House of Representatives
29 April 1958

22nd Parliament · 3rd Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 22nd Parliament
  3. 1958

Mr. SPEAKER (Hon. John McLeay) took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 1197

EDUCATION

Petitions

Mr. WEBB presented a petition from 10,900 electors of Australia praying that the Mouse take immediate action to ensure that sufficient funds are made available to each State of the .Commonwealth to provide adequate public education facilities for its children and people.

Petition received and read.

Petitions in similar terms were presented as follows: -

By Mr. WHITLAM from 11,260 electors of the Commonwealth.

By Mr. L. R. JOHNSON from 10,960 electors of the Commonwealth.

Petitions received.

page 1197

QUESTION

SUMMIT TALKS

Dr EVATT:
BARTON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I desire to ask the Minister for External Affairs a question arising from a question I asked him some little time ago. Will the Minister make a statement on international affairs, with special reference to the proposed summit talks and the subjects that will possibly be discussed at such talks, including all aspects of disarmament and the problems generally lumped together under the name of the “ cold war “? Will he arrange for a debate to take place after his statement - if possible during the present week?

Mr CASEY:
Minister for External Affairs · LP

– There is no doubt that the matters mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition are of world interest. They concern Australia as much as the great powers that are in the forefront of negotiations on these matters. It is open to question whether in such a debate anything of advantage might be brought to light that has -not already been considered in the multifarious discussions that have taken place throughout the world. If the right honorable gentleman includes the cold war, he opens another door into a very wide field. I appreciate the importance of these matters, but, as I have said, whether anything that could fall from the lips of honorable members would add to the security of the world is another matter. I will certainly discuss with the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House whether an opportunity to debate these subjects might be given in the course of the current sitting, after the making of a statement on behalf of the Government.

page 1197

QUESTION

COTTON TEXTILES

Mr TIMSON:
HIGINBOTHAM, VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister for Trade whether the Government has con. sidered the Tariff Board’s report on the importation of printed cotton textiles. Can the Minister inform the House when the present emergency regulations governing these imports will be formalized?

Mr McEWEN:
Minister for Trade · MURRAY, VICTORIA · CP

– I have received the Tariff Board’s report on the importation of cotton textiles. The report, as is customary, has been the subject of close study within the .department .as a preliminary to its being presented by me to Cabinet. I hope to do that in the immediate future. I am sur,e that there will be no avoidable delay by the Government in reaching a decision on the report. When that decision has been reached consideration will be given to the other aspects to which the honorable member has referred.

page 1197

QUESTION

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL FOR THE NORTHERN TERRITORY

Mr NELSON:
NORTHERN TERRITORY, NORTHERN TERRITORY

– My question is directed to the Minister for Territories. In the course of debate on a matter of urgency in the House on Tuesday last, the Leader of the House informed honorable members that the Minister for Territories, upon his return from the Northern Territory, would make a statement concerning the crisis brought about by the resignation of all six elected members of the Northern Territory Legislative Council and the issues involved in those resignations. Will the Minister state when he will make that statement?

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

– At the close of question time to-day I will make such a statement, if the House will grant me leave.

page 1197

QUESTION

PAY-ROLL TAX

Mr STOKES:
MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA

– Will the Treasurer give full consideration when preparing the forthcoming Budget to granting municipal authorities exemption from payment of pay-roll tax, thus. enabling a .greater amount of their revenue to be used in the construction of roads and necessary local works, particularly as many of these local government authorities are seriously affected by government installations and holdings within municipal boundaries, from which little or no return is received by those bodies?

Sir ARTHUR FADDEN:
Treasurer · MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · CP

– I assure the honorable member that Cabinet will consider all aspects of pay-roll tax. I recognize the persistence with which the honorable member has brought the position of local government authorities under my notice, and that aspect will also be given consideration.

page 1198

QUESTION

EMPIRE GAMES

Mr COPE:
WATSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I address a question without notice to the Prime Minister, prefacing it by saying that the New Zealand Government has made a grant of £10,000 towards the cost of sending that country’s athletes to the Empire Games. Is the Prime Minister aware that the grant by this Government of £5,000 for the same purpose is considered by the Australian people to be very frugal? Will the right honorable gentleman increase the amount far above £5,000?

Mr MENZIES:
Prime Minister · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · LP

– I am not familiar with what the people at large may think. I have read, in one or two places, loud criticism of the Government’s grant, but I have not noticed in the same organs reference to any handsome contribution by themselves for this purpose which seems to them to be of such importance from a publicity point of view. However, the honorable member’s suggestion will, as always, have my proper consideration.

page 1198

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH BUILDINGS

Mr CHANEY:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister for the Interior and Minister for Works whether the specifications for the repatriation building in Perth called for the use of Donnybrook stone. Was stone brought from New South Wales because Donnybrook stone was not available? Is the Minister aware that local stone was available at other sources? Finally, can he ensure that local stone will be used in the construction of the new Commonwealth Bank in William-street, Perth, if it conforms to specifications?

Mr FAIRHALL:
Minister for the Interior · PATERSON, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I should need to look again at the specifications of the repatriation building to renew my memory of them, but I have some recollection that the Donnybrook stone quarries were closed or that their output was not sufficient to complete the repatriation building on time. For that reason, the contractor was given permission to import Bondi stone. The department is always anxious to specify the use of local stone and I am sure that this will be done in the case of the new Commonwealth Bank building. I do not know what local building stone is available, but I am bound to say that only the other day a resident of Western Australia sent me some samples of stone which are at present under test in my department. I shall be glad to look into all the matters raised by the honorable member.

page 1198

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Mr BRUCE:
LEICHHARDT, QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Minister for Immigration whether it is a fact that under the Immigration Act, a person of good repute, young and personable, apparently physically fit and with relations willing to give him employment, cannot stay in Australia if he comes here as a tourist, paying his own fare. Is it a fact that under the act such a person will be virtually deported, which is treatment that is not given to even the worst criminal types who may come here from overseas? Does the Government give preference to persons who cost Australians a great deal of money, over persons who pay their own fares to come here?

Mr DOWNER:
Minister for Immigration · ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– It must be apparent to the honorable member that the admission of all people into Australia, whether for permanent settlement or just as visitors, or tourists, must be subject to hard and fast rules with an occasional exercise of discretion by the Minister. I ask the honorable member to consider the consequences if everybody who came here, ostensibly as a tourist, then liking the country, decided, in his own judgment, that it would be expedient for him to remain, and tried to do so. If we were to give such persons that privilege we should immediately dissipate a great deal of the elaborate structure of our immigration policy. We have a policy and a series of regulations similar to that which every country in the civilized world must possess in order to protect itself and regulate its intake of immigrants. I am sorry to note that there is a growing tendency on the part of a great number of people coming here as tourists to try, for some reason or another, to trade upon their position and seek to remain here permanently. This, no government, however sympathetic it may be to immigration, can possibly countenance. What the Government has put forward in its immigration programme is perfectly clear. It is quite straightforward. Those who wish to come to Australia, if they have any serious mind to remain here permanently, can easily find out, in their country of origin, what are the regulations in regard to immigration. I say to the honorable member, and to any friends of his who may be tourists or intending tourists, that they would be well advised, before they leave Europe or wherever their own country may be, to find out what the restrictions are and to abide by them.

page 1199

QUESTION

APPLES

Mr LUCK:
BRADDON, TASMANIA

– Has the Minister for Primary Industry had any report of a shortage of apples in Singapore, attributed to a monopoly in the importation of apples from Australia and the partial failure of the Western Australian crop? Will the Minister investigate the possibility of meeting the demand for apples in Singapore and the East from a large surplus of choice Tasmanian apples?

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

– When I was in Singapore recently, I examined this problem of the importation of apples into Singapore and I did expect the relevant Minister to discuss the problem with me. He did not do so. I was informed, while in Singapore, and have since confirmed it with my department, that there is no restriction on the importation of apples into Singapore. There was one until two seasons ago, but it has now been taken away. The real cause of the rise in the price of apples in Singapore is that there has been a partial failure of the Western Australian crop, the traditional source of supply for Singapore. As there is a scarcity, naturally, the price has risen. As the honorable gentleman probably well knows, there is a ready market for Tasmanian apples on the continent of Europe and in the United Kingdom, and the prices being received can be considered to be very good.

page 1199

QUESTION

MEAT

Mr COUTTS:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND

– My question, which I address to the Treasurer, deals with the cost of meat in Queensland and its relation to the cost of living as assessed by the Commonwealth Statistician under the C series index. As the Country party-Liberal Government of Queensland has introduced a new form of price control of meat, under which the price of fillet, rump, and sirloin steaks is expected to rise and the price of brisket, mince, and blade and chuck steaks is expected to fall, will the right honorable gentleman inform the House whether the price of steak of good quality or the price of inferior beef cuts will be taken into consideration by the Commonwealth Statistician when making his assessment of the cost of living, which assessment is the basis on which the basic wage of Queensland is fixed?

Sir ARTHUR FADDEN:
CP

– The point raised by the honorable member in relation to the C series index comes under the independent jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Statistician. In reply to his question concerning the price of beef, I would state that, as a result of the change in Queensland to a Country party-Liberal Government, the price of tripe has very definitely been reduced in that State.

page 1199

QUESTION

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

Mr DALY:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to you, Mr. Speaker. On 15th. April I directed questions to the Minister for the Navy as follows: -

  1. Is a security check made of all applicants for employment or promotion in the Department of the Navy, in either a civilian or service capacity?
  2. If so, what type of person is regarded as a security risk?
  3. Are the objections based entirely on the applicant’s political affiliations?
  4. How many persons have been refused employment or promotion in his department because of adverse reports of security officers?

I was asked to put that question on the notice-paper and I did so, but it has not yet been replied to. I have been reliably informed that the question was deleted from the re-broadcast of question time on the night of the day on which the question was asked. Is this correct? If so, why was this done? Was it because it is the usual policy, for some reason or other, to delete from the re-broadcast questions which Ministers request be put on notice; or was it because the Government feared the implications if that question came to public knowledge?

Mr SPEAKER:

– I shall have inquiries made into the matter referred to by the honorable member and shall acquaint him of my findings.

page 1200

QUESTION

MILK

Mr ANTHONY:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP; NCP from May 1975

– My question, which is addressed to- the Minister for Trade, concerns import licences for special machinery for the. cartonizing of milk. As milk consumption in Australia, per head of population, is well below that in most European and North American countries, it appears that either the price of our milk is too high or our distribution and merchandizing methods are out of date. The method of cartonizing milk, which is now followed throughout America, has greatly helped to reduce distribution and merchandizing costs in that country. Have’ any applications been made for licences to import this special machinery into Australia? If any such application is made in the future will the Minister give it favorable consideration?

Mr McEWEN:
CP

– The honorable member for Richmond has been a constant advocate of this forward method of merchandizing dairy products. I am glad to be able to advise him that approval has recently been given to the issue of licences for the importation of machinery to enable cartons to be manufactured as containers for milk and, I think, other dairy products. These containers will be cheaper and, perhaps, more attractive than the containers at present in use. I am aware that per capita consumption of milk in Australia is much lower than in many other dairying countries. As the dairying industry in Australia is suffering because of low prices overseas, I hope that the new method of packing will enable the industry to achieve, by means of an advertising campaign, higher milk consumption in Australia.

page 1200

QUESTION

URANIUM:

Mr KEARNEY:
CUNNINGHAM, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question concerns the projected visit to Australia in June of this year of a technical mission from the United States Atomic Energy Commission. Will the Prime Minister state whether the Government that he leads has yet developed plans for the establishment in Australia of plant for the refining of uranium? If it has not, will the Prime Minister initiate action to obtain from the United States technical information which will make it possible for uranium mined in Australia to be wholly refined in Australia by Australians, so that another essential and important industry may be established, the product of the industry to remain in Australia?

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– This question clearly relates to a very important matter of policy, involving very large considerations of: finance. I shall refer the matter to the appropriate Minister.

page 1200

QUESTION

IMPORT LICENSING

Mr PETERS:
SCULLIN, VICTORIA

– I address a question to the Minister for Trade. On a number of occasions I have made representations on behalf of manufacturers in my electorate who wish to obtain licences for the importation of piece goods and other articles. On every occasion I have been told that import licences cannot be granted to the persons concerned and that they should import their requirements through an existing import agency. Does the Minister consider that free enterprise is fostered under a system which, requires the manufacturer to import goods through an agency which must necessarily make a profit in passing the goods on, to the ultimate detriment of consumers?

Mr McEWEN:
CP

– This is quite an interesting and, in my opinion, valid question. No other government in the history of Australia has been more conscious of the need to apply policies which will stimulate the development of our country by creating opportunities for free enterprise. Certainly no other government has been more successful in the end result. Throughout the administration of this Government, that objective has been borne in mind. What the honorable member overlooks, I am sure, is that so successful have our policies been that the demand for imports involves demands for the expenditure of more overseas currency than we are able to earn. Flowing from that, there is the operation of import restrictions to deal with a situation which, in most other countries, frankly, is dealt with by arranging some deflationary conditions to quench the demand generally; rather than by handling the excess import demand in the specialized and selected manner that has been adopted by this Government.

This itself creates a situation in which, a restriction being imposed upon imports and selectively applied, there is naturally a request constantly coming to the Government from some individual who would see a profit in being able to import for a market which is in short supply. If those requests were universally approved where there were broad justifiable circumstances, there could be only one of two results: Either the total import ceiling would have to be lifted, which would be in defiance of the general financial arrangements of the Government and could not be continued indefinitely; or the new applicants would be furnished with licences at the cost of subtracting an equivalent amount from other businesses which have been in existence for many years.

I am sure that it is in conformity with general conditions of equity and the preservation of free enterprise that in those circumstances users of those imported materials are expected to buy from where they would normally purchase if there were no import controls - that is, from the people whose business it is to import. There is one deviation from that policy and it is practised. It is this: In these days, if an Australian manufacturer’s business has grown so much over recent years that, on the very dimensions of his use of imported goods, he would have become an importer, then he can make a special case to be treated as entitled to an import licence. There is an apparatus for fair consideration of such cases within the department by an appeals authority, and by a completely independent final appeal authority. This procedure is working with equity and success.

page 1201

QUESTION

WATERFRONT EMPLOYMENT

Mr DUTHIE:
WILMOT, TASMANIA

– Will the Minister for Labour and National Service inform the House what is the real reason why the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority has persisted in interfering with the fifteenman gang roster system on the Australian waterfront? Why disturb the working of a system which has operated so successfully on the waterfront for more than fifteen years?

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

– The Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority was constituted by legislation of this Parliament and for the purposes which were made clear to the Parliament at the time the legislation was under discussion. One of the principal purposes was to restore some efficiency to Australian waterfront operations which were causing a slow turn-round of ships and imposing an increased cost burden on the Australian community generally. Since that authority was constituted, it has devoted itself to improvements in efficiency where it saw this to be necessary and either as a result of determination by the judge, who sits to deal with industrial matters in this industry, or as a result of decisions of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority itself, orders have been directed to gang strengths and pallet sizes - in these particular circumstances, to gang sizes. I know that the authority gave very careful attention to this problem and undoubtedly it came to the decision, as the terms of its order would make apparent, that in certain ports, the arrangements were working neither efficiently nor satisfactorily. The honorable gentleman mentioned that these arrangements had continued for fifteen years. That is not true of all ports. In some ports the arrangements which have now been ordered have been working satisfactorily for a long period. The Parliament set up for this purpose a body of men who at the time commanded our confidence, and nothing which has occurred since has shaken my confidence in them. This authority, having been set up by the Parliament, is entitled to our support and backing when it makes an order directed to achieving improved efficiency on the waterfront. When we find a union which last year was responsible for losing through industrial disputes more than 40 times the average time lost in industry generally, we should not be seeking to blame the authority but asking what factors are at work inside the union itself to produce this quite abnormal rate of industrial loss.

page 1201

QUESTION

EMPIRE GAMES

Mr EDMONDS:
HERBERT, QUEENSLAND

– Does the Prime Minister believe to be adequate the amount granted by the Commonwealth towards the cost of the visit of the Australian team to Cardiff for the Empire Games, having regard to the great national and international importance of such a visit? Is the right honorable gentleman determined that the amount granted will not be increased?

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– I think I have already answered a question on this matter this afternoon.

page 1202

QUESTION

PHYTOTRON

Mr IAN ALLAN:
GWYDIR, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Can the Minister in charge of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization indicate whether he favours the establishment by that organization of a plant factory in order to permit the organization to develop more readily plants suitable for introduction in north-western New South Wales and Queensland?

Mr CASEY:
LP

– I think that the honorable member is probably referring to a piece of equipment known as a phytotron. This matter has been under very active consideration in Australia for the last six or twelve months. The possibility of acquiring or building a piece of equipment of this sort, which would be quite extensive, is at the present moment under consideration by the Government.

page 1202

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

Mr J R FRASER:
ALP

– Does the Treasurer recall that, some time after 27th August last year, in reply to a question I asked him on that date, he said that, pending the construction of a new Government Printing Office in Canberra, he would see what could be done to improve working conditions at the printing office and the facilities provided there for the employees? Does the right honorable gentleman know that conditions of employment at the Government Printing Office continue to be very much below standard, and that the facilities normally provided for employees in undertakings of this kind are largely absent? As the construction of a new printing office, I understand, is not scheduled until about 1961, will the right honorable gentleman have a further examination made of the Government Printing Office to remedy the conditions under which the employees are required to work?

Sir ARTHUR FADDEN:
CP

– I remember the honorable member’s previous question quite distinctly, and I was given to understand that the conditions and amenities at the Government Printing Office in Canberra had been definitely improved. However, I shall bring his further question to the notice of my officers, and shall give him a report.

page 1202

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE FURLOUGH

Mr WILSON:
STURT, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Will the Prime Minister consider amending the Public Service Act to provide pro rata furlough for service in excess of 40 years? In explanation, I may mention that furlough is provided, I think, for 40 years’ service, but not for service beyond that period.

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– I may tell the honorable member that I have available for Cabinet consideration a paper which involves that very question. I am hoping that it will be dealt with this week.

page 1202

QUESTION

EXPORT OF IRON ORE

Mr WEBB:
STIRLING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Prime Minister: Has a reply yet been given to the Western Australian Government regarding an application for a permit to export iron ore from Tallering Peak, in Western Australia? If a reply has been given will the Prime Minister kindly let the House know the nature of the reply? If no reply has been sent can the right honorable gentleman give the House some idea when one is likely to be made?

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– Only an interim reply has gone forward, but the matter is, I assure the honorable member, under very close examination, and I am hoping that the final reply will not be long delayed.

page 1202

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN WAR MEMORIAL

Mr BOSTOCK:
INDI, VICTORIA

– I preface a question to the Minister for the Interior by reminding him that for some two years the erection of a kiosk at the Australian War Memorial has been under consideration. The kiosk is intended to meet the convenience of visitors to the memorial and, what is perhaps equally important, to discourage the leaving of litter around the memorial by visitors who take their meals on the spot. Can the Minister inform me what progress has been made towards the erection of this kiosk?

Mr FAIRHALL:
LP

– I know that the honorable member for Indi has followed this matter assiduously over the period he has mentioned. Approval has been given to plans recently submitted by the director of the memorial, and they will figure in next year’s works programme.

page 1203

QUESTION

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

Mr GRIFFITHS:
SHORTLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Social Services. Is ii a fact that the New South Wales branch ot the Department of Social Services is run down and in a state of inertia? Is it true that gross inefficiency exists because registrars and section leaders are overworked through lack of staff and the increased work result.ing from mass unemployment? ls it also a fact that the employment of half-trained officers in the pensions branch is causing grave inconvenience to pensioners, involving, among other things, waiting periods of up to eight months for pension decisions, entitlement reviews, and the issue of duplicate cheques, as well as failure to pay pensions; while, on the other hand, pensions are being paid long after cancellation of payment has been sought? Will the Minister explain why pensioners’ correspondence is not being answered, and why the 22 cheques which I now hold in my hand, each of a value of £8, were sent out months after notification of cancellation of pension was given and, in one case, after a funeral benefit had been paid? In order to avoid as much as possible the obvious administrative shortcomings that now exist, will the Minister grant immediate autonomy to the Newcastle regional office of the Department of Social Services?

Mr ROBERTON:
Minister for Social Services · RIVERINA, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– The short answer to the questions asked by the honorable member is that there is no substance in the allegations he has made.

Mr Griffiths:

– I have 22 cheques here.

Mr ROBERTON:

– The fact remains that the directorate of the Department of Social Services in New South Wales, situated in Sydney-

Mr Ward:

– What about the 22 cheques the honorable member has in his hand?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honorable member for East Sydney will remain silent.

Mr ROBERTON:

– The fact remains that if the directorate of the Department of Social Services of New South Wales, situated in Sydney, has a fault at all, it is that it is far too big. A programme for the decentralization of that particular branch, together with branches in the other States, is being vigorously prosecuted by me, and as soon as satisfactory arrangements can be made for the establishment of autonomous regional offices in New South Wales appropriate action will be taken. In the meantime, some slight delays are inevitable in an organization that deals with so many individual cases in such a satisfactory and comprehensive way as that in which the directorate of the department in New South Wales deals with them.

page 1203

QUESTION

SECURITY SERVICE

Mr WARD:

– I desire to ask the Prime Minister whether he is still provided by the Commonwealth security service with a bodyguard at all times. If this practice has been discontinued, will the right honorable gentleman state when it was considered that the danger, which previously was deemed serious enough to warrant such provision, had ended?

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– I have never been provided with a bodyguard at all times, as the honorable member well knows. If there has been any relaxation in the vigilance which the Commonwealth police exercise, I am sure that it must date from the time when they thought that my safety was more assured in certain areas because the honorable member was reported to have smiled at me.

page 1203

QUESTION

UNIDENTIFIED SUBMAKINES TO THE NORTH OF AUSTRALIA

Mr MORGAN:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for Defence whether it is a fact that unidentified submarines have recently been seen by missionary people in the region of Manus Island. Has the Royal Australian Navy or the Royal Australian Air Force any knowledge of these submarines, and are regular reconnaissances of the area made by those services?

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

– My colleague, the Minister for the Navy, mentioned the reported sighting of submarines only last week in this House. Inquiries were then being made, and, so far as I know, we have not received any further information. As soon as the inquiries are completed, I will inform the honorable member of the result.

page 1204

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH BANK SPECIAL ACCOUNTS

Mr CAIRNS:
YARRA, VICTORIA

– I preface a question to the Treasurer by saying that, on 26th March, I asked the right honorable gentleman whether he would ascertain the total amount lent by the trading banks - and particularly the amount lent for housing - as a consequence of the release of £15,000,000 from the special accounts with the Commonwealth Bank. The right honorable gentleman said that he would be pleased to examine the question and determine the extent to which he could comply with my request. I now ask him whether he has examined the question, and whether he will say to what extent he can comply with my request.

Sir ARTHUR FADDEN:
CP

– I have had the question examined, and I will have a statement about the matter prepared for the honorable gentleman.

page 1204

QUESTION

UNITED STATES DEFENCE MISSION

Mr BOSTOCK:

– I ask the Minister for Defence a question. Some time ago, a mission from the United States of America visited Australia in order to examine our defence manufacturing potential and capacity. It was publicly stated at the time that one of the objects of the mission was to ascertain whether Australia could undertake the manufacture of any defence equipment on behalf of the United States. Will the Minister advise me of the general results of the mission?

Sir PHILIP MCBRIDE:
LP

– As the honorable member has stated, a mission from the United States of America came to this country to examine our capacity for the production of defence equipment. It closely examined both private and government establishments manufacturing defence equipment. I understand that since its return to the United States the mission has made a report upon its investigations here. Up to the present time, we have no information about the contents of the report, or the results that may flow from it. As a consequence of my discussions with General Ruestow, the leader of the mission, I can assure the honorable member that the members of the mission were very much impressed by what they saw in this country.

page 1204

QUESTION

COLOMBO PLAN

Mr LUCHETTI:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct to the Minister for External Affairs a question relating to Australia’s participation in the Colombo plan. Who decides the kind of aid that is given to countries benefiting under the plan, and is the Minister satisfied with the administration and operation of the plan so far as it concerns Australia? Is he content with the kind of aid being given, and, in particular, with the kinds of machinery being sent to Asian countries under the plan? On what basis are machinery and other kinds of equipment purchased? Is the purchase made by public contract, or by negotiation, and how is the purchase of equipment for delivery to Asian countries under the plan administered?

Mr CASEY:
LP

– The order of events is that a request comes from an Asian country for certain equipment or for aid in a certain direction. That request is analysed by officers in the Department of External Affairs and is passed on to me with an estimate of the potential usefulness of the equipment, the practicability of the project for which it is designed, the availability of the equipment in Australia and the percentage of its Australian-made content. On that submission, as Minister for External Affairs I decide whether the particular item is to be supplied. The matter then goes to an inter-departmental committee of senior representatives of the relevant departments, including the Treasury and the Ministry of National Development. The committee decides whether the component parts of the equipment should be exported from Australia under the Colombo plan. However, the decision is mine as Minister for External Affairs, and I have to approve of every gift to Asian countries under the Colombo plan. Ultimately, the matter is made open to public contract through, I think, the Department of Supply. I should have said that, first, we get a recommendation from the Australian High Commissioner or Ambassador in the country from which the request comes. That has been the procedure for a considerable number of years.

Every possible precaution is taken to ensure that the equipment is right for the purpose, that it is likely to be used to advantage in the country concerned and that it is within our compass to give. Of course, I have to keep tab the whole time - my officers advise me on this almost every week - on how the expenditure of Colombo plan money is proceeding relative to the amount available for that purpose in the Budget.

page 1205

QUESTION

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL FOR THE NORTHERN TERRITORY

Mr HASLUCK:
Minister for Territories · Curtin · LP

– by leave - Last week, during my absence from Canberra on ministerial duties, the honorable member for the Northern Territory (Mr. Nelson) initiated a debate as a matter of urgency on the resignation from the Legislative Council for the Northern Territory of certain elected members of the Legislative Council. I have since had the opportunity of reading the honorable member’s remarks in “ Hansard “. He dealt in part with a charge against me personally of having delayed the consideration of the report of a select committee of the Legislative Council and in part with the case for constitutional changes in the Northern Territory. I shall dispose of the first and less important matter before discussing the substantial question of constitutional change. May I ask the House to follow carefully the sequence of events as recorded in the files of the Department of Territories.

On 11th April, 1956 - two years ago - the Legislative Council for the Northern Territory agreed to a motion introduced by a private member appointing a select committee to inquire into the alteration of the Northern Territory (Administration) Act, under which the Legislative Council is constituted. I had personally suggested this method after several members of the council had approached me at different times to ask me to initiate myself some reform of the council. The membership of the select committee was three elected members and two official members.

These facts in themselves are a refutation of any suggestion that the Government is trying to block reform or to deny the elected members of the Northern Territory a chance to make their contribution in shaping the course of reform.

During the succeeding months the files of my department show that, at my request, an inquiry was made during the year about the functioning of the committee, in an endeavour to see that it did function, but in December, 1956, eight months after its appointment, a report was received from Darwin that, up to that time, the committee had not met since its inaugural meeting. The term of the council expired - and, of course, the appointment of the select committee - and an election was held, in February, 1957.

A decision was then made by me, in consultation with the Administrator, that an attempt should be made in the new Legislative Council to have the select committee re-appointed and, at the commencement of the new council, in April, 1957, the Administrator, in his opening address as President of the Council, after referring to the fact that local government had been established at Darwin - in itself a step forward in the progress of the Territory towards self-government - said -

This thought may bring to members’ minds the question of how this growing responsibility may be reflected in the development of the Legislative Council. In this connection, firstly, I should like to express the Government’s interest in the future development of all representative institutions in the Northern Territory and its willingness to consider at any time suggestions which might be made by the people of the Territory. It is the Government’s view that these suggestions might best be brought together by the Legislative Council itself as the mouthpiece of the Territory, created by the Commonwealth Parliament. . . .

After referring to the appointment of the select committee, in 1956, the Administrator continued -

The Government at the time informed the Federal Parliament of the appointment of that Select Committee and that it awaited an opportunity to consider any recommendation which the Legislative Council might submit when it had considered the report of its committee. I mention this both to inform members of the respect paid to this Council and to remind them that a change can only be brought about in its membership and its powers, if the Commonwealth Parliament can be satisfied as to the need and induced to make the change. The Select Committee had not completed its task when the old Council ceased. Tt lies with the new Council whether that task should be taken up by a new Committee.

Later in the session, that is in April, 1957, the private member who had moved in 1956, again moved for the appointment of the select committee, again receiving the support of the official members, and the committee was re-appointed, again with three elected members and two official members.

This select committee, working in a far more businesslike way than the previous select committee, presented its report to the Legislative Council in November, 1957. The report was tabled on 4th November, and on 7th November the council approved of a resolution asking the Administrator to forward the report to the Minister for Territories. The report reached my hands on 28th November, and on the same day I made a preliminary reading of it and instructed my department to ask the Administrator to examine it in detail and submit comments and recommendations. At the same time, I also directed that the report be referred to the Attorney-General’s Department for comment on the constitutional aspects. At this stage the report was still only in typewritten form, and during January it was necessary to obtain further copies to enable this preliminary work to proceed.

On 14th February, I sent a minute to my department asking what progress was being made and directing them to ensure that there was no undue delay. On 21st February, the Administrator’s comments were received in the Department of Territories and on 11th March preliminary comments from the Attorney-General’s Department were received. On 13th March, I had a discussion with the departmental officer handling the matter and, after considering the reports from the Administrator and from the Attorney-General’s Department, I directed on that date that the report of the select committee and the accompanying papers would have to go to Cabinet as they raised matters beyond ministerial decision. I asked that a covering submission for Cabinet should be prepared. That was on 13th March. Further work was necessary in the Department of Territories and, unfortunately, it had not been completed before my departure for the Northern Territory on 18th April on other business. The completed submission from my department was placed on my table yesterday.

It is an unfortunate fact, for which as Minister I am bound to take responsibility - and I confess the fault quite freely - that the members of the Legislative Council were not explicitly informed that our consideration of the report had reached this stage. Their intended action was the subject of debate in the council on 17th April, and apparently they persisted in the view, which was wholly mistaken, that the report had not been considered, whereas in fact it had already been brought to the stage of a draft submission to Cabinet. There was, however, as I confess, a fault on our side inasmuch as the Council was not explicitly informed of the work that had been done.

I submit to the House that this chronology reveals the following facts: - The time that elapsed between the receipt of the report by me and the preparation of a submission to Cabinet was twenty weeks, including the period of the Christmas and New Year break. Of this twenty weeks, all except five weeks was occupied in the necessarily detailed examination of the report by the Government’s advisers in the Territory and in the Law Department. This is a considerably shorter period than the period of seven months spent by the select committee in producing the report, leaving out of account the abortive work of the 1956 select committee. Second, it would have been less than fair to the select committee which had spent considerable time and care in preparing this report, if their report had not been given the same close and careful examination by the advisers of the Government before any decision was made on it. It would have been less than fair to the Territory if I had formed my own judgment on the report without asking the territorial administrators, who are near to the local scene and charged with the local administration of the Territory, to give their views. Finally, I submit that the resignation of the members has not done anything whatever to hasten the consideration ‘of the select committee’s report because all the preliminary steps for the submission to Cabinet had been completed before they staged their demonstration.

I will now deal with the substance of the matter. The select committee’s report is the subject of a submission to Cabinet and will involve policy decisions. As Cabinet has not yet had the opportunity of considering the submission, the House will not expect me to make any announcement on policy at this stage. However, I do not anticipate any undue delay in dealing with it. This is not a simple matter. It will have far-reaching effects. As the Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Evatt) is aware, it involves deep-seated constitutional questions. I can make no announcement on the Government’s policy at this stage, but if the ultimate decision requires legislation by this Parliament, then the opportunity for debate in this House on the policy questions will arise and the fact that I avoid questions of policy at this stage does not in any way limit the opportunities for honorable members to debate those questions.

The committee’s report contains some recommendations which, if accepted, could only be put into effect by amendments of the Constitution, and others which would require amendments of various acts of this Parliament, some not under the administration of the Minister for Territories. 1 think I should add in passing - and I do this without any attempt to prejudge the decisions on the report - that on some points the committee does not appear to have been fully and accurately informed on all aspects of the existing governmental system and constitutional practice and, in one or two places, has drawn analogies which do not seem to me to be exact. Those points need not be considered now and are mentioned simply because this element in the report increased considerably the difficulty of dealing fairly and promptly with its recommendations.

It is necessary, having regard to some of the statements that have been published in newspapers in the last week or two, to set down a few facts about the Northern Territory with greater accuracy than has been done up to date.

The Northern Territory had an estimated population of 18,515 persons at 3 1st December, 1957, excluding those persons of aboriginal race who have been declared wards and are the subject of special care and assistance from the Administration. There was a total electoral enrolment at 31st March of this year of 6,653.

To a much greater extent than anywhere else in Australia, with the exception of the Australian Capital Territory, the Northern Territory depends on government activity. There are two great industries - the pastoral and the mining industries - which may be termed “ self-generating “, but even in those industries government encouragement and the provision of facilities by the Government have a considerable effect. Outside those industries a very large section of employment is employment by the Administration or other government departments or in the defence forces, or semi-governmental agencies, and a good deal of private employment is directly the result of governmental expenditure on works and in the provision of services. The government payroll for the people employed by it in the Territory amounts to £4,000,000 a year. Civilian employees directly employed by the Commonwealth total about 3,500 - about half of the electorate. In addition to that there are the persons in the defence forces stationed in the Northern Territory.

Unlike the rest of Australia, government expenditure, other than maintenance and administrative expenditures, represents in most years a larger “ capital investment “ in the Territory than the amount of private investment. A broad picture can be given by pointing out that government expenditure under various headings - administration, public works, health, education, civil aviation, defence, Atomic Energy Commission, post office, railways, and so on - accounts for about £12,000,000 expenditure per year. At a generous estimate, the total value of the production of the Territory - cattle, minerals, agricultural products, pearl shell -is possibly £7,000,000. In 1954-55- the last year for which figures have been printed - there were 5,568 taxpayers in the Northern Territory, including those who give central office returns, and it is clear that about three-fifths of these taxpayers are on the government payroll. A government employee no less than anyone else has the rights of a citizen and that point is not in question. The figures illustrate the artificial nature of a large part of the Territory economy outside the pastoral and mining industries. There is some political effect of this position, too, inasmuch as those who hold public office - servants of the Crown - are disqualified from election to the Legislative Council as members.

Another unusual feature is the presence in the Territory of an aboriginal population of approximately 16,000, many of whom are wage earners but all of whom still stand in need of special care and assistance. Tn respect of these the Government has accepted a positive responsibility for the advancement of their welfare and their progress towards full citizenship.

Yet another unusual feature is that the greater part of the lands of the Territory are held on various forms of leasehold direct from the Commonwealth; and the disposal of lands, the fulfilment of conditions under which land is held and the granting of rights in land form a very substantial part of the business of government in the Territory.

These are the existing conditions and they have to be taken into account in any consideration of the form of government in the Territory. This Parliament has itself taken account of these conditions. By an act passed, not by the present Government, but introduced at the time of the previous government, each year this Parliament provides sums of money for expenditure in the Northern Territory without regard in any form to the revenues of the Territory. Furthermore, the committees of this Parliament - the Public Works Committee and the Public Accounts Committee - make it their business to scrutinize on behalf of this Parliament the way in which this money is applied and watch the substantial Commonwealth interest in Commonwealth property and Commonwealth administration. By the Northern Territory Administration Act this Parliament has prescribed the functions and powers of various authorities in the Territory and has determined that legislation on the particular matters I have mentioned, such as native welfare or lands, shall be subject to a different procedure for assent than legislation dealing with what might be termed “ local “, as distinct from national, matters.

Of course, a good deal of flexibility is still left in the administration of the Territory, although that administration can only be carried on under powers given by act of this Parliament. I am not sure from my reading of the remarks by the honorable member for the Northern Territory (Mr. Nelson) whether or not he intended to criticize the record of the present Government in the administration of the Northern Territory. If he did intend that, I would answer him by making four claims with complete confidence, and I would challenge him or anyone else to produce a single fact that contradicts these claims.

The first claim is that under the present Government far more money and governmental effort have been devoted to the development of the Northern Territory and the provision of services for its people than at any other period in its history. The second claim is that, as a result of that effort and expenditure, and as a result of mining and pastoral changes to which that effort has contributed, the Northern Territory has seen greater material progress in the past seven years than at any other period in its history. The third claim is that, side by side with that development, the machinery of local administration in the Territory has been developed so that more of the actions of government are actually performed in the Territory and directed by a local administration in the Territory than ever before in the Territory’s history and policy has been consciously directed towards making the territorial Administration do more and more of the work of administration in the Territory itself. The fourth claim is that the standard of services in the Territory to-day - schools, hospitals, water, roads, electricity, control of stock routes, and so on - is better than the Territory has ever known before.

I should like to be precise on this. I do not claim that this Government has done everything that the Territory needs; I do claim that this Government has done more than any previous government has done and that by and large its constant efforts have produced better results than the Territory has ever known. I do not think these claims will be disputed by any one who knows the Territory. Nor do I think they are at issue. The main criticism is not that the Territory has been neglected but that the Legislative Council does not have the opportunity to decide what is done, or to take part in deciding what is done. The members, to quote their own terms, feel “ frustrated “.

Let us look at the Legislative Council for the Northern Territory. It is a subordinate legislature created by this Parliament, not by the Government. It is a law-making body and, as it is constituted at present, the Executive is not directly responsible to it but is responsible to this Parliament. 1 would submit that, until responsible government, in the full meaning of the term, is extended to the Northern Territory, I would find some theoretical difficulty in visualizing a situation in which the Executive could be made responsible to two different parliaments. If this, the Commonwealth Parliament, still retains control over the Executive - and I assume that it will wish to do so while it is voting the finance of government for the Territory and is taking an interest in certain national questions which arise in the

Territory - then 1 would find some difficulty in being able to imagine a system under which the Executive could also be responsible to the Territorial legislature. That is one of the theoretical problems which all honorable members will need to consider before passing judgment on these matters. I suppose the conventional answer would be found in some sort of distribution of powers between the two bodies.

The Legislative Council as created by this Parliament has the function of making laws. All laws applying solely to the Territory are customarily made by the Council. It would have been within the competence of this Parliament at any time to make laws applying solely to the Territory but during my term of office no attempt has ever been made to use any institution other than the Legislative Council for the Northern Territory to pass such laws.

When one examines the measures that have actually been passed by the Legislative Council during recent years one will appreciate the fact that by and large they are not, in their nature, measures which raise major subjects of political controversy. They are not concerned with doctrine but rather with method. For example, I will quote at random from a list of Ordinances passed in recent sessions: Health Ordinance, Food and Drugs Ordinance, Stock Routes and Travelling Stock Ordinance, Mines Regulation Ordinance, Abattoirs and Slaughtering Ordinance, Licensing Ordinance, Education Ordinance, Traffic Ordinance, Worker’s Compensation Ordinance, Brands Ordinance and so on.

It is true that on these and on many other matters there is room for differences of opinion as to the extent to which this or that control should be exercised or the way in which it should be exercised, but, with an occasional exception, these ordinances do not raise major questions of a political nature, or questions involving party allegiances, nor do they contain matters of policy on which the Government is firmly committed. Now and again, however, a policy issue is raised but it is seldom of a party political nature, but rather one of differences of opinion on a social problem or on the best way of serving the particular need of the Territory. For example, of recent years, one of the controversial measures has been a welfare bill, dealing with administration affecting the aborigines, and on this the Government, having made a policy decision, was prepared to insist on its view. Another example of a different kind was a betting bill, introduced as a private member’s bill, and once again, because an issue of policy was involved, the Government insisted that its view on gambling policy should prevail. I would submit to the House that on questions of that order involving policy, the Government has an obligation, if it is worth its salt, to stand by its policy decisions and to answer to this Parliament for its actions.

But, having said that, I would remind honorable members that, over the great body of legislation there has certainly never been any direction on my part, nor any attempt on my part to insist that the Council must always pass the bills as drafted and act simply as a rubber stamp. The legislation is mainly drafted in the Territory, with such assistance as may be required from our advisers in Canberra. I should like to quote some figures supplied to me by the Administrator. They show that there were numerous divisions in the last four meetings of the Legislative Council - each meeting was a meeting lasting three or four days. But there were only seventeen divisions out of many divisions on which all nominated members voted against all elected members. Excluding formal motions on the introduction of business, adjournments and votes in committee not involving amendments, there were 99 occasions, as contrasted with the seventeen where there was acute division, on which the motion was carried on the voices, without dissent. Since December, 1955, private members have introduced seventeen private members’ bills. Two of these are still under debate; four of them were defeated and the remaining eleven were passed. Elected membersthose who might be termed “ private members “ - moved 40 amendments to bills during the same period and, of those, 24 were accepted by the council and sixteen rejected.

These figures show a far more active and healthy participation in the business of the council than has been publicly represented and a record of success by private members that some occupants of the back benches of this Parliament will envy.

To assist a process which I thought applicable to the Territory, on my own instructions, arrangements were made for the assistance of the Crown Law Department to be made available to private members for the drafting of private members’ bills and amendments and for facilities to be made available to assist the participation of private members in this way in the business of the council.

Apart from the record of legislation and divisions in the council, every member of this Parliament - and particularly every member of the Opposition - knows that the achievement by a member of his objectives depends on a great number of activities other than a vote. A government in office has a majority and once it loses its majority it goes out of office. That fact, however, does not limit either the Opposition member or the private member on the Government side in doing his work as a member. Nor does he exclaim that the game is unfair simply because the Government has a majority in the House. He works outside and inside the House, both in public view and in conference or committee, and exerts his influence in discussion as well as in debate.

With all respect due to the members who have served in the Legislative Council for the Northern Territory, I would suggest that this political reality which is known to us in this Parliament may not be fully appreciated by all the elected members of the council and that they may not always be aware of the considerable opportunities that they have for influencing the course of administration, for ensuring that increased attention is given to any problem of the Territory in which they are particularly interested, or for correcting abuses. In short, a member has many opportunities for doing good besides the opportunity of making a speech.

Another suggestion that has been made is that, so great is the sense of futility in the Legislative Council, that members are unwilling to serve. I have examined the records of the council since it was created in December, 1947, and find that, of the 23 elected members who have held the six seats in the last ten years, four resigned or did not re-nominate because they had left the Territory. One, our colleague in this Parliament from the Northern Territory did not re-nominate for the council because he chose to stand for the House of

Representatives. Of the remainder, one resigned because he was no longer eligible to hold a seat, having accepted government employment. The rest went down fighting and left the council only because of defeat at the polls. Yet these are the people who are supposed to have thought that it was completely futile to serve in the council!

A week ago, the elected members reached a decision to resign. I understand that the reason for the decision was to protest against delay in dealing with the report of the select committee. As I have attempted to show the House, there was no unreasonable delay in dealing with that matter. As a consequence of their action, the Administrator, in whose hands this responsibility lies, is regarding the vacancies as casual vacancies and, in accordance with the requirements of the law, will hold by-elections for the filling of the vacancies.

Some remarks of mine to the effect that this was a free land and that members can resign at any time they wish have been misinterpreted as “ light-hearted “. They were not intended to be so. It is part of the fundamental characteristics of legislative bodies which inherit the British tradition that no member can be compelled to serve. He retains his liberty of action. I would also suggest that resignation from a parliamentary seat is an effective way of surrendering one’s parliamentary duties, but a very ineffective way of carrying them out. Each of the members who resigned said that he was wasting his time. It remains to be seen whether each of them will seek a chance at the by-election of going back again.

I do not know what the result of the election will be, but let us assume that each of the members who has resigned is returned by his electorate and resumes his office as a member. What will that establish? It may establish that a majority of the electors think that he was right when he said that there had been delay in dealing with the select committee’s report but, so far as any action to bring about constitutional reform is concerned, all of us will be in precisely the same position as we were before the resignations.

A third complaint made by the honorable member for the Northern Territory was that I wanted to retain power in Canberra and looked for more power. My endeavour - and it can only be judged by results - has been to decentralize, firstly by building up the strength of the Northern Territory Administration in the Territory. It is not possible to have local administration without having somebody to carry out the administration. My endeavour has also been to rely to an increasing extent on the Administration to handle affairs locally. Secondly, I have endeavoured to develop more representative institutions in the Territory.

I would remind the House that municipal government has been restored to the Territory as a result of action by this Government. In addition, the policy has been laid down of associating local interests with government, particularly in the field of social change, through local committees whereve, these can be formed, and of sponsoring and encouraging community efforts of various kinds. The procedures of the Legislative Council itself have been adjusted in various ways, at my direction, so as to give a greater regularity in its meetings and a possibility to study bills in advance of their introduction.

My experience as Minister for Territories; on fairly frequent visits to the Northern Territory, has been that most of the socalled “ intervention “ of Canberra in the Northern Territory has come as the result of the importunity of the Territory rather than as the result of the autocratic impulses of Canberra. For example, on my recent official visit, when, according to some very exaggerated stories, the people of the Territory were supposed to be snubbing me, they were, in fact, treating me with their customary courtesy and hospitality. I was receiving deputation after deputation and giving interview after interview to Territory people, all friendly, all eager to place their troubles in my lap, all asking me to intervene in some local matter which, normally, I would leave for local attention.

In conclusion, I want to express my personal hope which is that, one day, another State of the Commonwealth will be created in Northern Australia. Whether or not the boundaries of that State will coincide exactly with the boundaries of the Northern Territory is a matter yet to be decided. My aim is to work for the development of the Northern Territory and the achievement of that goal and in doing so to help, if I can, to build up in the Northern Territory the institutions and the public service which one day will meet the needs of the new northern State. I hope that the striving for that goal will be an effort on which we can all unite and not one around which dissension will grow. One can recognize that, in this case, members on opposite sides of the House may have different views about method. They may be critical of some particular action, but I hope they will have no different views about the objective and that the objective for the Northern Territory will not be obscured by dragging into the political landscape our contentions and rivalries on other matters. This Government has worked for the political evolution of the Northern Territory, and it will continue to do so. Our sympathies are with the political evolution of the Territory, but as a government exercising responsibility we must pay regard to existing circumstances.

In conclusion, let me assure the honorable member for the Northern Territory (Mr. Nelson) and, through him, the people of the Territory, that the report of the Select Committee of the Legislative Council, as well as all other matters relating to the Northern Territory, have received the closest and most careful examination, and that such matters will continue to receive careful examination.

Mr Wentworth:

– On a point of order, Mr. Acting Speaker. Will the Minister move that the paper be printed, so that a debate on it may proceed?

Mr HASLUCK:

– I do not propose to move that the paper be printed. Any other honorable member may do so if he wishes.

Mr NELSON:
Northern Territory

– by leave - The Minister for Territories (Mr. Hasluck) has just made a very lengthy statement on the situation, as he sees it, in the Northern Territory, a situation that resulted in the resignation of certain members of the Legislative Council who were elected to that body by the people of the Territory. However, the Minister clouded the issue concerning the circumstances that forced the resignation of these members from the Legislative Council. These six elected members, representing all shades of political opinion, did not resign from the council because the report was not being considered; they resigned because they had no information, and they could not get any information, about what was happening with relation to the report. That is the crux of the problem. To-day the Minister has made the following admission: -

It is an unfortunate fact, for which as Minister 1 am bound to take responsibility . . . that the members of the Legislative Council were not explicitly informed that our consideration of the report had reached this stage.

That sums up the position in a nutshell, and all the dressing, excuses and explanations that are contained in the nine or ten pages of the Minister’s statement cannot get over this fact. We are again faced with the question, therefore: Are the people of the Northern Territory, through their elected members in the Legislative Council, to be continually ignored? A glaring illustration of the way in which this Government treats the people of the Territory has come before honorable members of this Parliament only to-day. 1 have before me an annual report with regard to the Northern Territory which has just been delivered to the Parliament. What is the year covered by that annual report? It is the year 1955-56. This shows the cavalier treatment that is being meted out to the people of the Territory, and it is this treatment to which the six councillors object, and as a result of which they resigned their positions. The point at issue is not whether the report of the Select Committee is being considered. Perhaps it is being considered, and perhaps at the highest levels, but what information has the council obtained, after months of endeavour, as to the progress being made in the consideration of the report?

During his recent visit to the Northern Territory the Minister made some facetious remarks about the heat generated in that part of the world, and he blamed the climate. In a recent statement the Minister denied that he made any such remark about the climate. Be that as it may, it would certainly appear from press reports that he did make this statement. Facetious remarks of this kind make people very angry, particularly when they already feel a severe sense of grievance because of the position that obtains.

Let me say that the failure to obtain information about the consideration of the report was not the only reason for the walkout of the six councillors, althought it was certainly the straw that broke the camel’s back. When the Minister says that he has not considered the possibilities of electoral reform in the Northern Territory, with respect to both the Legislative Council and representation in the House of Representatives and the Senate in the Commonwealth sphere - a proposition that was mentioned in the report of the Legislative Council - I ask him what he has been doing in the seven years during which he has administered the Department of Territories. The Minister has had that length of time in which to make up his mind on the problems of the Territory and the methods that he intends to follow in solving them, or at least in giving some hope to the people of the Territory that they will receive consideration in the not-too-distant future. In the statement delivered by the Minister to-day there is no mention at all of consideration being given by Cabinet to the recommendations of the Select Committee within any specified time. With this in mind, therefore, we feel sure that the Minister’s statement will not result in any improvement in a position that is fast deteriorating.

Mr Aston:

– Does not the honorable member accept the Minister’s word?

Mr NELSON:

– Why did he not give us more information? He said he submitted the matter to Cabinet. He told us last year that he was preparing a plan to advance the Northern Territory towards a position of statehood. But where are we to-day? We are no further advanced now than we were then. For eleven years the elected members of the Legislative Council have been seeking political reform. The Select Committee was appointed during the term of one council. At the end of that term it was dissolved, and it was re-appointed and continued its work during the term of the succeeding council. I ask honorable members to try to appreciate the difficulties of these elected members, who have to travel distances of up to 1,000 miles to attend meetings of the council. There are tremendous difficulties involved in drawing up a report of this kind. The Minister admits that in November of last year the report was in his hands, and yet five or six months later the council cannot ascertain what has happened to the report, whether it is being considered or whether it has been discarded. Of course we now have the Minister’s statement that it is being considered.

What is happening about Northern Territory representation in this Parliament? It is 36 years since the relevant legislation was liberalized to permit a representative of the Northern Territory to enter this Parliament. There has been a delay of eleven years in the case of the Legislative Council and of 36 years in the case of this Parliament, yet the Minister wonders why heat is generated in that part of the world with regard to a position that the people have been seeking to rectify for such a long time.

Would such a situation be tolerated anywhere else in the world? What would the electors represented by other honorable members say if they were suddenly deprived of their cherished birthright, the right to political freedom of expression, a right that has been fought for over the years but has been denied to the people of the Northern Territory since the Territory was taken over by the Commonwealth? As I pointed out when I raised this matter last Tuesday, when the Northern Territory was under the control of South Australia it had two fully elected representatives in the South Australian House of Assembly, although at that time the number of inhabitants of the Territory would have been only a fraction of the number to-day. I believe that in those days there would have been less than 2,000 people in the Territory. The South Australian Government also made provision for Legislative Councillors in the Parliament of that State to look after the problems of the Territory. These advantages were enjoyed when the Territory was under the control of a State - and an impoverished one at that time. Fifty years later we are worse off, and we have made no progress whatsoever along the road to self-government. In fact, we have slipped back as is demonstrated by the attitude towards the Northern Territory that has been adopted by the South Australian Government and various Commonwealth governments that have held office. We have waited 36 years since the last amendment of Commonwealth legislation relating to representation in this Parliament for the Northern Territory and eleven years since the Legislative Council for the Northern Territory was instituted. Is it any wonder that the people of the Northern Territory feel frustrated and demand some recognition of their problems?

The Minister has denied in his statement that he is gathering to himself and to Can berra more powers to control the Northern Territory. He said that there was no justification for the cry of remote control of the Territory from Canberra. Reference was made to this matter by the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) only last Saturday, and his comments were published in the Sydney “ Sun-Herald “. The right honorable gentleman was reported to have stated -

It is not good government for Australia if everything has to go to Canberra for a decision. . . .

It would be calamitous if the Commonwealth obtained all the powers.

Each parliament - Federal, State and Municipal - has its ideal role to play.

So long as the powers of Government are divided between them, there will be no threat of tyranny in Australia.

By dividing powers you give yourselves protection.

Concentration of power in the one authority could lead to Communism, Fascism or any other ism and could include dictatorship for Australia.

That is the opinion of the Prime Minister on control from Canberra. What the right honorable gentleman has said applies to the more closely populated States and not only to areas like the Northern Territory. The Minister for Territories referred to liberalization of powers and the delegation of powers to the Northern Territory. The Administrator of the Territory has delegated authority to spend no more than £200. Most matters relating to expenditure which come up for consideration in the Territory have to be referred to Canberra for a decision.

I say without fear of contradiction that all shades of political opinion in Australia have rallied to the cause of the people of the Northern Territory. The press of Australia, virtually without exception - at least I know of none - has taken up the cry of greater representation for the people of the Territory. Nobody can suggest that the press is trying to make a political issue of this matter, because most of the Australian newspapers are traditionally anti-Labour; but they have all supported the representatives of the Legislative Council of the Northern Territory who have resigned, and have demanded in one editorial after another that action be taken to meet the just demands of the Territory at the earliest possible opportunity.

Nobody can claim that those demands are unreasonable. That is shown by the report of the Select Committee on Constitutional Reform which was appointed by the Legislative Council to examine and report on measures for constitutional reform in the Northern Territory. It recommended that proposed extensions of local autonomy in the executive and legislative fields should be effected by the following steps: -

  1. By an increase in the numbers of elected members;
  2. By restriction of the powers of veto of Ordinances by the Federal Executive and the practice of the Governor-General’s withholding assent to Ordinances;
  3. By the establishment of an Executive Council;
  4. By the provision under the Commonwealth Constitution of a Senator to represent the Northern Territory in the Senate;
  5. By the introduction of a practice that the Legislative Council debate and pass budget legislation based upon estimates of expenditure before their production to the executive of the Federal body and by a practice of the Legislative Council’s appropriating some proportion of the moneys allocated for expenditure in the Northern Territory, subject to a veto by the Federal Parliament of any such Ordinance passed by the Council.
  6. By establishing a practice of assigning to elected members responsibility for the introduction and handling of legislation of a municipal or quasi-municipal character.

The only proposition among those six recommendations which required opinions on the constitutional level was that respecting the Senate. Even then, if the Commonwealth Parliament wanted to permit a senator to represent the Northern Territory, it could put such a decision into effect without altering the Constitution. A change could also be made by this Parliament in the responsibilities of the member of the House of Representatives for the Northern Territory without any constitutional alteration. Those changes would be subject only to an act of this Parliament. An amendment to the constitution of the Legislative Council of the Northern Territory would also be purely a matter for this Parliament and would not require any constitutional reform. Such measures have been in abeyance for a long time. The Minister for Territories has had long experience of the problems involved and the opinions of the people concerned, and the required measures should be put into effect with the least possible delay.

Many of the points that have been made by the Minister in his statement have no bearing on the issues involved. I did not refer to the administration of the Northern Territory in my speech last Tuesday. That is a separate matter and could be dealt with at another time. The issues concerned are related only to constitutional reforms in the Legislative Council and in the representation of the Northern Territory in this Parliament. Even if the Commonwealth Government were administering the Northern Territory from Canberra in a most satisfactory way - and I am not, by any stretch of imagination, admitting that it is doing so - I would still maintain that good government is no adequate substitute for self government. The Minister has not put forward any concrete proposals. He has brushed aside with a sneer the resignations of the elected members of the Legislative Council as something of no consequence and no help to their cause. What are the members of the Legislative Council supposed to do, and what is the member for the Northern Territory in this Parliament to do, when we can see no prospect of anything being done to help our cause? What alternative is open to me in my desire to direct the attention of the Parliament and the people of Australia to the needs of the Northern Territory? What else can I do except take drastic action, such as to resign from this Parliament?

The Minister’s statement contains nothing concrete. He has merely asked us to accept a vague statement that certain proposals have been submitted to the Cabinet for consideration. Will he tell me even now, by way of interjection, when those submissions are to be placed before the Cabinet and what recommendations or proposals he has in mind? The Minister is busily engaged at the table talking to another honorable member while I am speaking. He has taken no interest at all in my speech. His attitude confirms my belief and that of the people of the Northern Territory that we are wasting our time talking on this matter inside this House or outside.

My responsibility is not to myself only in this matter. I shall confer with my colleagues in the Northern Territory at the earliest possible moment to determine whether it is worth while that I should continue in this place on the present basis, or whether I should adopt the traditional method in such circumstances of seeking a remedy by testing the issue at a by-election. If I am so instructed and I have misjudged the temper of the people of the Northern Territory, I shall be making considerable sacrifices here. But, because I feel it is the only way in which this matter can be brought to a head, I shall confer with my colleagues at the earliest possible time and convey to the Government a message as to my intentions.

Mr Pollard:

– I ask for leave to make a statement.

Mr Hasluck:

– The arrangement was that there be two speakers, one on each side.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Is leave granted?

Government supporters. - No.

Leave not granted.

page 1215

NORTHERN TERRITORY ADMINISTRATION

Report of Public Accounts Committee

Mr BLAND:
Warringah

.- As Chairman, I present the following report of the Public Accounts Committee: -

Thirty-sixth Report - Northern Territory Administration - Part I. - and move -

That the report be printed.

The committee has been working on this inquiry for over a year. Because of the magnitude of the undertaking and because of circumstances beyond our control, we have not yet been able to complete the full report. We hope to be able to furnish the balance of it before the House rises next month. The work on which the committee has been engaged is that part of the government of the Northern Territory which is administered by the Department of Territories. The report does not attempt to deal with the whole of the government of the Northern Territory, which is divided amongst a very large number of government departments, including the Department of Territories. We want to make quite clear that this is the report only upon that part of the Northern Territory administration controlled by the Minister for Territories (Mr. Hasluck). We have decided to present this part of the report at this stage because we are aware of recent happenings in Darwin. This section of our report throws a good deal of light on the activities of the administration of the Territory over the last 50 years. For that reason, we thought it was our duty to present to

Parliament material that will help it in the coming debates upon the Northern Territory.

Mr THOMPSON:
Port Adelaide

– I want to say a few words in connexion with this matter. As the chairman, the honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Bland) has said, this is part one of the report dealing with the administration of the Northern Territory, and it has been presented for the benefit of honorable members. This part is an historical survey of the Northern Territory, giving the dates and periods at which attempts have been made to set up various types of administration. It also includes portions of reports upon the Northern Territory made by various bodies or persons appointed for the purpose. Therefore, it would be well worth the while of honorable members to read this first part of the report carefully. It does not deal with financial matters, which will be covered in the second portion. This part will enlighten honorable members as to the difficulties that were faced and the crises that arose from time to time, and the manner in which various persons inquired into and reported upon them. At this juncture, when matters relating to the Northern Territory are being discussed, particularly by the Minister for Territories (Mr. Hasluck) and the honorable member for the Northern Territory (Mr. Nelson), a careful reading of this part of the report will give honorable members a lot of information and enable them to appreciate the position much better. The report is not brought forward with the idea of influencing honorable members one way or the other. It would have been presented in this way irrespective of whether or not the present position in the Northern Territory had arisen. I commend the report to honorable members and trust that it will be of assistance to those who desire to examine the whole question of administration of the Territory.

Mr LESLIE:
Moore

.- In supporting the motion, I want to add to what the honorable member for Port Adelaide (Mr. Thompson) said. It is customary for the House to accept the committee’s reports and to approve formally of their being printed and put into circulation, not only in this House, but also throughout the country. That, I presume, will take place in this instance. But when we get a report of this kind, which I believe has an impact beyond the mere operations of a department of the Government, it behoves every honorable member to inform himself as fully as possible of the contents. I am not suggesting whether or not he should agree with the report, nor do I intend to say anything about its contents. Because this subject has become a very important one within recent weeks, I suggest that an opportunity be afforded to honorable members to discuss the contents of the report in relation to the administration and management of the Territory, and constitutional aspects. I rose to suggest to the Leader of the House (Mr. Harold Holt) and to the Government that, although the resolving of this motion in the affirmative will take this section of the report outside our immediate ambit for discussion, an arrangement should be made to discuss it, not on a motion coming from either side, which could be accepted as a censure on the Government or a criticism of it. There should be an opportunity to discuss the report impartially as representatives of all the people and to decide what we are to do with an important part of the country, which presents a problem demanding some solid thinking. This matter cannot be made a party question. I appeal to the Minister for Territories (Mr. Hasluck) to consult with the Leader of the House with a view to obtaining an opportunity for the House to discuss, not merely the contents of the report, but also the administration of the Territory as a whole.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1216

SERVICE AND EXECUTION OF PROCESS BILL 1958

Assent reported.

page 1216

RE-ESTABLISHMENT AND EMPLOYMENT BILL 1958

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 17th April (vide page 1008), on motion by Mr. Osborne -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Mr POLLARD:
Lalor

.- This measure, whose long title is, “ A Bill for an Act to amend the Re-establishment and Employment Act 1945-1956, and for other purposes “, is a relatively small measure, although it deals with a matter of considerable importance to Australian service men and women. Everybody knows that, with the enactment of the principal act in 1945, there came into operation a very comprehensive scheme of protection for servicemen in all the active theatres of war. This Government apparently, after consultation with departmental heads and people who have been administering the act, has arrived at the conclusion that there are some sections of the act which are redundant. Apparently it believes that some protection is being accorded to some members of the forces to which they should no longer be entitled. No measure of protection is being accorded to men who enlisted after April, 1952, as compared with those who enlisted for full-time service prior to April, 1952. There is an anomaly in that respect, as I think the Minister for Air (Mr. Osborne) will admit.

Mr Osborne:

– I do not.

Mr POLLARD:

– Well, it has been argued in another place that if this bill is not enacted and the act continues to operate as at present, a measure of protection will be accorded to men who enlisted before April, 1952, which is not extended to those who enlisted after April, 1952. The Minister nods his head in agreement with that statement, which is the same as that which I made only a few moments ago when, apparently, the Minister misunderstood me. Some members of the other House who support the Government took the point - and I have no doubt that the Minister himself takes it - that because some people are not protected while others are, there is an element of justice in this amending bill.

The bill has two purposes. One is to repeal Part X. of the principal act in respect of war service moratoriums. The result will be the withdrawal of the moratorium protection, as from 1st September, 1958. In addition, the bill proposes that despite the repeal of Part X. some of the moratorium provisions shall be continued. I shall explain what these provisions are in a moment.

The provisions contained in Part X. of the act operate in favour of a member of the forces on war service, or a female dependant of such member, in regard to mortgages and purchases of land. Part X. provides for the postponement of the payment purchase money under an agreement for the purchase of land, as well as the payment of principal moneys due on a mortgage, during war service and for at least twelve months after war service has ceased. In addition, it provides for the prohibition or suspension of legal proceedings. No proceedings may be taken, or execution levied, against a serviceman regarding a debt contracted before enlistment, except with the consent of the court. In addition, the member’s land is not to be compulsorily acquired except with the consent of the Attorney-General. There is also provision that a court may order postponement of the payment of interest.

Let us see who are the people who will be really affected by the bill. The only members of the forces who are regarded, under the act, as being on war service are those members of the permanent forces who enlisted for full-time service before the conclusion of the peace treaty with Japan on 28th April, 1952 - seven years after the cessation of hostilities in World War II. Such members still enjoy the protection given by the principal act, but they will enjoy it only until 1st September, 1958, should the present measure become law. After that, they will have no protection. It has been argued that, in view of the fact that those to be affected by the measure enlisted after the cessation of hostilities, although before signing of the peace treaty, and because they are members of the permanent forces, in many instances serving in relatively peaceful spheres of military operation, they should not have the protection given by the act. This is argued despite the fact that these men may be called on and, in some cases, have been called on, to serve in Malaya. It is also argued that they enlisted in circumstances in which military service was more or less of a leisurely character, when there was no heat or burden of actual large-scale military operations, either in Malaya or anywhere else. It is argued by the Government, and others who are supporting this measure, that that being the case, these men had ample time before they enlisted in 1952 in which to ensure that they had no outstanding financial embarrassments at the time of enlistment or, at least, to make provision for the meeting of their commitments. The conclusion the Government draws is that these men are in a different position from men who enlisted during the war emergency, and are therefore not entitled to the protection given by the act. That is a very naive argument. It has perhaps a small element of truth in it, but I do not think it is a large enough element to justify the waiving of the protection at present accorded. Who knows when any of the men to be affected by this measure will be required to depart, almost at a minute’s notice, for a theatre of strategic importance, if not of war?

Mr Osborne:

– The provision does not cover future operations. It covers existing conditions.

Mr POLLARD:

– Yes, but if this measure is passed the men who now have the protection accorded by the act will no longer have it. It is not said that there are no actual military operations. The phraseology used in another place was ,” There may be some exceptions “. Other military operations may crop up. If the enactment of this measure will mean that some people at present receiving protection, or likely to receive it in future, will be deprived of it, in my opinion it is a very wrong action for the Government to be taking.

It is argued that there is an anomaly in that people who enlisted after 1952 are not entitled to the protection provided by Part X. of the act, whereas those who enlisted before then are entitled to it. I think that the Minister agreed a few minutes ago that that was so. But is not that an argument why the act should be amended in the direction of giving to men who enlisted after April, 1952, the same protection as is enjoyed by those who enlisted before then?

In order to clarify any doubts in the minds of the Minister for Air and of honorable members generally about whether the Government is certain that nobody will be deprived of protection, I should like to quote the words of the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper), who, in his second-reading speech on this bill in the Senate, said -

  1. . very few of the war service moratorium provisions are still effective, and those that remain in force benefit a very small number of servicemen or ex-servicemen.

Without putting into the Minister’s mouth words that he did not use, I think it is reasonable to say that that means that there are possibly a few people who still derive protection under Part X. of the principal act. The Minister said, also -

I must add that it is probable that there are very few, if any, servicemen or ex-servicemen of the Korea or Malaya forces, other than the permanent men to whom I shall refer in a moment, who are still entitled to any protection under section 118.

The mere fact that the Government is not prepared to be dogmatic and say that there are not any who will be deprived of protection is enough for me to say that the Government should not tamper with the principal act in order, as it terms it, to tidy up the act, while there are still in the permanent forces men who served in theatres of war, and servicemen serving in places that are not at the moment termed theatres of war, and in Malaya, and others who may yet go to Malaya. It seems possible, in these circumstances, Mr. Acting Deputy Speaker, that people who have rights under the principal act may find it necessary to plague the Minister for Repatriation and to give the Repatriation Commission much work in answering their inquiries and dealing with their problems, and it may be possible, also, that, as so very few are concerned, as Government supporters have stated, the authorities may say, “ What does it matter if only a few are protected? Let us abolish the protection under Part X. of the act, and divest ourselves of all these administrative problems, and let it go at that “. I am one of those who have some knowledge of the attitude of the Government towards the tidying up of acts - and there are plenty of Commonwealth acts that ought to be tidied up. But I make the reservation that the tidying up should not deprive any member of the community of a protection that he legitimately enjoys.

If Government supporters could assure me that in the tidying up of the Reestablishment and Employment Act nobody would be deprived of protection, I should have a very different attitude towards this bill. The mere fact that there is a reservation with respect to people who have been protected, and who may be protected in the future, is sufficient to justify the Opposition in opposing the bill, and, in the circumstances, its attitude is perfectly understandable. Any administrative cost involved in the protection of one, two or a dozen or more persons should be borne, and justice should not be denied to anybody by depriving him of the protection that the law intended him to have. That is the view of Opposition members, and I think that it will find support even among Government supporters. Unfortunately, at this juncture, there are relatively few members from either side of the House listening to the debate. The heat and burden of war are largely past, and there is a tendency for honorable members to forget.

This is only a small bill of four pages, but it is very comprehensive. It looks comparatively innocent, but it covers a vast subject-matter, as is indicated in clause 3. Indeed, it is rather staggering, and it makes one feel that we should hasten slowly in order not to do an injustice to any one. Clause 3, which is enough to give any one a headache, and enough to make any one think that the bill is not perhaps as innocent as it looks, states -

Section three of the Principal Act is repealed and the following section inserted in its stead: - “ 3. This Act is divided into Parts, as follows: -

Clause 4 provides -

Part X. of the Principal Act is repealed.

Members of the legal fraternity may say that the reference to the multiplicity of matters covered by clause 3 is consequential on, and necessary to, the repeal of Part X. of the principal act. That may be quite true, but the enumeration of those matters in clause 3 indicates the comprehensive subject-matter of the bill.

Finally, I re-emphasize that, if even one person who now enjoys protection is likely to be adversely affected in the future, the principal act should not be amended in this way. I leave it at that.

Mr JOSKE:
Balaclava

.- The honorable member for Lalor (Mr. Pollard) has referred to clause 3 in such a way as to suggest that the provisions of the principal act relating to the matters listed there are being repealed. However, the bill preserves the greater part of the principal act, and repeals only Part X. Even with respect to that repeal, there are certain saving clauses, which the honorable member did not mention. There will remain all the provisions of the principal act relating to employment, including reinstatement in civil employment, preference in employment, apprenticeship, modification of the conditions of entry to employment, and the Commonwealth Employment Service, the provisions relating to vocational training, disabled persons, demobilization, reestablishment assistance, servicemen’s settlement, housing, and legal service bureaux, and the provisions relating to members of the forces engaged in operations in Korea and Malaya, which include provisions concerning reinstatement in civil employment and the rehabilitation of disabled persons. All those provisions of the principal act are in no way affected by the repeal of Part X. That repeal, subject to the saving clauses, relates to the moratorium provisions of the act.

When persons enlist in the forces, particularly in time of war, they seldom have the opportunity to deal with their civil affairs. Consequently, it is right and proper that they should be given a moratorium - in other words, a postponement of their obligations in respect of mortgages and civil contracts. That is well recognized and is accepted. At the conclusion of the war, or thereabouts, in 1945, these moratorium provisions were adopted, and rightly so at that stage. But the moratorium provisions at this time, many years after the conclusion of the war, relate only to a very small portion of those who enlisted. As the honorable member for Lalor rightly pointed out. that small portion consists of men who had enlisted prior to 29th April, 1952. They were not excused payment of their debts; their debts were only postponed because of the exigencies of war service. It was fair that they should be given a substantial time to pay those debts, and, therefore, the pressure on them was lifted. However, it was never intended that the postponement should be for all time and that they should never be obliged to meet their obligations.

The date provided in the bill is 1st September, 1958. It has been decided, in the process of what is called tidying up, that the postponement should end on that date. If the matter had been left there, one might very well have said that those who enlisted prior to April, 1952, had had a very good spin indeed, that they had been given ample time in which to carry out their civil obligations and that they should not insist upon the postponement continuing any longer. If the bill had said that, one might very well have felt that no objection could be raised. However, the bill provides in clauses 5 and 6, to which the honorable member for Lalor did not refer, further protection to those who enlisted prior to 29th April, 1952. They are given still further time for the payment of their obligations. Those obligations are not obligations that they incurred in recent years; the obligations against which protection is granted are obligations entered into prior to their engagement on war service - obligations incurred many years ago.

The benefit to which they are still entitled is a benefit possessed by only a small class in the community. Those who enlisted after April, 1952, do not possess the benefit. Those who enlisted for the Korean and Malayan engagements are not in any way covered by the bill. It is only a small, limited class that is covered by the bill and, while the bill is covering them, at the same time it is giving them further protection. With all due respect to the honorable member for Lalor and his suggestion that there is a possibility that some one may be unjustly treated, it may be said that the general belief is - I see no reason to doubt it - that the Returned Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen’s Imperial League of Australia approves of the bill and thinks it fair and reasonable, as one would expect most reasonable people to think. I did not say all reasonable people, because the honorable member for Lalor may be offended if I put it that way.

There is one other important matter in the bill. The honorable member for Lalor mentioned this when he referred to section 118, which relates to the compulsory acquisition of land. Of course, the compulsory acquisition of land can be objected to on general principles, although I have known the honorable member for Lalor and those who sit behind him to be rather in favour of the compulsory acquisition of land. The original act provided that the land of those persons to whom the bill refers could not be compulsorily acquired without the consent of the Attorney-General. This provision has, in fact, become a dead letter. There have been no compulsory acquisitions of the land of people covered by section 118 during the last five or six years, with one exception. During the last five or six years, only one application has been made for the compulsory acquisition of a soldier’s land, and the consent of the Attorney-General was given in that case. The protection was granted subject to the consent of the Attorney-General and, in the one case that has been known in the last five or six years, the Attorney-General gave consent and the land was acquired. So, as the Minister said in his second-reading speech, this provision is in fact a dead letter. There is no real protection here; nothing really is being taken away. In any event, why should a person who enlisted for war service receive treatment now, so many years after the termination of war, in regard to the compulsory acquisition of land, that is different from the treatment given to other citizens, particularly those other citizens who have, since a particular date, enlisted for war service?

It is submitted that this is also a fair and reasonable provision. The repealed provision is one which local government and administrative authorities will be pleased to have out of the way, because expense has had to be incurred and money wasted in making searches to ascertain whether the person whose land is being acquired is entitled to the protection given by section 118. As I say, there has been only one case of an application being made, and that case indicates that, although few people, if any, would be protected, in every case where an authority seeks to acquire land, the authority must make an unnecessary search and incur unnecessary expense.

At some time, moratorium and reestablishment provisions must come to an end, when their usefulness has become entirely outmoded. If one thought for one moment - in saying this I believe I speak for all who sit on this side of the House - that any real and justly deserved protection was being taken away by this bill, then one certainly would not be prepared to support the bill. However, this bill ‘has been put forward by the Government and is supported by honorable members on this side of the House on the basis that no one is being injured by it, that it is merely a useful measure from the point of view of administration and that it is one which should commend itself to the House.

Mr DUTHIE:
Wilmot

.- The Opposition opposes this measure, not because we on this side of the House have not given it consideration, not because we are here just to oppose, but because we feel that there is still a residue of serving members of Her Majesty’s forces who would benefit from the retention of the provisions of the principal act. This measure is, of course, a feast for the lawyers.

Mr Osborne:

– No, it removes the legal expenses at present incurred. It ends a feast for the lawyers.

Mr DUTHIE:

– I mean that it is a feast for the lawyers in this House. The bill deals principally with a legal matter and I feel that to some extent the Government has put legalism and administrative niceties before the human element. The honorable member for Lalor (Mr. Pollard) adverted to this in his speech on the bill, and honorable members on this side of the House believe that while there are still a few men who might obtain assistance, it should not be denied to them. All this talk about administrative difficulties and costs should not enter into the matter. This Government, least of all, considers costs. It makes me smile when the Government uses that argument. It has spent £1,200,000,000 on defence in the last eight years. Money has been extravagantly wasted on defence in peace-time. We have the spectre of St. Mary’s and places like it-

Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER:
Mr. Lawrence

– Order! I suggest to the honorable member that that matter has nothing whatever to do with the bill.

Mr DUTHIE:

– That may be so, but it is a good side issue.

I refute the Government’s argument that it is saving administrative costs by introducing this measure and denying these men assistance. I want to refer particularly to the effect of this bill on the men in Malaya. An interesting point about Malaya is that by virtue of Statutory Rules 1956, No. 100, Malaya is regarded as not being an operation area - not by reference to a date but by the coming into operation of the Repatriation (Far East Strategic Reserve) Act, 1956, on 1st September, 1957. In other words, troops serving in Malaya after 1st September, 1957 are deemed not to be on war service. I stress that.

So to-day, we have the fantastic situation, because of legal niceties and a “ tidying up “ process, as a Government senator called it the other day, of 1,500 men of the Army alone not being on active service. These men will be debarred from the moratorium provisions when this bill goes through Parliament. The men who end wars by arbitrarily fixing a date and tell the world that the men in Malaya are not on active service must have a queer twist in their minds. These troops are risking their lives daily in guerilla warfare. About 30 of them have been killed. Casualties have been light compared with the risks they are taking in jungle warfare. But even though these men are risking their lives daily, according to the law they are not on active service. I am sure that the men in Malaya will be thrilled to read that. There are many men throughout Australia to-day who are just sitting around in barracks. They enlisted prior to 28th April, 1952, and the only danger they face is that of being run over by a motor car when going to or leaving their offices. They are still under the provisions of the act, but the men fighting in Malaya are not! How can one describe the type of man who, by fixing a date, says that the men in Malaya are not on active service? It is an utterly ridiculous situation. By convenient apportioning of dates these men are excluded from any future benefit at all, because this bill will mean that after 1st September this year the moratorium provisions will not apply.

This is the situation: A man who enlisted on say 27th April, 1952, is to-day, in 1958, deemed to be on war service, whereas a man who enlisted on 29th April, 1952, is deemed not to be on war service.

Mr Makin:

– They may be in the same unit.

Mr DUTHIE:

– That is so. They may in fact be brothers who enlisted on separate dates.

Mr Chaney:

– The honorable member is misinterpreting the facts.

Mr DUTHIE:

– I am reading the facts. I understand that of a total of about 20,000 members in our permanent forces, approximately 8,500 will be deemed to be on war service pursuant to the act. Very few of those men are in Malaya. The men who are fighting the battle against Communist terrorists are not on active service.

Mr Osborne:

– The bill will overcome that anomaly.

Mr DUTHIE:

– It is an anomaly.

Mr Osborne:

– The bill will end it.

Mr DUTHIE:

– I do not think it will. That is the way the Opposition interprets the bill. It is clear that the men in Malaya will not benefit by the moratorium provisions. Many of the men in Korea also will be caught up in the bill. Men who enlisted after 28th April, 1952, and who saw service in Korea will be excluded from the provisions of the act. I am referring to the five-year provision relating to the compulsory acquisition of land. It may be true that few have applied for exemption. But, with the changing economic situation in Australia, and the big fall in our primary production, some men who go on the land in the next few years may come to the Government for relief, but they will be excluded under the provisions of this bill.

Summarizing the arguments that have been put forward, it seems to me that the legislation is designed to operate in two ways only. It will operate against those who have been permanent soldiers since 1952 and who are still serving. In the Army the number would be about 8,500. It is proposed that their rights shall terminate on 1st September, 1958. Others affected are those few men who enlisted prior to 1952 and who are serving in Malaya, although admittedly they are a very small minority of that force. A third category consists of men who served in Malaya or Korea. They will lose the five-year exemption from compulsory acquisition of land.

The Government’s argument is very finely balanced. Because only a few may be affected, the Government has decided to tidy up the act. The Opposition says, “ If so few people will be adversely affected, why bother to disturb the benefit? “ That is the question. Why bother about disturbing the benefit in order to make administration more convenient? Why not leave the provision as it is and allow the eligible few to benefit, instead of excluding them? The judgment of members of the Opposition comes down on the side of the human element in this whole matter, and we believe that it should be left at that. Legalism should not be brought into the provision of benefits for serving soldiers. I should like to know who proposed this bill in the first place. Where did it come from? Whose brain storm threw up the measure now before the House? So far as I know, it was not suggested by the Returned Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen’s Imperial League of Australia. I do not know whether the Minister for Air (Mr. Osborne) was the culprit or whether some departmental officer had a nightmare and next day brought this proposal forward.

Reverting to the Malayan situation, it is quite ridiculous to assume that servicemen there are not regarded as being on active service. The Minister for Air made a statement in the House the other day to the effect that a bomber force was soon to head for Malaya and be established there. Those men, of course, would probably be regarded as not on active service. But they are engaged in an important strategic war. In 1946 members debated in this House a bill to authorize the sending of troops to Malaya. Members of the Opposition opposed that measure, and we still oppose it because of the limited result that will accrue from the expenditure of money on operations in Malaya. There, about 80,000 armed men are trying to kill off, one by one, 1,500 Communist terrorists in the jungle, that are left of 5,000. That is about all that are left, after fighting has been going on for about ten years. The Government has indicated that it still regards Malaya as a very important strategic area, yet the Australian troops there will be excluded from certain benefits after this bill has been passed. The Minister cannot deny that; it is plainly provided for in the bill. Finally, there is a human element to be considered. Within the next few years some of these men, probably through economic circumstances, will need help which is now available to them under the principal act, but as a result of this measure will be denied to them. Even though there may be only 100 or ten or five of them, the Opposition feels that the act should be left as it is so that they might be helped. That is why we oppose this measure.

Mr CHANEY:
Perth

.- At all times I appreciate contributions by. the honorable member for Lalor (Mr. Pollard) to debates on matters of this kind. I regret very much that I did not hear all of his remarks because I was absent from the chamber. However, I have listened to the honorable member for Wilmot (Mr. Duthie) and I am convinced that he does not know very much about the subject about which he was supposed to be talking.

The time must come when, in considering re-establishment and employment legislation, Parliament will have to take into account the period that has elapsed since the cessation of hostilities and determine the classes of ex-servicemen to which certain provisions apply in the light of that consideration. Personally, I cannot see any great disadvantage in deleting from the act the section proposed to be deleted under this bill. If honorable members study carefully the second-reading speech of the Minister for Air (Mr. Osborne), I think they will agree with that view. I was amazed to hear the honorable member for Wilmot say that somebody had said that the troops serving in Malaya are not regarded as being on active service.

Mr Duthie:

– They are not on active service, according to the act.

Mr CHANEY:

– Only last year a measure was passed through this House to apply the full provisions of the Reestablishment and Employment Act to the troops on active service in Malaya. If the honorable member’s memory serves him rightly, he will recall that fact. The average member of the public is not aware that the men in Malaya are serving under active service conditions; but this Parliament certainly gave voice to its feelings when that measure was passed. The section which this measure proposes to delete from the act was inserted to protect those who had probably outlived their period of protection, being exservicemen who enlisted under war-time conditions but not under active service conditions, as in Malaya where small forces are engaged at odd moments. Under that section, the Government set out to protect any of those ex-servicemen who got into financial difficulties. The conditions of enlistment during a war period such as from 1939 to 1945 were vastly different from the conditions of individual enlistment in a time of mythical peace or mythical war - I should prefer to say in a time of mythical peace. In the period from 1939 to 1945 the rates of pay of servicemen were well below anything that could be expected in civil occupations, but to-day the service pay has risen and the rates are much better than they were in war-time, as any one who served will bear witness. Consequently, it is not necessary, under the conditions pertaining to-day, to have an overriding protection such as was given to servicemen in wartime.

In discussing the principal act generally, I have always been of the opinion that the whole of it was not worth a pinch of salt. It would have had no effect at all but for the patriotism of some employers. The mere fact that the act was in existence also influenced certain employers who did not know that any one could drive a horse and cart through some of its sections. For example, section 27 (5.) (a) defeats the whole purpose of the act. If the act is to be amended, I would rather see that pro vision deleted. The act might then be of some benefit to the men who are serving in Malaya or who have served in Korea, when they apply for re-employment, as they are entitled to do. Sub-section (5.) of that section provides -

Nothing in this section shall -

apply in relation to the engagement for employment by any employer of a person who is already employed by him.

Therefore, technically, the whole of the Commonwealth Public Service does not come within the ambit of this act. Secondly, if an employer wants to employ somebody and knows that he will be challenged under the Re-establishment and Employment Act, he can appoint the person of his choosing to a minor capacity in the firm or organization and then promote him to a particular job. Under this act there is no ground for appeal against such an appointment. Section 27 (5.) (a) should not be allowed to remain in the act. Honorable members from Victoria will agree with me that the best thing that could have happened to this act as soon as it was brought into force would have been to abandon it and substitute for it the Victorian Re-establishment and Employment Act, which is a far better measure. I am convinced that in Western Australia, no State government, whether it were Liberal or Labour, would bring in a measure similar to the principal act which overrides any cognate measure passed by a State. But Western Australia has been promised that if the Commonwealth Government let this act lapse it would consider allowing the State to bring in a measure similar to the Victorian act.

There is not a great deal to worry about in the proposal under this bill to delete from the act the section mentioned, and, as I have said, if honorable members opposite study the Minister’s second-reading speech they will be convinced that the servicemen whom they are worrying about are adequately covered.

Dr EVATT:
Leader of the Opposition · Barton

– I do not propose to do more than refer to one or two aspects of this matter. My colleagues the honorable member for Lalor (Mr. Pollard) and the honorable member for Wilmot (Mr. Duthie) have stated the case. This is how the position of those who will be affected by the repeal may be summed up: The only members of the forces who are still on war service are those members of the permanent forces who enlisted for full-time service before completion of the peace treaty with Japan on 28th April, 1952 - seven years after hostilities ceased. Most of these enlisted after hostilities ceased. Those who enlisted after 28th April, 1952, for Korea or Malaya ceased to be on war service as from 20th April, 1956, and 1st September, 1957, respectively.

Mr Osborne:

– And so cannot be affected.

Dr EVATT:

– That is what I am saying. The protection of Korean members under Part X. of the Re-establishment and Employment Act expired on 20th April, 1957, and will expire for Malayan members, at the latest, on 1st September, 1958. That is the date from which Part X. is to be repealed by the bill.

There is one exception. The exception is that after 1st September, 1958, they will retain the benefit of section 118, Part X., which is a protection against compulsory acquisition except with the AttorneyGeneral’s consent. The protection for Korean members will expire on 20th April, 1961, and for Malayan members on 1st September, 1962. This protection runs after war service ceases for a period equal to the period of war service, or five years, whichever is the shorter. The bill proposes to abolish this protection.

In effect, the repeal will only operate in two ways. It will operate against those who have been permanent soldiers for six years. Secondly, some Korean and Malayan troops may be affected by the repeal of the provisions against the compulsory acquisition of land. The bill will affect rights which have been given to members of the forces by Parliament. What right has Parliament to take them away? If the bill affected people in business who had been given rights by Parliament in relation to some contract or some option-

Mr Osborne:

– It is not a contractual right.

Dr EVATT:

– It is a statutory right which stands higher in my opinion than a contractual right. It is a promise to the soldier, solemnly given by the Parliament, of protection in certain respects. Take the repatriation benefits. They are not a contractual right but a statutory right. But what government or parliament would dare to take away from the ex-servicemen some of the basic provisions of the repatriation statutes such as the “ onus of proof “ provisions? I say that Parliament has no right to do it. The Government would not dare to do it to a company or to persons with financial interests. But because the persons affected in this instance are the exservicemen, and there are not many of them, and it is difficult to keep track of them, the Government proposes to tear up an act of Parliament and take away their rights.

I agree that not many cases may be affected. But, even if there is only one case, there is an obligation on Parliament to see that its promise is kept. That is the view that I have taken on this bill from the first. I do not like the Government to come to Parliament and say, “ How inconvenient this is! Not one such case may arise. There may not be any acquisition of land and therefore we are going to assume that there will not be any and take the right away.” I say that this is a vested, statutory right. The Government has no right to interfere with it. That is the view that must be adhered to in this type of legislation because it affects the forces. Everybody in this Parliament ought to stand up to defend any interference with the rights of members of the forces, difficult though it may be to apply them and to keep records. I know where this type of legislation comes from. It comes from people in the Public Service who do not want to be bothered with the existing provisions. They think, “ What a terrible thing! We might have to give the benefit of this act to some people! We know that Parliament promised these rights to servicemen but they are inconvenient, so we will have the relevant sections repealed.” The Opposition opposes this bill because it is wrong in principle. I know that it has been stated that comparatively few people will be affected by the bill. It does not matter if there are only a few cases. Even if only one person will be affected, the Parliament has no right to pass this bill. This legislation has been introduced by a government that contends that vested rights in business are entitled to protection. Such rights may well be entitled to protection, but this is something more direct, more human, and more simple.

I agree with what the honorable member for Wilmot said about the Malayan forces. The nature of the service and the question of whether it is right that Australians should undertake such service in Malaya are a separate matter which is not connected with this bill. But it has been decided that men should serve in that area. It is obviously war service. If it is not war service, what kind of service is it? There is no war between the forces involved, but the risks are the risks of war and very perilous fighting it is. Therefore, these men should not have their rights taken away. I think that we must stand on that principle. It is a principle that should not be whittled away.

This is a contemptible thing to do. What harm would result if the statute were left alone? A few persons, perhaps, would get the benefit. We do not know the number. Why should their rights be prejudiced by the action of the Parliament? I think it is an. important principle for which the honorable member for Lalor and the honorable member for Wilmot have spoken. The view that the Opposition took in another place was that the Government had no right to interfere with this principle and we intend to divide this House on the question. The only just way of withdrawing this right from the people concerned would be to give them compensation if they agreed to this course. Short of that, the Government has no moral right to do what it now proposes, and therefore the Labour party will not accept the legislation at all.

Mr OSBORNE:
Minister for Air · Evans · LP

– in reply - The honorable member for Lalor (Mr. Pollard), who opened the debate for the Opposition, argued that so long as anybody exists who conceivably could have the benefit of this moratorium, Part X. of the Re-establishment and Employment Act should not be repealed. If he really wanted to make a case he should have said that somebody does exist who will be affected by the Government’s proposal.

Mr Pollard:

– The department is not prepared to say that nobody will be affected by it.

Mr OSBORNE:

– It is a curious fact that not a single objection has been received in the Senate or in this House to the passage of this legislation, from any indivi dual affected by it. Only a bogus emotional argument has been produced by the Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Evatt).

The point which the Opposition persistently overlooks is that this bill will not deprive a person of some positive benefit. This is a bill which will end a moratorium. A moratorium does not give a positive benefit; it postpones the operation of an obligation. That is all that it does. The very meaning of the word “ moratorium “ presupposes that it must come to an end. It is a postponement, not an abolition or cancellation, of an obligation.

We all remember very well the circumstances in which the original legislation was passed. It was 1939, when the country was in peril, and people were being called upon to volunteer to go to the defence of the nation and to give up their civil occupations. There was no time for them to sit down and think, “What am I going to do about the payments and the interest on this mortgage? What am I going to do about that debt concerning which I have not heard from my creditor for a long time? “ There was an obvious necessity in such circumstances to protect people who abandoned their civil rights and obligations and the safety of civil life and went off to serve the nation in the forces from the possible harsh operation of legal processes to which they had not had time to attend. That is the basic reason for the introduction of the moratorium. As has been pointed out in this debate, but conveniently forgotten by the Opposition, the moratorium operated for a period of only one year after the end of the war service of the person concerned in relation to matters such as the payment of interest or the collection of judgment debts. There was a possible extension in one case, according to the provisions of the’ legislation.

As the House knows, the legislation was originally in- the form of regulations, which operated during the war, and which were given statutory sanction in 1945- The possible extension to which L refer was covered by the provision that if any authority sought to resume compulsorily land which was the property’ of a man on war service, such land could not be resumed without the consent of the- Attorney-General, or without the consent of the member of the forces concerned, for a period of five years after the termination of his war service. As my friend, the honorable member for Balaclava (Mr. Joske), pointed out to the House, in the whole of the period of operation of the regulations, from 1940 to 1945, and in the whole of the subsequent period of operation of the act, there was only one application to the Attorney-General by a would-be resuming authority to resume without the consent of the person concerned. That will give the House some idea of the frequency of these cases.

As I have said, the very meaning of the word “ moratorium “ presupposes that it must come to an end some time. It is the postponement and not the extinction of an obligation. The question is: When should it be brought to an end? This Parliament has an obligation to bring these matters to an end. The only persons now entitled to the possible protection of this legislation are not those who went away in the heat of the moment to serve in war-time. They are persons who have made service in the armed forces of this country their career or their permanent occupation. The only persons to whom the legislation still applies are those serving in the permanent armed forces of this country, whose engagement for service began prior to the relevant date in April, 1952. Therefore, the arguments of the Opposition, and the attempt to raise an emotional issue by the Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Evatt) are, I suggest, completely mistaken and, indeed, misleading.

Mr Pollard:

– That is unfair. Our opinions are as good as yours.

Mr OSBORNE:

– I am not prepared to agree with the honorable member on that. I can go a long way to meet my friend, the honorable member for Lalor, but I cannot go so far as to agree that his opinions on this matter are as clear and as good as mine. Part X. of the principal act, which is the part with which we are mainly concerned, is, as has been stated in the House, a dead letter. This is not merely a matter of tidying up the statute-book. Part X. places impediments in the way of people who have dealings in property generally, and in land in particular. Inquiries are still sometimes necessary by solicitors acting for people dealing in land, because of the existence of this legislation, even though the legislation has now no real effect, because no one any longer takes advantage of it. This Parliament has an obligation to clean up the law in this respect, in order to relieve people, and their legal advisers, of the obligation to conduct these unnecessary inquiries, all of which increase the expenses of people in their ordinary daily business.

I remind the House that the moratorium was always restricted to obligations entered into prior to engagement on war service, so that it can now apply only to obligations which are at least six years old, and in the case of the vast majority of obligations to which it is intended to apply, concerning those who went away to serve in World War II., the obligation must be at least thirteen years old.

I listened to the honorable member for Wilmot (Mr. Duthie), and it seems to me that the clearest conclusion to be arrived at about his speech is that it was based on a complete lack of clarity concerning the meaning and effect of this bill. He spoke of conditions of service and repatriation rights of our servicemen now serving in Malaya, completely disregarding the fact that those rights were fixed by an act of this Parliament in 1956. The Repatriation (Far East Strategic Reserve) Act No. 1 of 1956 was the act by which this Parliament determined the repatriation rights of our servicemen serving in the strategic reserve in Malaya.

Of course the honorable member for Wilmot is entitled to have opinions about this matter, but it happens that the opinions he has expressed have nothing to do with the bill now before the House. He raised the issue that was mentioned in the Senate, that the Returned Servicemen’s League was not consulted about this bill. Well, why should it be? The Returned Servicemen’s League is a noble body, the first purpose of which, if I recall its charter correctly, is to keep alive in peacetime those sentiments of patriotism and self-sacrifice that were so much in evidence in war-time. It is an organization that deals with ex-servicemen, and if Government supporters in the Senate, and the honorable member for Balaclava and I in this House have done anything in this debate, it is to try to show to the honorable member for Wilmot and others that there are no longer any ex-servicemen affected by this legislation. The legislation applies now only to permanent members of the Australian forces who happened to engage for war service prior to a certain date in April, 1952. So it is not a matter that concerns ex-servicemen, except in the one instance of the provision that for five years after the termination of a member’s war service his land cannot be compulsorily resumed without the consent of the AttorneyGeneral. Even the honorable member for Wilmot would concede that that provision is a complete dead letter at this length of time after the war.

The Leader of the Opposition did bring some clarity to the debate in that he pointed out the very limited number of people to whom the legislation does apply, but I believe his speech was completely misleading when he tried to raise the emotional issue. This matter has no foundation in emotion, as is obvious to any person who takes the trouble to try to understand the bill. It is a necessary measure and a sensible one, and it should be passed by this House.

Question put -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The House divided. (Mr. Acting Deputy Speaker - Mr. W. R. Lawrence.)

AYES: 58

NOES: 31

Majority 27

AYES

NOES

Question so 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 1227

TARIFF BOARD BILL 1958

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 23rd April (vide page 1144), on motion by Mr. McEwen -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Mr CREAN:
Melbourne Ports

– This bill is designed to make substantial alterations in the constitution and operations of the Tariff Board. As the Minister for Trade (Mr. McEwen) stated in his second-reading speech, the Tariff Board Act has remained unchanged since 1921 in most important respects. The act was amended in 1953 when the board was, in a sense, divided into two parts although there had to be a chairman common to both divisions; but otherwise there has been virtually no change in the board. The reason given by the Minister for the changes that are proposed under this bill is that certain ambiguities and uncertainties have crept into the functioning of the Tariff Board. The Minister was not very specific as to what those ambiguities and uncertainties are. To some extent, they seem to flow from a series of incidents, to which reference has been made in this House previously, concerning the affairs of one member of the board. My colleague, the honorable member for Yarra (Mr. Cairns), has referred to them previously in considerable detail. I do not propose to go into that matter now other than to indicate that it seems to me that to some extent the most important of the amendments contained in this bill flow from those differences.

Briefly, the amendments before us are proposed to enable the Tariff Board to speed up its work, to overcome arrears and carry on more efficiently. First, the chairman is to be made specifically responsible for the administration and general working of the Tariff Board. In my opinion, that is the most important aspect of the measure and it contains within it certain most undesirable features. Secondly, a position of deputy chairman is to be created. Thirdly, an eighth member is to be appointed, at least until the backlog of work has been overcome. The bill provides for the termination of his appointment not later than 31st December of this year. Fourthly, the Minister for Customs and Excise is to be authorized to make references directly to the board on matters which bear directly on the administration of the customs tariff. Finally, a number of merely machinery amendments affecting the quorum of the board, appointment of public servants to the board, records of proceedings, tabling of reports, and one or two other minor matters, are to be made. I am concerned principally with the proposed authority of the chairman of the board and his unusual powers in relation to the other members.

A board is essentially an administrative device. It is a means of getting a particular kind of operation done. It is a distinct kind of organization from that by which the Government normally functions in this country. Government activity is normally done directly through a government department, and any individual is responsible to his permanent head and, through him, ultimately to the Minister. Sometimes, because the Government has to engage in operations which are not in the nature of normal government administration, there is a case for establishing a commission, board, or administrative agency of one kind or another.

The Tariff Board is such an administrative device. This bill proposes that it shall consist normally of seven members, but, temporarily, of eight. Section 11 of the existing statute sets out the position in relation to sittings of the board and section 15 states its duties. One or two minor amendments are proposed to clear up difficulties that arise because two Ministers are referred to - the Minister for Trade and the Minister for Customs and Excise. A certain tidying up, which is quite necessary, is proposed.

The board, as an administrative organ, is charged, under section 15, with certain important duties. Ideally, the board should work as a whole. In order to make it effective, a chairman is necessary. There has to be some machinery for calling the board together and it is necessary to work out details, although they need not be written into the statute, for the smooth functioning of the board. Basically, if the board system is chosen as an administrative device, it seems that the chairman should :be in the same position as the Prime Minister is to the Cabinet. He should only be primus inter pares. He should have certain overriding powers, but he should be only one among equals. The other members of the board are just as essential as is the chairman. The proposed amendments seem to be designed to make the chairman supreme and to make the other members of the board second-rate parts of the machine. I suggest that that gravely fractures the assumptions on which the board as an administrative device is established.

This measure was introduced only on Wednesday of last week, the day on which the House rose. Tn the limited time that has been available since, I have attempted to examine certain other examples of the board form of organization. There is a considerable number of boards. In fact I think my colleague, the honorable member for Darling (Mr. Clark), asked the other day how many boards and organizations of a similar kind were in existence in the sphere of the Commonwealth Government. The number and variety are astonishing. Some are comparatively minor in their scope of operations but others are quite considerable in the social and economic life of the Australian community.

The Tariff Board has important repercussions on our economic life, as can be gleaned from sub-section (2.) of section 15, which reads -

The Minister may refer to the Board for their inquiry and report the following matters: -

the general effect of the working of the

Customs Tariff and the Excise Tariff, in relation to the primary and secondary industries of the Commonwealth;

That is a very important sphere of activity.

  1. the fiscal and industrial effects of the

Customs laws of the Commonwealth;

  1. the incidence between the rates of duty on raw materials and on finished or partly finished products;

That goes to the heart of the operation of individual industries in Australia.

  1. any other matter in any way affecting the encouragement of primary or secondary industries in relation to the Tariff . . .

One or two other functions are mentioned. This is a body, therefore, which is clothed with wide economic responsibility. In the establishment of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, the commission or board formation has been chosen in relation to another important aspect of our social problems. The Australian Coastal Shipping Commission is, I think, the most recent of such creations of this Government, by Act No. 41 of 1956. Another example is the Australian Broadcasting Control Board, which is clothed with certain powers in the great social fields of broadcasting and television. Admittedly, these are only a sample in a very broad field, but an examination of the way in which these boards are constituted will show that in no instance is the chairman placed in the extraordinary position in which the Government proposes, by this legislation, to place the chairman of the Tariff Board. It would be interesting to know just why the Government has cast round and chosen this particular piece of administrative machinery to alter what has been in existence, the Minister said, for 37 years. Apart from recent incidents, there seems to have been no necessity for the changes that are now proposed.

Those of us who have served at any time on boards know that a board is a more effective instrument if it has a good chairman. On- the other hand, sometimes it is a less effective instrument if it has a chairman who tries to take too much power to himself as against the rest of the members of the board, who feel that they are cast more in the role of rubber stamps than of actively functioning and contributing members of a board with a social responsibility. It seems to me that this is the error into which the Government is falling in relation to the proposed amendments.

Sitting suspended from 5.55 to 8 p.m.

Mr CREAN:

– The Opposition regards clause 6 as a quite novel provision. I ask the House to consider that clause in relation to section 11 of the act and to note the difference in the wording, in respect of certain significant features, in the two provisions. Section 11, which the bill proposes to amend, reads as follows: -

Subject to the regulations, the Board may hold sittings in any part of the Commonwealth in such place or places as it may deem most convenient . . .

That is to say, in such place or places as the board, acting as an entity, deems most convenient. The section also provides that the board -

  1. . shall keep minutes of its proceedings in the prescribed form.

There seems to be some doubt as to what was the prescribed form in which the old board should keep its minutes. If some honorable members formed themselves into a committee or organization, generally speaking, although not in all cases, they would take for granted procedure for the conduct of meetings just as it is taken for granted that any intelligent body of people, particularly one that is transacting public business, will keep minutes. There may be some argument, of course, on whether the minutes should be kept as what are regarded in business circles as “ minutes of narration “ - that is, an accurate account of what each person said and of the conflict of views at a meeting - or whether they should be only minutes of record - that is, the final recording of the various decisions made at the meeting. In any case, the keeping of minutes in one form or the other would be taken for granted. That, apparently, was what was implied when the Tariff Board Act was written in 1921; but the recent case of Mr. Date seems to suggest that no minutes have been kept or that at least inadequate minutes have been kept.

This seems to be something that crept into the operation of the old board since 1921. However, I think the factor that needs to be borne in mind is that the original act of 1921, as amended from time to time - and, as the Minister has said, there have really been no substantial amendments other than those of 1953 which, in effect, created two integrated boards - had the intention that the board should be an integrated entity with no superiority attaching to the chairman as against other members of the board. I suggest that that is the ideal procedure that should apply in a board. The chairman - in the present case he is appointed by the Governor-General in council - must play a more prominent part than do other members of the board; but any intelligent entity whose members work in harmony for the purposes they are supposed to be achieving does not need to write down in black on white what the mode of its daily transactions should be. The new procedure to be provided under this legislation is stated in clause 6, which reads -

Sections eight and nine of the Principal Act are repealed and the following sections inserted in their stead: -

– (1.) It is the duty of the Chairman to ensure the efficient and orderly conduct of the business of the Board, and, for that purpose, he has-

I stress the use of the word, “ he “ - in addition to any other power, duty or function under this Act, power -

  1. to convene meetings of the Board at the times and places which he deems most convenient for the conduct of the business of the Board;
  2. to determine the form of the records of meetings of the Board to be kept in accordance with this Act and the procedure to be adopted at such meetings;

This is a new procedure, and one that cannot be found in any similar act, so far as I know. True, some other statutes contain provision that on some occasions it is left to the chairman to convene meetings of the board, setting the time and place. That may be a matter of administrative convenience which cannot be met in any other way. The usual method followed is the method which is not provided in this measure. For instance, section 10 of the Broadcasting and Television Act provides, in relation to the Australian Broadcasting Control Board, that -

Meetings of the Board shall be held at such times and such places as the chairman of the Board determines.

That is similar to the provision I am discussing. But that provision is followed by a provision which reads -

The chairman of the Board shall call a meeting of the Board whenever requested to do so by two members.

There is no similar supporting provision in this bill. Under this measure, the calling of meetings of the Tariff Board is to be entirely a matter for the chairman. There is no provision for the exercise of initiative by disgruntled members. All honorable members who have had dealings with boards of this kind know that, unfortunately, friction may develop from time to time. In my view, there should be some provision for the exercise of initiative by disgruntled members who may wish to call the board into session; but there is no such provision here. The calling of meetings is entirely a matter for the chairman, who is appointed by the Governor-General in Council.

It should be borne in mind that this board is dissimilar from some other boards on which people serve part-time. The members of this board are debarred from holding any other paid occupation. If they have another paid occupation they are disqualified from membership of the board. Tt would seem to me inevitable that the chairman, instead of being only one among equals on this board, must tend to assume the role of tyrant. At least, he will have superior powers as against the other members who may, in some circumstances, become almost dependent on his goodwill for their re-appointment. Bearing in mind the important duties that the Tariff Board is called upon to perform, which are stated in detail in section 15 of the act, the situation I have alluded to would be a very dangerous situation. Apparently, there has been friction over the years between one member of the board and the chairman, and in some respects that conflict seems to have been the genesis of the changes that the Government is now contemplating. But we could have a worse position than that, because the chairman is to be given wider powers than before. Instead of making the procedure more flexible the Government intends to make it more rigid. Apparently its solution of a dilemma is to give the chairman wider powers compared to those of the other members.

In the course of his speech the Minister made a statement, which appears at page 1142 of “Hansard”, which I should like him to explain at a later stage. He said -

In some respects, the responsibilities of the chairman, as laid down in the present act, are ambiguous.

The Minister said nothing further than that. I should like to know where the ambiguities are. If ambiguities have arisen in the past, they have not been due to deficiencies in the statutory provision. They have been due entirely to ne relationship between the chairman of the board and one individual member of the board, as in this case, and if they arise later, they may be due to such a relationship or to the relationship between the chairman and various individual members of the board.

Honorable members, and particularly those who are the apostles of private enterprise and who believe in as little government interference as possible in certain spheres, should bear in mind that the board has been adopted as an administrative device. I can see that my friend and venerated colleague, the honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Bland), grasps the point that I am trying to make. My views are more strongly in favour of the departmental procedure than of the board procedure, but we are not arguing that question. The very basis on which a board is founded as an effective administrative device is destroyed if the chairman of the board is clothed with powers superior to those of the other members of the board. But that is what is proposed in this bill. I ask the Minister, again, to enlighten us, in committee, as to why this procedure has been adopted.

I have already mentioned, briefly, other illustrations of boards or commissions, and the manner in which their affairs are conducted. I cite now the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, which was constituted by the Atomic Energy Act of 1953. That act has recently been amended, but not in such a way as to alter the manner in which the commission functions - and it is the question of the functioning of boards and commissions with which we are concerned this evening. Section 15(1.) of that act provides -

The Commission shall hold meetings at such times and places as the Commission determines.

The time and place of meetings are not determined by a chairman who occupies a position superior to that of the rest of the members. They are fixed by the commission determining, when it meets, that it will meet on the first Friday of every month, the second Tuesday of every month, or whatever it decides shall be the regular occasion of meetings. In that way, the commission fixes the time and place of meetings more or less automatically. In such cases, there is generally provision that, in extraordinary circumstances, some members, or the chairman, of such a body may summon it to meet if the need arises. That is one pattern that has been followed.

Another illustration that I cite to indicate a difference of pattern is the most recent of the bodies of considerable stature established by this Government - the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission - which was constituted under the authority of the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission Act of 1956, section 14 (1.) of which reads -

The Commission shall hold such meetings as, in the opinion of the Chairman, are necessary for the efficient conduct of its affairs.

When a body functions on a national basis, and it is necessary for representatives from various States to come together, the matter should not be handled haphazardly. Some one may have to have the initiative for the calling of meetings from time to time. In this instance, the initiative rests with the chairman of the body concerned. Perhaps some Government supporters may disagree with the provision made in sub-section (2.) with respect to a so-called independent commission. It states -

The Minister may at any time convene a meeting of the Commission.

The section goes on to provide a safeguard which, I suggest, is not provided in the bill now before us. Sub-section (3.) states -

The Chairman shall, on receipt of a written request signed by not less than two Commissioners, call a meeting of the Commission.

All the possibilities are embraced in that measure. Meetings are called, in the absence of any hitch, primarily on the initiative of the chairman. Secondly, in extraordinary circumstances, in which the Minister for Shipping and Transport perhaps thinks that something that ought to be done is not being done, a meeting may be called on his initiative. Finally, there is provision for a meetting to be called on the initiative of members, as distinct from the chairman.

Provision of a similar kind exists in the Broadcasting and Television Act, which I mentioned earlier. Referring to the Australian Broadcasting Control Board, subsection (1.) of section 10 of that act provides -

Meetings of the Board shall be held at such times and places as the Chairman of the Board determines.

That may be called the convenience subsection, which provides for the chairman to convene meetings. But there is provision for emergencies, in sub-section (1a.), in the following terms: -

The Chairman of the Board shall call a meeting of the Board whenever requested to do so by two members.

Apparently, he cannot sidetrack them. If they want to exercise the initiative, and they notify him properly, he is obliged to call a meeting of the board. I suggest that similar provisions are needed with respect to the Tariff Board, which is, socially, economically, and politically, much more significant, in the aggregate, than are any of the other instrumentalities that I have mentioned.

Recently, we discussed in this chamber the report of the board on the automotive industry, which is only one of the industries referred to it for investigation, and there was discussion of the situation - which was recognized four years ago - that the Tariff Board, sitting as one board, was inadequate to grapple with all the problems of primary and secondary industry that emerge in this country from time to time and are referred to the board for consideration. In order to get round the difficulty, a new administrative device was adopted, and provision was made for the board to be divided into two, with the provision that the chairman should be common to both parts. If honorable members read the record of the debates on that proposal, they will find that Opposition members pointed out that what was involved was primarily a physical problem; that there was too much business for one board to transact; and that, if a solution was attempted by dividing the board into two, with the provision that the chairman should sit as a member of each part, the business transacted would depend on his availability to sit as a member of either of the two parts of the board, and, unless he was much superior, physically, to the other members of the board, the bottleneck would continue. Apparently, the difficulty that we pointed out on that occasion has belatedly been recognized by the Government, because the procedure is to be changed. Proposed new section 9 of the principal act, in clause 6 of this bill, provides that, in some circumstances, the chairman may, as it were, clothe a gentleman to be known as the deputy chairman with all the powers that he himself has. This seems to me merely another way of saying that, when the two boards meet concurrently the chairman may delegate to the deputy chairman with respect to one of them his responsibility to sit as a member of each.

When Opposition members voiced their objections on the previous occasion that I have mentioned, the argument with which they were met by the Government was that the procedure would allow for continuity and would prevent differences of approach that would probably occur if two completely distinct boards functioned. How the difficulty stated there is to be overcome under the arrangements now proposed, I am not sure. Apparently, theoretically, the deputy chairman can be clothed with the responsibilities and duties of the chairman, and the two boards can now operate as two separate boards. I think most people will agree that this will enable them to get through more business than if both had a common chairman. The chairman can still sit on both boards if he wants to, but, if he feels that that is not possible, then he can clothe his deputy chairman with all the powers that he would have himself.

The fatal mistake on this occasion is to suggest that the responsibility for the efficient and orderly conduct of business can be shifted from the shoulders of the board to the chairman. In my view, that is a fundamental weakness. Whatever weaknesses from dual power may have emerged in the four years, weaknesses and evils of a different kind will flow from the position that will be created by this legislation - I am sure my friend from Warringah will understand this point - which attempts to make the chairman not primus inter pares as far as the board is concerned but responsible over and above the rest of the board. I regard that as a fatal objection and as a fracture in the very structure of the board system. The Government apparently still adheres to the board system because it is not abolishing that system but simply saying that it is removing ambiguities in the present system.

I ask the Minister to answer two questions at the committee stage. The first is: What are the ambiguities that he sees in the present structure? If he tells us what they are, it will be seen that they are not statutory in their origin but that they arise from questions of administration and the daytoday activities of the board. A strong chairman in the past may have assumed - perhaps the board has let him do so - functions which primarily have been the functions of the board, and in consequence difficulties have risen. The second question is: Where is the model, as it were, for the proposed new section 8 (1.) which says that it is the duty of the chairman to ensure the efficient and orderly conduct of the business of the board? That seems to me to be something entirely novel in the structure of a statutory board in Australia. As has been indicated earlier, it has the fatal objection that it cuts across the very principle of integration and entity on which a board should operate-

I make the reservation that perhaps the chairman must, from time to time, have a little more initiative than other members of the board. However, I repeat the example that I gave earlier, that some boards function well because they have a good chairman who exercises his powers discreetly and who recognizes that the other members of the board are supposed to have certain capacities and certain knowledge on which he is able to draw in some circumstances. That is the ideal pattern for a board - a good chairman who realizes that he has a team under him. Boards can founder sometimes because they have a chairman who is too strong and who wants to subjugate all opinion under him. Sometimes, a chairman cannot handle the particular sort of wild man, if I may use that expression, who may sometimes be appointed to a committee. Those of us who have served on committees know that sometimes a man is a bad committeeman. That, of course, is an error of judgment by those who appointed him to the committee. Sometimes peculiar and particular capacities are needed on boards and committees, as my friend from Deakin (Mr. Davis) will realize. One chairman from whom I learnt a good deal is my respected friend, the honorable member for Warringah. I know that, underneath it all, he will agree with much that has been said here. I know his views on the operation of a board system as against a departmental system, and 1 should like later to have his views, publicly or privately on giving too much power to a chairman over and above the rest of the board.

Mr HOWSON:
Fawkner

.- We listened for a long time to the honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Crean) as he discoursed on the details of the structure of the board and on what he thought were the inordinate powers of the chairman. I felt that he rather lost the point when he tried to compare the Tariff Board with other bodies such as the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission, the Australian Wheat Board or the Australian Atomic Energy Commission. The Tariff Board has such a wide variety of functions as compared with, say, the Australian Wheat Board, which has to deal with one function and one function only, that the structure or the functions of the two cannot be compared. The chairman of the Tariff Board should have special powers because he deals with a multitude of subjects and must ensure that those subjects are put in an orderly way so that the business of the board can be despatched in as orderly a manner as possible. To my mind, the honorable member for Melbourne Ports dealt with matters of rather petty detail for nearly threequarters of an hour. He looked at the trees when he should have been looking at the whole wood.

What is the main object of the bill? More than anything else, it is to accelerate the despatch of business by the Tariff Board. The honorable member for Melbourne Ports asked why we should think of changing it when it has remained unchanged for nearly 37 years. Surely the answer is that the Tariff Board each year is becoming of increasing importance to the economy of this country. Its scope grows greater every year. Therefore, there is a greater need than ever before for order in the despatch of its business, and anything that enables that business to be transacted more efficiently is surely a step very much in the right direction.

The Tariff Board is now a permanent feature of our economy and its smooth and efficient working is vital to the whole of our industrial operations. To my mind, there have been two main objections to the workings of the Tariff Board in the past. One is delay and the other is that, to an extent, the policy of import licensing has been by-passing the operations of the board. I have felt for a long time that many alterations in the organization of the Tariff Board are needed to enable it to overcome these two main objections. For some time I have felt that major surgery may be needed to enable it to meet the present-day needs. This bill provides only for what I might call partial medication. However, all the same, I am certain that it is a vital step in the right direction. It provides means for accelerating the despatch of business and this, together with the provision of additional staff, as announced a month ago, will increase the efficiency of the board. I hope that the steps now being taken will enable it to carry out its duties smoothly and to overcome the objections to the manner of its working that have arisen in the past few months. But I also hope that if, after a period of months, these new arrangements are still not sufficient, there will be no great delay in introducing further reforms should they be necessary.

However, as the Minister for Trade (Mr. McEwen) has said, in arriving at a proper inquiry into the matters before the board there is always need for some delay. As he has said, it is important that, first of all, the proposed hearings of the board should be advertised so that all interested parties may know what is about to be considered. Each one of those interested parties needs time to prepare a case. Some of them may be overseas, and it may take time to obtain evidence. Above all else, there is the need for a proper hearing and a full sifting and assessment of the evidence that has been presented. In certain cases it is important that members of the board should carry out a personal investigation into the industry concerned. I shall have more to say about that later.

Mr Peters:

– To-morrow.

Mr HOWSON:

– No, probably I shall have time this evening. The board then has to report to the Minister. Before the Minister can table the report in this House he has to make certain that the recommendations are in line with our international obligations and that all interested governments overseas are made aware of what is intended to be done. Finally, the report is tabled in this House.

But even though there is this necessary delay, there are still the dangers to trade that arise while a hearing is in progress. We have heard over the past few weeks of the danger that traders dealing in printed cotton textiles might encounter. These traders are very uncertain as to what may happen to their businesses as a result of the report that is likely to be tabled, we hope, within the next few weeks. Certainly, trade must be uncertain while a Tariff Board inquiry is in progress. Therefore, it is most important that improvements should be made to the speed with which the Tariff Board can operate and bring down its report. I hope that in the next few months the Tariff Board will be able to discharge its proper functions, to arrive at its decisions speedily, and to do the job that it was intended to do, a job which, to some extent, has in the recent past been taken over by import licensing administration. Having said all that, I am certain that the Government should be congratulated on taking the steps that are proposed in this bill.

The Minister referred particularly in his second-reading speech to action that could be taken by industry. I believe that much time could be saved if evidence given before the board by the representatives of industry was given voluntarily. Every interested party should be prepared to come forward and give evidence. As honorable members have heard, sometimes it has been necessary for members of the board to go out and obtain the evidence by personal investigation. Investigations would be speeded up if the interested parties would themselves come before the board and give evidence. I do not believe that leaders of industry have sufficiently realized this need in the past. The important feature of a Tariff Board inquiry, to my mind, is that it provides a forum where all interests concerned with the development of trade and industry in Australia can meet. Only if the views of all interested parties are expressed at an inquiry can a true balance be struck by the Tariff Board. Too many industrial leaders to-day sit back and rely on some Other company in the same industry, or the paid executives of the relevant employers’ associations, to give evidence to the board.

This was a danger that existed in the United Kingdom, but in the last few months leaders of industry there have realized the danger of not taking sufficient interest in their industries. To-day, very often, the deputy chairman of a large company is given the sole task of representing his company’s interests at industrial inquiries, and meetings dealing with wages matters, when he is meeting representatives of the trade unions concerned. He also maintains close liaison with the Government, through the Board of Trade. In the United Kingdom, industries and companies, particularly individual companies, have realized their obligations to the community and to the nation. As a result, there is close liaison to-day between the Board of Trade and industry. This liaison, I am certain, is not at present close enough in Australia. I do not consider that business leaders take sufficient interest in matters that affect the whole community. They should spend more time in negotiating with the Government, with trade unions, and with other companies, instead of leaving it, as they very often do, to the paid executives of the employers’ associations. Government and industry must grow closer together in the years to come. Avenues for this consultation have been provided to a large extent in the past few years, and particularly in the past few months by the Minister for Trade. These avenues are, therefore, available for industry, and I hope that industry will avail itself of this opportunity. It is, to my mind, important that business leaders should realize their obligations to the community and to the nation as well as to their shareholders.

I should also like to look at some of the wider implications of Tariff Board decisions. The aims of the Tariff Board at present are to encourage industrial development, and to encourage the development of our export trade. No one can deny that in the last ten years the Tariff Board has succeeded magnificently in encouraging industrial development in Australia, but in its efforts to encourage exports, particularly by secondary industries, it has at times tended to shelter those industries unduly from the winds of international competition. However, this tendency has been corrected during the last few months. Manufactured goods must form a large proportion of our exports, as indeed they now do. I believe that our greatest hope of securing increased export trade is with goods having a low labour content and using a large proportion of our own raw materials. Things that spring to mind immediately are steel tanks and other fabricated parts made from steel - and motor cars. Our steel is still the cheapest in the world, and any products made from it have a good chance of succeeding against overseas competition. Similarly, processed food lines and processed wool, such as wool tops, should have a greater chance of providing that increase to our needed exports. There is, therefore, to my mind, a need for a gradual reduction of our tariff walls in general while still, in particular, having special increases only in the case of infant industries or developing industries. In the last few months this has been very much the case. We have seen a gradual reduction of our tariff walls. This has been effected, to an extent, by the rigours of inflation. It has been effected also by our obligations under Gatt and also as a result of two trade agreements - the revision of the Ottawa Agreement and the new Japanese trade agreement - both of which have, in fact, caused a gradual reduction of our tariffs in proportion to our total economy or national income.

Possibly, even with the growth of the European free-trade area, we may see as a result of increased exports to Europe of our primary products, a lowering of our tariff walls for manufactured goods from Europe. We may see also, as a result of the projected trade conference in Canada in September, a further move towards the lowering of trade barriers. Therefore, in many ways, we are much more a free-trade nation to-day than we were in the 1930’s. We can only hope that other nations who profess to have the same ideals as we have will carry them out as much as we have in practice. But, in fact though not in theory, the western nations have not done this. Even now they are abandoning the doctrines of Adam Smith and returning to the mercantilist philosophy of national selfsufficiency. Nowhere is this more evident to-day than in the United States of America.

The prime example of the manner in which America has reacted to the whole question of free trade is the way in which that country has imposed special quotas in respect of the importation of woollen goods. That was not done to solve America’s balance of payments problem, but purely to protect the American sheep farmer, who produces at uneconomic prices. The U.S.A. has followed this policy in respect of not only woollen goods but also bicycles, and watches made in Switzerland. As soon as there has been any danger to the American economy, quotas have been arbitrarily imposed either by Congress or by a swift stroke of the pen of the President himself.

There is always a conflict of interest between industrialists and primary producers. In Australia, I think that this conflict has been resolved to a great extent by the operation of the Tariff Board; but in the United States of America this conflict does not appear ever to have been resolved. On the contrary, America has extended the effect of the conflict to the detriment of other nations, particularly those which are producers of raw materials. If only raw materials were purchased to-day by America in markets where they are produced at the cheapest price, more raw materials would be bought from the under-developed countries and there would be much less need for United States economic aid. We would, in effect, be able to buy those things needed for our development with the proceeds from the sale of our raw materials.

The doctrine of “ trade, not aid “, which has always been professed in theory by America, should in fact and in practice be extended to the countries of South-East Asia, particularly Australia. That should be the policy of the United States of America itself. These remarks apply not only to the United States but also to the United Kingdom and to Western Germany. As we have seen, Western Germany has been dumping flour in our traditional markets in Ceylon and other countries of SouthEast Asia. There is a great need to-day for schemes to stabilize the prices of raw materials. Already schemes are operating internationally in respect of tin and sugar, and we need further international agreements in respect of metals, rubber, wheat and many other foodstuffs and raw materials. Let us hope, therefore, that other nations which have to operate tariff policies will have the wider vision which is so necessary in this world in the middle of the twentieth century. I believe that if they fail in this respect, there is only one alternative. We shall see a return to policies which lead to national selfsufficiency, a further raising of tariff barriers of all nations, a reduction of world trade and a postponement of the day when there will be a rise in the standard of living of the under-developed nations, especially in this part of the world.

Mr CAIRNS:
Yarra

.- I was astonished to hear the honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Howson) say that there was more free trade in Australia to-day than in the past. I think that those many thousands of people who are seeking import licences would be equally astonished, as would also those people overseas who are endeavouring to export to Australia over our tariff barriers. But as I desire to speak with relevance to the bill before the House I shall not be able to deal with any of the other matters raised by the honorable member for Fawkner. 1 submit to the House that the Tariff Board has been operating as a petty dictatorship as an ancillary of the Department of Trade, and that this legislation does very little more than give the backing of law to those practices of the board. The amendments proposed under this bill are for the appointment of an additional member, and the appointment of a deputy chairman; they relate to the duties and powers of the chairman, allowances of members, the administration and conduct of the work of the board in respect of a quorum, the exercise of power by members, the conduct of meetings, the keeping of minutes, the travel of members and so on. These are, in fact, the most extensive amendments made to the Tariff Board Act in 37 years, with the possible exception of the amendments made in 1953.

With respect to the administration and conduct of the work of the board, some of the most important of these amendments relate particularly to the experiences of a member of the board, Mr. Albert Date, during the course of the past two years. On 13th March last, in this House, the Minister for Trade (Mr. McEwen) said -

Tariff Board procedures-

That is to say, present ones - have been standard practice of the board for 30 years.

The Minister implied that the procedures were satisfactory, despite the criticism by Mr. Date, and that there was no fault to be remedied. Yet, six weeks later we have submitted to the House this measure which contains the second most extensive amendments in relation to these matters that have been made in the 37 years of the board’s history.

The position surely was that the procedures about which Mr. Date complained were satisfactory and, therefore, his complaints were unjustified; or the procedures were not satisfactory and his complaints were justified. I submit that the introduction of this amending bill shows that the procedures were not satisfactory. The question that I want to raise at this point is how and why and whence has this bill come? Did the Minister for Trade consult any member of the Tariff Board about this bill? Did he seek the advice of members of the Board? He will have an opportunity later in reply to the second-reading debate and in the committee stage to tell us whether he discussed this bill in any way with the members of the board. On the other hand, is the bill the work of the Department of Trade? When was it drawn up in its present form? Was it drawn up last year before the retirement of the former chairman of the board? Does it reflect in any way the practices and requirements of that chairman?

One further point that I should like to mention, as a preliminary, is this: There has been a press blackout on this amending Tariff Board Bill on the part of newspapers which have been forecasting and approving a change in the Tariff Board for at least two years. This bill which was introduced last week is, at any rate, the second most extensive amendment to Tariff Board legislation for 37 years. Yet I do not think that one newspaper in Australia mentioned the matter. This fact may well be related to the impending libel action against a newspaper as a result of an article written by a member of the press gallery of this House.

I believe that there is evidence that the Tariff Board has been operating as a petty dictatorship. I think that, in a House which has a Prime Minister who stated recently that he was very much concerned with the Canberra dictatorship, there must be some concern on the part of Government supporters about this question. This bill, in fact, is a part of the growth of the Canberra dictatorship. We all know the views of the honorable member for Warringah on this matter. In 1953 he discussed this very question and said -

I think that an essential feature of the activities of the Tariff Board is that it should be independent in its judgments and that it should not be merely a political body.

He also said -

I should like to be sure that these public servants-

That is, members of the board - would not be public servants in the ordinary sense of the term but only in the sense that they were appointed as members of the Tariff Board. If it were intended that they should be members of the department after the board has been established, the Government would be open to the criticism that the board was not independent but that it would be subject of the control of the government of the day.

He went on to say -

I would not raise this matter if I did not regard it as imperative that the complete independence of the Tariff Board should be maintained.

I intend to submit evidence that the complete independence of the Tariff Board has not been and is not being maintained. Taking the points one at a time, we have, in this bill, provision for the appointment of a deputy chairman. This is an alternative to the procedure that has existed in the Tariff Board up to the present time under which other members of the board were given the opportunity, as a result of the decision of the chairman, to act as deputy chairman. The position of deputy chairman was not a fixed position. I suggest that what is going to happen in this case is that the deputy chairman who will be appointed will be a member or former member of the Department of Trade. So we shall have a hierarchy of officers. We shall have the chairman; we shall have the deputy chairman; we shall have members of the board who are neither chairmen nor deputy chairmen, lt will not be very long before we have a hierarchy of salaries. The chairman will be on one salary, the deputy chairman will be on another, and the other members of the board will be on another salary.

I should think that this is a distinct departure from conditions in which the members of the board would have more significance and more say in what is going on than they can possibly have in a situation in which the deputy chairman is appointed in this way. I see no good reason for the appointment of a deputy chairman in the form set out in this bill. Let us look at the new powers of the chairman of the board. The honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Crean) say that he has searched other legislation without being able to find a similar provision. Under proposed new section 8 (1.) the chairman has complete power to determine the affairs of the board.

In fact, this legislation gives lawful backing to the practices of the former chairman which have caused so much difficulty in the board. Under the bill, the chairman has power to convene meetings. He has power to determine the form of the record of meetings and the procedure to be adopted at meetings. He has power to determine which members shall take part in a particular inquiry by the board. He has power to direct and control travel by members of the board in connexion with their duties. In fact, the former chairman did control the travel of members of the board and there were occasions on which he refused to allow members to travel to places to make inquiries which they considered should be made. This kind of practice, under this bill, will have the full backing of the law.

I repeat that the bill will give to the practices of the chairman which, I submit, have caused very much difficulty in the operation of the board recently, full legislative backing. I suggest that the chairman, if he so desires, will be able to allow travel facilities to members of the board or withhold them, so as to gain influence over members or to influence their inquiries. These are powers which it is not necessary to place in the hands of the chairman. Members of this board are responsible to Parliament. They are appointed by the Governor-General in Council and they can only be removed by a decision of the Governor-General in Council. Yet, under this bill, a mere matter of where and how they shall travel is placed in the hands of the chairman of the board!

There was an occasion on which the member of the Tariff Board to whom I have already referred, Mr. Date, had reimbursement for travelling expenses held up from 1954 until 1956, when final approval was given. It cannot be said that his claim for travelling expenses was wrong because, finally, approval was given. What is the explanation for the holdup for two years? The powers that the chairman exercised in this manner were backed up by the Minister for Trade, who chose to make a trenchant criticism of this member of the board in a speech in Parliament on 13th March. I suggest that this case arose purely out of a situation in which that member of the board would not accept the discipline in the board laid down by the chairman.

Then, in this situation, the press joined in. There was an article in the Melbourne “ Herald “ by a Mr. Cox on 14th March which stated that Mr. Date was likely to leave the board; that the Federal Government was not likely to renew his appointment; and that he might lose his job. I should like the Minister for Trade to say whether he or any official informed this Mr. Cox that Mr. Date was likely to leave the board; or that the Federal Government was not likely to renew his appointment; or that he might lose his job.

Mr McEwen:

– The answer is, “ No “.

Mr CAIRNS:

– There was no backing for Mr. Cox’s article in the Melbourne “ Herald “ at all? This seems, then, to be an example of the kind of keyhole reporting of which we have had considerable experience in recent times. Was that reporting part of a process in which, not the department as a whole, but a clique inside the Tariff Board and the Department of Trade, set out to use their influence over a particular member of the board to pull him into line? I would be loath to think that the Minister would play any part whatever in this kind of activity. But I suggest that those who support the honorable member for Warringah and state high-sounding principles in relation to the independence of the Tariff Board, must think of these practical examples of how the independence of the Tariff Board can be broken down.

I would like to discuss the matter of the appointment of the eighth member of the Tariff Board in relation to this question. Is it the position, as the Minister said in his speech, that this appointment is for the purpose of assisting the board in overcoming the existing back-lag of work, or is it for the purpose of facilitating the replacement of existing members of the board? Mr. Higgins, I understand, is to retire at the end of the year. Is the appointment of the eighth member related to the coming retirement of Mr. Higgins, or is it related to the position set out in the article in the Melbourne “ Herald “? In other words, is it possible that Mr. Date will lose his job as a result of his unwillingness to submit in all respects to the discipline laid down by the chairman of the board? Can the Minister give an answer to that question? Is the appointment of the eighth member of the board in any way related to the future of Mr. Date in his capacity as a member of the Tariff Board?

I submit that a second-class citizenship is being created for members of the Tariff Board. On the one hand, there are certain members of the board, former members of the Public Service, who are in a permanent, strong position. They include the chairman and, later, I am quite sure, will include the deputy chairman. Probably the notice has already been prepared for notifying the appointment of the deputy chairman in the Commonwealth “ Gazette “. In association with those two senior officers we have the non-departmental members of the board, in a temporary, shaky position. Unless they are good boys and meet the requirements of the chairman and the deputy chairman, if the practices of the past continue, their positions cannot be in any way secure. I ask the Minister whether this system of second-class citizenship for non-departmental members of the board is related in some way to the well-known difficulty that he had in obtaining a nondepartmental person recently to become chairman of the board. What do the manufacturers of this country think of the growth of departmental strength in and around the Tariff Board? What do they think of this second-class citizenship of nondepartmental members?

The position of members of the board has a particular significance with relation to legal problems that arise as a result of their activities inside the board. The Minister recognized - I think, properly - the importance of these problems when, on 13th March, he said -

This is a highly important matter. It touches the basis of Australian tariff-making and the rights of the House, because Tariff Board reports must be presented to this House.

The position that might arise in relation to this matter of the legal rights and powers of members of the board is undoubtedly very significant, but we had an assurance from the Minister on 26th March, thirteen days later, that nothing had been done except in conformity with the legal advice given by the Crown Law authorities. Let us see what occurs with respect to this legal advice when a problem arises within the Tariff Board.

During 1957 an inquiry was conducted by members of the board concerning Euclid twin power scrapers. In relation to that inquiry it appeared, first, that two witnesses had told lies on oath. This can be seen from a reference to the public transcript of evidence at pages 44, 108, 109 and 111. It appeared that a member of the board was unable to secure access to a Department of Customs and Excise file number 56/13410. This can be seen by a reference to page 112 of the transcript of evidence. It appeared that one member of the board was unable to call officers of the Department of Customs and Excise whose evidence he considered was necessary to the proper discharge of his responsibilities in that inquiry. The calling of these officers was prevented by the action of two other members of the board, both former members of the department, who, it appeared, could not form a quorum of the board, as provided in section 12a. - (4.) of the Tariff Board Act 1921-1953. It appeared, further, that one member of the board considered the action of his colleagues was faulty in law and sought the advice of the Solicitor-General on 29th October, 1957. I understand that in response to this request by a member of the Tariff Board appointed by this Parliament, a reply was furnished by the SolicitorGeneral on 31st December, 1957, saying that a reply had been prepared many weeks previously, after discussion, but that, through oversight, it had been left unsigned.

It took two months for the SolicitorGeneral to reply to a member of the Tariff Board appointed by this Parliament. When the reply was furnished, I understand that it was to the effect that it is not the function of the Solicitor-General to furnish advice direct to an individual member of the board, and that the letter of the board member had, after a delay of two months, been sent to the Secretary of the Department of Trade, with an intimation that if the Minister or he - the secretary of the department - so desired, the SolicitorGeneral would be pleased to advise the board member on any question of law. This was followed by a letter from the Assistant-Secretary of the Department of Trade, dated 5th March - a further two months’ delay having occurred - to the effect that the Secretary of the Department of Trade, under memorandum dated 4th March, had requested the Secretary of the Attorney-General’s Department to furnish his opinion - not the opinion of the Solicitor-General, but the opinion of the Secretary of the Attorney-General’s Department - regarding the matters raised.

This is the position: When a crucial or critical question arises in the course of the duty of a member of the Tariff Board, who has been appointed by the GovernorGeneral in Council and can be removed from office only by the Governor-General in Council, it must become a legal question. When seeking an answer to that legal question, the member of the board is denied access to the opinion of the SolicitorGeneral. In practice, as appears from the letter of the Solicitor-General of 31st December, the decision on the question whether the board member may obtain this legal advice need not even be the decision of the Minister, but may be the decision of the Secretary of the Department of Trade. The board member may obtain a legal opinion only if the Secretary of the Department of Trade consents, and even then the opinion is that of the Secretary of the Attorney-General’s Department, not that of the Solicitor-General.

It seems clear, for the substantial reasons that I have given, that the non-departmental members of the board are in a position of second-class citizenship. They are subject to control by the chairman of the board and by the Department of Trade, and they are open to public intimidation by the method adopted by the Minister on 13th March and by the press by the publication of articles such as the one that appeared in the Melbourne “Herald” on 14th March.

This is the actual situation that has grown up inside the Tariff Board, and it must be examined in relation to the fairly high-sounding principles enunciated by the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) when he was speaking of Canberra dictatorship, and by the honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Bland). Let us test the statements of those who, like the Prime Minister, have spoken of the danger of the Canberra dictatorship, and who, like the honorable member for Warringah, say that it is imperative that the complete independence of the Tariff Board should be maintained. Has the complete independence of this particular member of the Tariff Board to whom I have referred been maintained during the last two years? Let us test the statements of those who, like the honorable member for Mackellar (Mr. Wentworth) - who is not here at the present time - have said that they stand for freedom and against even the most minor forms of dictatorship.

Let us test those who, like the honorable member for Balaclava (Mr. Joske), are authorities on the democratic conduct of meetings. Let us ask him, in particular, whether he thinks it is in accordance with the proper procedure of meetings that the chairman, as provided in clause 6b of this bill, is to have power to determine the form of reference of the meeting and the procedures to be followed at such meetings. Would he regard it as proper for the chairman and not for members of a board, committee or meeting to have this power? I have looked through his text-book on this matter, and there is no mention of these things. The proper procedure is for the board, and not the chairman to have these powers, or for the procedures to be laid down in the legislation or in regulations made under it.

It would be no difficult job of draftsmanship to lay down the provisions under which the Tariff Board could properly conduct its meetings. It would be simple enough to say that a legally constituted meeting of the board is one at which a quorum is present, pursuant to notice in writing to all members concerned, and which has been called at the time and place. In the past, meetings have been called in the absence of a member or members who, it might be intended!, should miss the meeting. It would be easy to say that minutes of meetings shall be kept in a form which shows the time, date and place of meeting and an adequate record of all resolutions and any reservations or dissent by any member or members. It would be easy to prescribe that the minutes of the meetings shall become a formal record of the board on acceptance of resolutions by the board to that effect, and that the secretary shall be responsible for the custody of the minutes and shall make them available within 24 hours in response to a request in writing by any member of the board. It would be easy to lay down in regulations, or in the legislation, rules for proceedings which would ensure that improper practices shall not occur inside and around the Tariff Board as, I submit, they have occurred over the past several years.

The position that arises in relation to a bill of this sort allows us to test the principles and propositions put forward by those who expound these principles of liberalism in this particular field. When we see the practices that have actually happened in the Tariff Board, only a few of which I have been able to enumerate in the time available to me, and when we apply the principles of honorable members opposite to those practices, we must contest those who hold those principles. Honorable members on the Government side have said nothing about the situation that is being formalized in this legislation. The powers of the chairman of the board are being expressly backed by law. He is to be given powers to control and direct the operations of the Tariff Board which have never before existed in the history of the board. According to the honorable member for Melbourne Ports, he has been unable to find such powers conferred on the chairmanship of any other board or commission set up by this Government. We have a first-class problem to solve here. It seems to me that this legislation was projected not just recently but when the board was operating under a different control and is designed to meet the requirements of certain persons which are not in the interests of the successful or proper operation of the board.

Mr LESLIE:
Moore

.- In his opening remarks, the honorable member for Yarra (Mr. Cairns) said he did not propose to go into the matters that had been raised by the honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Howson). The honorable member for Fawkner related his remarks to some very vital principles in the application of tariff protection. I suggest with all respect to the honorable member for Yarra that, as a doctor of economics, he might well have engaged in a discussion of those matters with some advantage to the House instead of devoting his time, as he appears to have done, to championing the cause of one individual in the Tariff Board set-up. I should have thought that he would have taken every opportunity to deal with that matter.

The honorable member concluded by saying, in effect, that evidently this legislation had been designed to meet a circumstance that had been created by one individual. My only comment is that that individual must be pretty powerful if he can move the Government to submit special legislation to the national Parliament to meet a circumstance that he has, or imagines he has, created. I can hardly conceive of such a position arising. I find it hard to believe the claim made by the honorable member for Yarra that this measure has been introduced into the Parliament in order that an injustice against one individual may be continued. I am quite satisfied that the Minister for Trade (Mr. McEwen) in his reply will present another side of the case to the House if he believes that a reply to such a claim is merited.

I appreciate the statements that have been made by the honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Crean) concerning the position of chairman. In my opinion it is possible to give the head of an organization too much power. But where are we going to limit the powers of the chairman in this case and where are we going to extend them? The honorable member for

Yarra has suggested that it would be easy to set out in the bill the powers that the chairman of the Tariff Board should have. I remind the honorable member that there is a danger in prescribing in too great detail powers to be conferred on any person or authority in that instead of conferring such powers, in fact, we might limit them. The wiser and more generally applied practice is to prescribe powers in general on the basis of certain principles.

Whilst I have an understanding of the approach of the honorable member for Yarra and the honorable member for Melbourne Ports to this question, I do not believe that there is any particular danger in the powers which are to be reposed in the chairman under this measure. Somebody must have the responsibility for calling a meeting; otherwise, any member of the Tariff Board might get a bee in his bonnet and decide that he wants a meeting any old day of the week. He might then say to the secertary, “ Call a jolly old meeting “. The point is that some office holder must have responsibility. A member of the Tariff Board should do what I would do if I were a member of a board or committee, and that is to go to the appropriate person and submit a request for a meeting to be called. If there was substance in the request and it was not granted, I would take the opportunity to express my disagreement or concern. Surely, the honorable member for Yarra does not want to perpetuate the sort of thing that is happening at present. Perhaps it is not limited to this country only. The tendency is for everybody to say that “ they “ should or should not do certain things, without saying who “ they “ are. The responsibility has to be somebody’s, not merely “ theirs “. One cannot criticize the fact that the powers proposed to be given to the chairman of the Tariff Board under this bill are too wide. I do not like powers to be extended widely; we have to be reasonable. The bill provides that the powers of the chairman shall be exercised, as far as practicable, only after consultation with the members. He is to be placed in a position of leader, with the responsibility of discussing the position with his members and taking action in accordance with decisions reached after discussion. It will be his responsibility to initiate action, as well as to carry out suggestions made by others.

Mr Hamilton:

– The Australian Labour party has not a leader, and it does not want any one else to have a leader.

Mr LESLIE:

– There may be something in what the honorable member for Canning says. My main purpose in rising is to urge that Tariff Board inquiries be held where it is most convenient for the people most affected by the decision to attend. I think that there will be no disagreement with my statement that no other State is affected more by the application of protective tariffs than is Western Australia, because of its economic circumstances. It is a primaryproducing State and a consumer State for the goods which are protected by tariffs.

Mr Curtin:

– This is parish pump stuff.

Mr LESLIE:

– It may be parish pump stuff to the honorable member for KingsfordSmith, whose vision does not extend beyond the tiny little parish of his own electorate, and who does not realize that there is such a thing as an Australian continent. What I might say would bc of educational value to him if, of course, it were possible to educate him. I repeat that no State suffers a greater impact from the imposition of protective tariffs than does Western Australia, as a consumer State.

Mr Bryant:

– Victoria keeps you.

Mr LESLIE:

– Let me inform the honorable member for Wills that last year Western Australia imported from the eastern States £90,000,000 worth of goods and as the honorable member for Canning (Mr. Hamilton) reminds me, £53,000,000 worth came from Victoria. They were all goods which were protected by tariffs. I am satisfied that a comparison of the price at which goods of a similar quality were available to us overseas on the open market where we sell our products would show that we would have saved a very considerable sum by purchasing overseas.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– Victoria paid for the Narrows bridge.

Mr LESLIE:

– I know that you, Mr. Acting Deputy Speaker, will not allow me to mention the Narrows bridge at the present time, but the Victorians will look mighty small when I argue that point with them at the appropriate time. Protective tariffs permit the local manufacturer to exploit the market to the fullest extent, because he is able to obtain a high price for his goods and pay the high wages demanded of him. These tariffs do add substantially to the costs of production in secondary as well as primary industry, but unfortunately the capital goods used in primary industry are the ones mainly affected by our protective tariff system. Incidentally, protective tariffs are not reflected only in the increased cost of capital goods. Their impact is felt through a wide range. Wages are based on the cost of living. The worker has to buy goods at Australian values on a protected market although they are obtainable from overseas at lower prices. Wages are therefore affected by tariff provisions, and the higher they go the higher costs go too. The effect of protective tariffs is constantly multiplied.

Mr Peters:

– Are you a free trader?

Mr LESLIE:

– My main purpose is to obtain recognition for the peculiar position of Western Australia in this country’s economy. We are contributors to a tremendous extent to the national economy per medium of our huge export trade. We are more seriously affected by protective tariffs than are other States and we are entitled to have our circumstances considered. Surely the honorable member for Scullin (Mr. Peters) also is not among the one-eyed people of the eastern States who cannot see the value of Western Australia.

Mr Peters:

– I was trying to find out what you are. Are you a free trader?

Mr LESLIE:

– That reminds me of the old question, “ Have you stopped beating your wife? “ To the honorable member’s question I answer, “ Yes and no “. Quite a lot of history surrounds the question of free trade and protection. Let me continue with the point I was making. Because we in Western Australia are consumers - to a tremendous extent under compulsion - of goods produced under protective tariffs on this side of the continent, we are more concerned with protective duties than are people in any other part of the Commonwealth. For that reason, I consider that Tariff Board inquiries should be held in Western Australia to a greater extent. Furthermore, they should be publicized much more widely. It should be remem bered that the attendance at a Tariff Board inquiry of a Western Australian involves an expenditure of up to £300, whereas a person in Sydney or Melbourne can attend for the price ot a tram fare. We in that faroff State are involved in very substantial costs in presenting our case for fair treatment and reasonable consideration. Because most Tariff Board inquiries are held on this side of the continent, evidence from a consumer’s point of view is very infrequently submitted to the Tariff Board by persons engaged in industry in Western Australia. Tremendous costs are involved in presenting a case. Any interest wanting to present a case would not send only one man to the eastern States to do the job for it. It would send two or three men, and the cost to it would be about £1,000 every time its representatives had to attend a meeting of the Tariff Board on the eastern side of the continent. I appeal to the Minister to suggest, if he cannot direct, that the Tariff Board should travel to the western side of the continent for meetings in order to enable people there to present their cases when an inquiry is held into the likely effect of a proposed, or requested, protective tariff on any goods. Incidentally, there are no goods that are not affected by the tariff.

Undoubtedly, manufacturers take advantage of tariff protection. It is the responsibility of the Tariff Board to encourage our export industries, both secondary and primary. The primary producers are continually being urged to be more efficient in their production. Primary producers have worked hard to find, and have themselves borne the cost of finding, ways and means of making two blades of grass where none, or only one, grew before. Today the primary producing industries are burdened by crippling costs for goods and services - costs over which primary producers have no control - yet they are compelled to dispose of their products on unprotected markets. Certainly the primary producers apparently receive the benefit of subsidies, as some honorable members might suggest. Subsidies, of course, are a means of protection to the primary producers against the effect of protective tariffs, but in the long run a subsidy on a primary product is not a subsidy to the producer. It is a subsidy to the consumer. In the end the producer gains nothing from the subsidy.

A subsidy enables the consumer to get primary products more cheaply on the home market. It does not help the producer in the overseas market, because in the overseas market he has to take what price he can get, whereas for his requirements on the home market he has to pay the price that is demanded of him.

The problem of expanding our markets abroad for both primary and secondary goods is closely related to the problem of costs. We can gain export markets only if we send our goods overseas at prices competitive with the prices of similar goods from other countries. If the production costs of primary producers are constantly affected by increasing charges arising from protective tariffs, which have a basic effect on costs, then obviously we cannot compete with goods from other countries in overseas markets. I am concerned with that fact, not only from the point of view of the primary producer, but also from the secondary industry aspect. It is a thing which must concern secondary industry. It is of no use for the secondary industries to dismiss the question of costs, including the cost of wages and the cost of raw materials, by saying that costs are too high and that “ they “ - possibly the same nebulous “ they “ as the honorable member for Yarra (Mr. Cairns) had in mind - should do something about reducing them.

Of course, costs will not be reduced unless the basis upon which they rest is dealt with. The man engaged in secondary industry may seek protection for his particular commodity on the home market, perhaps with a view also to entering the export market; but he must realize that the producers of the raw material he is using in his industry probably have been given tariff protection, which means that the standard of living of the people engaged in the production of that raw material has risen. I have no objection to that, but it means that the man engaged in the secondary industry has to buy his raw materials on a non-competitive market, thus adding to his production costs. We have not a hope of capturing overseas markets until we realize that we cannot have an economy based only on our own circumstances, having no reference to circumstances outside. It is no good saying that we are going to develop tremendously, give ourselves a high standard of living, pay high wages, raise interest charges and pay high prices for the capital requirements of our manufacturing industries with a view to obtaining an export market, when we know jolly well that we cannot possibly sell on these export markets at competitive prices. If our goods are sold overseas at less than the cost of production there is no economic gain for the country.

I suggest that the whole principle of the imposition of tariffs needs to be overhauled in view of the fact that, as we have heard from the Government and from the leaders of industry, we are steadily increasing our secondary industry production. We must look at the effect of the tariff on our ability to compete in the world’s markets. Competition in all the world’s markets is very strong, and we have to face that fact and do something about it. It is the Tariff Board’s job to investigate that position, and the board should recognize its responsibility in that direction.

I come back now to the point that I set out to make in the first place. I appeal to the Minister to ensure that the Tariff Board holds inquiries more frequently in Western Australia, because that State is more vitally affected than any other part of the Commonwealth by the imposition of tariffs. The holding of tariff inquiries in Western Australia would give the board a new understanding of many matters. Meetings held in Western Australia would need to be fully publicized, because they would represent a great change of policy. The people of Western Australia should be kept well informed of the fact that, at long last, their needs had been recognized and that an arrangement had been made to ascertain their point of view as far as possible.

Mr POLLARD:
Lalor

.- The honorable member for Moore (Mr. Leslie) is always interesting, but I have never been convinced that the honorable gentleman is logical. The honorable gentleman, I think for the second time within a fortnight, has stressed the disabilities suffered by Western Australia under the protective tariff system of the Commonwealth. He nods his head in assent. But the honorable gentleman does not tell us, as I told the House a fortnight ago, that if the protective tariff in this country were abolished no Western Australian farmer would be able to purchase anywhere in the world an agricultural implement at one penny less than he has to pay for it now. Industries in Western Australia would not be able to purchase plant made in the eastern States of Australia for one penny cheaper than they do now.

Mr Leslie:

– I deny that.

Mr POLLARD:

– The honorable gentleman denies it. He is completely oblivious to the fact that, immediately the tariff wall disappeared, combinations of overseas manufacturers would exploit the farmers to the maximum.

Mr Leslie:

– That is your big bogy. It is all imagination.

Mr POLLARD:

– The honorable member says it is my big bogy. I give him now, as I gave the House some time ago, a practical illustration of what the protective tariff does for farmers. Until 1921 there was no tariff on reapers and binders. No matter to which of the importing firms in Australia a farmer went, he had to pay £105 for a reaper and binder. But after tariff protection applied to the reaper and binder the firm of H. V. McKay, at Sunshine in my electorate, was able to put an Australian-made reaper and binder on the market at £95. That illustrates very clearly, Mr. Acting Deputy Speaker, that, in the absence of an Australian-made product, the overseas manufacturer, and the gentleman who imports the product from overseas, exploit the Australian primary producer. It proves conclusively that the advent of the tariff caused the Australian primary producer, and the Australian people generally, no real disability. If the honorable member for Moore wants any more illustrations of the efficacy of a tariff wall, I suggest to him that he need look only at the situation that obtains to-day. The Australian primary producer cannot buy any of the implements that he needs more cheaply anywhere else in the world than he can buy the implements produced by the factories in eastern Australia.

Mr Brand:

– That is true.

Mr POLLARD:

– The honorable member for Wide Bay, who is sitting beside the honorable member for Moore, says that I am correct.

Mr Brand:

– The honorable member is perfectly correct.

Mr POLLARD:

– A split completely through the middle of the Australian Country party becomes apparent immediately. 1 am not surprised at it, because the Australian Country party, traditionally, has been completely free-trade in its outlook. It is only since it fastened onto the Liberal party of Australia, and became the rump of that party, and since ministerial portfolios became available to members of the Australian Country party like the Minister for Trade (Mr. McEwen), that members of the Australian Country party have thrown their free-trade principles overboard and accepted some measure of protection. As a consequence, we find that the Trade portfolio is held by a member of the Australian Country party. There are other members of that party also in the Ministry. Have members of the Australian Country party thrown overboard their free-trade principles for the plums of office, or do they recognize that protection is essential to the preservation of Australian industries, and, therefore, to the welfare of the people of Australia?

Does the honorable member for Moore not know that if it had not been for the establishment of secondary industries in this country, mainly as a result of the efforts of the Australian Labour party, which fought for protection for secondary industries, it would have been practically impossible for Australian farmers to buy agricultural implements anywhere in the world during World War II.? Does the honorable member not know that a Victorian factory not only supplied the Western Australian farmers with implements during the last war but also exported agricultural machinery to Great Britain? Throughout Great Britain one can now see Massey Harris binders and seed drills in regular use. Prior to the outbreak of World War I., an Australian factory was supplying harvesters to the Argentine in competition with the makers of agricultural implements from all over the world.

I do not deny that, under the protection of the tariff, some Australian manufacturers rob the farmers and other sections of the community, but at least it can be said that there is, in this Parliament, a residue of power that permits the levying of taxes that bring into Commonwealth revenue some of the excess profits reaped by those manufacturers from the sale of their products. In addition, the tariff makes it possible for the Australian people to enjoy employment in many fields. Would the honorable member for Moore rather see his sons and daughters growing up to be cow cockies, and his daughters, particularly, working in the cowyard, when nature had perhaps endowed them with qualities that would make them admirable doctors, scientists, lawyers, or workers in other fields? The whole idea is absurd. The honorable member harks back to an era in which it was believed that all should be hewers of wood and drawers of water. We of the Australian Labour party believe that all should be producers and that justice should be done to all sections of the community.

The honorable member for Moore held forth about the high cost of everything to the primary producers. He said that everything the primary producers have to buy is too dear. What he did not say was that the cost of production of Australia’s primary products is so high that the producers find it very difficult to compete in the markets of the world. Why? Everybody who knows the history of this country since the outbreak of war in 1939 knows that, in 1943, the government of the day imposed on the country, under war-time powers, a scheme of economic planning. One may use the term “ imposed “ or any other term that one likes, although the word “ applied “ is probably better. This economic planning provided for control over prices, wages, capital issues and interest - and, after all, the burden of the Australian farmer is very largely an interest burden. The net result was that, in 1949, when the Labour Government was defeated and the present Government took office, led by a Prime Minister whom members of the Australian Country party spend half their time embracing in order to obtain the plums of office, the cost of production of butter was 2s. 2d. per lb.

Mr Leslie:

– But one could not get butter. One could not get much of anything.

Mr POLLARD:

– The honorable gentleman has had his say, and he will not talk me down. After allowing for all the expenses of the farmer, including wages for himself and his family, and for hired labour, all his interest outgoings, rates, and the like, in 1949, it cost 7s. Id. a bushel to produce wheat. At the present time, the cost of production of butter is 5s. Id. per lb., and the cost of production of wheat is 13s. 8d. a bushel. The people whom members of the Australian Country party are supposed to represent, but whom they represent so badly, find themselves in an unenviable position - not because of the tariff, but because of the greediness of many of their fellows who have not played the game, and because of the absence of any control over them since the present Government took office. Although the cost of production of butter is 5s. Id. per lb., Australian butter is selling on the English market at 2s. 2-id. per lb. It is only by the good fortune that the international wheat market is subjected to some measure of control based on international understanding that, under the present condition of over-supply, wheat is not selling in the overseas markets as 7s. or 8s. a bushel, at a time when it costs 13s. 8d. a bushel to produce here.

Where do members of the Australian Country party look for assistance when they get into these difficulties? They go to this Government and suggest a way out of their troubles. The honorable member for Moore says that the problems of the farmers are due to the tariff. He must be as innocent as a babe! Nowhere in the world - not even in the United States of America - can agricultural implements be bought more cheaply than the implements produced in Australian factories can be bought here.

In the course of telling a few home truths to the honorable member for Moore, I have departed somewhat from the subject-matter of this bill. May I say, Mr. Acting Deputy Speaker, that I think it is rather wonderful that, since 1921, the Tariff Board has functioned so efficiently that the board’s reports and recommendations, and the tariff schedules that, as a rule, automatically follow them for consideration in this Parliament, no longer need lengthy debate. That is a tribute to those men who have been members of the board during that lengthy period. We have been fortunate in the appointments that have been made to the board, and particularly in some of the chairmen. It is invidious to mention names, but I know that Mr. Kelly, who is no longer a member of the board, did extraordinarily good work. Mr. McCarthy, a retired chairman, has done very good work and is one of the most distinguished men in the community.

It is true that, to the extent that authorities become efficient and effective and to the extent that the Parliament is reluctant to trouble about the recommendations of these authorities, so there grows amongst the personnel of the authorities an idea that they no longer need worry about the Parliament and that they can do things that perhaps they should not do. It would appear to me that this bill is the outcome of some unfortunate quarrel amongst members of the Tariff Board. It highlights the need to amend the Tariff Board Act. However, it appears to me on reading the bill that the Government has taken an almost unprecedented step. Instead of tightening up the provisions of the act to prevent any troubles occurring in the future and to give greater protection to the people, the Government has apparently decided to vest additional powers in the chairman, deputy chairman or acting chairman, whoever he may be from time to time.

I suggest that that approach is wrong. The honorable member for Yarra (Mr. Cairns) and the honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Crean) have pointed out some of the dangers of that approach. The bill provides for the appointment of a deputy chairman. It provides that, if the chairman or the deputy chairman is not available, a member of the board may be appointed to act as chairman. In all cases, the chairman, the deputy chairman or the acting chairman shall determine where the board shall meet. He shall determine entirely the nature of the records that shall be kept. The members of the board apparently have no say in the arranging of the business; they are required apparently to deal only with particular matters that are referred to them by the Government foi investigation and report.

I have been a member of many select committees and other committees of this Parliament and another parliament from time to time. I have never known of a board or a committee of any kind that did not arrange its own business, provided that it did so within the powers vested in it. The chairman accepted the decisions of his board. However, clause 6 of the bill gives the chairman power to convene the meetings of the board at the times and places that he deems most convenient for the conduct of the business of the board. It is quite true that at some time the chairman of any authority must convene the meeting of that authoriy, but it likewise follows that at that meeting the usual practice is for the members of the authority - they are not ninnies - to have some say and some authority over the chairman as to the place of the next meeting. In this case, the chairman has the last word. More peculiar and more startling is the provision that the chairman has the power to determine the form of the records to be kept in accordance with the act. I cannot find any provision as to the form in which the records shall be kept. Clause 7 of the bill also provides that the board may meet in any part of the Commonwealth. That would meet the objection of the honorable member for Moore (Mr. Leslie). This clause also provides that the board shall keep records of its meetings. However, there is no provision as to the nature of the record or as to what the record shall contain.

I cannot find any provision in the bill or in the principal act for a copy of the minutes of the meetings to be furnished within a certain period of time to the Minister who, nominally at least, has control of the board on behalf of the people of this country. My observations over many years have shown to me that the boards and authorities most likely to run off the rails, to abuse their powers, to do something with which the Government would not willingly agree or to do something that is not in the public interest, are the boards and authorities whose minutes are never furnished. It is important that the Minister should be furnished with copies of the minutes. Therein lies a great protection to the people. If the Minister finds in the minutes of the Australian Wheat Board, the Tariff Board, the Australian Egg Board or any other board a record that at a certain time some commitment to the detriment of the public interest was made by the board, the Minister, as the elected representative, should confer with the board to ascertain whether it has acted correctly or whether some amending action should be taken. That is an essential protection and should be incorporated in any bill presented by any government. The Minister may be able to say that acts passed by previous governments did not contain such a provision. That may be true, but it does not alter the fact that the provision is very desirable. I do not want to enlarge on the various matters that have been discovered because some instrumentalities have been required to furnish copies of their minutes. The power vested in an individual member of the Tariff Board, if the chairman and the deputy chairman are absent, is equivalent to the power vested in the chairman. I do not think that that is a good step for this Government to take.

I approach these matters in a non-party manner; I think this is a matter for a nonparty debate. In doing so, I direct the attention of the House to the fact that neither the principal act nor this bill contains a provision that, if minority views are held by members of a board and if those members so desire, the minority findings should be reported and be part and parcel of the board’s report. I admit that perhaps on a matter such as tariffs, the submission of minority reports may not be desirable, but I suggest with very great respect that such a provision would provide a protection and would provide important information to the Government. A case could perhaps be sustained for having only the majority report printed and published. I doubt it, but on the other hand the Minister surely should have a report from those who were in the minority, if they desired to furnish it. Interesting information would be available and would provide a guide to the Minister. In my opinion, such a provision should be contained in the bill.

I do not want to say anything more at this stage. In the committee stage, individual questions will be debated - they are quite non-party - and I may have something further to say then.

Mr PETERS:
Scullin

.- This bill is a bill to amend the Tariff Board Act 1921-1953, and for other purposes. It is allegedly designed to expedite Tariff Board hearings. I think it could be said that, under proposed new section 16, some action might be taken by the Minister after inquiry by a board to protect Australian industries against dumping and illicit trade operations by other countries. The two most important things against which trade in this country must be protected are panic import restrictions and dumping by overseas manufacturers. I agree that every possible action should be taken to expedite the operations of the Tariff Board. The Opposition recommended five or more years ago that action be taken to create machinery to expedite the operations of the board. Before the House is a bill allegedly designed to do something along those lines. I have not considered the technical details of the method whereby the Government seeks to bring this about.

However, I desire to deal with the question of import restrictions and the omission from this bill of any method to regularize the importation of goods from overseas so that the chaotic condition that exists when our overseas funds commence to decline shall no longer continue. Uneasiness is caused among the importing section of the community, because it no longer knows how much it is able to import and under what circumstances it can import. Uneasiness is caused among retailers who desire to place orders for goods- They do not know whether they can buy goods at a particular time from Japan, or whether they must obtain them from Australian manufacturers. This causes dislocation and uneasiness in retail and manufacturing industries in this country, resulting in unemployment. Unemployment increased in 1952 when savage import restrictions were introduced in order to protect our overseas funds. Dislocations again occurred in 1955-56, also as a result of import restrictions. The Government did not acquaint industry generally with the time limit that was to operate with respect to those restrictions. It operated them until such time as it felt that funds overseas were again in a satisfactory condition. Such a state of affairs may be satisfactory to the Government but it certainly is not satisfactory to Australian industries; it does not promote security or confidence in the manufacturing, importing or retailing industries in this country. The Government should do something to obviate the necessity for continually imposing unscientific import restrictions.

The honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Howson) lightly mentioned the operation of the percentage system in the United

States of America. That system is a much more scientific method than the one that is applied in this country. In the textile industry in the United States of America, if imports rise above 5 per cent., embargoes operate automatically - not at the dictate of a Minister or some departmental head. That system is much more desirable than the one that operates in Australia. For that reason, I say that the bill is not at all satisfactory. It should incorporate a method of dealing with import restrictions. The part that appears to me to deal with dumping is not satisfactory. Throughout the world to-day there is a resurgence of industrialism. Japan wants to put her goods on every market in the world. Great Britain and the United States of America want to sell their goods, and so do Germany, Italy, and many other countries. But in various countries of the world they find these tariff barriers operating. So, businessmen have decided that they will overcome the effects of these tariff barriers. In Britain, for example, the Board of Trade used to allocate, in connexion with certain industries, an amount that was to be sold by the retailers in Britain, and it used to fix a price, and that price used to be sufficient. The Board of Trade used to fix a price for the goods to be sold in Britain, and it used to insist that every seller should dispose of a quota of the goods issued to him on overseas markets. It fixed a price in Britain so high that it was possible to sell goods on Australian and other markets at little, if anything, above the cost of production. That system destroys the efficacy of any tariff.

Honorable members are aware of the statement by the chairman of the Associated Chambers of Manufacturers of Australia, Mr. Anderson, in which he said that cotton goods exporters in Japan have fixed what they call a check price. The invoice to the Australian importer states a certain price for the cotton goods being received from Japan, but if the amount is paid, a rebate is allowed which reduces the price. This method has been devised in order to defeat the purpose of Australia’s tariff. That is only one example of the devious methods employed by big manufacturers the world over in order to surmount tariff walls.

Of course, any country has a right to object to dumping and, if it proves that dumping is taking place, it is entitled to see that adequate protection is given against such a practice. But in reality who is to be the initiator of such action? Who is to prove that dumping takes place? For instance, in my electorate a gentleman was manufacturing ballasts, which are electrical instruments, or equipment, used in connexion with fluorescent lighting. He used to sell these ballasts on the Australian market at about 18s. 6d. But a similar article, manufactured overseas, appeared on the Australian market, selling at lis. 6d. While this article was being sold in Australia at lis. 6d., it was selling in the country of origin at more than the price being asked by the Australian manufacturer. This gentleman alleged that this was obviously a case of dumping. He said that the overseas manufacturer of the ballasts was getting his profit from goods sold in the country of manufacture in order to be able to sell those goods on the Australian market at less than the cost of production and so destroy the only two firms making these particular articles in this country.

After they were destroyed, of course, the price of the imported article in Australia would rise. What should the Australian manufacturer do in order to stop dumping of that kind? I raised this matter in the House on a previous occasion. I pointed out to the Minister that this man was a small manufacturer, seeking to promote an industry in this country and that it should be the object and the duty of the Minister for Trade and of the Department of Trade to protect such an industry. But, unfortunately, as the honorable member for Moore (Mr. Leslie) has indicated, there are people in this House who believe in free trade. The honorable member for Macarthur (Mr. Jeff Bate) said, in effect, “ Of course, we on this side of the House are a free-trade party “.

Recently I was overseas and I saw an example of the operation of this Government’s policy in the interests of free trade. I was present at the United Nations organization as a member of the Social and Economic Committee. A proposition came before that committee, moved by the Japanese representative, that an organization for world trade co-operation should be brought into existence. It sounded a harmless kind of organization, but the Japanese representative made it clear that its objective was to establish more and more free trade. Supporters of the proposal wanted to whittle down the barriers of trade in the interests of countries, such as Japan, which have a lower standard of living than Australia has, and also in the interests of highly mechanized and efficient business organizations such as operate in America and Europe. That proposition, moved by Japan, was supported by Australia.

Fortunately, there were people like the representative of Brazil who pointed out that he came from a nation which was changing from a purely primary-producing economy to an industrial economy. He wanted the right to protect Brazil’s infant industries so that they could expand, create more employment and so provide a higher standard of living. As a result of that opposition from Brazil and a large number of countries similarly situated, the proposition was defeated. But it was not defeated because of any opposition from Australia. This Government talks with its tongue in its cheek about protecting Australian industries. In reality, it puts into operation ideas such as those expressed by the honorable members for Moore and Macarthur.

Mr Turnbull:

– The friends of big business.

Mr PETERS:

– The honorable member implies that members of the Opposition are the friends of big business. That is the sort of statement which he and his colleagues always make. If one stands for protection of trade, he is labelled a friend of big business. Members of the Australian Labour party are not the friends of big business. We stand for the protection of the consumer and of the worker. We say that a just price should be given to the producer and the vendor of goods; and if a Labour government was in office we would see that such prices prevailed. But honorable members opposite, in reality, are the friends of the big financial corporations of this country and are out to promote the interests of big importing agencies which will destroy the small industry on the one hand and promote the big industry on the other.

Mr Bury:

– Rubbish!

Mr PETERS:

– My friend says, “ Rubbish “. One has only to look at honorable members on the Government side who refer to me as a stooge of communism, to realize that they are the jumping-jacks of the predatory capitalists in this country, that is, those among them who, themselves, are not predatory capitalists.

Mr THOMPSON:
Port Adelaide

– This bill illustrates once again how this Government appreciates Labour’s policy. Members of the Australian Country party to-night have spoken about free trade, but members of the Opposition still hold the view, which they have always held very strongly, that our trade must be protected. I think that Government members agree that if the prosperity of Australia is to continue for both producer and consumer, our industries must be protected. There is no question about that.

In the second-reading speech of the Minister for Trade (Mr. McEwen) I was pleased to note the implication, even if he did not say so directly, that the purpose of the bill in appointing another member to the Tariff Board and providing for the control of the work of the board, was to expedite the hearing of matters referred to that body. I am convinced that in the coming years we shall have to give a lot more consideration to the protection of our industries than we have given in the past.

The Australian Labour party has always advocated adequate protection. As I listened to speeches that have been made in this debate in respect of tariff protection, my mind went back thirty years. In 1927, the Labour party had such leaders as Mr. Theodore and Mr. Scullin. A booklet was issued for the benefit of Labour speakers containing information about the Labour party and its policy and a considerable portion of it was devoted to the subject of trade protection. It dealt also with what in those days we termed “ new protection “. I recall reading about the importation of harvesters into Australia at that time. The American harvester company was sending its machines here, and other makes were coming in also. This booklet contained figures showing the cost at which free-trade, primary-producing countries, such as Brazil, Argentina and other South American countries, were importing harvesters. We had had very little duty to pay on American harvesters imported into Australia previously but after a duty was imposed we found that they were being sold in Australia several pounds cheaper than in the free-trade countries of South America.

What was the reason for that difference in price? I was simply that under Australia’s new protection policy, the H. V. McKay harvester company was established in this country and was able to sell its harvesters much cheaper than similar machines were being sold in the duty-free countries of South America. I learned then of the great necessity, not only the advantage, of proper protection if we wanted Australian industries to go ahead.

The honorable member for Scullin (Mr. Peters) referred to a local manufacture which sold for about 18s. 6d. in Australia although a similar imported article was sold for about lis. 6d., which was less than the Australian cost of manufacture. That brought to my memory the conditions in the early 1930’s in South Australia when very small manufacturing industries were struggling. The Government of South Australia, like all other governments, usually accepted the lowest tender for an article that it required, providing that the article offered was suitable. An engineering firm in Adelaide put in a tender for a small iron component for, I think, the railways. A Melbourne firm put in a tender which was considerably lower than that of the Adelaide firm. We had the whole of the facts from the Minister concerned at the time. The reason that the Melbourne firm was able to make a lower tender was that its factory was working full time so that, if it took on this extra work, it would have lower overhead expenses than the Adelaide firm. Ultimately, the decision of the Minister was to keep the contract within South Australia in order to provide employment in that State. This example illustrates the manner in which huge undertakings can export their products for sale in another country even at a price lower than that at which they are sold in the country of origin.

If we are to protect our industries effectively it will be necessary to enable the Tariff Board to carry out more inquiries. The Government must make up its mind what its policy is to be. As I have already stated, when the Government came into office in 1951 it relaxed import restrictions which are the alternative to prohibitive duties on goods coming into this country. I know of a firm in my electorate which had started a small industry before this Government came to office. At the request of that firm I asked the then Prime Minister, Mr. Chifley, whether this industry would be able to continue when big imports were available from overseas. It was an industry that was making good quality butchers’ knives, pruning saws and similar manufactures. Mr. Chifley told me that the firm could go ahead quite safely and put in extra plant and build extra factory accommodation. He said that it would be adequately but fairly protected.

He did not tell the industry that it could do as it liked and that the Government would stop all competition but that the Government would give it proper protection. Consequently, those people went on with their development. When this Government came into office and lifted import restrictions, because the tariff was not great enough to protect this industry, its representative came to me and said that it was almost impossible to sell the local products. With the lifting of import restrictions, big imports of English and German tools of trade were coming into the country. People were going into the hardware shops and asking for brands of tools that they had known years before and the business of the local industry was going down.

I think it was in 1952 or 1953 that the Government again imposed import restrictions. Australia was then charged with repudiating overseas contracts. But when import licensing was reintroduced the trade of the firm of which I have spoken came back and it built up its business again. That, to my way of thinking, makes it very clear that if we want to encourage our industries in Australia we have to protect them in one of two ways. Either we have to give adequate protection by import licensing or we have to give adequate protection by way of tariff. Even after listening to the euologies of the Tariff Board by the honorable member for Lalor (Mr. Pollard) I wonder whether, after the passing of this bill, the board will be able to deal with our diverse industries.

Recently, in this House, I asked what was being done to protect an industry related to primary production in this country, namely, flour-milling. The flour-millers used to be able to keep their mills going for 24 hours a day. They used to be able to supply primary producers with bran and pollard which were particularly necessary for the dairying industry and the poultry industry. What has happened in. recent years? Many mills have had to reduce their production and, in South Australia, some have ceased operation. Since I mentioned this matter in a question I have received a further letter from the secretary of the milling trade organization in South Australia - a man who has done more for the flour-mill workers than anybody else in this country. That man has written to me again, asking whether the Government cannot do something to protect the flourmilling industry.

Honorable members may ask, “ What has that to do with tariffs? “ It has this much to do with tariffs: The Minister for Trade has protested against the action of countries which have subsidized the sale of flour in order that their industries may take away our markets. But what effective action has been taken in this respect? We have been prepared to assist other industries in this country. The Tariff Board has inquired into other industries and has said that they must have assistance by way of tariff protection or something of that kind. Tariff protection cannot assist our flourmilling industry. It could not keep our flour mills going. But there is another way that this can be done. The secretary who wrote to me said that he did not like subsidies but he asked whether, in view of the fact that other countries were subsidizing their flour exports and in view of the fact that many of our flour mills have closed down, the Government is doing all that it should for trade and industry in this country. I make another appeal to-night, and I hope the relevant Minister will take heed of it. While we are talking about tariffs and the appointment of a Tariff Board to inquire into the assistance required by manufacturing industries, let us also try to devise some means of assisting an important primary industry, the flour milling industry. The position with regard to New South Wales mills would no doubt be vastly different if those mills were able to obtain wheat at the old parity price. We know that New South Wales was for many years a major contributor of flour for export.

Western Australia was another large contributor. But for some time now the New South Wales mills have not been able to obtain enough wheat to make flour for export. I do not know what the position would be if the mills wanted to continue making flour for export under the conditions that prevail at present.

However, it is not New South Wales that is being affected most adversely at the present time, but a couple of the smaller States, South Australia and Western Australia. Western Australia is receiving a bit of a boost at present by exporting flour under the Colombo Plan. Perhaps mills in other States are being assisted to a slight degree in the same way. However, let me suggest that when we are talking about tariff protection for certain industries, let us try to ensure that we provide protection for other industries that also require assistance. If we follow a policy that results in our eggs and butter being sold overseas at prices about one-half those being paid by our own people in Australia, some one has to pay the piper. If France and Germany can afford to subsidize their flour exports in order to give a boost to their flour milling industries, it is about time that we in Australia took some action to protect and assist our own industry.

Mr Hamilton:

– Then the honorable member would not oppose an increase in taxes to achieve this purpose?

Mr THOMPSON:

– We are paying so much in taxes for the assistance of other industries that I would be agreeable to helping this industry in the same way. As I have said, the piper has to be paid. I know that the money must come from somewhere. I know that we cannot pull out of thin air the money required to provide assistance for a particular industry. It has to be provided by some one. I say to the honorable member that if we provide tariff protection for woollen goods or other commodities so that they may be sold in competition with goods imported from overseas, then the people who buy those goods must pay extra because protection has been given to the particular industry. If the flour milling industry requires assistance, then it should receive consideration just as other industries have done.

I am not speaking at present on behalf of the millers themselves or the owners of the mills, although 1 know that they have a deep interest in the problem. I have been interested in the flour milling industry for most of my life. It is one of the industries in which I worked as a lad. I know the problems of the industry and I have always had an interest in it. Although my remarks may appear to have moved away from the matter of the Tariff Board, I submit that they have been closely linked with the whole question of protection and assistance to Australian industry. After all, when we talk about protection of an industry we mean assistance for it, and I hope that the responsible Minister will give consideration to the needs of the flour-milling industry.

I am not, however, concerned only with that one industry. I am concerned also with many small industries that have sprung up in my own electorate. I suppose that, on the basis of numbers of population, there has been a greater increase in small industries in South Australia than in the larger States. Wherever I go in my electorate, I see new factories. Some of them employ only about twenty persons, whilst others may employ 100. We must ensure that these industries keep working. I know that the protection that these industries receive at present is due more to import restrictions than to tariffs. It is not so much that the Government wants to help a certain industry, but rather that we have not enough overseas funds to pay for a large volume of imports. The Minister for Trade (Mr. McEwen), who is now at the table, has time and again, when replying to questions, told us that the reason why we restrict imports is that our exports do not earn sufficient money overseas to pay for unlimited quantities of imports. It occurs to me at times that if we were able to export enough primary products, whether wheat, flour, minerals or other products, to enable us to pay for all the goods that various persons want to import, our own industries would require a great deal more tariff protection than they get now.

This Government, or any government, must keep closely in touch with the position of these various industries. We have been given figures from time to time showing that there are fewer people employed in primary production than was the case ten years ago. We have also seen figures from time to time showing that our population has increased by over 1,000,000 in a certain number of years through immigration. Only this evening a radio announcement informed us that our population is now very closely approaching the 10,000,000 mark. Where are these extra people to get their living? How will they produce the goods that they require in order to live in this country? Secondary industry will provide those goods, and not just primary industry. The increase in primary production to-day has been brought about not by an increased labour force but by the introduction of labour-saving machines on the farms. I do not condemn the farmer for introducing these machines, but I say that we must face the fact that if we increase our population we must find work for these extra people.

I say to the Minister and to honorable members opposite that if we do not tackle the problem by producing goods in Australia instead of importing them, then we must tackle another problem which, although not mentioned in the measure before us, is closely associated with the questions we are now considering. I refer to the matter of the length of the working week. Some years ago, I was addressing a meeting in the country, when a man in the audience rose and asked me whether I was in favour of reducing the number of hours in the working week from 48 and whether I thought they should be reduced to 44, or to 40. I replied that if we have 100 people wanting employment, and 100 units are required to be manufactured, each person should produce one unit. I said that we should not have 50 persons producing two units each, while the other 50 produced nothing, because the first 50 would then have to provide, by way of taxes, a dole to keep the other 50 going. This is the kind of problem that we are facing to-day.

The work of the Tariff Board is of tremendous importance to the future of Australia. We must ensure that any one who is willing to work can get a job. We want to see every member of our labour force producing and being prosperous. We want to produce in Australia the goods that we require, and the only way to ensure that this is done is by giving adequate protection to the industries in which those goods are produced.

I do not desire to deal in detail with the matters that have been dealt with by other

Opposition members, including the question as to whether the chairman of the Tariff Board should be able to say where meetings shall be held. I am prepared to leave such questions to my colleagues who have had intimate association with the machinery arrangements of the Tariff Board’s activities. What I am concerned about is the welfare of this country, and I have been trying to set forth my views as to how adequate protection may be afforded to our industries. If the board as presently constituted is not able to investigate every little industry, I hope the Minister will be prepared to appoint additional members. I repeat that consideration must always be given to what is needed to enable our own industries to remain in existence.

Mr McEWEN:
Minister for Trade · Murray · CP

– in reply - I have listened with great interest to what has been said by honorable members on both sides of the House. There has been a distinct variation in the approach of honorable members to the bill. The honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Crean), who led for the Opposition, and the honorable member for Yarra (Mr. Cairns) confined themselves to a very narrow point. My friend the honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Howson) and my colleague the honorable member for Moore (Mr. Leslie) spoke constructively and with a policy approach to various problems, whereas the honorable member for Lalor (Mr. Pollard) made a speech that had nothing to do with the bill or tariff policy. He just made a broad scatter-gun attack upon members of the Australian Country party, whom he apparently fears very much.

Mr Howson:

– With good reason.

Mr McEWEN:

– With very great reason, indeed. The honorable members for Melbourne Ports and Yarra, taking the bill in its narrow sense, criticized what they claimed to be the despotic authority of the chairman of the board. Either they have failed to read the bill or, if they have read it, they have refrained from acquainting the House with the important qualifying provisions in regard to the chairman’s authority to which the honorable member for Moore and the honorable member for Wide Bay (Mr. Brand), by way of interjection, directed attention.

Proposed section 8 (2.), which has relation to the responsibilities of the chairman in the convening of meetings and the determination of the form of the record of meetings, provides -

A power of the chairman under paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of the last preceding sub-section shall be exercised, as far as practicable, only after consultation with the members.

The cold truth is that, in the organizational arrangements of the board, the chairman must exercise the functions of an executive. He has to arrange meetings and control the general apparatus of the board, its movements, and the keeping of records. He must arrange the strictly formal meetings of the board and other meetings at convenient times when strict formality is not required. That general approach to the business management of the board is historic.

I was not aware nor had I heard any one allege that that arrangement was unsatisfactory until it was challenged by Mr. Date, a member of the board. I do not deny that some of the provisions of the bill have been drafted because it has been shown that a practice which has been satisfactory for 30 years has been, or can be, challenged by a member of the board, and because there can be discovered in the old forms of the act some ambiguities as to the authority of the chairman and the intention of the act. This is not the first time that this kind of thing has occurred. The proper thing to do in regard to a board of such consequence and importance is to put the issues beyond doubt. This measure is regarded as being the reasonable way of doing so. and that is all there is to it.

A point which has been completely overlooked by the Opposition but not by the honorable member for Fawkner is that the Tariff Board is different from most other statutory boards. The great majority of boards - perhaps all other boards - exist to perform an explicit executive function. They have been constituted to sell wheat, to manage television and broadcasting, or to control the Commonwealth Bank or the development of atomic energy. They are executive boards constituted to manage a particular productive or organizational arrangement within their appropriate statutory authority. The Tariff Board is not concerned with a continuing activity in relation to a certain issue as are all those other boards; it has been constituted for the purpose of giving advice to the Government and not to make decisions. Its purpose is to advise the Government on automotive parts to-day and on peanuts to-morrow, on printed cotton textiles the next day, and on chemicals the following day. There is no continuity, no relationship between the various matters with which it concerns itself; there is only a certain common organizational approach to the policy of tariff-making.

The chairman of the Tariff Board has always been, and still is intended to be, an executive who arranges hearings, the assembly of evidence, the recording of the decisions of the board, the reports of the board on individual items and the presentation of annual reports. It is well known that that arrangement has been regarded as being quite satisfactory. There is no novelty about a chairman of a board having certain explicit executive powers that are quite separate from the powers which normally are exercised by the board itself. The Governor of the Commonwealth Bank is a classic example of a person who has explicit authority above and beyond, and to some extent separate from, the general responsibility of a board which consists of both full-time and part-time personnel. I repeat that there is no novelty about that approach.

Mr Bury:

– It is a common-sense arrangement.

Mr McEWEN:

– It is a common-sense arrangement. The best analogy I can think of is the conduct of a court in which the Chief Justice is accepted as being the person responsible for deciding which judge shall hear a case, where the judges shall travel, where the hearings shall be held, and so forth.

Mr Cairns:

– And whether or not he shall submit a minority judgment?

Mr McEWEN:

– Do not try to draw a red herring across the trail.

Mr Crean:

– He does not usurp the function of the jury, though.

Mr McEWEN:

– Of course he does not; nor does the chairman of the Tariff Board. What is perfectly clear is that the more explicit, final and inflexible your arrangements are, the more perfectly they lend themselves to the device of the regulation strike and the vexatious litigant.

The truth of the matter is that this is a commonsense approach to an everyday problem. If everybody approaches it with common sense, the apparatus will work. It has worked with magnificent success in Australia during the life of this Government. That is shown by the degree of expansion of secondary industry, its success, the employment given, the diversity of products that have been manufactured and the contribution to the national well-being made by our expanded secondary industries during the life of this Government. All of this expansion is based on the principles of protection that have been applied by the Tariff Board.

The success of the arrangement is so evident that nobody could throw any doubts on its efficacy or on the efficiency of the Tariff Board as a total group of men; but, as I mentioned in my second-reading speech, it has become increasingly evident that Australian industry is to undergo a new phase of competition and the more success we have in building up our exports, the fiercer the competition may become. In that atmosphere, the number of applications by industries to the Tariff Board for protection in the first place, or for additional protection, is increasing. Speaking from memory, I believe that last year the board dealt with eighteen cases. This year, I believe that it will be called upon to give a decision in 60 cases; and if my memory is not perfectly accurate, it is near enough to illustrate my point.

Naturally there is a move to streamline the activities of the board. The Government has given considerable thought to allowing three committees of the Tariff Board, instead of two, to sit at the one time. The general concensus of wisdom on this proposal is that the more separate tariff boards, in the form of committees, that we have operating, the greater would be the possibility of difference in approach in principle, and that it is much better and likely to be much more effective to streamline the activities of one board able to sit in two committees, and to assist the board by providing it with a very solid secretariat. That will permit the examination, in the first place, of the sort of evidence which it is essential for the Tariff Board to have before it in order to reach a conclusion. The fact that the Tariff Board itself will decide before a hearing the sort of evidence it wants is not to be interpreted as subtracting in the slightest degree from the right of all interested parties to present themselves, whether for or against an application, and to put their own point of view before the board. In a government department, the more effective the machine behind the Minister, the more he may be expected to achieve in volume and quality. The same observation applies to any big organization, and I think that example is analogous to the circumstances of the Tariff Board. The better the machine behind the Tariff Board, the better and the more quickly it will be able to do its work. That is the purpose of this bill.

As honorable members know, the proposal is to have not only a chairman of the Tariff Board but also a deputy chairman. This opens up the possibility of the board in its two committees sitting simultaneously to finality on different subjects. Under the present arrangement, the board, in its two committees, can sit simultaneously up to a point, but no finality can be reached until the chairman has been able to attach himself successively to the two committees. Undoubtedly, there will still continue to be a common-sense approach having regard to the relative importance and magnitude of each matter that comes under consideration so that, in some cases, it will be carried to the final stage at which the report will be prepared by the committee working under the deputy chairman In matters of considerably greater importance intrinsically, the chairman of the board himself would take charge at the final stage when the report is being prepared.

The newly appointed chairman of the Tariff Board is Dr. W. A. Westerman, who was formerly Deputy Secretary of the Department of Trade. There is no novelty in appointing a public servant as chairman of the Tariff Board. There has never been a chairman of the board who was not a public servant. Some years ago, under this Government, the act was amended to permit the appointment of a chairman who was not a public servant. When a vacancy occurred recently, I sounded out industry on this and other matters and, somewhat to my surprise, I found that there was a very wide feeling in industry that the best chairman could be obtained in the Public Service. I think I may say that that was the feeling almost without qualification. The Government’s action is not dictated by industry. It is simply continuing an historic arrangement in appointing a public servant as chairman of the Tariff Board; it is certainly not defiant of any contrary view on the part of industry. Dr. Westerman has a magnificent record as a public servant and, in my opinion, it is quite a severe loss to the Department of Trade, as a department, that he should have been detached to occupy this position.

Mr Curtin:

– Why do you not give him an increase of salary and retain him in the department?

Mr McEWEN:

– That is a fair sample of the thinking of the Opposition and of the contribution by honorable members opposite to this proposal. I shall use the interjection to illustrate the other side in this debate. I said that the debate reflected two approaches. There is the quibbling approach made by honorable members on the Opposition side to the powers of the chairman. But this is a debate on an organization upon which employment in Australia depends more than it does on any other single instrumentality. It depends more on the Tariff Board because employment depends most heavily on secondary industries. It depends more heavily on the successful activity of protective arrangements for Australian secondary industry - and primary industry as well - than it does upon the awards of the Arbitration Court which clearly cannot go beyond the capacity of industry to pay. The board’s operations involve the very essence of the livelihood of Australian workers. But what has the Australian Labour party to offer by way of policy contribution? It is like a vacuum. Not a single contribution has come from the Labour party which, if it has any justification for existing at all, should exist to look after the interests of those who are employed in Australia. When this issue, most critical above all others for the workers, comes before the Parliament, what do we find? Not a single policy thought has emanated from the Australian Labour party. There is not even an interjection to contradict that statement, because it cannot be contradicted.

The honorable member for Moore made a very appropriate comment about his own State. Why should he not do so? That was the right thing for him to do. The matters that he pointed out involved issues of fact. He made a plea that the Tariff Board should visit Western Australia occasionally in order to ensure that the members of the board were familiar with the problems and needs of that State. I am glad to say that there reposes here no power for the Minister to direct the board to go to Western Australia, but the bill itself makes very explicit provision to enable the board to sit anywhere in Commonwealth territory. I have not the faintest doubt that, in due course, the board will go to Western Australia, either in the form of its various committees, or, perhaps, by means of visits of individual members on occasion.

I think that there is nothing to add to what I set out to say. I thank the honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Howson) for his knowledgeable and constructive contribution to the debate. He clearly exhibits a proper appreciation of the needs of Australian industry, in relation to the other elements of the economy. I think it would have been almost sufficient for me to have risen to my feet and said that, on the single point on which the Labour party has sought to attack this measure, it has failed, either deliberately or by neglect. It has failed to point to the provision that is the answer to every criticism that has been made. That is, that the new chairman has explicitly imposed upon him, in respect of these new authorities, power to act only after consultation with the members of the Tariff Board.

Mr Pollard:

– That does not mean a thing.

Mr McEWEN:

– The interjection of the honorable member reminds me that he made a suggestion that the board might make minority reports to the Minister. The board is an instrument of the Parliament, not of the Minister or of the Government. The honorable member cannot change his tune now. He was suggesting - and a reading of his words will show that this is what he had in mind - that there should be two kinds of report. One report would be presented publicly to the Parliament and to industry, and the other would be presented secretly to the Minister. That might be the customary thinking of a socialist. It might be a convenient arrangement for a socialist; but it is an arrangement with which this Government would never associate itself. Whatever the Tariff Board does in respect of the well-being of Australian secondary industry, and all who are employed in it, will be done despite the honorable member for Lalor (Mr. Pollard) and his socialistic proclivities. It will be done openly and publicly. There will be no secret report.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 (Interpretation).

Mr CREAN:
Melbourne Ports

– I make no apology for the fact that honorable members on this side of the chamber have devoted the major part of their discussion of this bill to what it purports mainly to do; that is, to alter the structure of the Tariff Board. During the course of my earlier remarks, I asked the Minister whether, when he had an opportunity, he would make a point of clarifying and amplifying statements which he had made in his second-reading speech. The Minister stated that, in some respects, the responsibilities of the chairman, as laid down in the present act, are ambiguous. I asked the Minister whether he would explain the direction in which the responsibilities of the chairman, under the existing legislation, and without regard to the proposed amendments, were ambiguous. Secondly, I quoted from other statutes instances in which a board form, or a commission form, had been used, and I asked why this new model clause, as it were, which aims at placing the chairman in a most favorable position, and the rest of the board in a most invidious position so far as the operation of the board is concerned, was necessary. I am not impressed at all by the remark of the honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Howson) that the Tariff Board is different from any other board. I agree that it is different, because the Tariff Board is charged, as is no other board in Australia, with overseeing, to a large degree, the fate of industry, both secondary and primary, with consequent vast repercussions on the destinies of the Australian community.

Earlier, I suggested to the Minister that if he took up my challenge and attempted to indicate what the ambiguities were, he would find that they were due to a failure on the part of the present set-up. Whether the failure is due to the over-bearing strength of the chairman, or to the weakness of the constituent parts of the board, I am not going to argue. I do not know. I say, however, that if the Minister were to attempt to indicate the ambiguities he would find that they were due, not to statutory difficulty at all, but to the way in which the machinery was being implemented. What the Government and honorable members on the opposite side of the chamber have failed to do during the course of this debate has been to draw the distinction, which must always be drawn where a board is involved, between what might be called the executive functions and the other necessary functions. I have given examples, in relation to other acts, to indicate that sometimes it is a matter of practicality that the chairman shall call the meetings. Nobody has queried the propriety of that being an executive function to be carried out by the chairman. But there has been no discussion or consideration by the Government to-night of what might be called the modus operandi of the board itself, as an entity and as an integral body.

I think it was the Minister, backed by an interjection from the honorable member for Wentworth (Mr. Bury), who cited the example of the Commonwealth Bank. I say that that example was a bad one to choose, because the Commonwealth Bank is a different kind of instrumentality from the Tariff Board. The Commonwealth Bank is a day-to-day organization which is engaged in activity with the public. It has its own skilled staff and its own governor. This Government has intruded into the machinery of the bank a new entity called the Commonwealth Bank Board, of which the Governor is the chairman. But there is a distinction between the day-to-day activity of the bank, for which the Governor is responsible - the executive part of the bank’s function - and the sittings of the board as such.

Where on earth did the Government get hold of this new model for the role of the chairman of the Tariff Board? I have referred to the present form of the Commonwealth Bank. Fortunately, the bank was not further mutilated by the recent legislation. Section 20 of the Commonwealth Bank Act 1945-1953, provides, in respect of the board -

The Board shall meet at such times and places as the Board determines or as the Chairman or the Deputy Chairman directs.

There, we have two provisos. If it is practicable, the chairman or deputy chairman calls the meetings; otherwise, the board regulates its own functions as it goes on from meeting to meeting.

It is in proposed new section 4 (2.) that we first have the proposal to intrude into the act this curious attempt to distinguish between the various functions of the board, functions which, apparently, are to be regulated not by the board as a board, but by the chairman. I should like some clarification of the reason for including this clause. I hope that on this occasion the minister, instead of making a speech about something that has nothing to do with the measure, will endeavour to provide some of the information the Opposition is trying to get. As my colleague, the honorable member for Lalor (Mr. Pollard), says, some of these matters are primarily not party matters at all. They go to the root of the functioning of the board system in which this Government believes, because it has established quite a number of boards. The Government is proposing here a departure from the normal relationship of a chairman to a board. I regard it as a very important departure and I am not satisfied that any reason has yet been given for it other than that there has been some friction under the present machinery. The proper course is not to change the machinery but to try to ensure that it works a little more smoothly in future. Clause 3 (2.) reads -

A reference in this Act to the functions of the Chairman shall be read as including a reference to the function of forming, together with three other members, a quorum of the Board.

To understand that, we have to go to section 12 (1.) of the act, from which it will be seen that at present the matter is in the hands of the board, as it ought to be, and not under the control of the chairman. The section reads -

For the conduct of business any two members shall be a quorum, and shall have, subject to the next sub-section, all the powers of the Board.

As far as I can see, the proposed amendment seeks something which is proposed more definitely by clause 8. Apparently what is proposed is that in future there will be a quorum of four, but the chairman must be one of them. 1 have no objection to that provision. Clauses of a similar sort appear in other acts, but why does this provision need to be tacked on in this form at the end of clause 3? The Minister may not have an explanation available, but if there is a simple explanation I should be glad to hear it. Our principal concern arises from clauses 5 and 6. I am raising the point of the proposed relationship of the chairman to the board. I should be interested if the Minister could enlighten me.

Mr McEWEN:
Minister for Trade · Murray · CP

– The honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Crean) referred to clause 3 (2.), which reads -

A reference in this Act to the functions of the Chairman shall be read as including a reference to the function of forming, together with three other members, a quorum of the Board.

The bill subsequently provides for the appointment of a deputy chairman, who in certain circumstances shall perform all the functions of the chairman. My legal advice is that the words I have read are designed to provide that a meeting of the board shall be deemed to comprise a quorum if three members and the deputy chairman of the board are present, lt is for no other purpose than to make that perfectly clear.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 4 (Members of the Board).

Mr CAIRNS:
Yarra

.- During my speech in the second reading debate, I outlined a belief that a distinction is being drawn in practice between government members of the board and non-government members of the board. The circumstances of their appointment are so distinctive and different that two separate classes of board members are coming into existence. Departmental members of the board are in the position where, if they leave the board, they can return to the department. They have seniority, superannuation, and a position of security, which must influence considerably the way in which they exercise their functions as members of the board. Nondepartmental members of the board are on temporary appointment. They are required, very often, to change their abode, frequently at considerable expense. They are in a position of insecurity. If they do not behave themselves, the probability is that their appointment will not be renewed. So, in practice, board members are becoming two distinct classes of persons. In particular, in regard to travelling expenses the position of Mr. Albert Date, a non-government member of the board is very different, as the Minister well knows, from that of the present chairman, who lives in Canberra and travels each week to Melbourne, accompanied, I understand, by two members of his staff. I should like the Minister to say what he thinks of this aspect. Does he consider this criticism is justified? Are there in fact growing up in the board two distinct classes of members with different practices and privileges, and, if so, does he think that this is a desirable development?

Mr McEWEN:
Minister for Trade · Murray · CP

– I am sure that the honorable member for Yarra (Mr. Cairns) is in error in stating, believing, or fearing, that there are or may be two classes of members of the board to any extent different from what has prevailed in the past. It is true that certain members of the board are public servants and others are not. Parliament has always provided that at least two members of the board shall be public servants. Until now they have been drawn from the department administering the board. This bill proposes that that provision shall be widened to allow the two public servants to be drawn from any department.

The explanation of that, I am sure, is to be found in the fact that the details of tariffmaking are technical to the most extreme degree. I have been working with tariffs for some time, but I would not pretend - and no one will sneer at me when I say it - that I have grasped a fraction of the technicalities of tariff-making within our own tariff system, let alone the technicalities of the tariff systems of the whole variety of countries against which we are protecting our industries. I think that the Parliament has always been very properly advised in providing that at least two members of the board shall be public servants.

That explains, I am sure, why there is this provision for two public servants. I referred earlier to the circumstances of the chairman being a public servant, although that does not necessarily follow under the statute as it stands to-day. When a man joins the Commonwealth Public Service, he has the assurance of continuity of employment and various other entitlements common to the whole of the Public Service. When he ls asked to serve - for a stated period, just as do other members - not in the Public Service proper but in an autonomous body such as the Tariff Board, it is unthinkable that the Government or the Parliament should ask him to forgo all his other privileges. So, of course, he does retain his right of reversion to the Public Service, and his superannuation and other privileges.

On the other hand, the Parliament has always contemplated including as members of the board people from outside the Public Service who, in the terms of the statute, are to be chosen because of their general and/ or specialized knowledge of certain matters. Well, they come in- They are appointed for three years, four years, or five years as the circumstances of the moment may be. They have the rights that relate to the period of their employment. The only difference between them and the Public Service members of the board is that the public servants have rights of permanent employment and the appointed members from outside do not have such rights. When they are offered the appointment, they clearly understand that they will have no such rights, and they accept the appointments with that complete understanding. That is all I have to say on the matter.

The honorable member for Yarra mentioned that the present chairman travels from Canberra to Melbourne each week. I offer no apology for that. The chairman, Dr. Westerman, has been for some years the Deputy Secretary, Department of Trade. He has established his domicile and owns his home. The Government suddenly asked him to assume a job in Melbourne. It did not ask him over-night to detach himself from Canberra, sell his house and go to Melbourne. It has, for a short period, made special arrangements which, I think, are certainly not less than fair; that he should have the right to come back here.

Mr Cairns:

– The same thing was not done for others.

Mr McEWEN:

– It was done for Mr. Date to an extreme degree. You know it, or you ought to know it.

Mr Cairns:

– I do not know it.

Mr McEWEN:

– I do not want to discuss Mr. Date, if you please; I shall not allow myself to be drawn into such a discussion. I have explained the point raised by the honorable member.

Clause agreed to.

Progress reported.

House adjourned at 11.23 p.m.

page 1260

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated: -

Security Service

Mr Cairns:

s asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. How many members of the Public Service have been interrogated or interviewed by officers of any security organization during the past twelve months?
  2. Has any action in the form of prosecution, dismissal, or refused or delayed promotion been taken in any such case?
  3. Has any person so affected been given an opportunity of knowing what may be held against him and of answering the charge?
  4. Is be satisfied that no injustice has occurred in any case?
Mr Menzies:
LP

– The answer to the honorable member’s question is as follows: - 1 to 4. I do not propose to answer any questions in the House relative to the workings of the security service. This is in accordance with the practice established by my predecessor, Mr. Chifley, and consistently followed by me. I may say that I am satisfied that no injustice has been done to anybody by their activities.

Commonwealth Scholarships

Mr Bryant:

t asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. How many students presented for the matriculation examination in each of the States in 1952 and each subsequent year?
  2. How many were successful in each case?
  3. How many were applicants for Commonwealth scholarships?
  4. How many new scholarships were granted in each year?
  5. What has been the total cost in each year?
  6. How many students have completed their courses, and in what faculties?
Mr Menzies:
LP

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

  1. During the period 1952-1956, 1956 being the latest year for which complete figures are available, the following numbers of students presented for the examinations, taken in the various States at the end of the secondary school course, which provide the usual method of matriculation.
  2. The numbers who obtained the certificate awarded on the basis of the particular State examination are shown in the following table. A pass in the examination, however, does not neces sarily qualify for matriculation. Because of the varying matriculation requirements it is not possible to show how many students actually qualified for matriculation.
  3. The number of applicants for new awards under the Commonwealth Scholarship Scheme during the years 1952-1957 were-

Applications are accepted irrespective of the year in which the student took the qualifying examination. However, information is not available to indicate the applicants in a particular year who took the qualifying examination in the immediately preceding year. It is necessary to require applications to be submitted before a prescribed closing date which means that they are lodged before the examination results are available. A further factor which tends to inflate the number of applications is that, although the qualifying examination is taken normally at seventeen to eighteen years, the age limit under the scheme is, in general, 25 years. Applications may be received, therefore, from students who were unsuccessful in earlier years.

  1. The new awards made under the scheme during the period 1952-1957 were -

  1. The numbers of scholars who completed courses are -

Information is not available in sufficient detail to show completions by faculties. However, of the scholars in training in 1957, 88 per cent. were at universities and the remaining 12 per cent. at other approved institutions. Of those at universities the approximate percentages in the principal faculties in 1957 were -

Scientific and Technical Education

Mr L R JOHNSON:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

son asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Has he studied the report “Scientific and Technological Man-power Supply and Demand in Australia “ submitted in Canberra last year by the Australian Academy of Science?
  2. If so, will he indicate his acceptance or otherwise of the principal recommendation that the Commonwealth Government should set up a committee of inquiry on science and technology with the terms of reference specified in the report?
Mr Menzies:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The Government has no present intention of taking the initiative in establishing such a committee. It will be some time before the full effects in these fields of the Murray report are known, so that I think it would be premature for the Commonwealth even to consider conducting an inquiry into science and technology at this stage.

Commonwealth Bank Special Accounts.

Sir Arthur Fadden:
CP

– On 26th March, the honorable member for Yarra (Mr. Cairns) asked the following question: -

I direct a question to the Treasurer concerning the £15,000,000 that will be released to the trading banks from the Commonwealth Bank special account. As the Government will take no action to give directions concerning the use of these funds, will the Treasurer agree that it is necessary to obtain information as to the total amount lent as a result of the release of this £15,000,000 - which amount will be much greater than £15,000,000 - and also the amounts lent for housing and other classifiable purposes? Will the Treasurer take steps to see that this information is obtained and given to honorable members?

In a statement I made to the House on 12th March, in reply to a question raised by the honorable member for Macquarie (Mr. Luchetti), I outlined the principles which govern the release of funds held by banks in the special accounts with the Commonwealth Bank. At that time, I explained that the proper purpose of special account operations is to regulate in a general way the state of liquidity of the trading banks and thereby influence their general level of advances and other investments. In answer to the further point now raised by the honorable member for Yarra, I would stress that, while the general response of the banking system to liquidity adjustments arising from special account action is, of course, reflected in the banks’ structure of assets and liabilities, it is not practicable to identify the direct effects of special account action in the accounts of the banks, since these effects merge immediately with those due to other causes.

From my previous statement, honorable members will recall that the central bank, in its advice to trading banks over recent months, has encouraged them to increase their advances above the 1957 level and to give their attention to such important objects as housing and the needs of the rural industries. The central bank has also made clear to the banks that it will continue to take any special account action necessary to maintain the liquidity of the banking system at an appropriate level after providing for a reasonable expansion of advances. The recent releases from special accounts and any other releases made this financial year should be regarded as part of this general programme. The trends in lending will be reflected in the total of outstanding advances of the trading banks shown in the regular monthly statistics of the banks’ liabilities and assets within Australia published by the Commonwealth Statistician and the Commonwealth Bank.

Aborigines

Mr Bryant:

t asked the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. What is the aboriginal population of each State of Australia showing separately males and females, age groups, and whether full bloods or not?
  2. What steps are taken to ensure that there is an accurate census count taken of tribal aborigines?
Sir Arthur Fadden:
CP

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

  1. The latest figures of aboriginal population published by the Commonwealth Statistician on a Commonwealthwide basis are those of 30th June, 1947 (see “Commonwealth Year Book”, No. 43, pages 583 and 584) and are as follows: -

No dissections into age groups are available for these estimates except in the case of half-castes enumerated at the census. This information is published in the detailed tables of the 1947 census.

  1. No count of aborigines living in a nomadic state is undertaken in Commonwealth censuses.

Australia-United States Defence Agreement

Mr Ward:

d asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice -

  1. Did the Government recently enter into an agreement with the United States of America for the exchange of technical defence information?
  2. Is it a fact that this agreement does not include atomic energy information?
  3. Has it been frequently said that the United States Government has complete trust and confidence in the present Austraiian Government?
  4. If so, why is the exchange of information on atomic energy excluded from the terms of the pact, and why did it take eight years to conclude any agreement at all?
Sir Philip McBride:
LP

– The answers to the honorable members questions are as follows: -

  1. The Government recently signed an agreement with the United States to facilitate the exchange of patent rights and technical information for defence purposes. A copy of the agreement was attached to the press statement which I made in January this year.
  2. Yes.
  3. It has been said that the United States Government has trust and confidence in the present Australian Government.
  4. There would have been no point in considering inclusion of the exchange of atomic information because separate agreements between Australia and the United States, announced in June, 1956, and July, 1957, had already provided for it. The recent Technical Property Agreement facilitates rather than initiates exchanges in the industrial and technical fields. It is one of a series in almost identical terms entered into by the United States with a number of friendly countries.

Butter

Mr ANTHONY:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP; NCP from May 1975

y asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice -

  1. Which of the following countries pay a butter subsidy either in the form of a consumer subsidy or export bounty: - Argentine, Austria, Britain, Canada, Denmark, Eire, France, Finland, Holland, Sweden, Switzerland, the United States of America and West Germany?
  2. If a subsidy is paid in any of these countries, what is the amount per lb. in Australian currency?
  3. What is the average price of butter to the consumers in these countries?
  4. What is the approximate price received by the producers in these countries?
Mr McMahon:
LP

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

Methods of price support and subsidizing of butter in most of the countries mentioned are disguised through incorporation in overall milk guarantee schemes. Consequently, I am unable to indicate precisely the information required by the honorable member in respect of a number of the countries listed. From the information available to me the answers to the honorable member’s questions in relation to the respective countries are as follows: -

Argentine: No reliable information available.

Austria -

  1. No government subsidy on butter.
  2. –
  3. Not available.
  4. Not available.

Canada -

  1. Government price support policy.
  2. Not available.
  3. 6s. 7d. Australian currency per lb. on 22nd March, 1958.
  4. Not available.

Britain -

  1. The milk producer is guaranteed a price for a standard quantity of milk produced. Milk produced above this quantity returns the market price only.
  2. Not available.
  3. 2s. 7d. to 3s. Australian currency per lb.
  4. Not available.

Denmark -

  1. There is no government subsidy on butter.
  2. –
  3. At 16th April, 1958, fresh butter 3s. Australian currency per lb., cold stored butter 2s. 4d. Australian currency per lb.
  4. 2s. 4d. Australian currency per lb. Eire -
  5. Export subsidy on butter.
  6. Varies according to export price received. Recently in vicinity of 2s. per lb. Australian currency but it was announced by the Eire Government on 11th March that the dairy industry would have to meet one third of the cost of export subsidies during the 1958 season.
  7. 4s.11d. per lb. Australian currency February, 1958.
  8. Not available.

France -

  1. No government subsidy on butter.
  2. –
  3. The wholesale price of buttter in Paris on 18th March, 1958, was 7s. 9d. Australian currency per lb.
  4. Not available.

Finland -

  1. Export subsidy.
  2. The Government pays a subsidy equalling the possible difference between the domestic price and the price obtainable from foreign markets.
  3. 6s. 3d. Australian currency on 20th March, 1958.
  4. Not available.

Holland-

  1. An annual government guarantee by means of a deficiency payment on all milk delivered to dairies regardless of utilization.
  2. Not available.
  3. On 29th March, 1958, fresh butter 5s. Australian currency per lb. Cold stored butter 4s. 2d. Australian currency per lb.
  4. Not available.

Sweden -

  1. Contributions from the State budget are paid to farmers on milk deliveries.
  2. Not available.
  3. In February, 1958, 5s. Australian currency per lb.
  4. Not available.

Switzerland -

  1. No government subsidy on butter.
  2. –
  3. October, 1957- Fresh butter 12s. Australian currency per lb. Cooking butter 8s. 4d. Australian currency per lb.
  4. The price to the producer in October, 1957, was 10s. 2d. Australian currency per lb.

United States of America -

  1. Government price support scheme.
  2. –
  3. Approximately 6s. 8d. Australian currency per lb.
  4. Approximately 5s. 4d. Australian currency per lb.

West Germany -

  1. There is a producer subsidy on liquid milk.
  2. Not available.
  3. 7s.10d. Australian currency per lb. on 26th March, 1958.
  4. Not available.

Asbestos

Mr Swartz:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND

z asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development, upon notice -

  1. Have recent arrangements been made in some States for prospecting for asbestos, and have some recent investigations been made into the known deposits of this mineral?
  2. Has the demand for asbestos short fibres increased considerably over recent years, and can certain low-grade deposits, which were previously considered uneconomical, now be used?
  3. Is Australia self-supporting as far as asbestos supplies are concerned, and what are the prospects for the future development of this industry in Australia?
Mr Osborne:
LP

– The Minister for National Development has furnished the following reply: -

  1. At the present time there is no prospecting activity for asbestos by either government or private bodies. However, in north-eastern New South Wales, two private parties are currently investigating the possibility of working known chrysotile deposits.
  2. The demand for short asbestos fibre has increased considerably in recent years. Imports of all types of asbestos rose from 15,000 tons to 40,000 tons in the period 1949-55. In the last two years, imports have been at a somewhat lower rate but most short fibre used for the production of asbestos cement sheeting is still imported. Whether deposits other than those now being exploited could be developed economically would depend on a variety of factors, viz., quality of fibre, fibre length, location of deposit with respect to markets, market price and ore reserves. The assessment of these factors would primarily be the responsibility of individuals interested in entering, this sphere of mining.
  3. Australia is far from self supporting so far as asbestos supplies are concerned. At present there is a large exportable surplus of crocidolite (blue asbestos) coming from Wittenoom, Western Australia, but almost all of our chrysotile, and the whole of our amosite requirements are imported. The future developments of the industry can be divided into two categories. At Wittenoom, Western Australia, increased production of blue asbestos is planned, but the operating company will rely mainly on overseas markets for the disposal of the product. There is considerable scope for increased production of chrysotile to meet the requirements of the local market provided producers can produce a quality product at a suitable price. In the immediate future the main developments are likely to come from north-eastern New South Wales where an established producer is planning an increase in output, and one of the parties mentioned in the answer to question (1) expects to be in production within the next few months. However, these developments, whilst important, will not by any means satisfy all local requirements.

Royal Australian Navy

Mr Ward:

d asked the Minister for the Navy, upon notice -

What time was spent by each ship of the Royal Australian Navy in each of the last three years (a) in a major port, (b) in isolated anchorage, and (c) at sea?

Mr Davidson:
Postmaster-General · DAWSON, QUEENSLAND · CP

– The answer to the honorable member’s question is as follows: -

I might add that, in the answer to the honorable member’s question of 13th November, 1957, sea-time was calculated as all time spent outside the capital ports of Australia. In the more detailed analysis now provided “ major ports “ have been regarded as any ports (including those outside Australia) where unrestricted leave may be granted to the ship’s company; “ isolated anchorages “ - where recreational leave only may be granted, and “ at sea “ - where a ship is underway.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 29 April 1958, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1958/19580429_reps_22_hor19/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant