money, men and capacity - money must be provided in plenitude - loss of life, injury and economic loss caused by road accidents could be reduced by at least 75 per cent., even without the imposition of more stringent speed limits. I see no justification for people with powerful cars, perhaps in a hurry and reckless of life and limb, to travel at 60 miles an hour. There should be a happy medium. I think I have mentioned the most important factors, and I leave the matter at that. I am appalled by the shocking losses that occur on Australia's roads. This measure makes available only £150,000 to deal with the problem of these horrifying and deplorable national losses. {: #subdebate-26-0-s2 .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr TURNBULL:
Mallee .- This is a subject on which I agree with the honorable member for Lalor **(Mr. Pollard).** It is very rarely that he and I agree, but on this occasion I 'agree with most of the remarks that he has made. Road safety is a most important subject, and it should be given, due consideration by the Parliament. Some time ago I had cause to speak on this subject, and I made several suggestions that I now wish to repeat. The Australian Hoad Safety Council has coined the slogan, " Courtesy is catching". I suggested, and I repeat, that the slogan should be changed to " Take the initiative in courtesy ". That is what we Australians should do, and it is the very thing that the honorable member for Lalor has advocated. Let us take the initiative in courtesy. It is all right for courtesy to be catching, but let us all take the initiative and not wait to catch courtesy from some one else. The drivers of cars have to pass prescribed tests, and surely they have average intelligence. Therefore, let us all take the initiative in doing the right thing. I was very pleased to notice the report that recently, when the traffic lights at, I think, the corner of Swanston-street and Flinders-street in Melbourne broke down for fifteen minutes, motorists repeatedly stopped their vehicles and waved pedestrians across in front of them, instead of trying to rush through as motorists have done so often in the past, even taking the risk of killing pedestrians in their way. The second suggestion that I made on the previous occasion to which I have referred related to the definition of a gentleman. I stated that I considered that a gentleman was one who, when motoring at night, dipped the headlights of his vehicle at the approach of the weak light of a bicycle. Glaring headlights contribute very largely to road accidents. A courteous and gentlemanly person who sees the dim light of a bicycle approaching will dip the lights of his own vehicle. It is only normal for a driver to dip the lights of his own vehicle as a signal to the driver of an approaching car that his headlights are dazzling. Let us all act in a manner befitting gentlemen when we are abroad on the roads. So many men who are gentlemanly in all their ways, as pedestrians and in social activities, become apparently different beings whenever they take the wheel of a motor car. Immediately a car that has broken down delays city traffic, other drivers who cannot pass begin blowing the horns of their vehicles furiously as a signal to the driver of the stationary car to get out of their way. That is not behaviour befitting good Australians. I agree with the honorable member for Lalor also that the book published by the Australian Road Safety Council is a very good publication. Certain statistics in it should be read carefully. The purpose of this bill is to increase the road safety grant from £100,000 a year to £150,000 a year. It is significant that £150,000 represents ls. 5d. for each vehicle, or 4d. a head of population. It is not a large amount when it is considered in that light. Perhaps it should be increased to £300,000, which would be the equivalent of 3s. for each vehicle. I strongly suggest that we could well afford to spend more than 4d. a head of population to prevent loss of life on the roads. {: .speaker-JRJ} ##### Mr Bowden: -- It is the States that spend the money. {: .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr TURNBULL: -- I am not saying who spends the money. I am merely pointing out how much for each vehicle and how much a head of population the road safety grant to be made under the authority of this bill represents. This sum of £150,000 will be made available under the Federal Aid Roads Agreement. but it will not be distributed in accordance with the formula under that agreement. That very fact suggests that the formula for the distribution of the general Commonwealth aids roads grant needs revision. {: .speaker-KGC} ##### Mr Hamilton: -- The Premiers would not have it. {: .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr TURNBULL: -- If we consider the number of accidents, we find that Western Australia is the worst offender. {: .speaker-KGC} ##### Mr Hamilton: -- That is so. {: .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr TURNBULL: -- The number of deaths in that State is 12.02 for every 10,000 vehicles. South Australia has the best figure, with 7.65. The average is 10.51, and Victoria, the State to which I am proud to belong, is just about average, with 10.54. It appears to me that if the money is not distributed under the formula of the Commonwealth Aid Roads Agreement, that is a fair argument in support of the contention that the general distribution is not on sound lines. {: .speaker-KWH} ##### Mr Townley: -- How was it distributed ? {: .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr TURNBULL: -- I have not the figues. Varying amounts were allocated to the different States; I think it was according to the number of motor vehicles registered. {: .speaker-KIF} ##### Mr Hulme: -- On a basis of population plus area. {: .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr TURNBULL: -- No, that is quite wrong. That is the general formula, but this money is not paid in accordance with that formula at all. The Minister's speech sets out the general principles under which the money derived from the petrol tax is made available. If the formula under which the distribution is made is not fair and reasonable, what can the States which are being treated unfairly do to have the matter rectified? {: .speaker-KVT} ##### Mr Thompson: -- Victoria has the best roads in Australia. {: .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr TURNBULL: -- When the Redex trial was in progress, I heard a radio broadcast to the effect that the road from Perth for at least 200 miles towards the border of South Australia was one of the best bitumen roads that had been encountered. {: .speaker-KVT} ##### Mr Thompson: -- It is not a bitumen road at all. {: .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr TURNBULL: -- I have been to Western Australia and I like it very well. It is a delightful State, but I am now fighting for Victoria, which does not receive a fair deal under the formula. The honorable member for Wide Bay **(Mr. Brand),** the honorable member for Canning **(Mr. Hamilton),** and the honorable member for Moore **(Mr. Leslie)** are ready to have their say. They are the only ones who have been interjecting. The honorable member for Lalor **(Mr. Pollard)** has not interjected. He agrees with me. {: .speaker-KYC} ##### Mr Pollard: -- The honorable member should get off the parish pump. {: .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr TURNBULL: -- How can a State which is receiving an unfair deal overcome the working of the formula? I compliment the Government for making available this additional amount for road safety. Let us hope that we have fewer accidents and that the people will do some of the things described by the honorable member for Lalor in such a splendid way this afternoon. Let us hope that, whether under the formula or not, more and more money will be made available each year, up to a certain amount, of course, to prevent accidents and preserve valuable lives for the service of this country. {: #subdebate-26-0-s3 .speaker-JPE} ##### Mr BIRD:
Batman .- The trouble with this bill is that it doe3 not go far enough. I agree with the statement of the honorable member for Lalor **(Mr. Pollard)** that the amount provided for road safety is by no means sufficient. I agree with the statement of the honorable member for Mallee **(Mr. Turnbull)** that the formula reacts very unfavorably against Victoria. I do not propose to develop that theme, because I know that there is just as much opposition in my party to my point of view as there is in the party of the honorable member for Mallee to his point of view. Perhaps the formula, is the one matter on which parties do not disagree on party lines. I do not intend to develop that argument, because I realize that I could not convince anybody outside Victoria. Suffice it to say that Victorians of all parties are, quite sensibly and intelligently, of opinion that the formula was in the first place an idea borrowed from an American State in 1926, because no other method could be found at that time. It was borrowed in a sense of desperation and operated to the great detriment of the progressive State of Victoria. By pursuing that argument I should be depriving myself of the opportunity of drawing attention to another aspect which the Government has definitely neglected. When formulating legislation to amend the Commonwealth Aid Roads Act the Government did not see fit to amend it along the most obvious and necessary lines. Since it was first introduced in 1926, the act has been amended from time to time to conform with changing conditions. Since the serious change for the worse in the condition of Australian roads after the war, the Government has lost the opportunity of bringing them to a satisfactory condition. Last year an amendment was made to provide for a flat rate of 7d. a gallon on both imported and locally refined petrol, portion of which was to be paid to the States under the infamous formula. That was an improvement on the previous allocation, but changing conditions of production of petroleum were responsible for the alteration. Much more petrol is now being refined locally, and the act previously provided for a levy of only 3£d. a gallon on locally refined petrol. From the moneys derived from the imposition of a flat rate on both locally refined and imported petrol, the Government last year retained for itself £4,500,000. This year the Government expects to receive £34,000,000 in petrol tax and to pay to the States £26,500,000. In other words, in two years the Government will have retained £12,000,000 which, in my opinion, ought to have been given to the States. I am firmly of opinion that petrol tax is the most equitable method of raising money for road construction and reconstruction. It cannot be controverted that at the end of this financial year £12,000,000 which could have been paid to the States for road construction and reconstruction will have been retained by the Government. The Government has thereby lost a golden opportunity of acting in the best interests of the Australian road transport system and, more important, of acting in the best interests of the Australian nation, by providing money for belter roads. The amount which will be collected by the Government will increase rapidly each year because of the increasing number of cars on the road and the increasing quantity of petrol being used. The States will also receive more money, but nevertheless the gap between the amount collected by this Government and the amount it disburses to the State governments will increase from £4,500,000 last year to £7,500,000 this year, and possibly £9,000,000 next year. The fact is that the increased amount made available to the States will not compensate them for the steadily increasing costs of road construction and maintenance. Whether or not we like it, traffic is increasing at a phenomenal rate without any restriction whatsoever. There was some restriction before the Privy Council gave its decision on the interpretation of section 92 of the Constitution, but there is now no chance of restricting road transport. We have also to realize that commerce relies more and more on road transport, which is forging ahead, while the construction and maintenance of roads is being left far behind. Some honorable members said recently that Victorian roads are the best in the Commonwealth. If they are, the roads in the other parts of Australia must be very bad, because the Victorian roads system leaves much to be desired. For every 100 motor vehicles registered in Victoria in 1954, there are 110 in 1955. It has been estimated that the figure will increase to 130 in 1956. We live in a mechanical age, when mechanization and road transport are advancing by leaps and bounds. Our road engineers have the knowledge needed to build the roads which dense and heavy motor traffic requires but, under the present method of financing road construction and maintenance, lack of money precludes the States from doing an effective job. It has been said from time to time in this House that the local governing bodies should do the job, but anybody with a scintilla of knowledge of local government problems to-day knows perfectly well that local governing bodies throughout Australia are in grave difficulties. They recognize the need to raise additional finance for expenditure on roads and bridges. To the best of their ability, they have increased valuations and adjusted their rates in an attempt to raise the additional revenue necessary to enable them to meet their responsibilities, but the increase is only a drop in the ocean. The money that they can get from such sources does not enable them to touch even the fringe of the roads problem. The municipalities, in an endeavour to cope with the problem of finance, are submitting to the main roads boards in the respective States requests for everincreasing assistance in their works programmes. The Country Roads Board in Victoria - I have no doubt that roads boards in other States can tell the same story - cannot grant anything like the amounts requested for roads purposes by Victorian municipalities. At the present time, something like 75 per cent, or SO per cent, of the finance available to the Victorian Country Roads Board is spent on day-to-day patching and on essential re-sheeting and re-sealing of roads, as well as on the re-decking and repair of bridges. The board agrees that the municipalities are requesting assistance only for works that are essential to efficient commerce and community life. The municipalities in Victoria make requests to the Country Roads Board for assistance in the construction of roads to serve new settlers, for the provision of culverts at crossings and creeks, for high level bridges over rivers and for the construction or improvement of school bus routes and mail routes. But, in the main, .the board is unable to do anything to help the municipalities, because it is not getting enough money from the Commonwealth to enable it to do its job properly. Not only is the board not getting enough money from the Commonwealth, but also it is being treated unfairly under the formula. Things would not have been so bad if the Commonwealth had made available to the States during each of the last two years an additional £12,000,000, even on the basis of the unfair formula. Victoria would have received at least a part of that money, which would have helped it to solve its problems. What is the position of the roads system in Victoria ? The Country Road? Board controls 14,430 miles of road, of which 7,630 miles are sealed or are mad<of concrete. I have not the slightest doubt that honorable members from other States could cite figures to show that in each of those States the government and the local authorities are impotent to deal with the roads problem properly, because they have not the necessary financial resources. At present, the Victorian Country Roads Board is resealing roads at the rate of 300 miles a year. *As* only a half of the 14,000 miles of roads for which it is responsible is sealed, at the present rate of progress it will take over twenty years even to reseal the present roads. It is time that the Commonwealth acted fairly towards the States in this matter. It has not done the fair thing by' the States in respect of the petrol tax. It is high time that the Government revolutionized its thinking on the problem and did the right thing. Since 1926, the staggering sum of £317,000,000 has been collected from customs and excise duties imposed on petrol by the Commonwealth. Of that amount, the Commonwealth has retained £172,000,000, or 54 per cent. I do not blame only this Government. All governments, irrespective of their political creeds, have assented to the diversion to the Commonwealth Treasury of large sums raised by the petrol tax. But the grave condition of our roads system to-day makes it imperative for the Government to adopt a new attitude and to hand to the States the whole of the revenue derived from the petrol tax. When a. bill similar to this one was being discussed in the House about twelve months ago, one honorable member said that the petrol tax was introduced for revenue purposes. I dispute that contention. Let me quote a statement that was made in 1926 by the then Treasurer, **Sir Earle** Page, when he was speaking on the motion for the second reading of a Federal Aid Roads Bill. He said - >The State governments, lacking the power to impose customs duties, are unable effectively to reach all road users. The Commonwealth is, therefore, co-operating with the States in a national roads policy, and will impose special customs duties which will be hypothecated for road construction. There is clear evidence that it was the intention of the government of that day to impose a special tax on petrol and to hand the revenue to the States for roads purposes. The High Court of Australia had ruled that it was not possible for any State government to impose a tax on petrol. Consequently, the Commonwealth, recognizing the dilemma of the States, passed legislation designed to enable the Commonwealth to act as the agent of the States in collecting the tax. But I am very much afraid that the undertaking implicit in the statement made by the Treasurer in 1926 has been honoured more in the breach than in the observance during the last 30 years. Successive Commonwealth parliaments have deviated considerably from the implications of that statement. I submit that the present condition of the roads renders it imperative for this Parliament to act in conformity with the spirit and letter of the speech made by the Treasurer in 1926. Undoubtedly, a number of good reasons for the departure from the spirit of that undertaking can be advanced, but there is an unanswerable argument now in favour of getting back to the spirit of the undertaking. I submit for the consideration of honorable members that, after all, there is not much wrong with the idea that money raised by a tax on petrol consumed by motor vehicles should be devoted to making good the wear-and-tear of the roads caused by the operation of those vehicles. The petrol tax is a logical pay-as-you-use tax, the operation of which means that the vehicles that use the roads the most pay the most in taxation. I say, not only that the Government has acted unfairly to the States by not allocating to them the entire revenue raised by the petrol tax, but also that it should give serious consideration to raising additional revenue, so that the States can do a much more effective job in relation to roads. The present Commonwealth Aid Roads Act provides for a tax to be imposed on petrol, but it makes no provision for a tax to be imposed on diesel fuel, although, as everybody with any knowledge of transport knows very well, diesel-engined cars and trucks are using our roads in increasing numbers. Quite a number of the big trucks that race up and down the Hume-highway, for example, are diesel trucks. Even some motor cars have diesel engines now. I know that one honorable member has a motor car that runs on diesel fuel, and I hope that he will not regard what 1 am saying now as a personal attack upon him. The owners of diesel-engined vehicles are on easy street compared with the owners of petrol-engined vehicles. I know that the States, recognizing that the owners of vehicles using diesel fuel pay no taxes under the provisions of the Commonwealth Aid Roads Act, have imposed a double registration fee on such vehicles. But let nobody get it into his head that that fee bears any resemblance to the sum that the owner of a diesel vehicle saves by not paying a tax on petrol. I have made some research into this matter, which has been raised on a number of occasions. It has been referred to at Premiers' conferences. I directed a question to the Prime Minister about it, to which he replied - >The question of imposing a tax on diesel fuel for roads purposes was considered when the Commonwealth aid roads legislation was under examination last year. However, the matter was deferred until such time as the whole question as rates of duty on petroleum products could be reviewed. {: .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr Turnbull: -- How can we tell whether diesel fuel is being used in a road vehicle or in a farm vehicle? {: .speaker-JPE} ##### Mr BIRD: -- I shall come to that. The Prime Minister stated, as I have indicated, that the matter was under consideration. He further stated, in the final part of his answer - >Apart from this aspect, there are a number of difficulties associated with the imposition of such a tax for road purposes. For example, in the case of petrol, a very high proportion is consumed in road-using vehicles. However, a large part of diesel fuel is consumed in stationary industrial engines and in other non-road users. For the benefit of the honorable member for Mallee **(Mr. Turnbull),** I intend to make a submission about that part of the answer in a moment or two. I do not wish to get out of step with the honorable member, because so far he and I have been in agreement on this matter. The difficulties that confront the Government in relation to the taxing of diesel fuel have been encountered by other governments throughout the world; they are not peculiar to Australia. In England in the early 1930's, the petrol tax was 8d. a gallon, but diesel fuel was untaxed. The unfairness of that situation was recognized in about 1934, and the same rate of tax was imposed on both petrol and diesel fuel. The rate of tax has been raised since, but the increase has been the same in both cases. Generally speaking, in the United States of America in 1941, diesel fuel was not taxed, but to-day 46 of the 48 States impose a tax on diesel fuel. The only two States that do not impose such a tax are Idaho and Vermont. In seven of those 46 States, the tax on diesel fuel is higher than the tax on petrol, and in the other 39 States the taxes on diesel fuel and petrol are the same. In America, the state governments and the federal government have the power to impose road taxes. I have before me a statement which shows the amount of motor fuel consumed in all the American States in 1953. It shows also that in Alabama, the tax is 6 cents a gallon on both types of fuel ; in Florida, 7 cents; in New Jersey, 3 cents; and in Pennsylvania, 5 cents. I have already indicated that in 39 of the States the tax on diesel fuel is the same as the tax on petrol, and that in seven of the States the tax on diesel fuel is greater than the tax on petrol. The federal government of America, which imposes a super tax of 2 cents, a gallon on both petrol and diesel fuel, is considering a proposal to increase the petrol tax to 3 cents a gallon and the tax on diesel fuel to 4 cents a gallon. A 'comparison of the registration taxes imposed on petrol-driven vehicles and on diesel-powered vehicles in the various States of Australia shows that, under the present system of imposing double registration fees on diesel-engined trucks, much money is being lost. I have before me another table which sets out the annual taxes that are payable in respect of a semi-trailer truck of 8 tons tare, with a payload of 19 tons, making 27 tons gross, operating for 100,000 miles. Such a vehicle represents the average commercial vehicle that plies up and down our highways and causes havoc to road surfaces. In New South Wales, the registration fee for such a petrol-engined vehicle is £115. If it covers 100,000 miles, the petrol tax amounts to £1,145, making a total tax of £1,260. The registration tax on a similar vehicle using diesel fuel is £230, but no tax is paid on the fuel used. That means that the Australian Government and the State government are receiving £1,260 in the case of the petrol-driven vehicle, as against £230 received by the New South Wales Government for the diesel-engined vehicle. Let us consider the position in the most progressive State in Australia - Victoria. There, a petrol-driven truck of this kind attracts a registration fee of £60 and contributes £1,145 in petrol tax, a total of £1,205. For a diesel-engined vehicle, only a registration fee of £120 is paid. In Queensland, the total tax is £1,205 for a petrol-driven vehicle, and £120 for a diesel-engined vehicle. In South Australia, the operator of a petrol-driven vehicle pays £1,190, as against £90 paid by the operator of a diesel-engined vehicle. In Western Australia, the respective figures are £1,255 and £110. I could cite other figures. It will be observed that the position is unfair. The Government should do something to rectify it, because large sums of money are being denied to the various road authorities. I realize that a good case can be advanced on behalf of persons who use diesel fuel for propelling other than road vehicles. Quite a number of stationary engines on farms and locomotives use diesel fuel. {: .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr Turnbull: -- Also tractors. {: .speaker-JPE} ##### Mr BIRD: -- Yes, agricultural machines and the like. The problem can be solved in Australia as it has been solved in other countries. I have taken the trouble to obtain information from the New Zealand Transport Department, which imposes such a tax quite effectively ; but I shall suggest a better method in a moment or two. In New Zealand, a mileage tax equal to a motor spirit tax of ls. 3d. a gallon is payable on vehicles that are powered by diesel fuel or electricity. The tax is 7s. 6d. for each 100 miles for vehicles of over 2 and under 2£ tons gross loaded weight, and £1 0s. 3d. for each 100 miles for vehicles of over 93 tons loaded weight. I suggest that a much simpler method could be devised. Two grades of fuel could be used. The non-taxable fuel, to be used in tractors and stationary vehicles on farms, could be of a different colour from the fuel available for road-using motor vehicles. If that were done, and if inspections were made by inspectors of the authorities that now control the country roads, there would be very little flouting of the law. If it were discovered that a vehicle was using coloured fuel, it would be obvious that the operator was receiving fuel that was meant for non-road using vehicles, and there would be grounds for a criminal prosecution. Vehicles, such as tractors, that do not use the roads, should be allowed to purchase diesel fuel at the present rate. At the present time, certain types of motor fuel are coloured. The process of colouring motor fuel used by internal combustion engines presents no difficulties. Although there might be manipulation by some unscrupulous people, I believe that 95 per cent, of the people would observe the law. Rigorous inspection would very quickly lead to the apprehension of offenders. Moreover, the various governments would also receive as much as £1,100 a year in respect of each vehicle which they are not receiving under the present system. I am satisfied that the difficulty could be overcome. The Government should not adopt a policy of vacillation and inertia in regard to this matter. Other countries have realized the definite value of diesel-propelled vehicles, and they are making the owners pay their fair share of wear and tear. No logical reason can be advanced why vehicles that use diesel fuel should not pay tax on it. I suggest that the difficulty could be overcome by policing the two grades of diesel fuel. The States themselves would be only too glad to perform that function because it would mean more revenue for them. I am satisfied that they would present no opposition to such a proposal, the adoption of which would put hundreds of thousands of pounds into their coffers and increase the fund available to them for road works. The time has arrived for the Government to examine this proposition fully, and to be entirely practical and logical about it, because, since the war, the increase in the number and size of road transport vehicles has been tremendous. The problems that now beset us in relation to road transport were not envisaged twenty years ago. I suggest that the first thing that the Government should do is to remit the whole of the proceeds of petrol tax to the States. Secondly, there should be a tax on diesel fuel used by road transport vehicles, which would make money available for a vast improvement of roads throughout the Commonwealth in a comparatively short period. {: #subdebate-26-0-s4 .speaker-JOE} ##### Mr JEFF BATE:
Macarthur . I think that everybody in the Parliament, will be grateful to the Government for heeding our request last year, during the debate on a similar bill, that road safety precautions should be increased. There is not the slightest doubt that there has been in Australia a vast increase of road transport. We all know quite well that this is probably one of the leading countries in the world in respect of vehicle usage, with a small, rich population scattered over its length and breadth. Because of that we have an enormous transport problem. We have pointed out in this chamber recently that 40 per cent., or £1,400,000,000 of our national income of £4,000,000,000, is being spent on transport, particularly on road transport. This bill seeks to continue the five-year agreement with the States, and to increase the amount available under that agreement for road safety purposes from £100,000 to £150,000. Last year, this country spent £2-30.000,000 on motor cars. Almost every family in Australia has a motor car. {: .speaker-K8B} ##### Mr Curtin: -- I have not a motor car. {: .speaker-JOE} ##### Mr JEFF BATE: -- It would not be safe to let the honorable member for Watson **(Mr. Curtin)** have a motor car. I think that everybody should be grateful that the honorable member has not a motor car, because he is the kind of unsound individual who ought not to be permitted to have a car, and I hope that the New South Wales Government will prevent him from ever having a driver's licence. The information that the honorable member for Watson has not a motor car is the best thing I have heard in this debate. Australia has the highest number of commercial vehicles, for each 1,000 of its population, of any country in the world, including America. It has the second highest number of private motor cars in relation to population. When I was interrupted by the honorable member for Watson, I was saying that nearly every family in Australia has a motor car. All kinds of people in this country have motor cars. Because there are people with cars who are not used to driving, and people who drive only at week-ends and therefore have not become really experienced drivers, we have a great toll of road accidents in Australia. These accidents occur on smooth roads, rough roads, precipitous roads, straight roads, crooked roads and flat roads. Some of the accidents are very bad. So we are supporting the efforts of the Australian Road Safety Council to limit the number of such accidents, by increasing by 50 per cent, the amount of money available to it. This will mean, of course, that the allocation for other purposes will be less, but the Premiers, although they were originally a little diffident about this, finally agreed that it was a matter of paramount importance that every effort should be made to do something about the toll of life and limb which results from our terrific road accident rate. It is usual for the Sydney Sunday newspapers every week to list the casualties caused by week-end accidents, and statements to the effect that the week-end has produced a record number of road accidents are not infrequent. Because we have become so used to the road toll we have become deadened to it. This Parliament, in its wisdom and experience, intends to increase to £150,000 the grant to the Australian Road Safety Council. This amount is probably little enough to meet the situation, but at least it will give **Mr. Paterson,** the chairman of the council, and the men who are working with him, an opportunity to do the things they want to do about road safety. We think that this money will go some distance towards reducing the toll of life and limb on our roads, in a country which is expanding so rapidly, and in which motor cars capable of enormous speeds on roads which are not suitable for such speeds are available to drivers who are not thoroughly capable of handling the cars. This week, **Senator Tangney** asked in another place whether drivers of interstate road transport vehicles were forced to take drugs so as to remain awake in order to keep going and deliver their loads on schedule. The Minister for Shipping and Transport **(Senator Paltridge)** agreed that an inquiry should be held into whether drivers of large vehicles take drugs, and whether the States are cooperating in ensuring that relief men are available to prevent such dangerous overworking of road transport drivers. We all know of accidents in which friends and relatives have been involved as a result of collisions with large road transport vehicles. Sometimes these vehicles are driven by young men who have not had sufficient experience, or training, in driving them. In some cases, although the drivers have passed the requisite driving test, they have not the requirements of character to fit them to drive heavy vehicles for long periods at a stretch. A comparison of the precautions taken by the railways in respect of locomotive drivers with the lack of similar precautions in relation to drivers of heavy road transports highlights the defects in our present methods. Some railway locomotive drivers must have as long as fifteen or seventeen years' experience on the railways before they are allowed to take a locomotive out on the tracks; yet the railways are equipped with all sorts of signalling and other devices as precautions against error and accident. Compare that regard for safety with the position on the roads, on which a man with only a few weeks' training is allowed to take a very large vehicle simply because he has passed a driving test under conditions that are not similar to those he will meet in his actual work as a road transport driver. {: .speaker-K8B} ##### Mr Curtin: -- That is private enterprise for you. {: .speaker-JOE} ##### Mr JEFF BATE: -- Car drivers take their lives in their hands when they pass those large vehicles, which the honorable member for Watson says belong to private enterprise and which are, or should be, strictly controlled by the State governments. My remarks are directed really to the State Ministers for Transport as an adjuration to them to take the proper precautions in regard to heavy road transport. The States are represented on the Australian Road Safety Council by police superintendents of traffic, who should make recommendations to their governments to have the requirements for theissue of licences to drive heavy road transport vehicles tightened, in order to ensure that men licensed to drive such vehicles have enough character to ensure that they will take proper care on the roads. lt is not inappropriate to say a few words now about the roads themselves. Much criticism of our roads is voiced, and this Parliament has endeavoured to meet the demand for good roads. Honorable members will probably recall that last year, under a five-year agreement, provision was made to impose a general petrol tax of 7d. a gallon. That tax had previously stood at 3$d. a gallon and 6d. a gallon. The increase to 7d. as from the 1st July, 1954, enabled the provision to the States of a further amount of £'7,000,000 last financial year over the previous year's grant of £17,000,000. I believe that this Parliament has given the maximum amount that could be used for roads, because even if we gave more, the money could not be matched by the manpower and material resources that would be available for road work. To increase the amount further would be to overdo things. If they had more money they would not be able to use it. {: .speaker-JPE} ##### Mr BIRD: -- They could use it in Victoria. {: .speaker-JOE} ##### Mr JEFF BATE: -- I am glad to know that. I think that you have had experience in Queensland, **Mr. Deputy Speaker,** of some road authorities having money stacked up in their accounts. They have not been able to use it. I am glad to know that Victoria is geared to use it; but, in some other places, either the State government has not given the money to local governing bodies, or, when those bodies have received the money, they have not been able to obtain the men and materials to use it. Section 11 of the act which was passed last year provided that the States would be required to account to the Treasurer **(Sir Arthur Fadden)** for the way in which they spent the money. Immediately that happened, the amount available to local governing bodies increased tremendously. In the Shoalhaven Shire, the amount rose from £8,000 to £18,000 immediately. The money was tremendously well received by the people concerned. A distinguished gentleman who was visiting this country from, overseas found great fault with our roads. This country is developing so fast that it is ahead of its roads. When we remember the precipitous areas on the eastern side of the Divide, when we remember the neglect of our roads during the war, and when we remember the impact of fastmoving vehicles on those roads after the war, especially in wet seasons, we have some conception of the extent of this problem. This bill provides for the problem to be met gradually. We do not agree with Opposition members who say that it is only necessary to get more money in order to improve the roads. It is also necessary to have men. It is necessary to have men of spirit - men of courage who will go out into the heat of Queensland and into the floods and frost, and work long hours in giving their time and their skill to this work. ' We cannot run ahead of these men. The Government has provided sufficient money to meet the need. When the Government increased the amount of this grant at the beginning of the last financial year, the roads of Australia needed a good deal of attention. Already, the effect of this Commonwealth aid roads legislation is being felt. Roads are beginning to improve tremendously. At the end of this five-year period, in 1960, there will be good roads in Australia. At the end of five years, the road from Canberra to Cooma will be a fast traffic road. Already, about 20 miles of it have been repaired beautifully. I believe that the programme provides for the expenditure of £465,000 on the road to the coast down the Clyde Mountain. Much of it will be black tarred. That is so interesting that even the honorable member for Henty **(Mr. Gullett)** has begun to listen to me. No doubt he will want to use that road. The last section of the coast road between Melbourne and Narooma has been done, and it is a wonderful road. The most amazing machines that I have ever seen were used on that road. Tourists can appreciate what this Parliament is doing. I believe that the next four years will see a wonderful improvement in the roads of Australia. Surely everybody will admit that it is an enormous job. Once again I want to say how delighted I am that the Government is going on with these proposals, particularly the proposal to increase by £50,000 the grant for the Australian Road Safety Council. {: #subdebate-26-0-s5 .speaker-KZW} ##### Mr LAWRENCE:
Wimmera -- I rise to support this bill which proposes to increase the grant for road safety from £100,000 to £150,000. I did not intend to speak on this bill, but, as a motorist for the last 27 years and as president of the Horsham branch of the Royal Automobile Club of Victoria, I feel that I should say something, because the more that we can impress on the people the terrible road toll which faces the people of Victoria, the better will the nation be served. Since I have been a member of Parliament, I have averaged more than 23,000 miles a. year in my car. I use it in travelling from my home to Canberra. In that distance, I encounter many of the hazards that other honorable members have encountered. I think that we have to consider what those hazards have been. I am guilty of some of the offences that the honorable member for Lalor **(Mr. Pollard)** has mentioned. I have driven when I have been sleepy. In fact, 1 had the unfortunate experience of falling asleep at the wheel, but I was lucky enough to wake up in time to save serious injury to myself and serious damage to my car. I have also committed the offence of taking drugs in order to keep awake. I have used caffeine tablets. I always carry them in. the car because one often has to get to a place in time to perform one's duties as a member of Parliament. Therefore, I carry a bottle of caffeine tablets to enable me to keep awake. These things only go to prove what the honorable member for Lalor has said - that many risks are taken by drivers to the detriment of themselves and the travelling public. I have had the unfortunate experience of being tipped out of a car, although I was noi the driver on that occasion. There, excessive speed was the trouble. I believe, therefore, that speed limits should be enforced with the utmost vigour of the law. There is another very great hazard that we all experience, and that is soft edges on the sides of roads. I hope to be able to make some suggestion about that matter. We also strike the hazard of failing headlights when both headlights go out at the same time, often at a curve or when meeting other traffic. This can have very serious results. There is also the problem in connexion with safety glass. We all are very pleased to have safety glass in our cars, but a problem is associated with it. I was travelling in a Commonwealth car some time ago when I was accompanying a Senate team to South Australia in order to have a look at the experiments in relation tomineral deficiency in various soils. A stone was thrown up by a vehicle in front of the one in which I was travelling, and immediately the whole windscreen was made opaque because of the safety glass. Those" are some of the hazards that I have encountered, and I am certain that other members have encountered similar ones. What can we do about them? Experiments have been carried out in the United States of America to show that, by growing rose-bush hedges on the side of the road, vehicles thai run off the road, either because of mechanical fault or because the driver falls asleep, can be pulled up without danger to the driver or damage to the car in a very short distance. I do think, therefore, that rose-bush hedges could be planted on dangerous curves. In many places, the roads are not wide enough. I suppose that in my electorate I have some very bad examples of that. Coming across from South Australia to Sydney, many heavy vehicles travel through my electorate on very narrow roads. It is impossible to pass these vehicles if the road is wet because of the soft edges. They will not move over because they are likely to tip over or become bogged. Therefore, roads should be sufficiently wide to ensure that vehicles can pass one another in safety. Many highways - and I am thinking at the moment of the highway from Melbourne to Bendigo - should have one-way traffic lanes. Hedges should be planted between the lanes at a sufficient height to ensure that the headlights of approaching vehicles will not cause accidents. I have already said that speed limits should be enforced and severe penalties imposed upon offenders. Traffic laws should be standardized throughout the Commonwealth, and especially, there should be a universal obligation to give way to the vehicle on the right on all occasions. Headlights should be separately fused so that one will always function. The question of failing headlights is, of course, a great problem. Two makes of car at present on the Australian roads provide safetyglass windscreens. If a stone breaks the windscreen the portion in front of the driver is not shattered. I believe that that, too, should be made compulsory. I must commend the traffic authorities of Melbourne for their practice of painting a large red cross on the roadway in places where fatal accidents have occurred. I am sure that every one who sees such a cross is impressed with the need to use care. Also, I must commend the Country Roads Board of Victoria for its wonderful construction work, and for the safety measures that it has implemented with the small amount of money that is made available to that State. I do not wish to harp on the matter, but as a Victorian member I deplore the fact that Victoria does not get its fair share of the petrol tax. I hope that it will get its due share of the £150,000 that is being made available for safety measures under this bill because I believe that it will be well and wisely spent. {: #subdebate-26-0-s6 .speaker-JTF} ##### Mr TOM BURKE:
Perth .- The bill, as has been repeatedly stated, provides £150,000 towards the extension of road safety work throughout the Commonwealth. Road safety is, however, only part of the very much wider problem of the Australian roads system. The remarks of honorable members reveal a wide agreement on the vital need for more and better roads, more uniform traffic rules and a comprehensive approach to what is one of the major problems of the Australian nation. All these aspects are vital and focus attention upon the very real problems of which the subject of this bill forms part. However, the approach of the Government to this matter, as to so many others, is that the Commonwealth has large responsibilities and large revenues, but not all responsibility or all revenue. It is, of course, true that from time to time the States and the Commonwealth meet to discuss roads and road safety. The loss of life and human suffering as a result, of accidents upon our roads is so great that a very much stronger effort must be made to provide better roads and, what is equally important, to stop the evergrowing toll of life and limb. The Government might well regard this as one of the most urgent problems confronting the nation. My colleague, the honorable member for Lalor **(Mr. Pollard)** pointed out the great and regular loss of life upon the roads of Australia. The number of persons who are injured, but escape death, is even more staggering. It has, therefore, begun to assume the proportions of a grave national problem and, at the earliestpossible moment, this Government should meet the States to discuss it at the highest level. It must be dealt with by a coordinated effort on the part of the Commonwealth and State governments. Local and municipal authorities also have a part to play in reducing the shocking toll of the road. As has often been pointed out, a great, roads system is not only a civil but also a defence need. It is essential that this Government should embark upon a very ambitious roads scheme. I need not point out how the defence of Australia was hampered, or aided, by the roads in existence during World War II. Suffice it to say that if war should again come to this country, it is abundantly clear that roads would play a vital part in preserving our way of life. Therefore, road construction deserves the highest priority. On the continent of Europe and in America, the most far-sighted plans have been drawn up. They include provision for great roads the construction of which will take years. Consideration has been given not only to present traffic needs, but also to the needs of the future. As populations increase, newer and, perhaps, bigger and faster vehicles will use the roads and may be expected to aggravate the problems that already confront us. No such realistic approach to the solution of road problems is evident in Australia. There should be preliminary planning, and then planning at the highest level, to ensure that Australia embarks upon a highways programme - no matter how long it may take to fulfil - that will bring our roads to the desired standard. Any plans must, of course, take account of the vastly increased populations that we shall have in this country in years to come. We shall need far wider and better roads than are necessary to meet present needs. Road systems must move in advance of increasing populations if the road toll is to end. The terrifying advances in modern warfare lend emphasis to the need to plan, at the earliest possible date, a road system that will take into account our needs both now and in the far distant future. We must first gather all the information that we can concerning road systems elsewhere in the world. The systems of some countries are well in advance of ours, and other countries will be able to tell us of their plans for the future. I read recently that America has a most ambitious longterm plan. The necessary information can readily be gathered, and, having obtained it, we must then do the necessary planning. The various governmental authorities must, for the good of the nation, and perhaps for its survival in the future, establish administrative machinery to plan and to provide the wherewithal to carry out the plan. The Australian Government says, " It is not our responsibility, even if we had the money, to carry out great road plans ". The Commonwealth may play some part, but only in connexion with main roads. State governments accept the responsibility as being theirs, but they say that they have not the money. They agree that plans may be required, but they contend that such plans are fruitless when they cannot get money to hire men and machinery to carry out their present road programmes, much less the more ambitious ones that would be required for the future. It is, therefore, necessary to ensure at an early stage that this problem is approached in the way that it must be approached. It is all very well for the Commonwealth to say that' it is the responsibility of the State governments, but we must approach the matter firstly from the point of view of the loss of life that occurs. If the road toll can be reduced, even to a very slight degree, a large expenditure of money is justified. There is also a serious economic loss, quite apart from the loss of life. As the honorable member for Lalor **(Mr. Pollard)** said, many men and women, and even boys and girls, are cut down by accidents that could be avoided. The road hazards could be minimized or even removed. We have not, as yet, approached the problem in a co-ordinated way, in order to plan for the improvement of the existing roads, and for the builing of the roads that will be so necessary in the future. We are spending, and have been spending over past years, millions of pounds in trying to increase the population of Australia by a vast immigration scheme. We have brought in immigrants, who will play a valuable part in the productive life of Australia, and, no doubt, in its defence, should that be necessary. But we lose 2,000 persons a year who would otherwise, and at very little expense, become workers for the Australian nation, or who would take their places as producers, or who would become the mothers and fathers of our future Australian citizens. We lose them because we have not a proper approach to the problem. We cannot find the necessary money, and we simply have not reached the stage where the various responsible authorities can meet and decide frankly what is necessary to improve our road system and to plan for the future. I believe that if the State governments were approached they would willingly co-operate in any plans considered necessary. I believe that the Australian Government should take the initiative, and make such an approach. The amount of £150,000 that is being granted for road safety will, of course, be very useful, as are the road safety campaigns that are carried out from time to time. But those campaigns impress for the moment only. We should try to eliminate the causes of the road toll, the hazards of the roads, the fast-moving vehicles, the driver who is not properly qualified. There is also the hazard, as some one said recently, of the large road transport vehicle. There is a danger in the long hours that some drivers are forced to spend behind the wheel under our present system of road transport. {: .speaker-KEJ} ##### Mr Keon: -- What about the booze ? {: .speaker-JTF} ##### Mr TOM BURKE: -- As the honorable member says, there is also the problem of the abuse of one of the amenities of life. in the form of alcohol. That certainly causes a terrific number of road accidents. One could continue to talk on this matter at great length, but one would never get past the major issue. What is required is an immediate move by Commonwealth and State governments, with the assistance of local-governing bodies, to plan a system that will arrest the present toll of the road, and to plan the future road systems of Australia. *Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.* {: #subdebate-26-0-s7 .speaker-L19} ##### Mr LESLIE:
Moore .- The bill before the House seeks to approve of the payment of £150,000 to the Australian Road Safety Council. What it actually does is to increase from £100,000 to £150,000 the amount that was previously paid from the Commonwealth Aid Roads Fund to that council. During the course of the discussion - it could hardly be called a debate - which took place earlier to-day in connexion with it, we heard a number of references to the provisions which are contained in the Commonwealth Aid Roads Act and the system by which money is paid from the main fund. The honorable member for Lalor **(Mr. Pollard)** spoke about the necessity for greater safety on our roads, and the avoidance of accidents, and nobody will disagree with the views that he expressed on those matters. The honorable member for Mallee **(Mr. Turnbull),** in his characteristic persistent and consistent effort on behalf of Victoria, submitted the losing argument that Victoria was not receiving a fair spin under the formula by which this money is distributed amongst the States. {: .speaker-KCD} ##### Mr Davis: -- Hear, hear ! {: .speaker-L19} ##### Mr LESLIE: -- Now another Victorian interjects with " Hear, hear " in support of this losing argument. The honorable member for Batman **(Mr. Bird)** suggested ways by which a greater distribution could be made of the receipts from the petrol tax. The honorable member for Wimmera **(Mr. Lawrence)** gave us an indication of what Victoria, in my opinion, is seeking. He did not grumble about the state of the Victorian roads. His complaint was that roses were not growing alongside the roads, and hedges were not growing down the middle of them. {: .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr Daly: -- What is wrong with that? {: .speaker-L19} ##### Mr LESLIE: -- Never mind about rose bushes or hedges ! We in the vast State of Western Australia are seeking just one or two reasonable roads on which our traffic can travel. I suggest to the Victorians that the beautification they suggest would actually be a danger. We are now dealing with road safety. I can imagine people in vehicles becoming intoxicated by the beauty of the roses growing on the side of the road, thus increasing the risk every day. We in Western Australia are concerned with something far more useful than mere ornamentation. {: #subdebate-26-0-s8 .speaker-JS7} ##### Mr BRAND:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND -- What about Queensland ? {: .speaker-L19} ##### Mr LESLIE: -- Queensland, like Western Australia, obtains benefit from the Commonwealth Aid Roads Fund, and Queensland, like Western Australia, needs it. In those vast States roads are vitally necessary to provide for economic production in the country districts. I do not want to traverse the whole of this road agreement now that I have dealt with the obviously false claim of Victoria to a greater participation in this allocation for roads. It is of no use the Victorians putting up the complaint that it is lack of funds which is hindering them in the provision of adequate and better roads in their State, if they have not already got good roads. As a matter of fact, it is of no use any State's putting up that complaint because the position *is* that the State governments have not been able to spend all the money that has been allotted to them by this generous Government under the agreement. {: .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr Daly: -- That is not right. {: .speaker-L19} ##### Mr LESLIE: -- It is quite right, a.the figures show. I desire now to refer to the work of the Australian Road Safety Council. Quite frankly, I am not too happy about what we are getting for the money which is provided. This agreement has been in existence since 1947, and the Road Safety Council has been provided with a good deal of money, yet we have the sorry story, according to the most recent report available, of a record number of accidents. The prevention of accidents is one of the objectives of the Government in providing these funds. I have seen no account of how that money has been spent, and no report to the Parliament on the expenditure of the grant. All I have seen has been a number of poster displays and a number of newspaper advertisements seeking to create a sense of safetymindedness in road users. Publicity of that kind may do some good, but I am concerned with a more realistic and substantial contribution towards road safety. For example, one of the objectives of the Australian Road Safety Council is to obtain uniform traffic laws throughout the Commonwealth. I suggest that the council, before it tries to achieve uniformity in that respect throughout the Commonwealth, should endeavour to get uniformity or consistency in one State. In Western Australia, we have a lamentable position.Road traffic regulations are published one week, and, within a few weeks, a complete change is made. Again, one week certain roads are major roads. Motorists, before entering those roads, are required to stop and make sure that the way is clear. The following week, those roads are no longer major roads, and everybody is required to give way to the traffic on the right. It is difficult, for any motorist to know just what he can or cannot do under present conditions. I agree that the traffic laws are not uniform throughout the Commonwealth, hut two things are wanted. {: .speaker-KDS} ##### Mr Failes: -- We want more roads. {: .speaker-L19} ##### Mr LESLIE: -- I do not quibble about roads, because we do want a great deal more money for roads, but two other things are required, and I believe that the Australian Road Safety Council can make a substantial contribution towards achieving them. One thing it can do is endeavour to obtain roads that are safe for the travelling public. At the moment, there are certain hazards on roads which should never be allowed to exist. One of them has been mentioned frequently in this debate. It is that some roads are too narrow to allow two vehicles to pass each other in safety. The other point is common to the whole of the Commonwealth. Although certain accidents may he attributed to speed, they are not necessarily the result of speed. For instance, a careful driver who is travelling over a stretch of good road with which he is familiar at the safe normal speed of from 35 to 40 miles an hour may suddenly be confronted with severe potholes, damage to the road, or an obstruction on it. This might cause him to swerve suddenly in an attempt to avoid the road hazard. The point to which I should like the Australian Road Safety Council to turn its attention now arises. In making a sudden swerve to avoid the hazard, the vehicle, because of its instability, capsizes. I made inquiries concerning the number of vehicles that had overturned or capsized on the road, and I am in a position to say that many of the capsizes are not due merely to excessive speed. One might say, in the strictly legal sense, that they are the result of excessive speed, because the traveller met up with a sudden and unexpected hazard on the road. Had the drivers been driving slowly at 10, 15 or 20 miles an hour, expecting some obstruction or hazard, they certainly could not have been said to be travelling at excessive speed. However, if they strike a hazard at even a normal speed, the instability of certain makes and kinds of vehicles causes the vehicle to leave the road and capsize. Instead of posting up placards and posters and publishing advertisements in newspapers, which do not in any way contribute to safety on the roads, the Australian Road Safety Council should make inspections of the various makes of vehicles on the roads. If it finds even the slightest degree of instability, it should ask the makers to alter the design so as to make the car safe. If that is not done, the matter should be reported to the authorities, who should refuse to license the vehicles until they are made stable. If some of this money were spent in that way, it would make a substantial contribution towards road safety. If people want to travel in unsafe or unstable cars or if they wish to travel at excessive speeds, by themselves, that maybe their own funeral. I do not mind any one committing suicide. The greatest trouble is that people who do these things endanger the lives of others. We must take action to remove the danger to which others are exposed by reckless or careless drivers. The Australian Road Safety Council should make the provision of this money worth while by devoting some of its energies to an attempt to induce the traffic authorities in all the States to introduce a code of far more severe penalties than exist to-day for negligent and dangerous driving and for other breaches of the traffic laws. I repeat that I am not concerned about the person who endangers his own life. I do not mind whether a person kills himself on the road, hangs himself in his own laundry, or commits suicide in any other way he likes to choose. That is his own affair. However, the authorities have a duty to intervene to protect other persons whose life and safety are endangered by drivers. At the present time, penalties for traffic offences are not sufficiently severe, and able lawyers who take advantage of legal technicalities get offenders off or have the punishment minimized or considerably reduced. There is not a sufficient deterrent to prevent the owners and drivers of motor cars from taking risks - often knowingly - and endangering the lives of others. Offenders know that they will not suffer much punishment if they are caught. They hope to escape without punishment, but they know that if they are caught the punishment will be light. How often is it that a court is unable to inflict a penalty sufficiently severe to meet the circumstances of the case? I conclude on the note that the road safety grant could be used to far greater purpose. We are not getting anything like our money's worth merely by indulging in newspaper advertising and creating slogans, no matter how necessary it may be to educate the public. That sort of thing is not getting us anywhere. We must get down to practical measures, and I have mentioned several ways in which practical action could be taken towards the achievement of the objectives of road safety. {: #subdebate-26-0-s9 .speaker-KEJ} ##### Mr KEON:
Tarra .- I wish to direct the attention of the Government to the inadequacy of the grant to be made to the Australian Road Safety Council. The increase from £100,000 to £150,000 a year is totally inadequate. When one considers that motor accidents are probably fourth highest in the list of the causes of death in Australia, one realizes that the problem cannot be tackled merely by increasing the road safety grant by £50,000 a year. The Commonwealth *Year-Booh* reveals that only about three factors, including heart disease and cancer, cause more deaths than do traffic accidents. The Government must face the fact that one of the greatest problems of preventive medicine, if I may put it in those words, is the prevention of road accidents. During World War II., 33,000 Australian servicemen were killed. Averaged over six years of war, that is 5,000 a year. The wounded numbered 180,000, or 30,000 a year. The statistics of traffic accidents show that at the present time more people are being put into hospital every year by traffic accidents than were wounded during World War II. The latest figures issued by the Commonwealth Statistician show that, during the year 1953-54, there were 35,523 accidents involving casualties. Traffic accidents are putting into hospital at least 5,000 people a year more than the average number of servicemen wounded during each year of World War LT. Yet the Government, in the face of such a problem, proposes merely to grant an additional £50,000 to the Australian Road Safety Council. {: .speaker-KGC} ##### Mr Hamilton: -- The matter is the responsibility of the State governments. {: .speaker-KEJ} ##### Mr KEON: -- They have their responsibilities. I suggest that, if they are not discharging their obligations, the Commonwealth, which has charge of health matters in general, has a responsibility to liven them up. At a very conservative estimate, most of the persons injured in the 35,523 accidents involving casualties in 1953-54 would have spent an average of ten days in hospital. Many of them, of course, would have spent many months in hospital, but I think I should not be accused of exaggerating if I adopted an average period of ten days. According to **Mr. O'sullivan,** the New South Wales Minister for Health, it costs £3 14s. a day to maintain a patient in a hospital bed in New South Wales. It is clear, then, that traffic accidents are costing the people of Australia, by virtue of the occupancy of hospital beds, altogether apart from the anguish suffered by victims and relatives, approximately £1,300,000 a year. The Government would make a wise investment if it devoted even hundreds of thousands of pounds to the road safety campaign in an endeavour to prevent traffic accidents. I have before me the report made in September by the Australian Road Safety Council. I disagree with the honorable member for Moore **(Mr. Leslie)** about the effectiveness of the council. Within the limits that the situation and the council's finances impose upon it, the officials of the council are doing a very fine job. But they can do only what the available finance permits them to do. Both the Australian Government and the State governments are being penny wise and pound foolish. If they spent a few thousand pounds more on the prevention of accidents, they would save a great deal in hospital costs, apart from anything else. The Government is prepared to spend millions of pounds, if necessary, to make the Salk poliomyelitis vaccine available for the immunization of persons who are the most likely to contract poliomyelitis. If the Government is prepared to spend so much money on preventive medicine, it should be prepared to spend at least an equivalent amount on preventing another major cause of death and disablement, because the victims of traffic accidents, in all respects, far outnumber the victims of poliomyelitis. Indeed, during the year 1953, poliomyelitis caused only fourteen of every 10,000 deaths, whereas traffic accidents - " motor vehicle accidents " as they are described in the *Year-Book -* caused 243 of every 10,000 deaths. Yet the money being spent on prevention of deaths from the two causes is in inverse proportion to the number of deaths caused. We should be spending much more money on the prevention of traffic accidents than we are spending on the prevention of death and disablement from poliomyelitis and other diseases. This is an urgent matter of public health and preventive medicine, and simply to increase the grant by £50,000 is not sufficient. The report of the Australian Road Safety Council shows that the major causes of accidents and deaths on the road are personal causes. In other words, they are not caused by narrow roads and driving hazards. According to the last annual report of **Mr. Paterson,** the executive chairman of the council, 70 per cent. of road fatalities were caused by personal factors. In other words, the individual drove his car too fast, did not make the appropriate traffic signals, or committed some other offence which resulted in the accident. {: .speaker-JRJ} ##### Mr Bowden: -- He was " boozed ", in other words. {: .speaker-KEJ} ##### Mr KEON: -- As the honorable member for Gippsland **(Mr. Bowden)** reminds me, in a very large number of cases intoxication was the cause of the accident. It is of no use for us to talk about widening roads, providing traffic lines, and doing all the things that have been suggested during the debate in an effort to prevent accidents, unless we are prepared to tackle the prime cause, which is a personal factor, namely, carelessness and incompetence of drivers themselves. That is the matter to which the Government should be addressing itself, and £50,000 will not go a very long way towards curing that situation. I suppose that very largely the question is a moral one. How can the motorist be convinced that he is doing wrong in driving carelessly, under the influence of alcohol, or when his alcoholic content is a little high? I suppose that primarily an education campaign is required. As a motorist I hesitate to say this, butI think that it is a case of sparing the rod and spoiling the child. There is only one way that I know in which motorists can be adequately educated about the dangers to themselves, to their families, and to other persons in the community, and that is by prosecution, prosecution, prosecution, and more prosecution. {: .speaker-KEE} ##### Mr Kent Hughes: -- A policeman visible in the rear vision mirror. {: .speaker-KEJ} ##### Mr KEON: -- A policeman visible in the rear vision mirror, as the Minister very rightly says. Everybody knows that when he can see a policeman in his rear vision mirror he drives carefully. We have to achieve as best we can conditions whereunder everybody will drive, as the Minister suggests, as though he could see a policeman in his rear vision mirror. I agree with the honorable member for Moore that very little effect comes from newspaper appeals reminding us that life is so precious and death is so permanent. So far as motorists are concerned, a campaign of terrorism is required, until such time as they realize that by driving unsafely they will be in trouble. Before going out every week-end a motorist should read in the newspaper, and hear over the radio, reports of the casualties which occurred during the previous weekend. Motorists complain when they are prosecuted, but, by and large, as every honorable member knows, the prosecutions are for their own good and for the good of the community. Every week-end one picks up a newspaper and reads of the tragic deaths of mothers of children, children themselves, and fathers of families, all of which are completely unnecessary and caused by personal carelessness on the part of -individual motorists. If we allow persons to take charge of tons of metal which can hurtle round the roads at a terrific rate of speed, we must take the necessary steps to ensure that they do not kill themselves and others. I do not agree with the view of the honorable member for Moore that if they want no commit suicide we should allow them to do so. We have a duty not only to prevent their committing suicide but also to protect the rest of the community. I suggest to the Minister that the Health Ministry should be brought into tha matter, because the hospitals arc cluttered with the victims of traffic accidents, and it is costing us about £1,500,000 a year to provide accommodation for them. So that honorable members will appreciate the position, I shall read a section of the last annual report of the Australian Road Safety Council - >Statistics and special research studies chart the frightening pattern of death and destruction woven each year on our roads, and identify the persons and factors responsible. A moment ago I said that 70 per cent, of accidents arose from personal causes. I see now that the figure is 93 per cent., and only 7 per cent arose from nonpersonal causes. Therefore, in discussing the traffic problem, we have to address ourselves primarily to the education of motorists to drive carefully. It is a shocking indictment of civilization that we are prepared to allow killing and wounding to continue to an even greater extent than occurred during the war, without doing anything about it. We should be prepared, if necessary, to put governors on every car to prevent its being driven at high speeds. I should not hesitate to recommend that course of action. Motor cycles are a very formidable source of homicide by traffic accident. Governments should be prepared to ensure that motor cyclists do not kill themselves and other people, by limiting the speed of these machines to something like 30 miles per hour. The figures of the Road Safety Council in relation to persons killed and injured by motor cycles show that they are one of the greatest menaces on the road, not only to the riders but also to the general public as well. Those honorable members who have seen a motor cycle accident, or who have had to jump out of the way of some lunatic on a motor bike who comes whizzing down the street at 60 miles per hour, know full well that speed is the prime cause of motor cycle accidents. We should at least ensure that we are capable of coping with this problem by immediately introducing legislation to prevent the importation into this country of motor cycles which travel faster than 30 miles per hour. Any worker who wants to go to work on a motor cycle would not be hurt by such a policy. The persons who would be affected are the lunatics who desire to drive at high speeds on motor cycles on dangerous roads under bad conditions to their own destruction and that of other people. {: .speaker-KEE} ##### Mr Kent Hughes: -- Temporary Australians. {: .speaker-KEJ} ##### Mr Keon: -- As the Minister says, they are temporary Australians. {: .speaker-JWX} ##### Mr J R FRASER:
ALP -- It is from such persons that fighter pilots are obtained. {: .speaker-KEJ} ##### Mr KEON: -- There are many avenues wherein these persons can exercise their desire for thrills other than by careering down roads on motor cycles to the imminent danger of the rest of the community. {: .speaker-JOE} ##### Mr Jeff Bate: -- They can go to Malaya. {: .speaker-KEJ} ##### Mr KEON: -- Our friend suggests that they can go to Malaya. The five primary causes of road fatalities for which drivers or riders of motor vehicles and pedal cyclists were responsible remained exactly the same during last year as during the previous year. The No. 1 killer was excessive speed, as it always has been. I suggest that the Minister should put as a serious proposition to State governments the limiting of the speed at which vehicles can travel. {: .speaker-KVT} ##### Mr Thompson: -- What does the honorable member suggest? {: .speaker-KEJ} ##### Mr KEON: -- Between 30 and 40 miles per hour in built-up areas. Having a speed limit is no earthly use, because everybody knows that when one has a car which travels faster than 35 miles per hour, and he is in a hurry, he drives at a greater speed. I do not consider myself a reckless driver, but I am on a par with most of the drivers on Victorian roads who certainly do not adhere to the limit of 30 miles per hour unless a policeman is visible in their rear-vision mirrors. Laws are of no use unless they can be constantly policed. They cannot be properly policed without a terrific increase in the force of traffic police. I suggest that this problem, which costs 2,000 lives a year, and results in the admission of 30,000 people to hospital, has to be tackled in a drastic way, and vehicles should be prevented from travelling at a greater speed than that which I have suggested. {: .speaker-KMB} ##### Mr Opperman: -- They should all be put back on bikes ! {: .speaker-KEJ} ##### Mr KEON: -- I should like to point out to the honorable member for Corio **(Mr. Opperman)** that mishaps occurring to riders of pedal cycles are even more frequent than those to motor cyclists. They get themselves into more trouble than motor cyclists. The second cause of road fatalities is inattentive driving. That arises from a number of factors. I suppose that romance would not bloom if we were to take action to try to prevent some of the inattentive driving that goes on. But this is a problem that needs tobe tackled. If we tackled the problem of excessive speed, the accidents that resulted from inattentive driving would not have the same consequences as they have at present, when, quite often, inattentive driving goes with excessive speed. The next cause of road fatalities is not keeping to the left and failing to give right of way. Speaking as a citizen of Melbourne, that garden city of the south, and as one who visits Sydney on occasions, I must say that, although the traffic in Sydney certainly moves a great deal faster than in Melbourne, at least the drivers there observe the traffic laws. I would say that Melbourne has more traffic laws than almost any other city that I know of, but I would say also that nowhere are the traffic laws less observed than in Melbourne. There are traffic regulations galore. The city council is starting to paint zebra crossings and so on, but I should say that any poor unfortunate pedestrian who trusts his life to a zebra crossing, thinking that motorists will stop while he is on it, simply because a regulation to that effect has been passed, is committing suicide. In Melbourne, we have the most undisciplined drivers of motor cars anywhere in Australia, and I think something should be done about it. The next greatest cause of road fatalities is intoxication. It is not the villain of the piece that it is sometimes made out to be. It is a major cause of road accidents, although I suppose many cases of driving at excessive speed arise from the fact that a man has taken some alcohol - if not sufficient to make him drunk, at least sufficient to inspire him to start putting his foot hard down on the pedal. That is a problem that cannot be tackled easily, but there is ample power under existing State legislation for the police to deal with people who drive cars while they are under the influence of liquor. I take it that no publican wants to fill people up with alcohol to such an extent that, when they leave his premises, they will be a menace to themselves and a menace to other people on the roads. The publicans would be quite pleased to see something done about drunken driving. At present, the police have ample power to deal with drunken drivers, but, unfortunately, too often we see people stagger across a road and get into a car. We know perfectly well that they are going to he a menace to themselves and a menace to every one else on the roads. I have never had any hesitation in trying to persuade them to get out of their cars. On occasions, I have even taken their car keys and put them in their pockets, hoping that they would not find them. Everybody here knows perfectly well that we do not have to travel very far in order to see a man stagger into a car, start off and become the driver of an instrument of death on the roads. {: .speaker-JOE} ##### Mr Jeff Bate: -- -Not in Sydney. {: .speaker-KEJ} ##### Mr KEON: -- My friend says that we do not see that in Sydney, but I am afraid that the statistics issued by the Commonwealth Statistician show that quite a number of deaths in Sydney are caused by people who are driving motor cars while they are under the influence of alcohol. I suggest that, in relation to this matter, the governments of this country have an urgent problem on their hands. Year after year, a small grant is made to the Road Safety Council. We get up, wring our hands and say, "Is not it a terrible thing that all these fine people have been killed on the roads quite unnecessarily, and that all these other people have been maimed on the roads quite unnecessarily?" Then Ave promptly go to sleep and forget all about it until the next time a bill of this kind comes before us. Last year, 414 young men between the ages of 21 and 30 - the flower of our manhood, one might say - were killed on the roads, but we shrug our shoulders and say, " That is just too bad. We will give £50,000 more to the Road Safety Council for a few more advertisements. That is all we can do about it ". That is not good enough. I believe that this is one of the most urgent health problems with which the country is confronted, and that it ought to be treated as such. We took immediate action in relation to the Salk vaccine, and we have paid out hundreds of thousands of pounds in grants to the States for the purpose of arresting the scourge of tuberculosis, so we ought to be prepared to tackle the problem of traffic accidents in exactly the same way. We should treat it as a health problem. The traffic accident is one of the major killers in this country and one of the major cripplers of our people. I put it to the Government that the addition of a mere £50,000 to the grant to the Road Safety Council is entirely insufficient. The problem needs much more drastic action. I think it should be considered with the urgency that it warrants. I suggest to the Minister for the Interior **(Mr. Kent Hughes)** that he take up the matter with the Commonwealth Minister for Health **(Sir Earle Page)** and the Ministers for Health in the States. The problem should be tackled on the basis that it is OnA of the most urgent health problems of the present time. At a very conservative estimate, traffic accidents are costing us £1,500,000 a year in hospital charges. Therefore, a few hundreds of thousands of pounds spent to prevent traffic accidents would not be wasted. If we could come to the Parliament next year and say that the number of traffic accidents had been halved, we should have saved ourselves, not only much misery and suffering, but also a considerable sum of money. So I express my disappointment at the fact that the Government has seen fit to tackle this problem only by making an additional grant to the Road Safety Council. I recommend that the Government call a conference of Ministers for Health and treat the problem with the urgency that it deserves. {: #subdebate-26-0-s10 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM:
Werriwa .- The bill proposes that £50,000 less of the proceeds of the petrol tax shall be spent on road grants this year and that £50,000 more shall be spent for road safety purposes. That is the biggest contribution that the Government is prepared to make to the solution of what turned out last financial year to be the biggest governmental problem that had arisen for a generation. The provisions contained in the principal act of last year are already out of date as a result of the decision given by the Privy Council last November and the decision given by the High Court last June. We now realize that the Constitution has been so interpreted that the State governments cannot readily finance work on the roads while the Commonwealth cannot build roads. No government now can impose charges on vehicles proceeding from one State to another. The State governments havebeen quite perplexed to find some form of finance to replace the road charges which they had imposed for the previous 30 years and which they can no longer impose. One would have thought that, faced with this problem, the Commonwealth would have made at least some contribution to a solution by amending the principal act, but there is no indication that the Government intends to amend it during the four years which it still has to run. The best, easiest and fairest way to finance the construction and maintenance of roads is by some form of excise duty. Excise duties can be imposed by this Parliament, and by this Parliament only. Most of the forms of taxation which the State governments had worked out to deal with the problem have now been shown to be beyond their powers- - indeed, beyond the powers of any government. The State governments have been pond "ring various means of highlighting thedifficulty of repairing or improving the interstate roads. It has been suggested, first, that they should grant franchises to private companies to operate toll roads between the State capitals. That is the method which is heir;-' adopted increasingly in the UnitedStates of America. It has been suggested, secondly, that the State go- vernments should permit the interstate roads todeteriorate. It has been suggested, thirdly, that they should leave crucial stretches of the interstate roads suitable for light traffic only. Those wouldbe easy and effective, if cynical, ways of bringing home to interstate road transport operators the fact that they mustmake some contribution to the maintenance and improvement of the roads which they use more than anybody else and which they damage more than anybody else. "We must recollect, whenever we consider decisions of the Privy Council and of the High Court in these matters, that although those tribunals can prevent governments from doing things, they cannot compel governments 'to do things. The High Court and the Privy Council can prevent the State governments from levying certain taxes for roads purposes, but they cannot compel the State governments to spend their revenue for any particular purpose, any more than they can compel this Government to do so. It is regrettable that this afternoon and to-night we should have heard so often the suggestion that roads are a State responsibility and that the State governments have plenty of money to deal with this and other problems. There seems to be an assumption, which is completely invalid, that in 1900, Australians deliberately left with the States all the powers that the Commonwealth cannot exercise. Of course, the truth is that at the time of federation Australians in genera], and people in most civilized countries, did not realize the necessity for any government to exercise such powers. A good example of the powers that governments of 50 or more years ago did not realize they would have to exercise is the necessity to provide for hard top roads, wide roads and straight roads. The problem has arisen only since federation, and it is growing all the time. I am convinced that if our forefathers had had to consider whether responsibility for interstate roads or main highways should rest exclusively with the State governments, as they do at present, or rest exclusively with the Australian Government, orbe concurrent, they at least would have allowed the Australian Government to havesome say in directly raising and administering road funds, or they would havesaid that inter-capital roads should beexclusively within its province. In 1901, the total expenditure on roads in New South "Wales by government and councils combined was£835,000. In 1953-54, the last year for which I have been able readily to ascertain figures, the sum spent on roads in that State from all sources was £29,802,000. Those figures show that at the time of federation this problem had not been contemplated. Following decisions by the Privy Council and the High Court, the problem has come home to us in an aggravated form, and it is to the discredit of this Government that it has not attempted during this budget session to make some provision for a problem that has assumed such an acute form. People will say, as honorable members oppositesa id this afternoon, that the States have plenty of money to spend for this purpose. They fortify their opinion by citing two sets of figures. They cite the increase of the amount received from loan funds and the increase of the number of pounds received by way of tax reimbursement. I shall refer to them briefly. It will be easily seen that there has not been an increase but in fact a decrease of the number of pounds received from loam funds and a decrease of pounds' worth received by way of tax reimbursement. In 1951-52, the State governments received by way of loan funds the sum of £225,000,000; 'in 1952-53, £196,000,000; in 1953-54, £200,000,000; in 1954-55, £180,000,000; and it is anticipated that they will receive £190,000,000 this year. The comparison is all the more odious when one realizes that in that period the population has risen by 800,000 and the value of money has gone down by about 30 per cent. When one looks at the tax reimbursement- {: #subdebate-26-0-s11 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- Order ! I do not see what tax reimbursements have to do with contributions made under the Commonwealth Aid Roads Act. {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- I think they can bc connected very readily and very rapidly. I was assuming, **Mr. Deputy Speaker,** that you would allow me the same latitude that you have been good enough to extend to honorable members on both sides of the House during this debate. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- I am, prepared to do that, but I do not remember any other honorable member having discussed tax re-imbursements. {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- I assure you that it will take me only a couple of sentences to do so. The basis of tax reimbursements, as you know, **Mr. Deputy Speaker,** is the formula that allows for an increase of the number of pounds if there is an increase of the population or a decrease of the value of money. Under the formula, there have naturally been increases of the number of pounds reimbursed. During the period to which I referred earlier, there have been special financial assistance grants, but they have gone down, as will be seen on page II of statements annexed to the Treasurer's budget speech, from £33,577,000 in 195.1.-52 to £16,200,000 this year. In other "'f-ds, the supplementary grants have been halved over the last five years. In view of that fact, how it can be stated that the funds of the State governments, to whom we remit the whole provision of main roads, are growing surely passes the comprehension of honorable members on both sides of the House. Quite apart from their general funds, it cannot be asserted that the total amount of the funds that the States are spending on roads has decreased. In fact, in many of the States - particularly in New South Wales, and also in South Australia and Western Australia - the amount of money that is being spent on roads has risen more than proportionately to the increase of population and to the decrease of the value of the £1. For example, in 1949-50, New South Wales spent £14,000,000 on its roads, and £30,000,000 in 1953-54. South Australia and Western Australia doubled their expenditure, and the other States almost doubled theirs. I am citing those figures from page 54 of the paper on the costs of transport operation in Australia which was prepared for the meeting of the Australian Transport Advisory Council three months ago by the Department of Shipping and Transport. That is a very valuable publication which the new Minister for Shipping and Transport **(Senator Paltridge)** is having printed. Road transport costs as a whole, as honorable members will appreciate, easily constitute the biggest item of transport costs in Australia. I direct the attention of the House to the following passage which appears on page 36 of the paper to which I have referred - >Hoad transport performed 03.3 per cent, of the total national transport of passengers and 20 per cent, of the total national ton/miles of freight carried. That statement refers to 1953-54. What is more important, governments contribute more towards road operating cost3 than towards the total operating costs of rail, sea and air transport combined. In 1953-54, the governments of Australia contributed £56,600,000 towards road operating costs, £23,600,000 towards rail operating costs, £2,200,000 towards shipping operating costs, and £4,200,000 towards civil aviation operation costs. It will be seen that the expenditure by governments on road operating costs is easily the largest item of transport expenditure towards which any government contributes. But that contribution is still not enough. It appears from page 55 of the report that in 1953-54 governments in Australia spent virtually no more on roads than they spent in 1938-39, which was the last complete pre-war year. Although the number of pounds spent rose from £22,000,000 in 1938-39 to £77,000,000 in 1953-54, the report states that, using a deflation factor derived from the wholesale price index of basic materials prepared by the Commonwealth Statistician, the index of expenditure rose from 100 in the former year to 103 in the latter year. That means that we are really spending no more money's worth on roads than we were before the war, despite the very much greater use of roads nowadays, the consequent very much greater damage to roads, and the increased need for new roads. I suggest that the Government should at least tackle this problem as a. national problem. Presumably the best, way to deal with it would be by means of excise. At any rate, it is no good letting the problem just run on. The State governments cannot impose road taxes. The High Court and the Privy Council have both said so. Who, therefore, is to deal with the problem ? I suggest that the proper Government to deal with it is the Federal Government, because only the Federal Government can tackle it on a national scale. Only the Federal Government can really take a national view of these things. One of the vices in road construction in this country has been the same as the vice in rail construction. All the railways lead to the capital cities. The old Roman Imperial practice of all roads leading to the capital has been followed. Centralization in this country, about which we all complain, is largely the result of the fact of the roads and railways being organized on a State basis. The State governments and big business, which has its head-quarters in the State capitals, both want the roads and railways to lead to the State capitals. No government other than the Federal Government is interested in having main roads between the various State capitals in first-class condition. State jealousies which have appeared in this debate to-day show that even here in the National Parliament people have their minds fixed on local roads, or roads to the capitals of their own States. But the big need in this country is for first-class, safe highways between the State capitals, because those are the roads that are used most by heavy transport, like diesel trucks. Those are also the roads to which the users contribute least because interstate road operators, including those who run fleets of diesel trucks, as the law stands at present, make no provision for the cost of repairing or constructing roads. {: .speaker-KCD} ##### Mr Davis: -- Does the honorable member think that they should be taxed for that purpose? {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- Yes, I do. {: .speaker-KCD} ##### Mr Davis: -- Heavily taxed? {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- Equitably taxed. In the report that I have mentioned, after the index of expenditure, which has not risen in the fifteen years between 1938-39 and 1953-54 there appears this sentence - >While it is true that in the intervening years since 1!J3!) some improvements in the techniques of road construction and maintenance have enabled more effective work to be obtained from the same amount of expenditure, nevertheless the above table is of interest in its broad indication that the rate of expenditure on Australian roads in terms of 1039 value of money was only little more in 1953-54 than it was in 1938-39. I suggest, and surely no one disputes it, that we need to spend more money on our roads. {: .speaker-KIF} ##### Mr Hulme: -- But where do we get the money? {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- I gave the honorable member some indication of what was in my mind on the subject and he has the opportunity to express his views on it. On page 57 of the report- {: .speaker-KZW} ##### Mr Lawrence: -- Is the honorable gentleman quoting from copious notes? {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- I am reading from notes which are available to the honorable member if he cares to approach the Minister for Shipping and Transport **(Senator Paltridge).** On page 57 the report states that - {: type="i" start="1"} 0. . the road-constructing authorities in Australia were asked, for the purposes of this paper, to state what amount was required beyond their 1952-53 level of expenditure to finance a programme of expenditure on classified roads and bridges during the seven year: period from 1954-55 to 1900-61. They submitted figures totalling £99,300,000. The report continues- >It is estimated that the Commonwealth Aid Roads Act 1954 will provide £31,000,000 of the above required amount. However, there is still a deficiency of £08,300,000 beyond visible financial resources required to cover the full programme of construction and reconstruction works necessary. {: .speaker-KIF} ##### Mr Hulme: -- £31,000,000 in six years from the Commonwealth Aid Roads Grant? {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- That is what the department states. {: .speaker-JRJ} ##### Mr Bowden: -- It is £.140,000,000. {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- It is £31,000,000 above what would be the total for seven years if the annual grant remained the same as for the first year. That increase of £31,000,000 will go less than one-third of the way to meet the increase which was agreed on by road constructing authorities in Australia as being necessary to carry on these scheduled road and b ridge im provements I quote these figures and facts from the departmental report which was accepted by all the State Ministers on the Australian Transport Advisory Council, and by the six Commonwealth Ministers. All the State governments of both political complexions, and this Government, accepted the report. What is to be done about it? It is deplorable to see the defeatist and parochial attitude of so many Government supporters to the provision of transport, mainly road transport between State capitals. The problem has become more pressing as the result of great developments in road transport. But the Government's contribution , to a solution of it is to subtract £50,000 a year from the amount that it is going to make available to the States each year, for the next five years. The Government has not even touched the problem. Only the Federal Government can deal with it, because only the Federal Government can raise the necessary taxes. That is the result of the decision by the Privy Council, and the later decision by the High Court. It is only by the raising of federal taxes that we can secure sufficient expenditure on road transport. It is deplorable that in this regard the Government, as in relation to so many matters, should just let the matter slide, and allow the process of *laissez-faire* to continue while, in the meantime, our roads deteriorate, lives are lost, vehicles are damaged and, above all, transport costs, in which road costs bulk so large, continue to rise. There was an opportunity for the Government to do something about the problem, and I must protest that it has seen fit to do nothing in this bill, or in any other legislation submitted to us in this session, or proposed in this session, to deal with the problem. {: #subdebate-26-0-s12 .speaker-JWX} ##### Mr J R FRASER:
ALP -- I should like to spend a few minutes on the subject of road safety, which has been much discussed in the chamber to-night. I agree with the figures which have been quoted to show that the greatest factor in road accidents is the personal factor, the factor of carelessness and inattentiveness in driving. But I think that most motorists will agree that the greatest remedy that can be undertaken to effect a lessening of road accidents and road fatalities is a programme of modern road construction, of widening and straightening arterial roads, and of providing them with surfaces which will be safe in all weathers, and with the proper degree of camber on all curves, and the proper degree of vision. I think that it must be recognized that one of the major needs in any campaign to reduce road accidents, which have resulted in so many deaths and cripplings of people, many of them in the prime of their lives, is an improvement in all those factors of road safety that I have mentioned. I do not agree with the honorable member for Yarra **(Mr. Keon)** that the best way to achieve a decrease of this tragic loss of lives on the roads is to stress road safety to such an extent that speeds will be limited for all vehicles to between 30 and 40 miles an hour. I think that we should probably do our nation a disservice if we continually preached safety in all things, and stressed to our children that they must never take a risk either on the roads or anywhere else. If that view is preached to successive generations, we shall destroy the spirit which has been our boast and which has given us so much that we have achieved in our short history. I believe that young people should be given the opportunity to learn properly how to control vehicles at all speeds. "We must ensure that they have the ability to handle these machines, whether motor cars or motor bikes. Much more could be done to educate young people in the proper use of motor vehicles than is being done at present. I believe that the work of the Road Safety Council is valuable as far as it goes. But I believe that it could be extended if the money that it requires were made available by the Government. Ear too many people have learnt to drive motor vehicles without really understanding how to control them. Having learnt to drive years ago, many people are at present completely incapable of handling the modern motor car. Motor vehicle manufacturers are producing more and more powerful motor cars with greater horse-power. Horse-power is the important factor in road speeds. It is not uncommon to see family sedans which have a horse-power rating of up to 120 and which are capable of speeds up to 1] 5 miles an hour being driven by people who learnt to drive in the days when motor vehicles could not accomplish half that speed. Usually, it is the older man in the community who has achieved the ability to purchase this highly powered motor car which is a danger on the roads. Not enough stress has been given in this country to the provision of safety features within the vehicle. "We need wider roads and straighter roads and greater care in the handling of vehicles in order to avoid the collision and capsizing of motor vehicles. But the injury to people in the car comes, not so much from the impact of vehicle with vehicle, or of vehicle with tree or telegraph pole, but from the sudden cessation of the movement of the vehicle, and the passenger being hurled forward so that he suffers injury from contact with the inside of the vehicle itself. Research which has been undertaken in the United States of America and publicized widely in American journals has shown conclusively that that is where the great majority of injuries are sustained. {: .speaker-KXW} ##### Mr Pearce: -- It is much safer if you drive in reverse. {: .speaker-JWX} ##### Mr J R FRASER:
ALP -- The honorable member might like to drive in reverse. Perhaps he could sit on the front seat and look backwards. But there is great need to take whatever action this Parliament or any other body in the community can take to lessen the amount of injury and the loss of life that is suffered through road accidents. The measures that I have suggested can be taken in order to lessen these accidents. The greatest number of deaths and injuries in motor car accidents results from the contact of the passenger's body with the interior of the vehicle itself. Tests which have been carried out in the United States have shown that seat safety belts in motor cars have been a potent factor in lessening the number of injuries and the number of deaths sustained in road accidents in that country. It has also been found that the fitting of padded facia boards and padded headboards in ears has been effective in reducing injury and death. It has been found that the removal or recessing of the various knobs or handles that are a common feature of vehicles, or making them out of some pliant material, has helped in reducing injury and death on the road. I addressed a question to the Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies)** on this subject, some weeks ago in this House and although, at first, he suggested that the matter was not one for the Commonwealth, but for the States, he did subsequently provide me with a written answer which substantiated, to a great extent, the research that has been carried out in the United States. I refer to the United States because that country has tested this sort of safety measure and has already taken action to implement it. Some States in the United States have made the fitting of safety devices to all motor vehicles compulsory. The Prime Minister's answer was to the effect that a considerable saving in injury and life had been effected by the means that I have suggested. It true that some of the major manufacturers of motor cars in the United States are now providing the safety features in their vehicles as optional equipment, and some of those vehicles will be coming on to the market in this country within a few months. I know that the National Roads and Motorists Association in New South Wales is taking up this subject. I believe that their research and the results that were obtained in the recent Redex trial will show that there is very great value in providing safety measures within the car. {: .speaker-KXW} ##### Mr Pearce: -- It looks as though one would be better on a Malvern Star. {: .speaker-JWX} ##### Mr J R FRASER:
ALP -- The honorable member might be better on a Malvern Star. However, I am not talking about push bikes. These matters are important and they should be given serious consideration by the Road Safety Council, which is financed to such a great extent by the Commonwealth Parliament. It would not be too much to suggest that the State governments might give consideration to the legislation which already operates in some States of the United States, making it compulsory that safety devices be incorporated in vehicles. Tha idea is to hold the passenger or the driver securely in the motor vehicle rather than have him thrown against the dashboard, the headboard or other portions of the interior of the vehicle when an accident occurs. Seat belts have been shown to save a very great number of lives that otherwise would be lost through the passenger being thrown out of a vehicle when it is overturned or crashed on the road. A great number of lives are lost in that way. When a seat belt has been used, this safety device has been effective. Seat belts should be, at least, available, even if they are not made compulsory. Motorists should be able to render vehicles more safe by having padded headboards, recessed handles or knobs on the dashboard. There should be an absence of those modern protuberances on the front of a motor car which can occasion so much . injury to pedestrians. It may not be out of place to suggest, through this Parliament, that the Road Safety Council and the motoring organizations in the various States should give very real consideration to the safety aspect through the provision of safety devices within the motor vehicle itself. 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-start } page 1805 {:#debate-27} ### WAR PENSIONS APPROPRIATION BILL 1955 {:#subdebate-27-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed from the 25th August *(vide* page 102), on motion by **Sir Arthur** Fadden - >That the bill be now read a second time. {: #subdebate-27-0-s0 .speaker-KGX} ##### Mr HAYLEN:
Parkes .- This bill merely places the sum of £48,000,000 into a trust account from which war pensions may be paid. As my colleagues and I are precluded, in debating this bill, from making any comments upon rates of, or conditions attaching to, pensions granted under the Repatriation Act, we must be content to facilitate its progress through all stages. However, we do feel that the amount provided could have been larger so that the additional claims which we think pensioners have established would be met. Since that is not to be, we are pleased to support the bill. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. {: .page-start } page 1805 {:#debate-28} ### WESTERN AUSTRALIA GRANT (WATER SUPPLY) BILL 1955 {:#subdebate-28-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed from the 6th October *(vide* page 1312), on motion by **Mr. Menzies** - >That the bill be now read a second time. {: #subdebate-28-0-s0 .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr CALWELL:
Melbourne .- The Opposition offers no objection to the passage of this bill. It provides for an appropriation this year not exceeding £4,000,000, and is well worth while. The money is to be spent upon the supplying of water to the agricultural areas, the Great Southern towns, and the gold-fields of Western Australia. The scheme is referred to in the Western Australian act. It will contribute towards the development of Australia's biggest State. The area of Western Australia is 1,000,000 square miles and it has a population of more than 600,000. It is most fitting that we should appropriate in this Parliament money for the development of a distant State that covers one-third of Australia's territory and includes our most vulnerable coastline. The more development we have in Western Australia the better it will be for the Commonwealth as a whole. Though I am the member for Melbourne, where there is a great accumulation of wealth, and a large population, I have always been a good supporter of Western Australia and Queensland, for I believe that no part of Australia is safe if any part remains vulnerable. Sydney and Melbourne simply could not exist if the outer defences of Australia were not manned as effectively as they can be from the resources available to a population of fewer than 9,500,000. Any part of Western Australia is just as important to the Commonwealth as is the richest area of the more closely settled districts in other States. I marvel at the courage and determination of the handful of people who, before federation, shouldered the responsibility of financing the scheme under which a dam was built at Mundaring and water was pumped 377 miles to the gold-fields. {: .speaker-ZL6} ##### Mr Hasluck: -- They were a great and resolute people. {: .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr CALWELL: -- That is true. I am pleased at the thought that a great number of them were Victorians who went to W estern Australia because of the collapse of the banks in their home State, and the opportunity for a new life in the west which was presented by the discovery of gold. We ought always to have tremendous respect and admiration for those who helped John Forrest and his colleagues, and who showed such determination in pioneering the gold-fields. Sometimes I feel that the qualities displayed by the pioneers of 100 years ago, and by those who followed them to the turn of the century, are not so apparent to-day, in the general community, as they might be. This is a good bill and the Opposition supports it. {: #subdebate-28-0-s1 .speaker-JXI} ##### Mr FREETH:
Forrest .- I want to say a very few words on this bill. The Commonwealth is to be commended upon its action in making this additional money available. When the Labour Government, in 1948, first agreed to make a sum of money available for this project in Western Australia, it was, in a sense, a departure from practice. Previous Commonwealth governments had not made direct contributions to specific projects of this kind. They had been regarded as entirely the responsibility of the States. Earlier this evening the honorable member for Fremantle **(Mr. Beazley)** referred to State Premiers, so far as their approach to financial relations between the Commonwealth and the States is concerned, as " professional complainers ". It is regrettable that such an attitude should be attributed to the Government of Western Australia " in respect of its approach to the Commonwealth on this matter. Last year, Western Australia suffered an extremely dry season and pressure of all sorts was put upon it to go ahead with this water scheme. For various reasons the State Government had found itself unable to comply with the conditions that the Commonwealth had laid down when it first made the money available. It was, I repeat, an Australian Labour government which, commendably enough, had made the money available. The conditions were that the State Government should spend£l for£1 on the project. Each year the Commonwealth had appropriated a sum of money to enable the State Government to draw on it for this project, and each year the State Government had failed to draw up to the limit provided by the Commonwealth, with the result that last year there was a sum of about £800,000 remaining available to the State Government to draw on for the purpose of furthering this project, provided that it was prepared to spend money, on a £l-for-£l basis, from its own funds. For political purposes the State Government proceeded to blame the Commonwealth for the slow progress that was being made with this scheme. The State Government said that the Commonwealth should have made the money available before the State spent its money. The State Government claimed that the Commonwealth was not prepared to finance the extra cost of the scheme caused by the changing value of money. Yet it was not until February of this year that the State Premier approached the Commonwealth with concrete proposals for financing the extra cost of the scheme. As I say, the Commonwealth is to be commended for its prompt acceptance of the responsibility of meeting part of the charges of this comprehensive water scheme. One of the most effective ways to induce people to remain in the country towns in the inland areas of "Western Australia is to bring water to those towns. Year after year the people in the towns in those areas suffer quite considerable hardships, involving the rationing of water to 7 gallons a head a day, or less, for all domestic purposes. That is the sort of hardship experienced by those people in everyday living, which is not realized by the average person.I understand that in Canberra, for instance, the people consume up to 200 gallons of water a head a day, and they can probably hardly imagine the difficulties caused when water is rationed to about 7 gallons a head a day. I commend this bill, and I do hope that this action by the Australian Government will induce the State Government to speed up the work and have the scheme completed within the time that has been laid down. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. {: .page-start } page 1807 {:#debate-29} ### ASSENT TO BILLS Assent to the following bills reported : - Repatriation Bill 1955. Seamen's War Pensions and Allowances Bill 1955. Social Services Bill (No. 2) 1955. {: .page-start } page 1807 {:#debate-30} ### AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY AND JERVIS BAY (LANDS ACQUISITION) BILL 1955 {:#subdebate-30-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed *(vide* page 1763). {: #subdebate-30-0-s0 .speaker-JWX} ##### Mr J R FRASER:
ALP -- We had not anticipated that this measure would come before the House this week. It has not been possible to prepare in detail the things which should be said upon this measure. However, the measure has come to us from the Senate, where it was widely debated on the second reading, and where some amendments were inserted in the original bill. It is gratifying that the bill comes to us in an amended form which provides for better terms to landholders in the Australian Capital Territory. As members of this House know, it was provided by the Seat of Government Acceptance Act that land to be acquired within the Australian Capital Territory by the Commonwealth was to be acquired at a value not exceeding the value of the land on the 8th October, 1908. That provision still exists, and will exist until this bill is passed. I do not think that anyone would dispute the fact that such a provision to-day is most unfair. Although the leasehold system of land tenure is in use in the Australian Capital Territory to-day, there still exist within the Territory holdings, large and small, of freehold property, and, as I have said, under existing legislation which this bill seeks to amend the Parliament has power to resume those freehold properties at a value not exceeding their value on the 8th October, 1908, and, in some cases, at a value not exceeding the value on the 1st January, 1914. The measure before the House seeks to provide that there shall be compensation on just terms for any acquisition of land within the Australian Capital Territory, and an amendment which was inserted in the measure before it came to this House seeks to extend that provision to cover the resumption of rural leasehold lands. I am very pleased that the bill, in the form in which it comes to us, makes that provision. As members may know, rural leases are held in this Territory on a term of 25 years, but there are conditions in those leases which make it possible for resumption to be undertaken at any time for a Commonwealth purpose. That is a very proper provision in the lease because, after all, the purpose of government must be supreme in this Territory, even more than in any other part of the Commonwealth. The bill now before the House in clause 5 seeks the insertion of section 7a in the following terms: - >The application of the Lands Acquisition Act 1955 in relation to land in the Territory does not prevent or affect the making or operation of a provision of an Ordinance or other law of the Territory (including an Ordinance or other law made before the commencement of this section) for or in relation to the resumption of land held under leases granted by or on behalf of the Crown. "With the following added words: - in accordance with the provisions of those leases or otherwise on just terms. I commend the Government on its decision to make that provision for the payment of compensation on just terms for the resumption of not only freehold but also leasehold land where that becomes necessary. I do not hold that there should be any provision by which any land-holder may make a profit from the land itself, but I do believe most strongly that the land-holder is entitled to obtain compensation on just terms for the improvements that he has effected to the land during his tenure of occupancy of it. Such improvements, of course, may take the form of improved pastures, improved drainage, improved fencing or other facilities on the area itself. He is entitled to compensation, as this bill provides, on just terms for the improvements that he has effected. I am very glad indeed that provision is made for compensation on just terms upon the acquisition of leasehold or freehold land within the Australian Capital Territory. From time to time, I have suggested to the Minister for the Interior that there is scope here for the extension of war service land settlement, but this could be put into effect only by the resumption of existing freehold land. The Government can now offer no objection to the further consideration of that proposal because provision is made in this bill for compensation on just terms for resumption of land required for that purpose. It may be apposite to remark that at present there is being conducted in Canberra an inquiry into the production, distribution and supply of milk within the Australian Capital Territory. In the evidence given before that inquiry within the last few days, much has been said about the possibility of extending the area which is available to dairying in this Territory. Some of the areas most suitable for dairying are those at present held under freehold tenure, and this bill makes provision for the resumption on just terms of those areas if required. The Opposition sees nothing to object to in this bill, and accepts it in the form in which it has come to this chamber from the other place. Debate (on motion by **Mr. Calwell)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 1808 {:#debate-31} ### LOAN (WAR SERVICE LAND SETTLEMENT) BILL 1955 {:#subdebate-31-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed from the 15th September *(vide* page 649), on motion by **Mr. Kent** Hughes - >That the bill be now read a second time. {: #subdebate-31-0-s0 .speaker-KGX} ##### Mr HAYLEN:
Parkes .- 1 have been asked by my party, as usual, to look after the service measures coming before the House, in this budget session, and I am surprised that this matter has been rushed on to-night. No preparation was made, because we thought the bill was to be discussed on Tuesday of next week. Since the Minister has insisted upon its being discussed to-night, and as I have no papers before me in the House, I shall attempt to do my best. But perhaps luck is with me, and the Minister will grant an immediate adjournment of the debate. To put the matter to the test, I ask for leave to continue my remarks when this debate is resumed. Leave granted; debate adjourned. {: .page-start } page 1808 {:#debate-32} ### ADJOURNMENT Defence Buildings on Park Lands - Parliamentary Typists - Mount Seaview Timber Proprietary Limited - **Dr. John** Burton - Repatriation. Motion (by **Mr. Holt)** proposed - >That the House do now adjourn. {: #debate-32-s0 .speaker-KGP} ##### Mr HAWORTH:
Isaacs .- I want to raise a subject matter relating to Commonwealth offices situated on Albert Park lands, indeed on park-lands generally, and I want to address myself particularly to the Minister for the Interior **(Mr. Kent Hughes).** I have raised this subject before, and I would not have done so to-night but for the statement that was made in another place this afternoon by the chairman of the Albert Park trust. These particular offices are situated in Albert Park. Honorable members will recollect the plea that I made in this chamber some weeks ago when the Estimates for the defence services were being debated. On that occasion, I requested the Government to remove the Army barracks from Albert Park. I said that the occupation of this area by the various services was depriving amateur sporting bodies of the use of the ground for the purposes for which it was originally reserved. I also said the buildings were unsightly and uneconomical to maintain, and that they constituted a fire risk as well as a traffic problem at peak periods. I said that the service leaders and chiefs were perfectly satisfied to stay there because of the convenience of this location to the city. If I did not say it then,I say now that they are paying solid rents that give them more than a proprietary interest in this area. I said thatI doubted whether thechairman of theAlbertP ark trust was really anxious for th em to go because £4,500 a year for 43½acres,plus rents from the other areas which are leased by the Department of Supply, was not chicken feed in the way ofmeat.In other words, it was big money. To-day, the chairman of the Albert Park trust raid in another place that he had served notice on the Chief Property Officer.Mr. Doolan, for an increase of 25 per cent. in the rent and that the increase was being recommended by the property officer to the Minister. I think honorable members will agree with me when I say that such a move to increase the rent charged to the tenant does not indicate that the landlord is in the frame of mind that makes him desirous of getting rid of an unsatisfactory tenant. Mr.Calwell. - Who is the landlord? Mr.Haworth. - The landlord in this case happens to be the Albert Park trust, and the defence services, with their barracks, happen to be the tenants. In other words, I should say that if the Commonwealth is prepared to pay the increased rent, the services will be allowed to stay in this area indefinitely. {: .speaker-KEJ} ##### Mr Keon: -- He wants them to stay. {: .speaker-KGP} ##### Mr HAWORTH: -- The honorable member for Yarra **(Mr. Keon)** says he wants them to stay. The best example of a person who wants government offices to stay on a property, on parkland, is one who says, " I am not satisfied with the rent but if you increase it, we might have another look at the matter ". I have the greatest respect for the ability of the chairman of the Albert Park trust as an administrator and to make money. Albert Park is one of the greatest revenue-producers of its kind in Victoria, as I shall prove by quoting a few items to the House. In 1955, the approximate revenue of the Albert Park trust from certain main items was: £4,500 per annum from the services in the particular area to which I am referring, a government grant of £4,500, a return of £4,900 from the Moomba car race, £1,000 from night golf, £650 from the South Melbourne Cricket Club and £650 from the St. Kilda Cricket Club. The South Melbourne council provides £3,000 per annum, the St.Kilda council provides £1,500 per annum, and the public golf course provides £12,500 per annum. I understand that, in addition, £25,000 is being paid for a lake road. Icannot find out at themoment who is paying for it but I will. I do know that £20,000 has been madeavailable by the Victorian Government at 3per cent. interest for relending to tenants at3½ per cent. interest for the improvement of property.Ithink every one will agree flirt that is avery tidy little revenue to receive from parklands. However,I have nocomplaint about thataspect of the matter. What I docomplain about at the moment is the fact that this Government is paying £4,500 annually for a portion of this parkland. I understand from the chairman of the trustees of the park that he is very anxious to get the Government out. He stated this afternon that he has told the Chief Property Officer of the Department of the Interior that he intends to increase the Government's rent by 25 per cent., and that he understood that the Chief Property Officer will recommend to the Minister that the increased rent be paid. I cannot believe that the chairman of the trustees is perfectly sincere when he says that he wants to get the Government out of the park. Although good use is being made of the revenue from the area, I believe that the people want free access to their parklands. In this instance, much money is being made out of parklands. If one is going to make much money out of parklands, where shall one draw the line, and who shall say where it shall be drawn? I ask the Minister for the Interior to lay down a time-table for the removal of the various establishments that are occupying the area and to indicate to the people when they may expect to get their parkland back, irrespective of the rent being paid for it. I do not believe the people will ever get this parkland back unless the Government lays down a time-table and indicates when the Commonwealth establishments will be removed. Some parts of the park can be used to raise substantial revenue, and this is an indication of the desirability of continuing the profitable occupation of parklands. I sincerely trust that the Minister will give the matter serious consideration. {: #debate-32-s1 .speaker-KEE} ##### Mr KENT HUGHES:
ChisholmMinister for the Interior and Minister for Works · LP -- As a citizen of Melbourne, 1 thoroughly agree with the honorable member for Isaacs **(Mr. Haworth)** that the people of Melbourne, like the citizens of Sydney and other Australian cities and towns, desire to see all the parklands that were occupied by defence establishments during the wai cleared of Commonwealth buildings and returned to the people at the earliest possible moment. I am sure that all honorable members on both sides of the House agree with that as a matter of principle. However, in practice, it is not so easy to put the proposal into effect. I have tried to lay down a plan for Albert Park, and I have had several conferences with my colleague the Minister for Defence **(Sir Philip McBride)** on the matter. However, as every one knows, we have not been able to demobilize, as it were, so completely since World War II. as we were able to do after World War I. The international situation forced the previous Administration and this Government to undertake defence measures that have prevented the fulfilment of the wishes of members of Parliament and the people of Australia in relation to these parklands. {: .speaker-K8B} ##### Mr Curtin: -- Private enterprise has been using a lot of them. {: .speaker-KEE} ##### Mr KENT HUGHES: -- I wish the honorable member for Watson **(Mr. Curtin)** would keep quiet for once. There are no private enterprises at Albert Park, except those' approved by the chairman of the Albert Park Trust, a **Mr. Kennelly,** who shadow-spars excellently in many fields other than politics. So long as the Albert Park Trust can get the extra rent, it is probably not half so much concerned about getting back this parkland as are the citizens of the surrounding district. The services, and particularly the Army, had a plan to construct buildings at Watsonia to enable them to vacate the buildings at Albert Park. As **Dr. Jekyll,** not as **Mr. Hyde,** in my capacity as chairman of the Olympic Organizing Committee, I suggested that perhaps the buildings at Albert Park could be used for the Olympic village and afterwards demolished and the park returned to the people. At one time, that plan might have come to fruition if the services had had available enough money to proceed with the construction of other buildings to replace those at Albert Park. But the Korean war and other events caused heavy expenditure elsewhere, and the services stated that they could not construct the buildings that they needed because the money had to be spent on needs of higher priority. As a member of the Cabinet, I fully understand their difficulty. However, I assure the honorable member for Isaacs that the subject has not been forgotten. The services will not be allowed to remain in occupation of Albert Park. As soon as they can obtain the funds to construct other buildings, in accordance with the order of priorities, they shall have to leave Albert Park. I have not heard from the Chief Property Officer about the proposal made by this **Mr. Kennelly,** whoever he may be. I know that, in the past, he has been anxious to get as much money as he could for the beautifcation of the park. When I was engaged in the State sphere, I was a member of the Yarra- Bend National Trust, which controlled a similar park. That trust established a golf course at Yarra Bend to obtain revenue for the upkeep of the rest of the park, and the Albert Park Trust followed its example. I have sympathetic views about the problem. I have not seen the proposals that have been made, but I assure the honorable member for Isaacs that the services will vacate Albert Park as soon as they can provide buildings elsewhere. {: #debate-32-s2 .speaker-KEJ} ##### Mr KEON:
Yarra .- I wish to bring before the House a matter that I think warrants the attention of either yourself, **Mr. Deputy Speaker,** or of the Government. I refer to the duties of the staff provided for the service of members in Parliament House. As you, sir, know, typists are provided for the various parties and the chamber officers. During the last few days, however, a number of the typists provided for the Opposition have been missing and not available for the work of honorable members. In view of the interest in the comings and goings of people about this building in the last few days, I have made inquiries. I have also made certain observations while entering the chamber. Unless my eyesight has failed me, I have seen various _ typists being taken away from the precincts of this chamber, during periods in which they should have been engaged on their usual duties, by a person who was formerly secretary to the right honorable the Leader of the Opposition **(Dr. Evatt), Dr. John** Burton, who, so I understand, does not at present occupy any official position on the staff of the Leader of the Opposition. I understand that, during the last few days, this gentleman has been dictating voluminous documents to the typists. Whether they were the " Molotov letters " I do not know, but that is what I have been told. Of course, it may be that what I have said is not quite accurate, and that the material dictated by **Dr. Burton** to these typists was not associated with the " Molotov letters " or the speech that the right honorable member for Barton made in this House last evening. Having in mind his frequent appearances in the corridors in the last few days and the fact that when knocking on the door in order to pay a courtesy call on the Leader of the Opposition one found the door steadfastly locked during that period, and the said gentleman emerging on various occasions, one could legitimately assume that probably those typists were engaged in the preparation of the speech of the right honorable member for Barton. But we do not know, and I put it to the Government that we are entitled to an explanation of whether any typists were taken from this House during the periods that they were on duty and in the pay of the Government, and by whom and on what business they were taken away. {: .speaker-KNX} ##### Sir ERIC HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944 -- Did the honorable gentleman say that it was **Dr. Burton?** {: .speaker-KEJ} ##### Mr KEON: -- Yes. {: .speaker-KNX} ##### Sir ERIC HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944 -- Is that "Klod"? {: .speaker-KEJ} ##### Mr KEON: -- No, not in this case. We should be told on what business they were taken away from this House, whether **Dr, Burton** has, during the past few days, been using the services of the typists of this House, and whether, in using those typists, he was doing work on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition. I understand, though, that he does not occupy any official position on the staff of the Leader of the Opposition, and therefore whatever work he would have been doing for the right honorable member for Barton would no doubt have been done entirely in an honorary capacity and on a voluntary basis. In any case, I think we are entitled to have that matter investigated in order to see just what use was being made of government typists who are made available in this House for the use of honorable members and not for the use of **Dr. John** Burton, even though he may be doing some job for the Leader of the Opposition. The typists are not provided for that purpose. The Leader of the Opposition has ample staff available to him if he cares to use it. I understand that owing to some circumstances there is a number of vacancies on his personal staff. {: .speaker-KFQ} ##### Mr Gullett: -- What are the circumstances ? {: .speaker-KEJ} ##### Mr KEON: -- I cannot discuss them because the debate on the .report of the Royal Commission on Espionage is still current and will not be continued until next week. However he has not chosen to fill those vacancies, and until such time as he does so, I presume thatunofficial secretaries have no right tobe taking typists from this House,dictatingletterstothem,andso forth. Therefore, **Mr. Deputy Speaker,** I ask that you investigate the matter of whether paid government typistswere taken from this House, who took them away, on whatbusiness they were taken away, whether **Dr. Burton** took them away, whether he, anoutsider., who is not entitled tobeusing the services of such typists provided forthe use of honorable members, has been using their services, and, if so upon what work was he using them and, in general, what was the position in relation to the activities of that gentleman. {: .speaker-K8B} ##### Mr Curtin: -- Why does the honorable member not lay a charge? {: .speaker-KEJ} ##### Mr KEON: -- Apparently, the supporters of the Leaderof the Opposition believe that what I have said warrantsa chargebeing laid. {: .speaker-K8B} ##### Mr Curtin: -Why does the honorable member not lay it? {: .speaker-KEJ} ##### Mr KEON: -- I ambringing the facts, as I know them,before the House. I am asking you, **Mr. Deputy Speaker,** and members of theGovernment, including the Vice-President of the Executive Council **(Sir Eric Harrison),** orwhoever accepts responsibility for these matters, to investigate the statements I have made, because no outsiders, irrespective of who they are, are entitledto take typists from this House and use their services when they are being paid to provide typing servicesfor members of the Parliament. It does not matter whether they are typing"Molotovletters " or speeches to be delivered by the right honorable mem ber for Barton,although they may he prepared by **Dr. Burton,** because **Dr. Burton** hasno right to he using the services of typists assigned to members of the Parliament. Therefore, Mr.deputy Speaker, I ask you to took into the matter I have raised and report back to the Parliament in relation to it I do not thinkthat outsiders, even though they maybe formersecretariesoftheLeader ofthe Opposition or anybodyelse, have the right to betaking awaytypists who are providedtodotheworkofhonorablemem bers, andusing theirservices. {: #debate-32-s3 .speaker-KGX} ##### Mr HAYLEN:
Parkes .-No doubt honorable members onbothsidesof the House deeply appreciate thedisinterested spiritin whichthehonorable member for Yarra (Mr.Keon) has drawn to our minds the amatterof typists and their duties in this House. Mr.Gullett. - Hear, hear! {: .speaker-KGX} ##### Mr HAYLEN: -- We are all deeply moved at the interest which he hasshown in this question of the preservation of the finances of the Federal Government,and the preservation of the typists eachto the person to whom sheis appointed.I am sure that we are deeply touchedat the interest he has shown in the possibility that perhaps typists mightbetaken away from their ordinary vocationsand overworked, or that they might in any way be treatedin sucha fashion that their union principles would he subverted for anyother reason. So, we support the honorable member'sattitudeon this matter, and say that during the years that we have known him he has perhaps transgressed a little himself. I am sure thatashehas drawnthe attention of the House to the matter of typists being allegedly used inother directions, he will remember hisown difficulties.Once upon a time therecame tothis Housea singer of repute. I think that he was known as the "Irish Thrush".He was under the sponsorshipof the honorable member for Yarra andhis programmes were typed in thehonorable member's room. {: .speaker-KEJ} ##### Mr KEON: -- I have never had a room until recently. {: .speaker-KGX} ##### Mr HAYLEN: -- They were typed in whatever room he sat, and the programmes were distributed, and afterwards a "whacko" and wassail were also "held in the general community room, and the typist gladly assistedat thecelebration. That is merely in passing. I wonder whether perhaps weare taking thisa little too seriously. No charge hasbeen made. There issome vague reference to seeing typistssittingabout this place. I have been reading again abookcalled *Power withoutGlory.* and I was surprised at the honorable member's interest in typists, if some things written in the bookaretrue. However., that is merely by the way. {: .speaker-KFQ} ##### Mr Gullett: -- "What exactly is the meaning of that? {: .speaker-KNX} ##### Sir ERIC HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944 -- What does the honorable gentleman mean by that? {: .speaker-KGX} ##### Mr HAYLEN: -- The Vice-President of the Executive Council **(Sir Eric Harrison)** has read the book. It is a great piece of Australian literature. {: .speaker-DB6} ##### Mr Wentworth: -- Written by a Communist. Are you defending the Communist party? {: .speaker-KGX} ##### Mr HAYLEN: -- The Vice-President of the Executive Council asked what I meant by that. I remember seeing him reading the book in a plain brown cover on an aircraft going to Sydney twelve months ago. {: .speaker-KNX} ##### Sir ERIC HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944 -- That was James Joyce's *Ulysses.* {: .speaker-KGX} ##### Mr HAYLEN: -- The right honorable gentleman says that it was Joyce's *Ulysses.* Of course, we know that he read that, only to ban it. I was atremble at the time for the author of the book that he was reading, but apparently it was not bad stuff, because I saw him pack it into his valise and go off to some good hotel. To return to this question, we should not delay the House with it. We are lucky to have a breathing space. I am sure that if charges are levelled - and they have not been levelled - they can be answered. The subject of persons coming and going from the House is not a matter to be raised in such a cavalier way as has been adopted by the honorable member. Surely he will not ban people from coming into the House. After all, it is the people's Parliament. They have certain rights within certain sections of the Parliament at least, and it has not been established that secretaries have been used or driven off. His story sounded like a recital of Brian Boru's raid on the Danes, or something like that. She was driven off ! What sort of a suggestion was that ? I do not know what the honorable gentleman means. He has filled me with a deep anxiety, and immediately this House adjourns I shall check up on my typists to see whether they are all there and in their appointed places. I cannot see that there is anything in this story except a certain amount of vindictiveness. It involves certain typists in this House, who should be left alone, as they are good workers and they do their jobs, and also the name of an honorable gentleman, who is here of his own right as a member of the community. I beg you, **Mr. Deputy Speaker,** and the House, to think nothing of it. To show what I think of the matter, I conclude by saying that it is raised only in a feeble effort to keep a thread going until the honorable member for Yarra gets an opportunity to do some more smearing and slandering, which is the whole *modus operandi* of his party. It is a wonder that to-night Wee Willie Winkie is not waiting for his turn. I refer to the honorable member for Fawkner **(Mr. W. M. Bourke).** He reminds me of a poem I heard many years ago in my young days, when we said - >Wee Willie Winkie wanders up and down, Upstairs and downstairs in his nightgown, Tapping at the window, peering through the lock, " Have you got any rotten smears to-night ? It has gone eight o'clock ". {: #debate-32-s4 .speaker-JLR} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr C F Adermann: -- I think that every honorable member must be acquainted with the fact that the Leader of the Opposition **(Dr. Evatt),** by virtue of his position, has made available to him the services of certain typists, and I am sure that it is not the Speaker's function to dictate to him just how those typists should be used. If there is anything in the matter beyond that, I shall make inquiries and report to the House. {: #debate-32-s5 .speaker-L0X} ##### Mr LEMMON:
St. George .- I wish to raise a matter relating to Mount Seaview Timber Proprietary Limited, a subsidiary of Slazengers (Australia) Proprietary Limited, and the action of this Government in giving to it a monopoly for the cutting of timber in a Commonwealth timber reserve, and giving to it a monopoly of the sale of rifle furniture in the area. {: .speaker-009MA} ##### Mr McMahon: -- The honorable gentleman brought this matter up yesterday. {: .speaker-L0X} ##### Mr LEMMON: -- That is correct. {: .speaker-009MA} ##### Mr McMahon: -- What do you want to spew it up for now? {: #debate-32-s6 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- Order ! The honorable member for St. George has a right to speak. {: .speaker-L0X} ##### Mr LEMMON: -- It is most unparliamentary for the Minister for Social Services **(Mr. McMahon)** to say that I am going to spew something up. That is a shocking thing to say. After all, on the motion for the adjournment of the House every honorable member has a right to raise any matter that he wishes to raise. The Minister has made an unparliamentary remark. If he has any manners, he will withdraw it. Apparently his manners are not in keeping with the high and honorable position that ho holds, because he has not withdrawn the remark. I propose to refer to a timber deal, which the Minister apparently does not wish to be made public. Probably there are very good reasons why he does not want it to be mentioned in the House. The matter has been brought to the attention of the Government by the Timber Millers Association on several occasions over a period of about eighteen months. It cannot be said that that association is a supporter of the Australian Labour party. As the association received no satisfaction from the Minister for Defence Production **(Sir Eric Harrison),** it made certain representations to me, probably because of my connexion with the timber industry during the period when I was a Minister in the Chifley Government. The facts are that this Government acquired and made available to Mount Seaview Timber Proprietary Limited a large tract of good timber country in the Wauchope district.- I have no quarrel with that. The area was acquired after negotiations with the State Forestry Commission. I think it was wise to acquire the area for the purpose of preserving a source of supply of coachwood timber for rifle furniture. But then the Government, instead of using the services of the timber mills in the area which had supplied the nation with rifle furniture during the war and had continued to do so after the war, used the services of a new mill, established by Mount Seaview Timber Proprietary Limited, a subsidiary of Slazengers. That mill was given a monopoly for the cutting of coachwood for rifle furniture. I should like to tell honorable members that the recovery of rifle furniture from an average coachwood log is in the vicinity of 5 per cent, to 7 per cent. In some tests, the recovery has been as low as *2$* per cent. I believe that, with the introduction of a new type of rifle, it is possible that the recovery will be 10 per cent. I want honorable members to keep that point in mind. If the recovery from a log is only 10 per cent., it will be realized that a large quantity of timber for purposes other than rifle furniture will be available. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that, for the purpose of milling the logs, it would be better to use timber mills owned by the Country Sawmillers Association or by other operators in the area. They could take from the logs the wood needed for rifle furniture and market the rest of the wood through the normal trade channels. That is what was done when the Chifley Government was in office. That is what was done during the war, and during that period the mills in the district did not fall down on the job of supplying the quantity of rifle furniture that we required. This Government did not do that. Without calling for tenders, without seeking offers from other millers, it allowed this subsidiary of Slazengers to erect a mill and gave it a monopoly for the felling of timber in the Commonwealth reserve. In addition, the woods other than coachwood - what may be termed softwoods or scrub woods - were to be cut by this company for the other mills and given to them for the purpose of processing. The Government gave this company a monopoly, without having called for tenders or offers from expert logging companies in the district. The facts are that, even though Mount Seaview Timber Proprietary Limited had a monopoly, during the period of its operations its costs increased by over 200 per cent. As a result, the other sawmillers in the area, as well as the veneer manufacturers, approached the State government, through the Forestry Commission. The Commonwealth was told, " This is outrageous ", whereupon it had to say that it would allow the other millers to go into the area. I mentioned those facts in order to show that this company is definitely inefficient. In the past, industrialists decided to enter the milling industry, but it was not long before they sold out, because they found that their undertakings were not profitable. This is an industry which requires experience - experience which can be gained only by many years of operations. This subsidiary company of Slazengers found that its mill was not paying. Then the Commonwealth stepped in and purchased the mill. We do not know the price that was paid. We do not know what valuation was made. The Government has been asked repeatedly to state the valuation that was made and the price that was paid. It has been asked to state whether the valuation was made by a competent valuer. But it has refused to answer those questions. The Commonwealth expended defence moneys to purchase the mill, and then appointed, as the manager, a firm which previously had failed to make the mill pay. The Commonwealth installed that firm as the manager of the mill, on a cost-plus basis. It said, in effect, "If you will manage the mill for us, we shall pay you a managerial fee ". That was the offer made to a firm which previously had made a failure of the venture. Again, no tenders were called. The expert millers in the area were not invited to operate the mill. This firm was put in without offers being sought from the other companies. I say that that was wrong. I say also that the Government has wasted public money, defence money, because it was not necessary to buy the mill. If, during the war and until eighteen months ago, we could get out of the area all the rifle furniture that we required, why was it necessary for the Government to waste public money upon the purchase of the mill and enter into the milling business, of which it had no experience ? I want to place those facts on record. I believe that the Minister should inform the House of the price that was paid, of the reason why no tenders were called, and of the reasons why a monopoly was given to this firm for cutting timber in the area and for supplying coachwood. I believe that the Minister should tell us why other timber millers, who previously had supplied rifle furniture, were not given an opportunity to quote for the supply of that material to the Commonwealth again. {: #debate-32-s7 .speaker-KNX} ##### Sir ERIC HARRISON:
Vice-President of the Executive Council and Minister for Defence Production · WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944 -- The honorable member for St. George **(Mr. Lemmon)** has not dealt with something novel and new. All these charges have been made before by gentlemen in Sydney, not only in letters addressed to me, but also through the press. The charges have been answered. In view of the similarity between those charges and the charges made by the honorable member for St. George, I have no doubt that those gentlemen solicited the honorable member to bring their case into the House. But the honorable member should be certain of his facts. Unless he is certain of his facts when he is used for that purpose by an outside organization, he will make himself appear to be foolish. When he asked a series of questions the other day, I suggested that, if he wanted answers to them, he should put them on the notice-paper. The honorable gentleman did not put them on the notice-paper. {: .speaker-L0X} ##### Mr Lemmon: -- They are on the noticepaper. {: .speaker-KNX} ##### Sir ERIC HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944 -- They are not on the notice-paper for to-day. The honorable gentleman had a perfect right to seek the information. If he had done so, he would have been properly armed before he came into the House to make his statement. I note that the honorable member has stated that public tenders were not invited at any stage of the proceedings. Let me inform him that in December, 1949, tenders were called for the supply of coachwood of rifle furniture quality for the Lithgow small arms factory, but without result. The departmental files show that the secretary of the Country Sawmillers Association - I think he is the gentleman who has been in touch with the honorable member - pointed out that the requirements of the factory were for first-class coachwood only, whereas members of his association preferred to forward supplies of timber from their mills to city merchants, where a ready market existed for all grades of timber. As I have stated, when tenders were invited, none were submitted. Surely honorable members know that coachwood is about the only timber in Australia that is suitable for rifle furniture. The timber normally used for rifle furniture is walnut, but the Government does not wish to import walnut when it can use local timber. For that reason it is using Australian coachwood, but for this special purpose it must be first quality coachwood. As stands produce only a limited quantity of first-class coach wood. it is necessary, if we cannot persuade firms to tender, to do something ourselves to obtain it. In the immediate post-war years, the supply of coachwood was a major problem. It is still a major problem, but it is not as great a problem as it was in those years. When tenders were not received, the Government discussed the supply of coachwood with the forestry authorities, who in turn discussed it with the coachwood suppliers. Although we enlisted the aid of the forestry authorities, we were unable to obtain satisfactory supplies from the millers. Under those circumstances, what does the honorable member think the Government should have done? If he had been in that position, would he have imported walnut or used local timbers? Of course, he would have done exactly as the Government has done, and would have established a Commonwealth annexe to mill local timbers. When the mill was originally established, it was intended that the coachwood stands should be worked by a selected firm which should finance and equip the mill, and engage in the logging and milling of the timber. However, to ensure complete control of operations and the supply of coachwood, the Government decided to acquire ownership of the mill and to engage Mount Seaview Timber Proprietary Limited, a subsidiary of Slazengers (Australia) Proprietary Limited, as managers of the mill on a fee basis. That is what the honorable member is objecting to. Mount Seaview Timber Proprietary Limited was selected as the operator because the Slazenger organization had a great detailed knowledge of rifle furniture problems arising from many years' experience. The honorable member should be aware of that fact, because that organization is one of the biggest manufacturers of sporting rifles in Australia. The firm was selected also because of the general desirability of having an inte grated arrangement from logging and milling through to rifle furniture production. The standard of the mill and the quality of management have justified the selection. The Government had to be satisfied that it had the necessary supplies of timber for the manufacture of the new F/N rifle at the Lithgow Small Arms Factory. That is why it took over this mill and selected Mount Seaview Timber Proprietary Limited as the operator. The conditions of logging and milling are controlled by the State Forestry Commission, which is working in close association with the Department of Defence Production. Coachwood of rifle furniture quality has been used exclusively for rifle furniture. A considerable percentage of coachwood milled does not meet the stringent, requirements for rifle furniture, and that percentage is made available to Government departments and to the trade. It was because of the small amount of firstquality coachwood that is obtained from the logs that the millers generally would not supply the Government. They wanted the Government to take an overall supply, as does the trade, but, because of the special demand for first-quality timber, the Government could not be a party to such an arrangement. It gave a lot of consideration to the action that was necessary to ensure that defence needs, with respect to both quality and quantity, would be met. It is satisfied that the right steps were taken, and that they were the only steps that could have been taken in order to obtain the necessary supply of coachwood for the new F/N rifle. In reaching its decision, the Government had the advice of the DirectorGeneral of the Forestry and Timber Bureau, the State Forestry Commission, and the Forest Products Division of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization. After the consultations necessary to give us a balanced picture, we accepted the advice of those authorities and decided to establish an annexe, and to place the management of it in the hands of Mount Seaview Timber Proprietary Limited. I suggest to the honorable member for St. George that he could have obtained that information in answer to a question. There was no need for him to make insinuations and innuendos when he stated that his friend told him that no tenders had been called. Tenders were invited, but the millers refused to submit them. For that reason we were obliged to take this action. {: #debate-32-s8 .speaker-DB6} ##### Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar -- I wish to revert to the matter raised by the honorable member for Yarra **(Mr. Keon)** earlier to-night. The House should realize the seriousness of the implication of his statements if, indeed, the facts are as he has stated them to be. It is all very well for the honorable member for Parkes **(Mr. Haylen),** as he has done in the House on other occasions, to rise and try to draw the red herring of laughter across the trail when a charge involving communism is made. I am sure it was quite a deliberate attempt on his part, by raising a laugh, to minimize the seriousness of the facts, if indeed they are facts, adduced by the honorable member for Yarra. The honorable member for Yarra has stated that, during the last few days, the right honorable member for Barton **(Dr. Evatt),** who knew that he was about to deliver the speech on the Petrov affair with which he regaled the House last night, has been in close communication with **Dr. John** Burton. I do not know whether that is true, because I have observed none of the relevant facts. It would certainly seem that the honorable member for Yarra has given cause for an investigation to be made. Whilst I agree, **Mr. Deputy Speaker,** that you should be very wary about interfering in the private affairs of honorable members, and whilst I agree entirely with the attitude you have taken, I say that the right honorable member for Barton owes to this House, at its next sitting, a statement as to whether the assertions of the honorable member for Yarra are true or not. That, I think, is the crux of the matter, because **Dr. Burton** is a person who is, very rightly, under suspicion. Look only at the published and known facts about him! He is a Communist sympathizer and an aider of the Communist line, as can be seen by the published documents to which he has put his name. There is no reason to go beyond them to establish that proposition. We know now that, while he was a permanent head of a department - the sensitive Department of External Affairs - he either abused his trust, or was neglectful of his duties, by allowing that department to become copiously infiltrated by Communists, Communist agents and Communist sympathizers. That is a fact, and it is on the record. That being so, surely the right honorable member for Barton, if he has any decency, if he has any real feeling, would have avoided, very carefully, any contact with this suspected person while he was preparing the speech which he made here last night. I do not know what the facts are. Let the right honorable member for Barton tell the House what the facts are at the next sitting. Let him come forward and say whether or not he has been in communication with **Dr. Burton** during the last few days. It would be a most interesting thing to know, for certain, one way or the other. {: .speaker-KEJ} ##### Mr Keon: -- There is no doubt about it - not the slightest doubt. {: .speaker-KNX} ##### Sir ERIC HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944 -- There is no doubt about it being said. {: .speaker-DB6} ##### Mr WENTWORTH: -- I say that I do not know from my own observations what the facts are. I simply ask that the facts be given, and I should like to hear them first from the lips of the right honorable member for Barton. I should like to know what he has to say about the matter. There is only one other thing that I want to say, which is that once again to-night, for the second time in the course of a few days, we have seen the honorable member for Parkes coming forth as the champion of Communist rights. He did it a few days ago in connexion with a matter raised on the motion for the adjournment by, I think, the honorable member for Hoddle **(Mr. Cremean).** At that time he interposed eagerly in the debate, whose beginning he said he had not even heard, acclaiming as an achievement a publication which, according to the honorable member for Hoddle, was printed on a Communist press, and was Communist-slanted and which, therefore, should have been a suspect publication. What did the honorable member for Parkes do? He rushed in to defend the Communists. He said, in effect, " Hands off them! Let them say what they like. Let them be encouraged". Again tonight, when a Communist smear-book - because that is what it was - was mentioned by him, it was mentioned in terms of commendation. There is the puff, the professional pro-Communist puff, about great literature, something which contributes to Australian literature. That is the way these Communists are working. I do not think this is a light matter, or one which can be lightly dismissed. We are under continuous infiltration by Communist literary people who are using their literary powers, which in some instances are considerable, not for the prime purpose of literature, but are prostituting them, as it were, in order to advance the Communist line. By so doing they have corrupted a large number of people who have been attracted by this superficial writing, and have not realized that the underlying purpose of the writer was a Communist purpose. That is why a book is published in some instances, and that is why the Communists see that it is printed, and sometimes make their Communist press and their Communist funds available for its printing. Here again to-night we have the honorable member for Parkes coming forward in this House to champion the things that the Communists want championed. It is, I think, a very deplorable thing and one which I indeed regret. {: #debate-32-s9 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- I wish to raise a matter in respect of ex-servicemen. I refer to a most important case that has occurred in South Australia, which highlights the general attitude of the Repatriation Board in that State towards the just claims of South Australian ex-servicemen. I say here, to this House, that the Repatriation Board in South Australia is not applying the onus-of-proof provision of the Repatriation Act in the way that the Minister representing the Minister for Repatriation said in the House that provision was intended to be applied. I am glad that the honorable member for Oxley **(Dr. Donald Cameron)** is present in the chamber, and I hope he will begin to listen to me, because I am about to invite his comments on some remarks that I intend to make about a case in which an ex-serviceman died of cancer of the lung. I advised the widow of that ex- serviceman to make application to the Repatriation Board in South Australia for a war widow's pension. She did so but although she was able to prove that her husband had had a persistent cough. ever since World War I. the board, in its wisdom, rejected her claim, stating that the war could not possibly have caused the cancer of the lung. The honorable member for Oxley will know that there is no doctor living anywhere in the world to-day who would be dogmatic enough to say, " I know what causes cancer ". Therefore, if there is no doctor in the world yet prepared to indicate an absolute cause of cancer, no twopencehalfpenny doctor from South Australia ought to be allowed to sit on a Repatriation board or entitlement anneals tribunal and say that such and such a thing could not have been the cause of the cancer contracted by an ex-serviceman. I wish to refer to an extract from notes published by the chairman of an entitlement appeals tribunal in 1943, following the introduction of the onus of proof provision by the Curtin Labour Government. {: .speaker-KDX} ##### Mr Joshua: -- Who was the chairman? **Mr. CLYDE** CAMERON. - **Mr. O'Sullivan.** There had been a case very similar to the one of which I am complaining, and the Repatriation Board had decided that no claim lay, yet it had before it evidence from an expert in cancer complaints who stated as follows : - >In regard to the gas, I do not know whether the gas to which G. was exposed was capable of inflicting such permanent damage to his tonsil as to lead in later years to a squamous carcinoma there, but the long interval of years from 1018 to 1932 is no bar to the " causative" influence of such damage, if any had resulted. I have known a burn, received in childhood, to become the seat of a squamous carcinoma in adult life. And it is a well known fact that such cancers may develop in old scars and wounds after very many years without continuity of the " cause " except the persistence of the injury . . . > >Conclusion. - Having regard to all these facts,I submit for consideration by the Tribunal that the persistent cough from which G. suffered during his post-war years *was due* to gassing on war service, and further,, since this cough was not only persistent but at times severe, so that " throat gets sore with coughing " when malignancy of tonsil is first suggested, it is reasonable to accept the further conclusion that this coughing was a probable factor in the causation of his carcinoma. That was the opinion of a specialist in carcinoma at that particular time. But what was the decision of the Board? Listen to it! It reads - >The actual exciting cause of cancer is unknown. But having admitted that he went on to say- >But in this case war service is in no way responsible nor associated with it. He says, in one breath, the cause is not known; then he goes on to say, "but in this case war service has nothing to do with it The second one said - >This disease was not due to war service and was not due to coughing. That man is dead. A member of the commission said the disease was not due to coughing. How could he possibly know that this disease was not due to coughing and was not due to war service? The honorable member for Oxley, who is a fair man, and a returned serviceman, will admit that no one knows with absolute certainty that a war injury, and the gassing of lungs in war, could not cause cancer to appear 14, 20 or 30 years later. The third member said - >Carcinoma of tonsil. Not in my opinion, in any way related to or influenced by war service ... In my opinion, cancer of the tonsil would not result from coughing- A difference of opinion - which is an operation carried out by the bronchial tubes and larynx. In this case, an expert said that the disease could be war-caused. The man on the commission, who is probably not an expert in cancer, but is just a good general medical practitioner, should not be prepared to say that his opinion is better than that of the expert. Surely this is a case in which the benefit of tha doubt should have been given to the man on whose behalf the expert said that the cause of cancer was not known to the medical profession, and that no doctor could dogmatically deny that an injury received in "World War I. could have caused cancer of the lung. Therefore, the benefit of the doubt should have been given. I want to know whether the Minister for the Army **(Mr. Francis)** is prepared to re-open this case. I want him to tell the House, before he runs off to a general election on the 17 th December, what he intends to do in regard to the request I am about to make. I want tho Minister to give to every elected member of Parliament the right to appear before the tribunals, not as an advocate for an appellant, but as an observer at the tribunal inquiries or at the board inquiries in order to observe whether the undertaking that has been given in the Parliament by Ministers is being carried out. No doubt the Minister for the Army will say that an appellant has the right to nominate a member of Parliament to appear for him. But what member of Parliament would claim to know more about the presentation of a case to a repatriation tribunal or board than the appointed representative of the returned servicemen's organization, who does nothing else but appear on behalf of appellants? It would be wrong for a member of Parliament to take the case of an ex-serviceman away from the representative of the returned servicemen's organization and, perhaps through inexperience, do an injustice to the person upon whose behalf he appeared. But he ought to be allowed to appear at the inquiry. He should be allowed to sit in on the inquiry in order to see whether the board is carrying out the onus-of-proof obligations as the Minister in this place said they are expected to be carried out. {: .speaker-JRJ} ##### Mr Bowden: -- How would he know? {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- He would know whether or not the doctors were prepared, in a case of cancer of the lung, to state, as this doctor did, that it could not possibly have been war-caused. The member would then be able to come into this honorable House and tell of the instances in which ex-servicemen have not been given justice. If Parliament is a democratic institution, surely an exserviceman should have the right to have his elected representative take that action on his behalf. Justice has not been given to ex-servicemen in South Australia, whatever may be the case in other States. I understand from the remarks of other honorable members, especially honorable members from Queensland, that the tribunals in their States have done the job reasonably well. I say definitely and categorically that the tribunals in South Australia are not carrying out the onus-of-proof section. They are depriving ex-servicemen and the widows of ex- servicemen of their rights. It is no use the honorable member for Gippsland **(Mr. Bowden)** shaking his head. He knows nothing about this matter. He is as bad as the doctors who appear at the tribunal and shake their heads every time a person makes a plea in respect of the cause of an illness about which nobody knows anything. {: .speaker-JRJ} ##### Mr Bowden: -- Is the honorable member referring to the commission or the boards ? {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- I am referring to both. The board is bad in South Australia and whenever there is a bad board, the tribunal is bad because the members know that unless they reject the appeals, they will be dismissed, as the chairman of the No. 2 tribunal was dismissed. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- Order [ The honorable member's time has expired. {: #debate-32-s10 .speaker-JU8} ##### Dr DONALD CAMERON:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP -- Of course, I have no detailed knowledge of the cases that have just been quoted by the honorable member for Hindmarsh **(Mr. Clyde Cameron),** but I want to say this to him. It is quite futile for the honorable member to appeal, as he has appealed by reference to me, for me to add some weight of medical opinion to what he has been saying. This method of reciting a man's medical history and reading from some documents a lot of medical facts merely reveals a profound ignorance of pathological processes and a profound lack of understanding of medical matters. I am certainly not going to add what authority I may have as a doctor to such a garbled account of statements. "What the honorable gentleman has just said is not a condemnation of the board or tribunal in South Australia. There will never be a. state of affairs in which every one is satisfied with the decisions of repatriation tribunals. {: .speaker-JWT} ##### Mr Francis: -- Or of any tribunal. {: .speaker-JU8} ##### Dr DONALD CAMERON:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP -- Or of any tribunal ; but certainly not repatriation tribunals, because nobody can appreciate what every medical student is taught and what every doctor has confirmed by experience almost every day of his practising life - that because one event follows another in time, they are not, therefore, cause and effect. Every patient who comes to a doctor, I suppose, can offer some previous incident or incidents to which he links his illness. He will say, " Such and such a thing happened in my childhood ", or " I had such and such an accident ", or " Could it be caused by something that happened last year ? " Almost invariably, the answer is, " No ". But in civil practice, it does not matter. It is futile to enter into a long explanation or argument with a patient and say that merely because H happened before B, A is not the cause of B. But when a matter comes before a tribunal such things are in the patient's mind. The only real way to discredit the repatriation tribunals, if any one wished to do so, would be to take a statistically significant number of cases - and that would be a great many cases - examine in an expert way the medical evidence in relation to each case, and prove it to be wrong. That is not a process which it is possible to carry out. But until it is done, no one is entitled to say that the decisions of repatriation tribunals are right or wrong. As I said before, to recite a long series of medical statements really conveys nothing at all. I can only say this with reference to cancer of the lung. It is a disease of a comparatively short course. From the first symptoms to the final stages, the disease runs a rapid course. It is inconceivable that any one could suffer from cancer of the lung for a long period, such as from World War I. to the present time. And it is not an argument to say that because no one knows the cause of cancer, therefore this particular disease, in this or any other instance, could not have been caused as suggested. That is a complete *non sequitur.* It is a very old type of argument. One cannot say that, because one does not know the cause of a disease, therefore a particular incident is its cause. Yet that is what the honorable member for Hindmarsh has tried to do. I said at the beginning that I had no knowledge of the cases quoted by the honorable member, so I shall not refer to them again. It is quite beside the point for the honorable member to stand in his place, notice that I am in the chamber and then suggest, by inference, that I will support what he has said. I am afraid that I must repeat that what he has said reveals a profound ignorance of pathology and medicine and will have no support whatever from me. {: #debate-32-s11 .speaker-KDX} ##### Mr JOSHUA:
Leader of the Anti-Communist Labour party · Ballarat -- The honorable member for Hindmarsh **(Mr. Clyde Cameron)** is in the same position as myself in not having a great knowledge of medical matters, but a profound sympathy for many of these war widows and soldiers. It requires a certain amount of courage to take up an appellant's case, or a number of eases, and do the best that one can with the limited knowledge at one's disposal. I have had to do that and I appreciate that I may not have done as good a job as would perhaps some one appointed by the Returned Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen's Imperial League of Australia. However, I have selected certain cases, with the permission of the appellants, thinking that it would be interesting to see what decision the tribunal would reach. I gathered all the evidence that I thought could possibly be used in support of the appeal. It was most carefully considered and the tribunal did its, very best to come to a fair conclusion. I found that very seldom was it able to reverse the decision of the Repatriation Commission, which had already considered all the evidence. {: .speaker-JU8} ##### Dr DONALD CAMERON:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP -- The honorable member will agree that the tribunal is also sympathetic to the ex-serviceman. {: .speaker-KDX} ##### Mr JOSHUA: -- I have spoken on other occasions on the subject of sympathy. I moved a motion which provided that a greater degree of sympathy should characterize the whole proceedings. In my opinion, sympathy is not at present a factor. Comprehensive diligence is exercised in the examination of all the evidence presented to either the commission or an appeal tribunal, but it cannot be described as sympathy. My motion, which the party of the honorable member for Hindmarsh refused to support, offered a practical and sound solution though, to be candid, honorable members might have been able to brush it up somewhat. I believe that it provided for a hearing that would have had all the elements of sympathetic treatment, and therefore should have been accepted. The appeal tribunals have told me that, in relation to diseases whose cause is unknown, they are guided by an English decision which lays down certain degrees of doubt. If a soldier was fit when he went to the war, but was discharged unfit, the matter is presumed to be beyond doubt and he is given a pension. If he went away fit, returned apparently fit and later was found to be suffering from some disease, the tribunal requires evidence relating his trouble to his war service. As the honorable member for Hindmarsh knows, such cases frequently arise. There is a third degree of doubt, which does not afford much relief to the ex-serviceman. It relates to the soldier who first suffers from some complaint after his war service, but no evidence can be found connecting it with that war service. As the honorable member for Hindmarsh has pointed out, his trouble might have been related to his war service but it is beyond medical science to prove it. If the honorable member's friend could produce such medical evidence I know that the appeal tribunal would give it every consideration. {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- He need not do that. The onus of proof is on the other side. {: .speaker-KDX} ##### Mr JOSHUA: -- As I have said, the appeal tribunals are guided by an English decision which, in these cases, regards the degree of doubt as so great as not to support a claim for a. pension. Of course, the honorable member for Hindmarsh and many other honorable members say that it should, but despite my great sympathy for ex-servicemen, I do not regard such a contention as practical, and cannot subscribe to it. If it were sound a man who became sick could simply say that the sickness was attributable to war service and he would be entitled to a pension. Those honorable members have not provided a practical solution. For that reason, I was disappointed by the speech the other night of the honorable member for Fremantle **(Mr. Beazley).** The appeals tribunals cannot administer the matter in any other practical way unless this Parliament lays it down for them. It is not enough to criticize the tribunals. One must offer concrete and constructive suggestions for their guidance in the future. The tribunals do very good work and give pensions where they think that they are warranted. They are, of course, hampered by the limitations of medical science. The honorable member for Hindmarsh should not despair, because I was able to bring to light medical evidence sufficient to obtain a pension for a war widow, though some years before such evidence was not available. Mr.Clyde Cameron. - The honorable member wants the appellant to prove his case. Why not make the tribunal disprove it? {: .speaker-KDX} ##### Mr JOSHUA: -- The tribunals do try to disprove, by medical opinion, the claim that a disease is related to war service. Often they cannot, from their experience and knowledge, which is extensive, produce evidence which would indicate that a particular complaint was not attributable to war service. That is the answer that I have been given by the tribunals. {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- The tribunal does not have to produce evidence. {: .speaker-KDX} ##### Mr JOSHUA: -- That is where all this difficulty about the onus of proof comes in. A doubt arises and the commission produces an outstanding medical opinion which removes that doubt. If the appellant can produce another medical opinion in rebuttal of the first, there remains a real doubt, and the appellant will get the benefit of it. {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- The tribunals are prejudiced against him. {: .speaker-KDX} ##### Mr JOSHUA: -- From practical experience, I disagree entirely that the tribunals are prejudiced. {: #debate-32-s12 .speaker-JF7} ##### Mr BEAZLEY:
Fremantle .- I do not know the extent of the knowledge of the honorable member for Hindmarsh **(Mr. Clyde Cameron)** of pathology, but I think that he has a clear understanding of the onus of proof. Moreover, I should have thought that the appeal tribunal was, by virtue of section 47 of the act, wrong on the question of degrees of doubt. A clear case illustrating the position has come to me from South Australia as a result of the debate in this chamber. If the facts are as stated in the letter that I have before me, they provide a clear example of the onus of proof resting - very wrongly - on the ex-serviceman. This particular serviceman had two years and 344 days service in World War I. He was discharged medically unfit, "not due to misconduct ". His unfitness was eye trouble, for which he was, for two years, given a pension. Let that first point be clearly established. At that time the pension was reviewed every sis months. After two years it was discontinued because, it was alleged, the disability was not due to war service. In 1935, because the expense of eye treatment by medical practitioners was becoming burdensome, he appealed for reinstatement of his pension rights. The onus of proof was on him then. He was successful, and in 1936 his right eye. was removed. In May, 1953, because of the deterioration of tie other eye due to strain, he appealed for the loss of his right eye and further deterioration of the sight of the left eye and defective hearing. His appeal was upheld in respect of defective hearing, which was not a continuous thing, but not in respect of defective sight despite the fact that he had actually received a war pension for defective eyesight for the first two years after World War I. He exercised his right of appeal against the determination of the Repatriation Board, and appealed to the War Pensions Entitlement Appeal Tribunal on the 4th November, 1954. But, as the claim was listed for hearing under the wrong section of the Repatriation Act - which was not his fault - the appeal had to be resubmitted under the correct section. At the subsequent appeal, which was heard on the 15th June, 1955, the tribunal submitted his case to an independent medical specialist on the application of the Returned Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen's Imperial League of Australia. On the 16th September, he appeared before the special board at Keswick, but he has heard nothing since about his appeal. He summarized his case by saying that he was discharged medically unfit on the 30th August, 1918. and was given a pension in respect of injury to his eyes, but the pension was withdrawn after two years, and subsequently the same disability recurred. He had one eye removed, and the other deteriorated. He appealed in 1936, with the onus of proof on him, and subsequently appealed in 1953. That man wants to know now, if his appeal is granted after these intolerable delays - and this case is an instance of what I have spoken about in the House - from what date would the pension commence? Would it be dated from the time the other pension ceased, or from the date of his appeal in 1935, or from the time when he appealed in 1953 and the whole matter was delayed because it was put under the wrong section of the act, or from 1954, or from the time of his appeal on the 16th September of this year? I should have thought that it was clearly established that if he was given a pension in respect of his sight and the same disability continued and his eye was removed, there would not be much doubt that his affliction was due to war service, and was pensionable. {: .speaker-KIF} ##### Mr Hulme: -- Can the honorable member guarantee the accuracy of the matters he is putting before us? {: .speaker-JF7} ##### Mr BEAZLEY: -- The man signed his name and has given his address. All the data is in his letter, but I cannot prove his case. If his letter contains facts, it seems to me as an outside observer that if the onus of proof was operating in the way that the Attorney-General **(Senator Spicer)** has said it is operating, there is a clear doubt overwhelmingly in favour of the ex-serviceman. {: .speaker-KIF} ##### Mr Hulme: -- It would seem to be better to check on the material before it is placed before the House as fact. {: .speaker-JF7} ##### Mr BEAZLEY: -- This is a carefully drafted letter, and is signed by the man himself. He has given the dates of all the appeals and of all the occasions when he has approached the Repatriation Department; and that should enable the Government to check the matter carefully. It is quite clear that his case has been taken up in South Australia by the Returned Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen's Imperial League of Australia. I have not named the man, because I am interested in discussing not his individual case, but the operation of the onusofproof provisions. I recognize that honorable members get a jaundiced view of the repatriation tribunals, because we hear about only the cases in which things go wrong. However, in ten years' membership of the Parliament, one hears of many cases in which pensions have ultimately been granted after there have been appalling delays. Therefore, I am not disposed to regard the tribunals as infallible. {: .speaker-JWT} ##### Mr Francis: -- Has the honorable member placed the facts before the Minister for Repatriation **(Senator Cooper)** ? {: .speaker-JF7} ##### Mr BEAZLEY: -- I shall do so. Question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 10.55 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 20 October 1955, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1955/19551020_reps_21_hor8/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant