House of Representatives
18 April 1961

23rd Parliament · 3rd Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 23rd Parliament
  3. 1961

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

page 913

CANBERRA RENTALS

Petitions

Mr. J. R. FRASER presented petitions

  1. From certain citizens of the Australian Capital Territory praying that the Government will take immediate action to defer the implementation of rental increases of government-owned dwellings in Canberra and conduct an inquiry into Canberra rentals at which evidence may be taken both from individuals and from community organizations.
  2. From certain citizens of the Australian Capital Territory praying that the rent level of government-owned dwellings in Canberra will remain as it is and the recent rent increase will not be levied.

Petitions received and read.

page 913

QUESTION

MOTION OF WANT OF CONFIDENCE

Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I address a question to the Prime Minister. Did he inform the House that he would abstain from voting on the motion of want of confidence in himself? In explanation, let me say that I am doubtful whether I heard correctly, because this would mean that the Prime Minister was depriving himself of the vote of one of his greatest admirers, but the question I ask is: Is this indeed what happened? Or, did the Prime Minister vote for himself on this motion, as shown by “ Hansard “, by following his usual practice of pairing with the Leader of the Opposition? If this was so, was it by accident, or was it yet another policy switch on the part of the Prime Minister?

Mr MENZIES:
Prime Minister · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · LP

– I can accept no responsibility for the vagaries of the honorable member’s mind. AH that I know is that when the motion - I think it was termed an amendment - about myself was about to be put to the vote, I said to my colleagues in the front bench: “I do not think it is quite decent for me to vote for this motion. I will leave.” And I walked out. That seemed to me to be not a very extraordinary circumstance. I walked out.

Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Did you pair?

Mr MENZIES:

– I think that on most matters I have a standing pair with the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– So that you voted on the motion?

Mr MENZIES:

– This is very clever No doubt I should have gone around and told the Leader of the Opposition. I plead guilty. I should have told the Leader of the Opposition. But as my colleagues know, being an uncomplicated character - unlike the honorable member for EdenMonaro - all I did was to say to my colleagues, “ I do not think it seems very proper for me to vote for myself,” and so I walked out. And out I was!

page 913

QUESTION

CONTRACTS FOR COMMONWEALTH WORK

Mr STOKES:
MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA

– In view of the existing credit restrictions, I ask the Minister for the Interior whether he will consider expediting the payments of accounts of private contractors to the Commonwealth, particularly in cases where delays are caused by departmental challenge of minor items only in the overall account.

Mr FREETH:
Minister for the Interior · FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– I shall be happy to consider the honorable member’s request, but I should point out that where queries are raised in relation to only minor items in an account, those matters are usually provided for in what are known as retention moneys. Most contracts provide for progress payments and the withholding of a percentage of the contract sum in the form of retention money, and any minor items that are queried are usually paid for out of those funds. But if there are any instances which the honorable member can bring to my notice in which he claims there is undue delay, I shall certainly be happy to examine each such instance.

page 913

QUESTION

SALES TAX

Mr BARNARD:
BASS, TASMANIA

– I address a question to the Treasurer. It relates to representations made to him in recent years not only by me, but also by interested organizations in connexion with the present heavy incidence of sales tax on students’ text-books and other essential education requirements. Does the Treasurer consider that this heavy indirect tax is imposing an additional burden on some parents, especially those in the lower income group, in providing for the education of their children? If he does consider this to be a fact, will he now consider the representations which have been made to him with a view to obtaining some relief as early as possible or, at the latest, in the next Budget proposals?

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
Treasurer · HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

– I answered this question, I think, in substance last week when it arose from another quarter, and I have no doubt that there are many honorable members around the House, irrespective of their party politics, who feel that the sales tax on text books might, with advantage, be removed in order to give some relief to parents. I pointed out when answering a question on this matter previously that the Government has instituted a policy arangement under which a deduction, which has grown in size from time to time according to decisions of the Government, could be made by parents in respect of school children dependent on them. I also said that this matter would be considered in the preparation of the forthcoming Budget. I repeat that assurance to the honorable gentleman, and I shall see that what he has said is also taken into account.

page 914

QUESTION

EMPLOYMENT

Mr WIGHT:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND

– I direct a question to the Minister for Labour and National Service. Has there been some fall in the number of persons unemployed in Queensland since the last statistics on unemployment were released for publication? Does the Minister expect that during the course of this month there will be a further heavy fall in the number of persons registered in Queensland as unemployed? When the sugar season opens in the following month, will there be further dramatic falls in the number of unemployed, and will the employment situation in Queensland lock far healthier at the end of those two months than it does now?

Mr McMAHON:
Minister for Labour and National Service · LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I cannot give precise figures along the lines mentioned by the honorable member; but I can say that the meat killing season is now open in Queensland, and one would expect that large numbers of persons would from now on become employed in most of the meatworks thoroughout Queensland. Secondly, the sugar season will open shortly and large numbers of persons will be employed in that industry, both for cutting and refining. So, Sir, without being quite as dogmatic as the honorable gentleman, I think it can be well said that in normal circumstances one could expect quite a substantial drop in the number of those registered for employment in Queensland this month a”d next month.

page 914

QUESTION

HOUSING LOANS

Mr STEWART:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

– 1 direct a question to the Treasurer. By way of explanation, I wish to inform him that the cost of constructing a brick home of ten squares, including the cost of land, is approximately £5,000. The cost in fibro or in timber would be slightly lower, [s the Treasurer aware that the maximum loan advanced by the Commonwealth Bank for housing purposes is £2,500, which means in effect that any young couple contemplating building or purchasing a new home needs to have in hand an amount of approximately £2,500, a virtual impossibility for many young couples? In view of the grave disparity between the amount of loan available and the cost of a house, will the right honorable gentleman confer with officers of the Commonwealth Bank with a view to having the maximum loan for housing substantially increased?

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
LP

– The Government is concerned, of course, to see that building costs do not get out of hand, and it was the movement in building costs and the pressure on resources in the building industry that led to one of the major elements of policy adopted in November of last year. The honorable gentleman can be sure that while we are concerned in this way, at the same time we noted that last year building of housing units was conducted at a level of about 100,000 units in the course of the year. So, apparently, the financial problems to which he has referred did not deter a great many people from finding the necessary finance to bridge the gap. The honorable gentleman has raised a policy matter of some significance, and consideration will be given to it; but I cannot at question time supply an answer on a matter of policy.

page 915

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY

Mr ANDERSON:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I address my question to the Treasurer. A recent statement issued by the Commonwealth Statistician shows that motor car registrations for March rose 40 per cent, above the February figures after the lifting of the additional sales tax on motor vehicles. Does this trend confirm the Government policy and confound the critics who claimed that credit restrictions would have been sufficient?

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
LP

– It is a fact that registrations of new cars in March represented an increase of 40 per cent, on the February figures, but of course it would be misleading to argue from the figures of any particular month. For example, to accept the March figures as a monthly average would give a total for a year of 280,000 registrations, which figure has been surpassed only once in the history of this country, and that was last year. Undoubtedly the higher figures in March owed something to the fact that there had been a bank-up of people who had not bought cars, in the reasonable expectation that once the Government’s measures had produced sufficient effect on the car industry the sales tax would be removed. When the sales tax was removed they proceeded to purchase their cars.

I think the honorable gentleman’s deduction from these facts is correct, and when he talks about confounding the critics, I am always happy to join with him in confounding the critics of this Government.

page 915

QUESTION

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

Mr COPE:
WATSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is it a fact that the Prime Minister stated in London recently that the recognition of red China was inevitable?

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– The answer is that I did not say that or anything like it.

page 915

QUESTION

KNITWEAR

Mr WHITTORN:
BALACLAVA, VICTORIA

– In view of the difficulties being experienced by knitwear manufacturers in Australia, has the Minister for Trade taken any action with regard to this industry?

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

– The answer is, “ No “. No request has been made to me or to the

Department of Trade for any action to be taken presumably in respect of imports of knitwear. This section of the textile industry is well organized. It knows, as does the organization of which it is a member, the Chamber of Manufactures, that there exists a system of industry groups which appoint panels to present their case to the Department of Trade. I understand that there has been no approach to my department along these recognized lines for at least six months. Indeed, in Sydney recently, I met one spokesman for the knitwear industry on the textile council, and it was not then put to me that imports were a problem. But I give the honorable member these figures in relation to knitted underwear: In the last complete year there were imports of 7,000 dozen items of knitted underwear and a local production of just on 2,000,000 dozen items. In the first seven months of this year the import rate rose to 14,000 dozen a year but local production increased 260,000 dozen to an annual rate of nearly 2,300,000 dozen.

page 915

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr MAKIN:
BONYTHON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Do the Minister for Labour and National Service, and the Government, not feel deep concern at the ever-increasing number of unemployed in Australia? What does the Government propose to do to rectify the position?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– It is true that there have been extensive transfers of labour from one industry to another. In fact, about 40,000 people have transferred from one industry to another during each of the last three months. That was one of the purposes of the economic and financial measures adopted by the Government last year. I think it is not untrue to say that those measures have left the country in a much stronger economic position than it has been in for some time, and that the objectives of the Government in taking those measures have been realized. As to the political aspect of the honorable member’s question, we watch the unemployment figures, of course, with the greatest care. We look at them as frequently as is necessary. The honorable member has asked what action the Government intends to take. That is a question for the whole Cabinet to consider, and it is a question of policy. I can assure the honorable member that the whole problem of employment will be looked at by the Government within the next few weeks.

page 916

QUESTION

HYPODERMIC NEEDLES

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– My question is directed to the Minister for Trade, who will recall that I have previously made representations regarding Everett Products Proprietary Limited, a company established in Portland, which is the only Australian manufacturer of hypodermic needles. Will the Minister undertake to make the resources of his department available to this company to assist it in meeting the challenge, as the company believes, of cheap imports? If necessary, will the Minister have his department assist the company in preparing a case for emergency hearing by the Tariff Board?

Mr McEWEN:
CP

– The officers of the Department of Trade are at all times willing to give their best advice to Australian industry, and this certainly applies in the case of the company mentioned by the honorable member for Wannon. If the industry concerned has a case for protection, this would become apparent to departmental officers when discussing with the company’s representatives the problems confronting the industry, and they would, of course, give advice on the best course to be followed.

page 916

QUESTION

TAXATION

Mr BEATON:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA

– I direct a question to the Treasurer. Has the Government received a request from the Premier of Victoria, resulting from a report made by an ail-party Distribution of Population Committee in the Victorian Parliament, for a major extension of regional tax concessions for the purpose of assisting in the establishment of industries in country areas? In view of the undoubted success that such concessions would achieve in inducing industry to set up in industry-starved country centres and the possibility that such extensions would add to our export earnings, will the Government favorably consider the proposal? I assure the Treasurer that if he has not already received such a request, he will receive it in the near future.

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
LP

– I have seen public references to this matter, to the effect either that the Premier of Victoria was sending a request of this kind to the Commonwealth Government or that some formal letter on the subject had already reached the Prime Minister. I am not clear on the details, but undoubtedly the Premier of Victoria intends to make some representation’s of the kind suggested by the honorable member. For our part, we are very conscious of the importance of providing, in the years ahead, for a wider spread of industrial activity outside the major capital cities of the Commonwealth. We shall look with interest, and not without sympathy, at requests of this kind which may reach us, from whatever State they come.

page 916

QUESTION

FORESTRY RESEARCH

Mr FORBES:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Can the Minister for the Interior say whether any decision has yet been reached on the question of Commonwealth participation in forestry research?

Mr FREETH:
LP

– I hope, with the leave of the House, to make a short statement on this matter after question time. I think the honorable member for Barker will find that my statement will satisfy him.

page 916

QUESTION

HOUSING

Mr BIRD:
BATMAN, VICTORIA

– Will the Prime Minister, before the next Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement is brought before the Parliament for discussion, consider having the Commonwealth undertake an intensive survey of the overall housing position in Australia, for the purpose of determining, amongst other things, whether sufficient accommodation is being made available to those people who can afford only to rent houses?

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– The department of my colleague, the Minister for National Development, is constantly engaged in making such a survey and in bringing it up to date. I have no doubt that we shall have all the advantage of that when we are called on, in Cabinet, to consider what we ought to do about the renewal of the agreement.

page 917

QUESTION

CATTLE RESEARCH STATION

Mr SWARTZ:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister in charge of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization. Have arrangements been made for the establishment of a new cattle research station and research laboratory in Queensland? If so, where will these units be established and how will they assist the important cattle-export industry?

Dr Donald Cameron:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– As the honorable gentleman will know, there are already several very important research stations established by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization directly concerned with the cattle industry in Queensland. There are such institutions as the Cunningham Laboratory in Brisbane, which deals with what I might call the environmental side of the problem, that is, the question of pastures. There is also the National Cattle Breeding Station at Rockhampton where experiments are in progress in developing the best type of cattle to be used in tropical Australia. It is proposed that the next step will be the establishment of a further station at Townsville, and in fact preliminary steps have already been taken and plans laid for the development of this station. The exact time by which it will be possible to proceed with setting it up will depend upon questions such as the availability of finance and the requisite staff, but the preliminary steps have been taken and this will be the next stage in the development of a very intensive programme of research which will be of great benefit to cattle breeding in Australia.

page 917

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT IN QUEENSLAND

Mr RIORDAN:
KENNEDY, QUEENSLAND

– Can the Minister for Labour and National Service tell me what steps the Government proposes to take to deal with the serious unemployment situation which exists in Queensland and which is daily growing worse? I ask this question in view of the fact that it will be May before the meatworks open and lune before the sugar season gets under way.

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– It so happens that already the meat season is under way and Rockhampton has opened; and I understand that Gladstone will open to-day. I have now been assured that Gladstone will open to-day. So it is expected that there will be a considerable reduction in the number of applicants for employment in Queensland during the next few weeks. A little later, the sugar season will commence. I have nothing else to add to the answer I gave to the honorable gentleman from Bonython that this matter constantly engages the attention of the Government, and in the course of the next fourteen days we will be having a look at it in the general economic picture.

page 917

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT

Sir WILFRID KENT HUGHES:
CHISHOLM, VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Labour and National Service. What percentage of the unemployment figures rs due to seasonal workers who register in case there is a job which suits them in the offseason? What percentage of the registration figures would be the hard core of those who through age, physical or chronic disabilities are very difficult to employ? Does the Minister agree with the statement by Mr. Monk, the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, to the Australian Citizenship Convention on 24th January, that 1.5 per cent, is due to the seasonal figure, and with his statement, which I quote, “ We do not want to get panicky over a minor percentage of unemployment in this country “?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– If I can take the first and third questions together, we do not keep separate records of seasonal employment. Naturally enough, this month I have had a special review made of the meat and sugar industries in Queensland and I can give the honorable gentleman estimated figures of seasonal employment up there, but we do not keep detailed records of seasonal employment throughout Australia. Nonetheless, I thought that the recent statement by Mr. Monk that 1.5 per cent, of the Australian people might be temporarily unemployed for seasonal reasons was very moderate and sensible. I have no reason to disagree with what Mr. Monk has said. As to the second part of the question relating to persons temporarily unemployable, my department looks at this matter in a subjective way because we like to think that all people are employable and we try to find jobs for them. Nonetheless, one very well-known and accurate commentator has recently mentioned a figure for persons temporarily unemployable with which I would not like to disagree. As to Mr. Monk’s comment that we should not panic because of the percentage of unemployed mentioned by him, again I think that Mr. Monk was being temperate and sensible, and I feel that I can certainly agree with that part of his statement.

page 918

QUESTION

TIMBER

Mr FULTON:
LEICHHARDT, QUEENSLAND

– Will the Minister for Trade state whether all the negotiations and conferences in relation to the state of the timber industry have been concluded? If so, is there any hope that this industry will operate as it did before the recent restrictions so as to relieve the unemployment in Queensland, particularly north Queensland?

Mr McEWEN:
CP

– I said last week that, within a few days, I expected to reach a decision on the representations of the timber industry. I am scheduled to have discussions before the day is out with the officers of my department who have been working with the timber industry. Perhaps, to-morrow, I will be able to say something further on it.

page 918

QUESTION

TRADE WITH CHINA

Mr IAN ALLAN:
GWYDIR, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Minister for Primary Industry in a position to say whether the recent large sales of wheat and other grains to mainland China and eastern ports are likely to be repeated in future? In other words, do these sales represent the opening up of a new and valuable market for the export of primary commodities?

Mr ADERMANN:
Minister for Primary Industry · FISHER, QUEENSLAND · CP

– When the general manager of the Australian Wheat Board was in Hong Kong recently it was indicated to him that mainland China would be a likely buyer of Australian grains in subsequent years as well as this year. That is the only information that I have concerning possible future sales.

page 918

QUESTION

PAPUA AND NEW GUINEA

Mr DALY:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the attention of the Minister for Territories been directed to a statement by the South African Prime Minister, Dr. Verwoerd, to the effect that Australia was practising the same racial policy in Papua and New Guinea as South Africa was practising at home? If so, will the Minister state whether or not this statement is correct? If it is not correct, will the Minister deny the truth of the statement, outline the policy being followed and, at the same time, assure our Asian friends and the nations of the world that Australia in no way supports the inhuman racial policies of the South African Prime Minister and his Government?

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

– I will not comment on Dr. Verwoerd’s statement because I have not seen the authentic text of it. I will be very pleased to state on behalf of the Government the policy which we follow in Papua and New Guinea. First of all, we have declared publicly, again and again, that in our anticipation the future of Papua and New Guinea is a future in which the indigenous population, which far outnumbers the immigrant population and will be the dominant element. When we talk of self-determination we recognize quite clearly that the major factor in selfdetermination will be the indigenous population. That is the prospective situation. To turn to the current situation, we have announced on several occasions - the latest being at the opening of the Legislative Council for Papua and New Guinea last week - that we have embarked on a course of removing all forms of discrimination from the laws of the Territory. The policy directive given on that particular subject is that unless it can be definitely shown that a law is necessary either to respect the customs of the indigenous people or to protect them from injury, there is to be complete equality before the law for all inhabitants of the Territory.

page 918

QUESTION

PHOTOGRAPHIC FILM PACKAGES

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– Is the

Postmaster-General aware of the habit of manufacturers of film of supplying to the purchaser of film a packet in which the film is to be returned by mail for processing? Does he know that the purchaser must enter his name and address on the place provided on the packet, and that apparently confusion is caused while such packages are being handled in the post, with the result that undeveloped films are often returned to the users, because mail sorting staff cannot decipher, due to the position of the sender’s address on the package, which is the correct destination intended? Will the Postmaster-General ask the department to confer with film manufacturers with a view to having the packet improved in design so as to avoid this confusion?

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

– The matter submitted by the honorable member for Wannon has not been brought to my attention before, but I am aware of the practice of certain film manufacturers of providing a packet for the return of film for processing, complete with a label addressed to the film processor, on which the user of the film inserts his name and address. It would appear from the honorable gentleman’s question that the name of the person returning the film is so prominently displayed on the package as to cause some confusion among postal staff who handle hundreds of thousands of articles, sorting them very quickly. I shall certainly make some inquiry into the point raised and, if necessary, direct the attention of the manufacturers to the honorable gentleman’s statement.

page 919

QUESTION

RUSSIAN SPACE ACHIEVEMENTS

Mr JAMES:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Prime Minister considered sending congratulations to the Premier of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on recent space achievements by Russia as, so it is reported, has been done by the Prime Minister of Great Britain, Mr. Macmillan, and the President of the United States of America, Mr. Kennedy?

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– I took the opportunity, in Adelaide the other day, in the presence of a representative of the Scientific Academy of the Soviet Union, to express our appreciation of the great work that has been done, and to congratulate them upon it.

page 919

QUESTION

AIDS FOR THE BLIND

Mr CLEAVER:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Health. Is the honorable gentleman aware of the progress made at St. Dunstan’s Home for the Blind in the United Kingdom in respect of the use of an optophone instrument which converts printed words to a sound alphabet of musical notes? As this opens up attractive prospects for the blind people of Australia I ask the honorable gentleman whether the necessary research and experiments may be undertaken by the Commonwealth Acoustic Laboratories where, possibly, these instruments could be manufactured.

Dr Donald Cameron:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I understand that there has been considerable development in this field since the machines to which the honorable gentleman referred were first produced. I am not sure that the acoustics laboratory would be the appropriate place for the investigation of these machines, but I will give the matter some consideration and let the honorable member have an answer to his question.

page 919

QUESTION

GOVERNOR-GENERAL

Mr CURTIN:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I ask the Prime Minister: Was there any particular reason why he did not recommend a native-born Australian for the post of Governor-General?

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– No. I recommended a gentleman whom I believe to be the most suitable in all the circumstances.

page 919

QUESTION

SHIPBUILDING

Mr STOKES:

– My question is directed to the Minister for Shipping and Transport. When the Minister is reviewing the tenders for the proposed construction of a Commonwealth survey vessel, will he give special consideration to the tender submitted by the Williamstown shipyard and thus help to promote continuity of employment there and also save at least £300,000, which represents the 10 per cent. profit margin on a contract of approximately £3,000,000 which would have to be paid if the job were given to other shipyards?

Mr OPPERMAN:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · CORIO, VICTORIA · LP

– I have taken note of the figures that the honorable member has given. I did not think that such comparisons could be made until tenders were submitted, but since the honorable gentleman has brought the matter to my attention, I shall have a look at it.

page 919

QUESTION

CANBERRA HOUSING

Mr J R Fraser:
ALP

– I ask the Minister for the Interior: Has the Government under consideration any proposal that it sell to aprivate firm of estateagents orto any other private financial group a number of government-owned dwellings in Canberra? The Minister may remember that I asked a question about this some eighteen months ago. 1 ask the Minister also: Alternatively, is the Government considering handing over to a private firm the collection of the rents of a number of government-owned houses in Canberra?

Mr FREETH:
LP

– Some very strange rumours originate in this city. I can assure the honorable member that there is no foundation for either of these rumours. Indeed, I go further and add that ! do not think it is remotely possible that any private estate agents would be interested in anything as unprofitable as are Canberra rents.

page 920

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr ANTHONY:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– 1 direct my question to the Minister for Labour and National Service. Is it a fact that the Leader of the Opposition, in a television interview in Brisbane early in February. predicted that in March 150,000 would be unemployed? Is the Leader of the Opposition half-right or half-wrong? If he is half-wrong, is not that better than usual?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– It has been reported that the Leader of the Opposition made some very extravagant statements. But, after all, this is only to be expected of him. As to whether he is half-right or half-wrong, frankly, I do not know, but it would be exceptional if we were ever to find the day when he turned out to be correct.

page 920

QUESTION

LAOS

Mr UREN:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I address my question to the Prime Minister in his capacity as Minister for External Affairs. Last Tuesday, I asked him which government Australia recognized as the legal government of Laos, and he stated in reply that he would deal with that matter in his statement to be made on the evening of that day. However, the right honorable gentleman did not indicate in his statement which government was recognized by Australia, and I now ask: Which government does the Australian Government recognize - that of Prince Souvanna Phouma, which is recognized by the United Kingdom Government, or that of Prince Boun Oum, which is recognized by the Government of the United States of America?

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– If the honorable member is interested in anything quite so irrelevant, having regard to the recent developments in Laos, 1 will be happy to have him put his question on the notice-paper.

page 920

QUESTION

UNIFORM COMPANY LAW

Mr MACKINNON:
CORANGAMITE, VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Attorney-General. Will he inform the House whether any progress has been made in discussions between officers of the Attorney-General’s Department and officers of the corresponding departments of the States in connexion with the preparation of a uniform company law for Australia?

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:
Attorney-General · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I understand that the officers and the AttorneysGeneral themselves have completed their deliberations and that the bill is practically complete.

page 920

FORESTRY AND TIMBER BUREAU

Mr. FREETH (Forrest- Minister for the Interior and Minister for Works. - by leave - The Government has decided to establish a Forest Research Institute to strengthen and extend the work of the research sections of the Forestry and Timber Bureau. The institute will function as a division of the bureau in close association with the Australian Forestry School and appropriate divisions of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization.

An Australian Forestry Council will be created under the Forestry and Timber Bureau Act to serve as a national advisory body on forestry matters. The advice of the council will be used by the bureau to ensure that its work is co-ordinated with related activities in the forest services of the Australian States and Territories, in C.S.I.R.O., in the universities, and in the timber industry. The final composition of the council will require further consideration, but it will contain representatives of the forest services of the Australian States and Territories, the timber industry, C.S.I.R.O., the universities, and, if considered desirable, other appropriate organizations.

Through the Australian Forestry Council, the Forest Research Institute and other divisions of the Forestry and Timber Bureau, the Commonwealth Government will extend its activities in the field of forestry and thereby give added assistance to the timber industry from a long-term point of view. This long-term approach, it should be pointed out, is entirely separate from the detailed examination of the immediate economic stresses being felt by the industry, which the Government is currently undertaking.

In essence, the task ahead is to assist in bringing Australia’s forest estate to a condition of maximum productivity. The annual growth of the forests in 1955 was estimated as 6,216,000,000 super, feet. Against this increment, we meanwhile harvest for annual use 6,132,000,000 super, feet of timber, waste over another 1.200,000,000 super, feet in the process, and lose another 1,716,000,000 super, feet to borers, insects, and fire damage. At present, therefore, our annual debit in timber exceeds the replacement capacity of the forests by a figure of no less than 2,832,000,000 super, feet - or more than half the volume actually harvested. Even that fails to convey the full gravity of the situation because the above losses do not include arrested forest growth due to periodic defoliations and other injuries following bushfires, disease and insect attack. Loss of potential growth on this account adds up to at least another 6.000,000,000 super, feet a year.

After allowing for some unavoidable waste in harvesting, the 9,000,000,000 super, feet or so of forest growth at present being lost every year would, if it could be saved, be worth, at present-day prices, about £25,000,000 standing in the forest. If research resulted in a saving of only a mere 10 per cent, of this loss the value of that 10 per cent, at mill door in the form of logs and pulpwood would be around £7.000,000, and in the term of sawn timber, fibreboard and paper its final value at consuming centres would be about £30,000,000. The return from the increased production would more than cover any extra cost incurred in growing it, and it is confidently believed that scientific research can, within a few years, result in a much greater saving than 10 per cent, of the present losses.

One of the main activities of the Forestry and Timber Bureau during the past 35 years has been the development of the Australian Forestry School. This school was established by the Commonwealth at the request of the States, to provide a national centre of forestry education to graduate or post-graduate level.

Graduate forestry training in Australia is celebrating its jubilee year. The Australian Forestry School started as a Commonwealth activity in Adelaide in 1926, when it took over the degree course in forestry established by the University of Adelaide in 1911. The University of Adelaide generously agreed to forgo a field which had been allocated to it by the vice-chancellors of the Australian Universities in favour of a national school which could be staffed at an acceptable international standard. The course at Adelaide had been built up by staff trained at the forestry schools of the Universities of Oxford and Edinburgh.

To develop further a suitable Australian course in forestry, the Commonwealth Government created a Board of Higher Forestry Education under the Forestry and Timber Bureau Act. This advisory board consists of representatives of the Australian State universities and forest services. With the advice of this Board, the Commonwealth appointed staff trained at leading forestry schools in Europe, America and New Zealand. The lecturing staff has included graduates from the Australian States, New Zealand, Oxford, Edinburgh, Aberdeen, London, Yale (United States of America), Nancy (France), Dresden (Germany) and Copenhagen (Denmark). Features from all these institutions have been incorporated in the Australian Forestry School course and adapted to the Australian scene. As a result, the school has been accepted as a major forestry training centre and its ex-students now make up the greater part of the graduate staff of our forest services.

This system of co-operation and coordination will be used to make the work of all the divisions of the Forestry and Timber Bureau fit the requirements of Australian forests and its timber industry. During the past 35 years the bureau has carried out a great deal of research work in the fields of forest management and assessment, timber supply economics, bush fire control, introduction of suitable exotic conifers and other trees, tree breeding, forest soils and nutrition, forest botany and tree physiology. In carrying out this work the Forestry and Timber Bureau has co-operated with the forest services and other institutions, but the research sections have not had the type of support given to the Australian Forestry School by the Board of Higher Forestry Education. The advice of the Australian Forestry Council will be usedto assist the Forest Research Institute and other divisions of the bureau to develop and coordinate their work with appropriate institutions in Australia and her Territories.

At present, successful students of the Australian Forestry School can only graduate at the universities at which they carried out their earlier training. The Government realizes that the development of the School of General Studies within the Australian National University might provide a more suitable means of graduation for Forestry School students, particularly in the post-graduate field, if use could be made of the various fields of research in Canberra which deal with problems influencing the growth and use of timber. Conferences will be invited between the Australian National University and appropriate authorities to see if a mutually satisfactory association of the Forestry School with the University could be developed, which would retain the present collaboration between the institutions which support the school and on which its students must depend for later employment.

In addition to research and education, the Forestry Timber Bureau Act 1950-1953 gives the bureau functions of advice, the awarding of forestry scholarships, the collection, publication and distribution of statistics and information on forestry and timber and the management of forests placed under its control. The Government has received strong representations from the timber industry to strengthen the bureau so that the effectiveness of its work can be increased.

Measures which might properly come within the functions of the bureau and which might assist the development of the timber industry are being considered.

I lay on the table the following paper: -

Forestry and Timber Bureau - Ministerial Statement - and move -

That the paper be printed.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Pollard) adjourned.

page 922

QUESTION

COPYRIGHT LAW REVIEW COMMITTEE

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:
Attorney-General · Parramatta · LP

– by leave - As honorable members know, I have had under consideration for some time the report of the Copyright Law Review Committee. Before the Government makes any decisions on the report, an opportunity is being given to members of the public to make comments and submissions regarding the recommendations contained in the report.

The report evidences on its face the careful and thoughtful work of all the members of the committee, to whom our thanks are due for their thorough investigation and consideration of a difficult field oflaw, and one which has so many more practical applications than we are apt to realize. I mention this aspect of the matter not only for the purpose of publicly recognizing the value of the work of the committee, but also to emphasize that, while the Government still has to consider the report and I have to decide what advice I will give to Cabinet on the various recommendations of the committee, I do not propose to embark on anything like a ministerial re-hearing of all the submissions made to the committee.

However, it is proper that some opportunity should be given to the public, and to the interests most affected by the issues raised in the report, to make representations to me. Some have already done so. I ask that any submissions should be made to my department by 31st May if possible. Persons making submissions will naturally do so in the form that they think best. It would help me considerably, however, if submissions did not reiterate information or arguments put to the committee. I shall have that material already before me, and will take it into account in considering each of the committee’s recommendations.

I have arranged that every member of Parliament shall receive this week a copy of the report. If after members have had an opportunity to consider the report it appears that a debate is desirable, I will arrange for the formal tabling of the report and for the moving of a proper motion to enable the debate to take place.

page 923

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Motion (by Mr. Osborne) agreed to -

That leave of absence for one month be given to the honorable member for Paterson (Mr. Fairhall) on the ground of ill health.

page 923

VOTING RIGHTS OF ABORIGINES

Appointment of Select Committee

Mr FREETH:
Minister for the Interior and Minister for Works · Forrest · LP

– I move -

  1. That a select committee be appointed to inquire into and report on -

    1. whether the entitlement to enrolment and the right to vote presently conferred by the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918-1953 on persons referred to in section 39 of that act should be extended with or without qualifications, restrictions or conditions to -
    1. all aboriginal natives of Australia, or

    2. aboriginal natives of Australia included in particular classes, and, if so, what classes; and, if so,

    3. the modifications, if any, that should be made to the provisions of that act relating to enrolment or voting to provide for enrolment and voting by aboriginal natives or any particular classes of aboriginal natives. 2. That the select committee consist of seven members, four to be appointed by the Prime Minister and three to be appointed by the Leader of the Opposition.
  2. That every appointment of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the Speaker.
  3. That the chairman be one of the members appointed by the Prime Minister.
  4. That the chairman of the committee may from time to time appoint another member of the committee to be deputy chairman, and that the member so appointed act as chairman of the committee at any time when the chairman is not present at a meeting of the committee.
  5. That the chairman or the deputy chairman, when acting as chairman, shall have a deliberative vote and, in the event of an equality of voting, a casting vote.
  6. That the select committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit during any adjournment of the House, and to move from place to place.
  7. That the committee report to the House not later than the 31st day of October, 1961.
  8. That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders.

The existing laws of New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia give full franchise to aboriginal natives by virtue of the fact that the voting laws of those States confer on natives full voting rights. But, of course, most of the nomadic natives are in Queensland, Western Australia and the Northern Territory, and in those areas the governing authorities have not seen fit to grant full voting rights to natives. In Western Australia, provision is made for those natives who live according to our ways, and who have some knowledge of reading and writing, to obtain citizenship rights. In the Northern Territory, all natives except those who are declared wards of the State, are deemed to have citizenship rights; but there, of course, a large proportion of the nomadic natives are declared wards of the State. In Queensland, natives of half aboriginal blood or more have no voting rights unless they are specifically exempted by the Government.

This is an extremely difficult problem. It was discussed in 1946, although very briefly, by a Premiers’ Conference when the then Premiers of Western Australia and Queensland indicated that they did not think it practicable to give full voting rights to aborigines. The late Mr. Chifley, who was then Prime Minister, agreed that the Commonwealth would not go any further with the matter.

In 1949, the present provisions with relation to natives were inserted in the Electoral Act by the then Labour Government. Appropriately enough, they were introduced by the Honorable H. V. Johnson, the then Minister for the Interior who, I suppose, had as much experience of native problems as any honorable member of the House, his electorate being that of Kalgoorlie, which embraces a very large proportion of the State of Western Australia. He agreed then that this question was bristling with difficulties. In the parliamentary debates which followed his introduction of the provisions, several honorable members referred to the problem of laying down standards to be attained before full franchise could be given to an aboriginal native. Certainly no one in that Parliament spoke in favour of giving those rights to all aborigines regardless of whether they were likely to be able to understand what a vote was.

There are many problems associated with this matter. At this stage, I do not propose to enumerate them all. Suffice it to say that they embrace such matters as compulsory enrolment and compulsory voting, if aboriginal natives are given full franchise without some other protection. That in itself involves the question of discrimination and differentiation between whites and aborigines. Then there is the question whether assistance should be provided to help the illiterate aboriginal who expresses a desire to enrol, in deciphering the ballotpaper, and so on. Then there is the problem of identification where aborigines cannot sign their names. I should imagine it would be well within the compass of a parliamentary select committee to examine all these matters. Indeed, I should think that probably the wishes and ideas of the governments of Western Australia and Queensland, in particular, might appropriately be obtained, because they are charged with the detailed administration of native problems in very large areas. I commend the motion to honorable members.

Mr CALWELL:
Leader of the Opposition · Melbourne

– This question of the enrolment of all aborigines is a very vexed one that has concerned many governments over several years. As the Minister has said, the problem in some States is quite different from what it is in others and it is dealt with differently in the various States. For instance, in some States the aborigines have a vote, whilst in others they have not. They have no vote in Western Australia or Queensland, where the aboriginal problem is a difficult one. In Queensland, there are a few hundred full-blooded aborigines at most still living, but the aboriginal problem in Queensland’, New South Wales and Victoria is a problem of the mixed whites more than one of pure-blood aborigines.

We do not object to the establishment of this committee, but we would like to see it function differently, perhaps, to the way the Minister might like to see it function. As the Government will have a majority on the committee of four to three, a report could be presented on a majority vote which would give a wrong impression. It might imply that there was no dissent among the members of the committee, or that the whole seven members were in agreement because the Government’s majority of four had decided that a certain course should be followed. I move, therefore -

At the end of paragraph 8 add the following words: - “, and that any member of the Committee have power to add a protest or dissent to the report”.

I think it reasonable that if one or more members of the committee do not agree with the views of the rest of the committee, he or they should be allowed so to inform the House when the committee presents its report.

Mr Duthie:

– A minority report.

Mr CALWELL:

– Yes, a minority report of one or more members. The committee is being appointed for the purpose of advising honorable members of the result of an investigation, and its report should not be just a majority report. Every member who serves on the committee should have equal rights. I note also that the Government is not seeking the cooperation of the Senate in this matter. Whatever the Government’s reason may be, I direct the attention of the House to the fact that this committee is to be a select committee of the House of Representatives only. There seems to me to be no doubt that the Government took this action very deliberately and for reasons which seemed to it to be good and sufficient.

The only other observation I wish to make is this: The Labour Party outside this Parliament, as well as the Opposition, has been giving consideration to this question in recent times, and we have a number of amendments to the Electoral Bill that the Minister has before the House which we propose to submit. One of them deals with a number of matters that are raised in this motion. I take it that when the bill is before the House, every honorable member

Will be entitled to move any motion he likes, even though a select committee has keen appointed to investigate the particular subject-matter of the amendments. We have a feeling that perhaps the back-bench members of the Government parties have forced the Government to take action along -these lines realizing that action was being taken by the Australian Labour Party. Our federal conference last week laid down a policy in respect of aborigines. I do not know whether the decisions of that conference or the discussions that took place activated the Government. As an Australian, I am happy that something is being done on this question at last; but I direct the attention .of the House to the situation as I know it to exist so that nobody will come along later and say that the Government was ahead of the thinking of other Australians in other political parties, and decided this particular course of action on its own initiative. That just did not happen. I hope the Government will accept the amendment, and give it a speedy passage.

Mr Freeth:

– What is the wording of the amendment again?

Mr CALWELL:

– I have moved-

At the end of paragraph 8. add the following words: - “, and that any member of the Committee have power to add a protest or dissent to the report.”.

I am not committed to words. Any form of words that will permit any member of the committee from the Government side or the Opposition side to express an individual point of view on any particular matter will satisfy me.

Mr Pearce:

– That provision is always made.

Mr CALWELL:

– I do not know that it applies always to a select committee of this House.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Is the amendment seconded?

Mr Whitlam:

– I second the amendment.

Mr Freeth:

– The Government is quite happy with the proposed amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion, as amended, agreed to.

page 925

NORTHERN TERRITORY SUPREME COURT BILL 1961

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 23rd March (vide page 546), on motion by Sir Garfield Barwick -

That the bill be now read a second time

Mr WHITLAM:
Werriwa

.- The Opposition supports this bill. The bill is very similar, almost section for section, to the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court Act which the Parliament passed two years ago. It makes provision for what the Attorney-General (Sir Garfield Barwick) calls the regular judge to exercise the jurisdiction of the Northern Territory Supreme Court. Further, it makes provision for judges of other federal courts to be appointed as additional judges of the Northern Territory Supreme Court. This is a very desirable amendment. There has been some difficulty in fulfilling the judicial work in the Northern Territory since the lamented death of Mr. Justice Kriewaldt. Even during his life, it was difficult to carry out all the judicial functions in the Territory since the judge of the Northern Territory Supreme Court is also the judge of the Supreme Courts of the Cocos-Keeling Islands and Christmas Island.

When the court is established by an act of this Parliament, it is no longer possible to have acting judges of the court; nor is it possible, if the court is established by an act of this Parliament, to have a retiring age for judges. There is provision for acting judges and for a retiring age for judges under the existing ordinance of the Northern Territory under which the court has operated for the past 50 years. Nevertheless, these amendments are now necessary.

Sir, the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory operates in a very sensitive area. The judges operate in very great isolation.

They are hundreds of miles from any other judges. They have to adjudicate without the assistance of a numerous profession such as is found in other parts of Australia. They have to adjudicate on matters which are quite novel. These include not only frontier matters which would apply to such a dispersed area but also in respect of matters which concern an aboriginal population. The Commonwealth was very fortunate to have the services for ten years of a man of the temperament and scholarship of Mr. Justice Kriewaldt in that outpost of British law and of Australian administration. We are all very greatly indebted for the manner in which he carried out the novel, isolated functions which have to be performed by the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory.

I regret that the opportunity has not been taken to produce a model code of practice and procedure for the Northern Territory Supreme Court. The act provides, in effect, that where no specific provision is made the laws applicable in South Australia shall apply. In relation to the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court the companion act provides that where no specific provision is made the practice and procedure of the High Court shall apply or, if that is not applicable, the practice and procedure of the Supreme Court of New South Wales shall apply. Thus we have two supreme courts established by this Parliament - one in the Australian Capital Territory and the other in the Northern Territory - applying different procedures in similar matters. This is a case in which the Commonwealth could have provided a code. I have quoted previously the remarks which the Chief Justice of the High Court made relating to the need for the Commonwealth to take a lead in law reform. Speaking at the tenth legal convention of the Australian Law Council in July, 1957, the Chief Justice said -

IS it not possible to place law reform on an Australia-wide basis? Might not there be a Federal Committee for Law Reform? In spite of the absence of constitutional power to enact the reforms as law it is open to the federal legislature to authorize the formation of a body for inquiry into law reform. Such a body might prepare and promulgate draft reforms which would merely await adoption. In all or nearly all matters of private law there is no geographical reason why the law should be different in any part of Australia. Local conditions have nothing to do with it. Is it not unworthy of Australia as a nation to have varying laws affecting the relations between man and man? Is it beyond us to make some attempt to obtain a uniform system of private law in Australia?

In relation to the supreme courts of the Territories, we would not have to content ourselves with formulating a code and waiting for it to be adopted by the States. We ourselves could enact it. I regret that this opportunity has not been taken to do so. There seems to be no reason of logic or convenience why there should be different procedures between the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory and the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory. The Commonwealth should not have to wait until South Australia, for instance, modernizes all of its procedures. T realize that specific provision could be made by this Parliament in an act, or by the Northern Territory Legislative Council in an ordinance, but nevertheless would it not be better to make provision now to apply to all such federal matters? We have not synchronized or co-ordinated the law between the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory and the Supreme Court of New South Wales. There are different methods of pleading in those two courts although incidents which take place on each side of the border are clearly very much more related than are incidents which take place at such distances as those between the Northern Territory and South Australia.

I also regret that the opportunity still has not been taken to set up an intermediate appeal court from the Supreme Courts of the Territories. In all the State Supreme Courts there is an appeal from decisions by single judges to three judges - a full bench of the State Supreme Court. In respect of the Supreme Courts of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, however, there is an appeal from a single judge direct to the High Court. There is now provision in the two Territories for additional judges to be appointed from the pool of Commonwealth judges. Provision should now be made in both these territorial supreme court acts for a full bench to b? established in respect of each Territory. It is not fair that the High Court should be concerned with appeals from single judges of the Supreme Courts of the Territories when it is clearly not concerned with appeals from single judges of the Supreme Courts of the States. We have come some of the way. We have a pool of judges; we have all Commonwealth judges now members of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, and shortly we shall have all Commonwealth judges members of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory. There would be no difficulty in having a full bench constituted in each Territory, thus relieving the High Court of a matter with which it is never concerned in relation to State Supreme Courts.

The Opposition does not oppose the bill. We hope that an opportunity will be taken at an early date to set up model codes and full benches for these supreme courts.

Mr SNEDDEN:
Bruce

.- This is not the kind of bill which should produce acrimonious debate and I am glad that it has the support of the Opposition because this relieves me of any responsibility, as a participant in the debate, for considering its provisions, particularly as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Whitlam) has himself forgone the opportunity to do so. I support the matter that he raised relating to the constitution of an appeal bench which would be an intermediary between the single judge sitting alone - which may be equated to a single judge sitting in the State jurisdiction - and the High Court. This function is fulfilled in State jurisdictions by the State Full Court from which a great deal of case law emerges. A statement of principles can then be drawn up and, in many cases, it obviates the need to approach the High Court.

Another advantage of such an intermediate appeal court is that the High Court is left to exercise the role of an ultimate court of appeal. As far as possible it should be left free of the basic appeals which nor mally go to a State full court. 1 see the High Court in the role of an ultimate appeal court, such as is the Supreme Court of the United States of America. There is not the same appellate concentration in the High Court as there is in the Supreme Court of the United States largely because there is an appeal to the High Court of Australia against decisions of the single judges of the Territories.

I think that what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has said is true, in that we can expect that all judges of the present court styled the Commonwealth Industrial Court will become additional judges of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory. If this be so, there will then be five judges who will be available to constitute full courts, if I may use that term, in the Northern Territory. If there were five judges, and three of them constituted a full court at a particular time, only two would be left. There could be an awkward situation on many occasions if the Commonwealth Industrial Court were exercising its jurisdiction with three judges, and something occurred to make it necessary for the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory to sit at the same time. In such a situation the Commonwealth Industrial Court would be exercising its jurisdiction with three judges, and the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory exercising jurisdiction with one judge. This would account for the four judges who are available at the present time and would leave a single judge in the Northern Territory. He, of course, as a single judge, and as the judge whose decision was being appealed from, could not constitute an appeal court. He could act as a single judge in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, so that another judge was made available for the Northern Territory, but only one judge would be available. It would appear that even if this intermediate appeal structure were built for the Northern Territory, or for the Australian Capital Territory - and I take it that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition intended his remarks to apply to the Australian Capital Territory as well as to the Northern Territory - and even if there were to be an appeal tribunal of two judges only, this would still mean the appointment of an additional judge to the Commonwealth Industrial Court, as it is now termed.

The constitution of an appeal court by two judges is not remarkable, because for many years in Western Australia, as I know from my experience as a law clerk some years ago, the full court was often constituted by two judges only. On some occasions when three judges were required, the third was actually the judge whose decision was appealed from. But that occurred only in criminal matters, in which I believe there was a requirement for a court constituted by three judges.

Mr Whitlam:

– That happens in Tasmania, too.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– In Tasmania also, yes. As I say, it is not unusual for two judges to constitute an appeal court, especially in jurisdictions in which the number of judges is small in any case. 1 should like to see, first, the construction of an intermediate appeal court. In order to achieve this it would be necessary to appoint additional judges, and I would like, therefore, to see these judges appointed, or at least one judge appointed. In addition, I would like to see the title “ Judge of the Commonwealth Industrial Court “ changed, and some nomenclature adopted which would refer to a judiciary exercising a wide range of jurisdictions, either by means of single judges or as appeal courts exercising appellate jurisdiction. I consider the term Commonwealth Industrial Court “ inappro priate for the functions I have in mind, and even for the functions that the court is now exercising.

I agree, therefore, with the point made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in this regard. As to his first point, regarding the making of a new code, I am afraid I did not clearly understand what he meant by a code. I presume he had in mind, not a code setting out the substantive law, but a code setting out practice, procedure and rules. Perhaps the honorable gentleman could tell me whether I am correct in that supposition.

Mr Whitlam:

– That is right.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– The proposition having been qualified in that way, I support it. A point that comes to my mind is that a task of great magnitude is contemplated, and I would not like the passage of this bill to be delayed while we await the construction of a code. It would take a very considerable period to construct a code such as that referred to by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, and I do not think that such a considerable period would be available to the Attorney-General or the officers of his department, having regard to the very great demands that are being made on their time. Perhaps this is the kind of job in which the Attorney-General and his department could be assisted by the members of the legal profession in general, through the Australian body. This matter may, indeed, have some relation to the points raised by the Chief Justice and referred to by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition at the tenth legal convention in 1957.

Insofar as I have been able to assess the situation, the legal profession as a whole in Australia is most eager to fulfil any duties that it can fulfil for the facilitation of the development of legal processes and codes or anything of that kind. I am sure the profession would welcome an invitation from the Attorney-General to consider such a matter as this, although the consideration of it will take a great deal of time. The Deputy Leader regards this as a matter applying to the Territories only, and, of course, it must apply to the Territories only insofar as this Commonwealth Parliament has any legislative authority.

Mr Whitlam:

– If I may interject, 1 would say that it should apply also in actions between citizens of different States, and so on.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– Using the High Court as the vehicle of the jurisdiction?

Mr Whitlam:

– Yes, or other federal courts we create.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– Well, that may be so. It is something which I think deserves attention, but which should be kept in the background when considering this bill as a bill.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Nelson) adjourned.

page 929

TARIFF PROPOSALS 1961

Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 7); Customs Tariff (New Zealand Preference)

Amendment (No. 2)

In Committee of Ways and Means:

Mr OSBORNE:
Minister for Repatriation · Evans · LP

– I move - [Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 7).]

  1. That the Schedule to the Customs Tariff 1933-1960, as proposed to be amended by Customs Tariff Proposals, be further amended as set out in the Schedule to these Proposals and that on and after the nineteenth day of April, One thousand nine hundred and sixty-one, Duties of Customs be collected accordingly.
  2. That in these Proposals, “ Customs Tariff Proposals “ mean the Customs Tariff Proposals introduced into the House of Representatives on the following dates: - 16th March, 1961; and 23rd March, 1961.

[Customs Tariff (New Zealand Preference) Amendment (No. 2).]

That the Schedule to the Customs Tariff (New Zealand Preference) 1933-1960 as proposed to be amended by Customs Tariff (New Zealand Preference) Proposals introduced into the House of Representatives on the sixteenth day of March, One thousand nine hundred and sixty-one, be further amended as set out in the Schedule to these Proposals and that on and after the nineteenth day of April, One thousand nine hundred and sixty-one, Duties of Customs be collected accordingly. The two tariff proposals I have just tabled provide for a temporary duty of 6d. per lb. on edible gelatine, regardless of the country from which the goods are imported. The new rates will take effect to-morrow morning. Following representations from the local producer, the Minister for Trade referred to the Tariff Board for report by a deputy chairman the question whether a temporary duty should be imposed on edible gelatine. His report has been received and will be tabled shortly The deputy chairman found that the local producer is experiencing very real competition from imports the effects of which could be quite serious. He recommended that a temporary duty of 6d. per lb. be imposed on imports in addition to the existing rates of lOd. per lb. or 17i per cent., whichever the higher, under the British preferential tariff, and ls. 4id. per lb. or 42i per cent., whichever the higher, otherwise. As recommended by the deputy chairman, goods which were in direct transit at the date the subject was referred for inquiry are exempt from the temporary duty. In accordance with the provisions of the legislation, the subject has been referred to the Tariff Board for full inquiry and report. The temporary duty will remain in effect until such time as the report can be received and considered by the Government, but not beyond three months after the report is received by the Minister. I commend the proposals to honorable members. Progress reported. {: .page-start } page 931 {:#debate-35} ### EDIBLE GELATINE {:#subdebate-35-0} #### Tariff Board Report {: #subdebate-35-0-s0 .speaker-KMD} ##### Mr OSBORNE:
LP -- I lay on the table the report of the Tariff Board on the following subject: - >Edible gelatine. Ordered to be printed. {: .page-start } page 931 {:#debate-36} ### NORTHERN TERRITORY SUPREME COURT BILL 1961 {:#subdebate-36-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed (vide page 929). {: #subdebate-36-0-s0 .speaker-JVU} ##### Mr NELSON:
Northern Territory . 1 endorse the remarks of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Whitlam)** and his comments on this bill, but I want to direct the attention of the House to the lack of facilities in the Northern Territory for trial by j ury , except in the trial of capital offences. That, of course, is something which this bill does not seek to rectify or even mention in any shape or form. I believe the Northern Territory is the only part of Australia where this provision is lacking. I think it is a normal provision in every State of Australia and also in the jurisdiction of the Australian Capital Territory. The people of the Northern Territory are being denied one of the basic concepts of British justice when they are refused trial by jury. There may have been some valid reason for the withdrawal of this provision from the legislation years ago when the population of the Northern Territory did not enable an adequate panel of jurors to be empanelled; but whatever reasons existed at that time, surely there is no reason to-day why an adequate panel of jurors cannot be empanelled to cater for all the requirements that they might be called upon to fulfil. I direct the attention of the House to this fact, and I protest at the lack of these facilities in the Northern Territory. I ask the Attorney-General **(Sir Garfield Barwick)** whether by way of amendment of the bill before the House he will make this provision or, alternatively, he will instruct the Crown Law officers in Darwin to make the necessary amendment in the Legislative Council of the Northern Territory, if that is a body competent to deal with the matters I have just raised. We have laboured for long enough in the absence of such a provision, and the people of the Northern Territory feel that they should, at this stage, be placed on a comparable basis with the rest of the people of Australia. {: #subdebate-36-0-s1 .speaker-126} ##### Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:
Attorney-General · Parramatta · LP -- in reply - I am sure the honorable member for the Northern Territory **(Mr. Nelson)** will realize that the question of providing the physical facilities to enable trial by jury at least of criminal cases rests primarily with the Administration of the Northern Territory. 1 think he will also remember that recently the Legislative Council of the Northern Territory passed an ordinance to bring in trial by jury as from a future date, not far distant. That date, I understand, is in process of being extended, because the physical facilities to enable trial by jury to take place do not exist. It is hoped that they will exist, at any rate if not by the extended date then by some date very soon after that extended date. In answer to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Whitlam)** I say, on the question of having rules of court which are universally usable in the courts of the Commonwealth, that this bill does bring the Northern Territory Supreme Court within the judicial system of the Commonwealth, not leaving it in the judicial system of the Northern Territory alone. This has not been out of mind. It is not a simple task. It would not be possible to have all the rules the same in respect of all places, but there may be a broad structure in which the rules could be made uniform. To do this now is truly beyond the physical resources of my department. In due time, no doubt, when the resources are adequate the desires of the honorable member for Bruce **(Mr. Snedden)** and of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition will be borne in mind, but I regret to say it is not a practical matter at this time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and committed pro forma; progress reported. Message recommending appropriation reported. In committee (Consideration of Administrator's message): Motion (by **Sir Garfield** Barwick) agreed to - >That it is expedient that an appropriation of revenue be made for the purposes of a bill for an act to create a Supreme Court of the Northern Territory of Australia, in place of the Supreme Court previously established. Resolution reported and adopted. In committee: Consideration resumed. Clauses 1 to 8 - by leave - taken together, and agreed to. Clause 9 (Salaries and travelling expenses). {: #subdebate-36-0-s2 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM:
Werriwa **.- Mr. Temporary Chairman,** clause 9 fixes the salary of a judge of the Northern Territory Supreme Court at £7,000. This is the same figure as the Parliament set last year for federal judges of comparable status in the Commonwealth Industrial Court, the Bankruptcy Court and the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court. At the time, the House divided on that matter. Although on this occasion my party is not opposing the appropriation, it still does not agree with the figure that has been set or with the timing of the increase. It also feels strongly that the time has come when there should be some consultation between the Commonwealth and the States on the question of judges' salaries. Last year, because of the leap-frogging between the States of New South Wales and Victoria in respect of the salaries which they were constantly setting for their judges, the Commonwealth felt compelled to set a salary for High Court judges which was above that of the Supreme Court judges in New South Wales and Victoria, from whose decisions the High Court judges hear appeals. The Opposition is still of the view that this unseemly competition between the State Supreme Courts should be regulated in some way and we feel that the Commonwealth is in the best position to take the initiative in this matter. There are many other matters which could be discussed between the Commonwealth and the States concerning not only the remuneration of judges, but also their allowances, their travel, their leave, their pensions and the circumstances in which their libraries are taken over and maintained. There are unnecessary anomalies between all the jurisdictions, Federal and State, on all these matters. It would be quite unreasonable to fix a salary for the Northern Territory Supreme Court judge below that of other federal judges of similar status, in particular those who are now to be appointed as additional judges to the Northern Territory Supreme Court. As I said during the second-reading debate, the Supreme Court judge of the Northern Territory operates in the Northern Territory, in the Cocos Islands, and on Christmas Island in circumstances which are more challenging than those which confront any Australian judges except those in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea. Aborigines in the Northern Territory and thoroughly mixed populations in the island Territories are a challenge to any judge. In addition, the judges in this jurisdiction are isolated and have less assistance than is available to any of their brethren elsewhere in Australia. {: .speaker-KLL} ##### Mr Makin: -- Would the judge of the Northern Territory Supreme Court be entitled to preside over courts in the other Australian States? {: .speaker-126} ##### Sir Garfield Barwick: -- A judge of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory could be used in Canberra or on Norfolk Island. {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- As I understand it, the Attorney-General **(Sir Garfield Barwick)** is establishing a judicial pool from which judges can be drawn to sit in any Federal Supreme ,Court or comparable jurisdiction. !l would like him to go further and extend the .provisions as the honorable member for Bruce **(Mr. Snedden-)** was agreeing should be done. The Commonwealth Industrial Court .could be renamed and extended to deal with all matters of domestic and commercial and administrative jurisdiction under the Matrimonial Causes Act, the industrial property legislation and other Commonwealth statutes. The Opposition feels that it would be wrong to determine a salary -for the Northern Territory Supreme Court judge lower than that 'which is set for this federal colleagues. Nevertheless to illustrate the anomalies which have now risen between the 'federal judges and the Supreme Court judges in all States other than New South Wales and Victoria I shall cite the salaries of judges as they were given to me by the then Acting Attorney-General **(Mr. McMahon)** in reply to a question which I put on notice and which he answered on 20th October, 1960. Under the bill before the committee, the salary for the Northern Territory Supreme Court judge will be £7,000. In Queensland, the salary of the Chief Justice is £5,300 and that of the other judges is £4,900. In South Australia, the Chief Justice receives £5,750 and other judges receive £5,000. In Western Australia, the salary of the Chief Justice is £5,290, the senior puisne judge receives £4,790, and the other judges receive £4,640. Those three States all border on the Northern Territory. It was anomalous and illogical that federal judges m the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, in the Bankruptcy Court, or in the Commonwealth Industrial Court should have lower salaries than the Supreme Court judges of New South Wales and Victoria. It was still more illogical that the High Court judges should have lower salaries than the Supreme Court judges of New South Wales and Victoria as was the position until the end of last year. Now, the Northern Territory Supreme Court judge will have a considerably higher salary than that of any of the Supreme Court judges of the States which border the Territory. So while we do not oppose this clause, and we shall not vote against or seek .to amend it, we feel that it clearly illustrates the need for the Commonwealth to take the initiative in co-ordinating judicial conditions throughout Australia. Clause agreed to. Clauses 10 to 34 - by 'leave - taken together, and agreed to. Clause 35 (Practice and procedure in matters not provided for). {: #subdebate-36-0-s3 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM:
Werriwa .- I am encouraged by the support I have received from the honorable member for Bruce **(Mr. Snedden)** to state briefly the matters upon which I feel the Commonwealth should, in due course, lay down a uniform practice and procedure in federal matters. T am not suggesting that this should be done at this stage. I confined myself earlier to suggesting .that a practice and procedure should :be set down .for the Supreme Courts in the two Territories. By friendly interjection, I forecast that such practice and procedure should also be made available in litigation under sections 75, 76 and 77 of the Constitution. I would summarize in this way: This Parliament could implement a uniform code throughout Australia in matters in which the Commonwealth was one litigant and a private citizen or a State was the other; in which two States were litigants; in which residents of different States were litigants; in which a State and a resident of another State, were litigants; or in matters which arose under any laws made by this Parliament or in any matters in which claims are made under the laws of different States. I believe that the history of the uniform company legislation, on which there have been conferences between the Commonwealth and the States on somewhere between 50 and 60 sitting days, and a wealth of correspondence on top of that, shows that the only hope of achieving modernity or co-ordination in the law of Australia is on the initiative or with the participation of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth seems to attract those who are most skilled in that field, and I feel - I am happy to say, with the support of the honorable member for Bruce and the goodwill, apparently, of the Attorney-General **(Sir Garfield Barwick)** - that the time will come when the Commonwealth will adopt the suggestion made by the Chief Justice, **Sir Owen** Dixon, four years ago, and initiate a common code of practice and procedure in the Supreme Courts and other courts which the Commonwealth itself establishes, and also for those actions on which the Commonwealth itself can make laws. {: #subdebate-36-0-s4 .speaker-126} ##### Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:
Attorney-General · Parramatta · LP -- I should like to correct the impression that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Whitlam)** conveyed in connexion with the uniform company legislation. The initiative in that matter was not taken by the Commonwealth, but by the State of Victoria, and it is only right that that State should have the .credit for it. So far as the others matters which he mentions are concerned, *i* do not go along with him on his case in regard to the things that should -be rendered uniform, and I otherwise would not wish to add to what 1 said earlier. Clause agreed to. Clauses 36 to 50 - by leave - taken together, and agreed to. Clause 51 agreed to. Clause 47 (Appeal from Supreme Court in criminal cases) - by leave - reconsidered. {: #subdebate-36-0-s5 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM:
Werriwa .- Clause 47 deals with appeals from the Supreme Court to the High Court by persons convicted on indictment. I take it, therefore, that at the moment, until the jury system which the Attorney-General **(Sir Garfield Barwick)** forecast in answer to my colleague, the honorable member for the Northern Territory **(Mr. Nelson),** is in operation, on matters of law there will be appeals by right from the Supreme Court to the High Court only in respect of criminal offences which have been tried by a jury. I should like to suggest that, if this is so, the right of appeal should be made wider at this stage. Under the Constitution, the trial on indictment of any offence shall be by jury. That safeguard in the Constitution - one of the very few guarantees of civil liberties in the Constitution - has been constantly by-passed by making offences triable on information, in which case they can be tried by a magistrate or a judge sitting without a jury. I understand that at the moment juries in the Northern Territory are called only to try capital offences, whereas in every other Supreme Court and, in fact, before most courts of quarter sessions and general sessions in the States, criminal offences of a relatively minor nature and with relatively minor consequences are tried by jury. {: #subdebate-36-0-s6 .speaker-126} ##### Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:
Attorney-General · Parramatta · LP -- The honorable member will notice that clause 47 (2.) provides for an appeal from any judgment of the Supreme Court in a criminal matter by leave of the Supreme Court, and that under clause 47 (1.) there will be no need for leave to appeal on a pure question of law alone. There is nothing anomalous in that situation. {: #subdebate-36-0-s7 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM:
Werriwa .- I appreciate that, but I think it would still be correct to say that the right of appeal of a convicted person will be more limited in the Northern Territory than in any of the States. I appreciate that a person convicted by a jury in the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory will have the right of appeal to the High Court only on questions of law, but in all the States a person who is convicted has an appeal as of right on questions of law in many criminal matters other than capital matters. What I ask the Attorney-General **(Sir Garfield Barwick)** to consider doing - perhaps he would introduce an amendment in the other place to this effect - is to give the same right of appeal on matters of law to convicted persons in the Northern Territory, as exists in the States. Provision could be made for a right of appeal, on a question of law, to the High Court until there is provision for a full court of the Supreme Court in the Northern Territory, for any person who is convicted of an offence for which, say, a term of imprisonment of one year or more may be imposed. {: #subdebate-36-0-s8 .speaker-126} ##### Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:
Attorney-General · Parramatta · LP -- This clause is drawn on a permanent basis. It is not narrower than the State provisions, because in the States there is no appeal in a criminal case on a question of facts alone, nor on a ground which contains matters of a fact. But under clause 47 (1.) there could be an appeal to the High Court, even after trial on indictment, on a question of fact. That is a much larger provision than the existing State provisions. Taking clauses 47 (1.) and 47 (2.) together, I would not for one moment concede that this is a less favorable provision to a convicted person than the State provisions. Clause agreed to. Clauses 52 to *54* - by leave - taken together, and agreed to. Clause 55- (1.) The senior Judge may make Rules of Court . . . (5.) The Attorney-General may, by notification in the Government Gazette of the Territory, disallow any Rule of Court, and thereupon the Rule so disallowed ceases to have effect. {: #subdebate-36-0-s9 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM:
Werriwa .- I move - >After sub-clause (5.) insert the following subclause: - " (5a.) Where the Attorney-General disallows any Rule of Court, he shall cause a statement of the reasons for disallowance to be laid before each House of the Parliament as soon as possible, but in any case within fifteen sitting days of that House, after the date on which the Rule was disallowed.". This is an amendment to the clause which gives the senior judge of the Northern Territory Supreme Court the right to make rules of court subject to disallowance by the Attorney-General. The clause as it stands provides that when the Attorney-General **(Sir Garfield Barwick)** disallows any such rule he must notify the disallowance in the Government " Gazette " of the Territory. Section 22 (2.) of the Supreme Court Ordinance of the Territory, the existing provision, is in these terms - >All Rules of Court made in pursuance of this section shall be published or notified in the Gazette, and copies thereof shall be forwarded to the Attorney-General after the making thereof. Which " Gazette " is referred to does not appear from the Supreme Court Ordinance. Nor does it appear from the Interpretation Ordinance of the Territory. {: .speaker-126} ##### Sir Garfield Barwick: -- The Interpretation Ordinance says that it is the " Government Gazette of the Territory ", does it not? {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- Which section of the ordinance says that? {: .speaker-126} ##### Sir Garfield Barwick: -- I cannot tell the honorable member, but I know that the ordinance says that. {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- There are several references to the " Gazette " in the Interpretation Ordinance. I have not been through the Supreme Court Ordinance exhaustively, but it would seem that the provision in that ordinance could be fulfilled by notifying the disallowance in either the Commonwealth " Gazette " or the Territory " Gazette ". In that ordinance, the position is not succinctly put as in our Acts Interpretation Act, which provides that the word " Gazette " in any of our acts means the " Commonwealth of Australia Gazette ". The Opposition does not think that notification in the Territory " Gazette " is sufficient, because that " Gazette " is not readily available and certainly is looked at only rarely by people outside the Territory. {: .speaker-JAG} ##### Mr Crean: -- It is not a best-seller. {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- No, and there are not many on the free list, either. The provision that we have proposed is in terms similar to those which the Parliament approved in 1959 in amending the Northern Territory Administration Act. Sub-section (2.) of section 4z of that act, which was inserted by section 17 of the 1959 act, provides - >Where the Governor-General . . . disallows an Ordinance . . . The Minister shall cause a statement of the reasons . . . for disallowance . . . to be laid before each House of the Parliament. The words of the sub-section then proceed in the same terms as do those of the amendment. That is what the Parliament has done in respect of ordinances of the Legislative Council for the Northern Territory. We consider that the same procedure should be applied in respect of rules of court made by the judge of the Supreme Court of the Territory. Various procedures are laid down by this Parliament for the disallowance of rules of court. Section 87 (2.) of the Judiciary Act states in relation to rules of court made by the High Court - >If either House of the Parliament passes a resolution, of which notice has been given within fifteen sitting days after the Rules have been laid before the House, disallowing any Rule, that Rule shall thereupon cease to have effect. High Court rules are not only notified in the Commonwealth " Gazette "; they are tabled in both Houses of the Parliament and can be disallowed only by a resolution of either House. The Bankruptcy Act, in section 223, requires that the rules which the Governor-General makes for the Federal Court of Bankruptcy shall be notified in the Commonwealth " Gazette ", shall take effect from the date of notification or from a later date specified in the rules, and shall be laid before both Houses of the Parliament within 30 days after the making thereof or, if the Parliament is not then sitting, within 30 days after the next meeting of the Parliament. The procedure for disallowance is the same as in the case of the High Court rules: A resolution of either House of the Parliament is required, notice of that resolution having been given within fifteen sitting days after the rules were tabled in the House which passes the resolution. More recently, provision has been made in the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court Act for the Judge of the Supreme Court of the Territory to make rules. Section 28 (4.) of that act states - >The Attorney-General may, by notification in the " Gazette ", disallow any Rule of Court, and thereupon the Rule so disallowed shall cease to have effect. The reference there is to the Commonwealth " Gazette ". Our view, **Sir, is** that disallowance should be notified at least in the Commonwealth "Gazette". That is the "Gazette" in which members of the Parliament or, for that matter, members of the public, and members of the legal profession normally look for notifications by the AttorneyGeneral and other Ministers. But we go further. We believe that the appropriate procedure for disallowing rules of court should involve this Parliament. We do not go so far as to say that rules of court should be disallowed only by a resolution of either House of the Parliament, as is the case in respect of rules of the High Court and the Bankruptcy Court, but we do say that a report should be made to the Parliament on any disallowance by the AttorneyGeneral. By making such provision, we shall provide for the disallowance of all delegated legislation in the Northern Territory to be notified to this Parliament. Accordingly, I have proposed the amendment in the terms that are before the committee. {: #subdebate-36-0-s10 .speaker-126} ##### Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:
Attorney-General · Parramatta · LP -- **Mr. Chairman,** the Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Whitlam)** was kind enough to inform me before the debate began what he proposed with respect to this clause, and I have had some opportunity to think about it. 1 regret to say that I do not feel able to accept it. Let me indicate briefly why. The Supreme Court of the Northern Territory is being constituted by an act of this Parliament. For a number of reasons, that is preferable to setting it up by ordinance. Several legal considerations flow from the fact that the court derives its authority from a statute of the Parliament rather than from an ordinance. But, apart from those quite important legal considerations, the court is a court of the Territory and the substantive law which it will administer will be to a large extent under the control of the Legislative Council of the Northern Territory by means of ordinances. Changes in the rules of court to be made by the judge of the court will be matters that very closely concern the people of the Territory, and that is why it is considered much more appropriate that notifications of both the rules and disallowance of rules, if that should take place, should be brought to the attention of the people of the Territory. They, of course, will then have their own means of bringing the Attorney-General of the day to account - no doubt in this House, to which he is responsible. It seems to me quite inappropriate that disallowance of rules, or the rules themselves, for that matter, should be notified in the Commonwealth " Gazette ". Other provisions of this bill call for notification of various things in the Territory " Gazette " and it seems to me appropriate that matters concerning the rules of court, also, should be notified in the Territory " Gazette ". For much the same reasons, it is much more appropriate that if an explanation is to be made it be made in the Territory rather than in this House. By means of a statute of this Parliament, we are constituting a court in the Territory, and we are truly dealing with a matter that concerns the Territory very closely, as would any rule of court that was made. It has seemed to me, in such time as I have been able to give to the question, that it would be much better to keep this statute in line with that respecting the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, in which there is no provision comparable to that proposed in the amendment, and also that it would be more appropriate not to require the Attorney-General to make a statement in this House which, after all, in one sense, would have at the time only an indirect and perhaps somewhat remote concern with the change in the territorial law. {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: -- The bill makes no provision for a statement or an explanation - I think " explanation " was the word used by the Minister - by the Attorney-General in the Territory. {: .speaker-126} ##### Sir GARFIELD BARWICK: -- But there will be no difficulty about obtaining the reasons. There is no reason why the procedure should make it incumbent to make a statement. The rule may be only a very minor thing and the reason for its disallowance wholly a Territory matter. I gather that that will be so more often than not. I cannot accept the amendment. Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to. Schedule agreed to. Title agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill - by leave - read a third time. {: .page-start } page 937 {:#debate-37} ### JUDGES' PENSIONS BILL 1961 {:#subdebate-37-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed from 11th April (vide page 623), on motion by **Sir Garfield** Barwick - >That the bill be now read a second time. {: #subdebate-37-0-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM:
Werriwa .- The sole purpose of this bill is to provide that the judge of the Northern Territory Supreme Court shall have the same entitlement to a pension, and his widow after him, as is available to all other federal judges and their widows. The Opposition does not oppose such a provision. It would be quite anomalous if the Northern Territory judge were to be singled out in this matter; he should receive no more and no less than all his colleagues receive. We take the opportunity on this bill, since it deals with one matter only - the question of pensions - as distinct from the last bill which dealt not only with salaries but also with a very great number of other matters, to focus attention on the necessity for coordinating the matters of judicial emoluments and practices between the Commonwealth and its various courts and the various State courts. Bills on this subject very often give rise to some exaggerated and intemperate remarks on both sides of the House. I suppose that is inevitable since judges' pensions are different from other pensions in at least four respects - they are usually noncontributory, no means test is applied, the pensions are paid after a relatively short qualifying period, and they are paid in some instances at a low qualifying age. I have already referred to the differences in respect of judges' salaries. The differences in judges' pensions are no fewer or smaller because the pensions are related to the salaries and the percentage fixed for the pensions varies quite considerably between the different States. I shall survey the States to illustrate the anomalies that exist. In New South Wales, a judge has to retire at 70 years of age. If he has had five years' service at that age, he receives 25 per cent. of his salary as a pension. He receives an additional 3½ per cent. of his salary for each additional complete year of service. The maximum amount of pension he can receive is 60 per cent. of his salary. If he retires at 60 years of age and has had ten years' service, the judge receives the same pension as he would receive if he had retired at 70 years. The judge's widow receives a pension of 20 per cent. of his salary. In Victoria, judges retire at 72 years of age. If they retire at that age after fifteen years' service, they receive a pension of 40 per cent. of their salary. Their widows receive a pension of 20 per cent. of their salary. In Queensland, judges have to retire at 70 years of age. Tf they have had five years' service, they receive a pension of 20 per cent. of their salary. The pension rises by 4 per cent. of the salary for every complete year of service. The maximum pension they can receive is 40 per cent. of their salary. They can, however, retire at 60 years, and if they have served ten years they can receive a pension of 27½ per cent. of their salary. The amount of pension rises at *2i* per cent. of the salary for every year they have served in excess of ten years, and their maximum pension is 40 per cent. of their salary. Judges' widows receive pensions on a graduated scale, rising to a maximum of 20 per cent. of the salary. In South Australia, alone among the States, judges must contribute if they wish to receive pensions. The judges must retire at 70 years of age. Those who retire at 70 years and have been contributors on the sliding scale, which depends on the age at which they are appointed, receive 50 per cent. of their salary as pension. Their widows receive 25 per cent. of the salary as pension. In Western Australia, judges who retire after 60 years of age and have served ten years receive 27½ per cent. of their salary as pension. The pension rises by *2i* per cent. of the salary for every additional year of service and the maximum pension is 40 per cent. of the salary. Their widows receive a maximum of 20 per cent. of the salary as pension. In Tasmania, judges who retire after they reach 60 years of age and after fifteen years' service receive a pension of 50 per cent, of their salary and their widows receive £1,000 or 25 per cent, of the pension, whichever is the greater. The differences in salary between judges are very considerable; the differences in pensions are greater still. This seems an appropriate time at which to assert, therefore, our view that the Commonwealth should take the lead in co-ordinating these matters of judicial pensions. Unquestionably these pensions are unusually large - they have many unusual features - but we do not object to them on that basis. In fact. Labour governments in this Parliament and in the State parliaments have been responsible for many of the judicial pension schemes. We have initiated and supported these schemes because we believe that a judge in retirement - in the Commonwealth the judges decide for themselves when and if they should retire - should enjoy the same independent and aloof life that he has followed when he was on the Bench. It would be wrong to say that judicial salaries are disproportionately large. Few people who are appointed as judges do not suffer a fall in income. Judges do not accept appointment to the bench in order to increase their incomes. The only material satisfaction that a judge can expect from being appointed to the bench is greater security in his retirement. The other satisfactions he gains are the status and significance which attach to judges, and which do not attach to persons who appear before them. May I take this opportunity to say that we would hope that judges in retirement would conduct themselves with the same decorum and the same aloofness from commercial and business interests which they are expected - in fact, required - to show when they are on the bench. There was recently an unfortunate case in which a federal judge, who retired with a considerable pension and a knighthood, accepted the office of chairman of directors of a company which was seeking a television licence. There is no question that the people who appointed him as chairman of directors of the applicant company thought that his prestige would advance their cause. I greatly regret that the judge accepted the position, and it is an example of what, regrettably, can happen. The judge should not have allowed himself to be used in that position and in that way. When they retire, judges are given pensions which enable them to observe the same dignity in retirement as they have to observe while on the bench. While I am not suggesting that there should be any requirement in any statute for it, I think we would be failing in our duty if, the first time legislation of this kind comes before the House after the incident to which I have referred, we did not point to the regrettable position that can arise. Judges are not alone in this matter. One of the unfortunate temptations to which Australian Governors-General and Governors may fall prey is that they are asked to take commercial positions upon their retirement. One would hope that when we have more Australian GovernorsGeneral and Governors adequate pensions will be made available to them. There are some other matters which should be mentioned when considering this bill. I regret that the bill does not make provision for judges' children who are under sixteen years of age or who are still undergoing education, where both the judge and his widow die before the children have either reached sixteen years of age or completed their education. That is something which could occur, as we know. There have been cases of judges dying and leaving young children, and although, in the cases that I know of, the widows are quite young, if those widows should unfortunately die before the children reached sixteen years of age, there would be no provision for those children. In Western Australia alone there is provision for the payment of a small pension to dependent children where both the judge and the widow die before the children reach sixteen years of age. I also believe that there ought to be reciprocity between the Commonwealth and the States with respect to judicial pensions. There have been many cases of State judges being appointed to Federal courts. One member of the High Court was formerly a member of the Supreme Court of Victoria and another was formerly a member of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. In the past, there have been a number of members of the High Court who were formerly members of State supreme courts. There is also a member of the Commonwealth Arbitration Commission who was formerly a member of the New South Wales Industrial Commission. The converse is rarer. Not long ago, however, there was a proposal that one of the judges of the High Court should be appointed Chief Justice of one of the States. I understand that negotiations did take place between the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth and the Attorney-General of the State concerned. There is provision in the New South Wales Judges Pensions Act for New South Wales judges to be given credit for service as judges in the Commonwealth sphere. I feel that we should seek provision by other States for credit to be given to Commonwealth judges who accept service as State judges. At the moment there is no provision for dependent children where both a federal judge and his widow die before the children attain sixteen years of age. {: .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr Turnbull: -- What about other children in the community apart from those of judges? Surely to goodness they should be considered? {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- Judges have been singled out. {: .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr Turnbull: -- You are singling them out for a special purpose. {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- I thought we were in general agreement that judges have been singled out by all Commonwealth governments of all political complexions, and by all State governments, because it is hoped that, in retirement or on incapacity, they, and their widows after them, will be given a decent status, independence and immunity. We expect them to have that independence when they are in office, and, by this bill, we make provision for the judges after they retire, and for their widows after the judges die, and I simply suggest that in this bill we should make for their children provision similar to that made in Western Australia. The attraction of judicial office, and the practice of that office, now depend very largely on the fact that judges know that they and their widows will be independent for the rest of their lives. I am only suggesting that provision should be made for their children. Some provision is made for them in one of the States, and it seems perfectly reasonable that similar provision should be made here. In order to bring to a head the need to co-ordinate judicial practices between the States, I propose moving an amendment which has for its purpose the deferment of this matter for six months to enable a conference to take place between the Commonwealth and the States. I am authorized to say on behalf of the Opposition that if, regrettably, in that six months the person who is about to be appointed to the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory, or his dependants, were to become eligible for the provision which is being made under this bill, then we would agree to the passage of a retrospective measure in favour of him or his dependants. I move - >That the word " now " be omitted from, and that the words " this day six months in order that the Government may confer with the States with a view to adopting a uniform basis for the payment of judges' pensions " be added to, the question. {: #subdebate-37-0-s1 .speaker-126} ##### Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:
Attorney-General · Parramatta · LP 15.51 - in reply - The speech of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Whitlam)** ranged over a fairly wide field. He has read a curtain lecture to judges as to what they should and should not do when they retire. No doubt, on matters of manners and decorum, the judges of Australia will give to the remarks of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition such weight as they care to give them. They will be able to evaluate them for themselves. He has made reference to one individual judge, and I suppose what I have just said goes for that case too. The amendment that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has moved is one that I do not quite follow. In this bill, we are simply making it clear that the judge of the Northern Territory Supreme Court will have the same rights of pension as would a judge of another federal court, not being the High Court. This debate has been made the occasion for the suggestion that we should not include our own judges in this scheme until we have been around the States? To do what? To get the States to pay their judges bigger pensions, or smaller pensions? I do not know. When you analyse it, this magic word " co-ordinate ", or the phrase " get uniformity in judicial practices ", is a little thin. Is the proposition that when this House thinks it is all right to pay its own judge £7,000 and give him a certain pension, our own judges should not get these emoluments until we race around Australia to see if we can get the States to pay more, or less, or the same in each State? After all, those who practise the law in Western Australia would not hope to get the same fees for the same work that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition would ask for if he were practising in New South Wales. {: .speaker-KUX} ##### Mr Stewart: -- Why not? {: .speaker-126} ##### Sir GARFIELD BARWICK: -- Because money standards for the work in the two States are quite different. I am sure that a man who accepted appointment to the Supreme Court of Western Australia would not expect to get the same salary as a man who accepted a post on the Supreme Court of New South Wales. This is not measured by work value. It is measured in relation to the standards of the profession, what they earn and expect and the security they have in the various State professions. With great respect, I would not know how I would go about saying to all States, " I want some uniformity of judicial procedure in these respects. I want you all to pay the same salary to all your judges." I would soon be in trouble. Or if I said, " I cannot suggest you pay the same salary; let me fix a scale ", I would not know how to do that. It would have to be worked out by each of them. So in truth, the suggestion is not only impracticable but also quite unreal. We had much the same trouble when fixing the matrimonial causes rules under the Matrimonial Causes Act. Would we fix the court fees federally? We saw immediately that we could not because the rates and standards were so diverse through the States and were matters peculiarly within the interest and competence of those State bodies. So I have little hesitation on this occasion in saying that the Government cannot accept the amendment that has been proposed by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. {: #subdebate-37-0-s2 .speaker-KGP} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon W C Haworth:
ISAACS, VICTORIA -- Before I call the honorable member for Bruce, I take it that the Attorney-General was speaking to theamendment moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition? {: .speaker-126} ##### Sir Garfield Barwick: -- That is correct. {: #subdebate-37-0-s3 .speaker-DQF} ##### Mr SNEDDEN:
Bruce .- The statements of the Attorney-General **(Sir Garfield Barwick)** in relation to the proposal of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Whitlam)** for co-ordination express my own views. I do not see that any purpose could be served, by coordination in a matter such as this. It is true that the present Opposition, when in office as the Government, dealt with judges' pensions; but it made no attempt whatever to seek the co-ordination that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is now requesting. Indeed, I think it was in 1948, pensions of judges in the Commonwealth sphere were 50 per cent, of the salary on retirement but there was no provision at all for the widows of judges. The Labour Government of the day led by **Mr. Chifley** set up a committee of members of the Australian Labour Party to consider this matter. The members of the committee expressed the view that no steps should be taken. On the other hand, the Government of that day, which represented the same party as did the committee, was ot the opinion that something should be done tor the widows of judges. As a compromise, the amount of the pension for a judge was reduced from 50 per cent, of the salary to 40 per cent. In the words of the Prime Minister of the day, **Mr. Chifley,** the proportion was reduced from 50 per cent, to 40 per cent, so that the 10 per cent, would help to offset the cost of pensions for widows. At that time, there was no consideration of co-ordination. From the outset, there has been no such consideration because on an earlier occasion a Labour government had done something about pensions for judges in the federal jurisdiction. Co-ordination, even if it were to be achieved, or were capable of being achieved, bears no relation to the issue in this bill. The issue in this connexion is whether the judge of the Northern Territory who will be appointed under the bill that has just been passed by this House, is to receive the same pension rights as do the judges of other federal courts. So, any question of co-ordination must be put aside completely in considering this bill. As the Deptuy Leader of the Opposition has rightly pointed out, it would be wrong to single out the judge of the Northern Territory Supreme Court and not give him the pension rights of other judges of federal courts. What surprises me about the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is that having made that statement at the outset of his speech he then proceeded to move an amendment in the form that he has done. I do not know how the honorable gentleman could even conceive of any possibility of co-ordination within six months. After all, there has been a difference for a great number of years. The first pensions for judges in the Commonwealth sphere were provided in 1926, so any assumption that there could be any co-ordination in six months is to overlook the fundamentals - the first fundamental being that coordination in itself is not desirable from the Commonwealth point of view or from the point of view of the States. If any arguments In favour of co-ordination could be put forward, why should co-ordination be agreed to by the States? That is the test of the argument of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. He said, " Let us have coordination ". He then pointed out the differences, but he has not given a single reason why there should be co-ordination on these matters. For myself, I do not see any necessity for co-ordination. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition referred to the absence from the bill of any provision for pensions for children of deceased judges when the mother was also deceased. There is no provision in this legislation for these orphans, and I adverted to this matter in 1958 during the debate on the Judges Pensions Bill of that year. On that occasion, I said in this chamber - >There is only one point about this bill which I regret. I wish that it included provision for a proportionate part of the pension of a deceased retired judge to be paid to his children under the age of sixteen years, or some other stipulated age. In retrospect, after three years have passed, I feel that sixteen years was too low an. age to fix. I think it should be higher because the education of the son of a judge would not be nearly completed at sixteen years. I went on to say in 1958 - >The position now is that, upon the death of a retired, married judge, his widow receives half of the judge's pension entitlement. In addition, I think that his children under the age of sixteen receive fi a week. But, as 1 understand the position as it will apply when this bill becomes law, in the event of the widow dying before the children attain the age of sixteen years, there will be no payment at all to the children. In my opinion, further amendment of the act is desirable to provide for such a contingency. > >While, possibly, the contingency is a remote and improbable one, nevertheless there may be _ an occasion when, subsequent to the death of a retired judge, his wife also dies leaving young children without income. Of course, this is not as remote a possibility as one may think. Judges are generally thought of as being middle-aged or in advancing years, and one normally does not associate young children with them, but I can think of at least two judges of Commonwealth courts who to my knowledge have young children. While we all hope that the lack of provision in this bill will never affect them, the possibility always exists. Therefore, after the passage of three years I ask again that the Government consider, when the act is being amended again, or preferably at the present time, making provision for the children of deceased judges in the event of the death of the mother. The matter of reciprocity between the States and the Commonwealth was also raised by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. My understanding is that there now is reciprocity. I thought I heard the AttorneyGeneral, by way of interjection, assure the Deputy Leader of the Opposition of this fact. Subject to what I have said in relation to the children of deceased judges, I think that this bill should be passed immediately. I take the opportunity to mention this matter only because J think that it needs attention, but simply because I have that attitude does not mean that I will vote against this bill, which is designed to correct what otherwise would be a most anomalous situation, that is, to single out the judges of the Northern Territory Supreme Court and to treat them differently from the way in which other Commonwealth judges are treated. I support the bill as it stands, but I ask the Government to consider the matter that I have raised relating to the children of deceased judges. {: #subdebate-37-0-s4 .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr TURNBULL:
Mallee .- This Government has been most liberal in the matter of pensions for judges. In fact, I think that it has been a little too liberal, although I have supported its proposals in the past. The Deputy Leader of the Opposittion **(Mr. Whitlam)** and the honorable member for Bruce **(Mr. Snedden)** now have taken the opportunity during this debate to advocate that the benefits that have been afforded judges should be extended after their death to their children, and I think it is time that I had something to say about the matter. I oppose the proposal. {: .speaker-DQF} ##### Mr Snedden: -- The proposal to extend the benefits to the children would apply only in the event of the death of the mother, too. {: .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr TURNBULL: -- As the honorable member for Bruce has sard, the proposal would apply only in the event of the death of the mother and after the children become orphans. But many children become orphans in this country, and after all, a judge receives a very good salary and surely he can provide for his children in the manner of the rest of the community. When the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was advocating this proposal so strongly I interjected, and I am speaking now to support my interjection so that my attitude will be clear. I am opposed to the proposal. I cannot understand how the Labour Party can support it and why it is left to me to oppose the suggestion because it must be completely opposed to Labour policy, and it is time that some other Labour member expressed his opinion onit. I cannot understand how the deputy leader of a Labour Party could advocate such a policy, and I oppose his advocacy. Question put - >That the word proposed to be omitted **(Mr. Whitlam's amendment)** stand part of the question. [The bells being rung] - {: .speaker-JVU} ##### Mr Nelson: -- **Mr. Deputy Speaker,** as this bill relates to the Northern Territory I submit that I am entitled to vote on it. {: #subdebate-37-0-s5 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- Order! The honorable member is not entitled to vote on this measure. The House divided. (Mr. Deputy Speaker - Hon. W. C. Haworth.) AYES: 62 NOES: 41 Majority . . . . 21 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and committed pro forma; progress reported. Message recommending appropriation reported. In committee (Consideration of Administrator's message): Motion (by **Sir Garfield** Barwick) agreed to - That it is expedient that an appropriation of revenue be made for the purposes of a bill for an act to amend the Judges' Pension Act 1948-1958. Resolution reported and adopted. In committee: Consideration resumed. Bill - by leave - taken as a whole, and agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill - by leave - read a third time. {: .page-start } page 943 {:#debate-38} ### EXPORT PAYMENTS INSURANCE CORPORATION BILL 1961 {:#subdebate-38-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed from 13th April (vide page 824), on motion by **Mr. McEwen** - >That the bill be now read a second time. {: #subdebate-38-0-s0 .speaker-KYC} ##### Mr POLLARD:
Lalor .- I never hear the word " insurance " without becoming fairly deeply interested in the whole matter of insurance generally. One may roam the streets of the capital cities of this country - or, for that matter, of many other countries - and behold palatial office blocks owned and occupied by private insurance companies. One immediately is given to wonder where these companies acquire the immense revenues to enable them to build these palaces that they own and occupy. I do not, of course, object to their staffs, their white-collar workers, working under the good conditions that obtain, or should obtain, in such buildings. However, it is most disconcerting to find, as we found the other day by means of newspaper items, that the firms that occupy these premises are able, under the law, to lend the funds that they accumulate from the insuring public to various other persons in the community, on some occasions without proper precautions or without exercising sufficient wisdom. It is a cause of deep concern to find that shares in a particular insurance company have become practically valueless, and that certain interested parties have made an offer for them on the basis of only1d. a share. When I read of such occurrences I am forced to the conclusion that it is a tragedy that the parliaments of this country have not, long before this, ensured that all fire, building and other such types of insurance are no longer the responsibility of private concerns, but that they shall be controlled and conducted entirely by the nation in the interests of the nation. {: .speaker-KMD} ##### Mr Osborne: -- Do you want to nationalize all insurance? {: .speaker-KYC} ##### Mr POLLARD: -- I would have nationalized them long ago, and you can tell that to whom you like. Let us look at the facts of the situation. I was a soldier settler for a considerable number of years, with a fairly extensive mortgage around my neck. Until that mortgage was discharged I was compelled to insure the fencing, the farm buildings and the homestead, not with any private insurance company, but with the Soldier Settlement Commission of Victoria. I observed the covenant and I paid my premiums every year as I was required to do. The Soldier Settlement Commission, one of the Victorian Government instrumentalities, was wise enough to run its own insurance pool. But, to and behold, when I paid off my mortgage and expressed a desire to continue to insure with the State of Victoria, I was told, " Oh. no, we cannot accept you any longer as an insurer. Go out and insure with some private company ". The result was that I had to pay, and still pay, a higher premium to an outside, private, profiteering insurance company, than I was required to pay to the State instrumentality. To carry the story further and give other examples of what can and should be done, I can tell honorable members that every purchaser of a housing commission home, or of a war service home, pays his insurance premiums to a semi-government instrumentality, and enjoys the benefits of lower premium payments than he would be required to pay if he insured with any private enterprise insurance company in any part of Australia. Surely these examples prove that insurance should be the responsibility and the monopoly of the State and' Commonwealth Governments of Australia. The Commonwealth carries its own insurance pool. It does not go around looking for a private insurance company with which to insure the great administrative buildings of Canberra. On, no! It carries its own insurance pool. It does not feel disposed to pay premiums to some outside instrumentality to protect it against the risks of fire or some other disaster. The measure now before the House is termed " a bill to amend the Export Payments Insurance Corporation Act 1956- 1959 ". This bill, in effect, deals with a measure introduced into Parliament in 1956 by the present Government in order to provide insurance cover to people who exported goods from this country. The reason why this Parliament was moved to pass this legislation was that it deals with a type of insurance that is not generally profitable to private enterprise insurance companies. Furthermore, it was a type of insurance that in itself, it was hoped - I believe it has had some measure of success - would stimulate the export of goods to other countries of the world where security in regard to payment might not be as stable as was desirable. We have had four years of the operation of this act and we find that in the main its business - or the greater part of it - has been transacted with countries within the Asian sphere to the extent of 48.6 per cent. The proportions of its business within other spheres were: Western Europe 19 per cent., Eastern Europe 13.6 per cent., Oceania 5.8 per cent., North America 4.9 per cent., Africa 3.9 per cent., Central America 3.6 per cent., and South America .6 per cent. All the activities of this export insurance corporation have been carried on on a basis of no profit and no loss. Is that not ideal insurance? Why cannot the general public have a no-profit-no-loss type of insurance similar to that which I mentioned as being operated by the soldier settlement commissions, the war service homes authorities and the housing commissions of the various States? To-day we find that after this House has agreed to several amendments of the legislation since 1956, this corporation has given cover to business worth approximately fi 2,000,000. That is to say that it carries a liability of £12,000,000. This year the premiums on risks insured by the corporation amount to £46,789, and the income from investments is £53,000, giving a total revenue of approximately £100,000. Expenditure on salaries, rentals, superannuation, pay-roll tax, long service leave, depreciation and other items amounted to £61,000, giving an excess of income over expenditure of £38,000. Yet the cover given by this instrumentality at the moment amounts to £12,000,000. What do you consider a private enterprise insurance company would want as an excess of revenue over expenditure for one year in respect of cover for £12,000,000? If this is indicative of what can be done by a Commonwealth Government instrumentality, it further highlights my statement that all insurance should be nationalized in the interests of the people and handled on a noprofitnoloss basis just as this instrumentality operates. The purpose of the measure before the House is interesting. The Government seeks to utilize the services of this corporation to provide cover for risks which it considers to be taken in the national interest - risks which may aid Australia in its endeavour to promote further exports from this country. But quite clearly such risks - and the Minister was quite frank about it - could be of such magnitude that the corporation could not be called upon to carry them on a no-profit-no-loss basis. So what do we find? Briefly, it is proposed that on a recommendation from the corporation to the Government a certain export product can be given a risk cover of £X and then the corporation may, on the instruction of the Minister, transact this particular type of business. I do not know what the Minister has in mind. He may have wheat in mind. Is that running in the mind of the Government? {: .speaker-009MB} ##### Mr McEwen: -- No particular commodity. {: .speaker-KYC} ##### Mr POLLARD: -- But could wheat be covered? {: .speaker-009MB} ##### Mr McEwen: -- It could be. {: .speaker-KYC} ##### Mr POLLARD: -- That is so. We then have this situation: We may have a particular product - wheat, for instance - and we may find that in certain circumstances, such as obtain to-day in mainland China, a particular country which seems to be a remarkably good customer has run out of cash resources and for the time being requires to buy wheat or other products on terms, but the instrumentality responsible to the owner of the wheat - in this instance the Australian Wheat Board - may feel that it cannot carry the responsibility of paying the growers for their wheat if it sells it to that country which may not be able to meet its financial responsibilities. In such a case it is clearly indicated - and I do not disagree with the proposal - that it will be within the function of the Australian Wheat Board, immediately this measure is passed and assented to, to approach the Export Payments Insurance Corporation, and say to it, " Here is a type of risk which you are now authorized by law to undertake "; and it will then be for the Minister to say to the corporation, " In the national interest I instruct the corporation to undertake this insurance on the sale of this wheat to mainland China". On that instruction the corporation has no alternative but to provide the insurance cover. What the insurance premium payable by the Australian Wheat Board or by any private instrumentality is likely to be, I do not know; but this bill provides that if any loss results from the failure of the buying country to meet its obligations the Government will meet the loss. Am I wrong? {: .speaker-009MB} ##### Mr McEwen: -- No. {: .speaker-KYC} ##### Mr POLLARD: -- That is the purpose of it. I suggest that there is nothing wrong with that in the international interest. I would go a step further. Although it is admitted by the Minister for Trade that if the Australian Wheat Board is given a guarantee of that kind the Government finally carries the risk, what is wrong with that? According to the Wheat Board, mainland China is suffering a drought which is probably without precedent in its history. In a case like that, not only should the Government carry the risk of providing wheat on terms, but it would not be a bad idea if the Government made a substantial donation of wheat, free of charge, and saddled the Australian Consolidated Revenue with the payment. Similarly, any other famine-stricken Asian country such as India, where people are starving and dying in the streets, should be assisted by a substantial donation of free Australian produce. Not only would that be humanitarian but it would be the type of action most calculated to endear Australia to all these people. Subsequently, when they reached financial stability again, they might bring profitable business to this country. I have said practically all that is to be said. The purpose of the bill is clear. It is clear that there is a risk. It is clear that a financial responsibility is to be placed on the shoulders of the taxpayers of this country but I think that the powers sought should be vested in the Government. I think it is clear that the Government, in effect, is using this instrumentality as a cover-up instrumentality, although the Minister has frankly admitted that the exports of wheat to mainland China could be a type of business which would come within the ambit of this corporation. It would be unworthy of me to suggest that, in the event of export payments insurance being extended in respect of mainland China, as I hope it will, the Government, at election time, would have to produce an alibi. If some people were small-minded enough to accuse the Government of being pro-Communist because it had sold wheat on doubtful financial terms to China the Government could say, " We have an exports insurance corporation with a very fine consultative council of Australian citizens whose integrity is beyond dispute and they have undertaken to carry out the business at our request ". Members of the Government could shrug their shoulders and say, " We are not Corns, although we have taken this risk". The Australian public should know these things. I would be the last to brand the Government as doing wrong because it indulged in business such as this. There are certain provisions of the bill which I think will be better dealt with in committee. I am glad to see a measure of this kind introduced. I am sure that it will be of use to a future Labour government. In its very essence, it reflects a humane instinct. It helps people collectively by having this country accept a financial responsibility. The bill seeks, in effect, to give power to nationalize the risks of the Australian Wheat Board. If it so happened that the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited wanted to continue its exports of steel, corrugated iron, zinc and other products to mainland China, the bill gives authority to nationalize the insurance interests of that company. The Minister for Repatriation **(Mr. Osborne)** who was at the table asked me to affirm my belief in nationalization of insurance, and for that I have no regret. But he, by his endorsement of this measure, equally with me, has nationalized the risk that may be taken by a semi-governmental instrumentality, by growers, marketing organizations such as the Wheat Board and by great corporations such as the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited. Having said those few words, I give the bill my blessing. {: #subdebate-38-0-s1 .speaker-KVR} ##### Mr SWARTZ:
Darling Downs .- I was very interested to hear the honorable member for Lalor **(Mr. Pollard)** propounding Labour's policy in relation to the nationalization of insurance. I am sure that he was reiterating Labour's policy on this occasion because I did not hear any denial from honorable members behind him. I assume it is also his desire to pursue that policy to its conclusion - control of banking and the means of production, distribution and exchange. It is good for us to be reminded at regular intervals by the honorable member for Lalor and other honorable members opposite of the continuation of their adherence to the policy of socialization. I think the public is interested to know that Opposition members are firmly determined to pursue that policy if ever they gain government again. The honorable member for Lalor also said that a nationalized insurance organization could act on a non-profit and non-loss basis in a similar way to the organization that we are discussing. I think he has overlooked the fact that insurance is a large business which employs, throughout Australia, many thousands of people. Is he suggesting that the unemployment to which Opposition members have referred in this House to-day be increased by disbanding this nation-wide insurance organization? At the same time, is the Opposition suggesting that we can entirely overlook the tremendous investment capacity of Australian insurance organizations and the good they are doing in the development of this country? I think that the honorable member has entirely overlooked that aspect. Insurance companies are also providing loans for housing to many thousands of people. In accordance with the policy of the Government, this gives many people an opportunity to own their own homes. We believe in this policy, but apparently the honorable member for Lalor disagrees with it. The honorable member suggested that, under this legislation, the Australian Wheat Board could request the Export Payments Insurance Corporation to insure sales of wheat to mainland China. That is quite correct. But, apparently, the honorable member has overlooked the fact that the Minister for Trade **(Mr. McEwen),** himself, does not make a decision hi relation to this matter without reference to his Cabinet colleagues. The matter would be referred for decision by a Cabinet meeting at which the Treasurer **(Mr. Harold Holt)** and the Minister for Trade **(Mr. McEwen)** would be present and Cabinet would consider all aspects of the proposal before any decision was made. The honorable member for Lalor spoke as though the supply of wheat so far as the Export Payments Insurance Corporation was concerned' related solely to mainland China. He overlooked entirely that the bill would apply to any country, and to any export earning group. {: .speaker-KYC} ##### Mr Pollard: -- I mentioned South-East Asia and India. {: .speaker-KVR} ##### Mr SWARTZ: -- You did not give much indication of that. I was interested in the honorable member's desire once again to give Australian wheat away. We have a very vivid recollection of his term as Minister for Agriculture, when he was instrumental in making practically a gift of wheat-growers' wheat at give-away prices to New Zealand. I now wish to refer to the bill itself, which was substantially avoided by the honorable member. To do so, we should refer to the Export Payments Insurance Corporation Act 1956-1959, the originating act which this bill is intended to amend. The act describes itself as - >An Act to promote Trade with Countries outside Australia, by establishing an Export Payments Insurance Corporation, to provide Insurance against certain Risks arising out of that Trade, nor normally insured with Commercial Insurers. That is obviously the bone of contention with the Opposition, because honorable members opposite contend that there should be no commercial insurance organization operating in Australia to-day. They would like to nationalize insurance. The purpose of this bill is to enable export payments insurance cover to be extended to transactions which the corporation would not, or could not, ordinarily cover under the existing act. Under the bill the Government would be empowered to authorize cover in such cases where it considered that it would be in the national interest to take such action. You will notice, **Mr. Speaker,** that quite deliberately the Minister for Trade, in introducing the bill, did not give any clear definition of " national interest " in this connexion, although he indicated some broad considerations which could influence the Government's determination as to whether particular transactions, which would be referred through the corporation to the Minister and, in turn, to Cabinet, should be covered in the national interest. I want to refer briefly to credit insurance as an aid to the promotion of exports. The promotion of exports is a major preoccupation of most countries, and in this connexion the part played by export credit insurance in countries which provide such facilities is assuming an increasingly important role. No greater recognition of this fact can be found than the recent decision of the Government of the United States of America authorizing the United States Export-Import Bank to provide credit insurance facilities for American exporters. In Australia, although export credit insurance has been available to exporters only for the past three years, there has been in that short period a considerable gain in export sales by Australia which would not otherwise have eventuated. We have some definite indications of that from the records of the Export Payments Insurance Corporation. One of the major factors which can inhibit trade is the natural reluctance of exporters, in view of the risks involved, to depart from secured terms of payment even in circumstances where the need so to depart is clearly indicated by the pattern of trade set by overseas competitors for the commodity and the market concerned. It is against the inherent risks associated with credit trading, which are not normally insurable through commercial organizations, that the corporation and the facilities it can make available can provide substantial protection. Apart from the direct protection that this facility offers to exporters, it is also an aid to them in obtaining bank finance as their overseas accounts are, in effect, received. On this, the Australian trading banks, rn a policy statement in 1959, said - >E.P.I.C. Guarantees considerably reduce the risks involved in export trade and thus can assist an exporter in obtaining such finance as he requires. In allocating their funds available for lending, banks give a high priority to the needs of their export customers and will always give special consideration to those cases where credit insurance cover is available. Let us look at the progress of the Export Payments Insurance Corporation since it was established in 1956. After the organization got under way the first policy was issued in September, 1957. The face value of policies which were current in June, 1958, was £11,100,000; the face value of policies current in June, 1959, £21,100,000; and the face value of policies current in June, 1960, £26,400,000. The total value of policies issued since the inception is in excess of £75,000,000. Credit cover has been given by the corporation to exporters exporting to more than 100 markets a wide range of primary and secondary products. Sitting suspended from 6 to 6 p.m. {: .speaker-KVR} ##### Mr SWARTZ: -- **Mr . Speaker,** before the suspension of the sitting for dinner, I answered the case which had been put by the honorable member for Lalor on behalf of the Opposition. I pointed out that the honorable member had devoted most of his time to explaining the Australian Labour Party's policy, which embraced the nationalization of insurance. I said that the honorable member had devoted little time to the actual bill before the House. He confirmed that when he said, on my questioning the fact, that he had meant to explain that that was Labour's policy on this occasion. Earlier, I had referred also to the origin of the Export Payments Insurance Corporation and had outlined its progress since it was established by an act of this Parliament in 1956 and since its first business was transacted in 1957. The present bill is designed to extend insurance cover to exporters to include items which, in the view of the Cabinet, could be classified as being in the national interest. The definition of this term was explained by the Minister for Trade in his second-reading speech. Since the original act was placed on the statute-book in 1956, a number of amending measures have been introduced and have become law. In April, 1959, an amending measure was introduced in order to increase the capital and the limit of liability of the corporation. Initially, it had a capital of £500,000 and a liability limit of £25,000,000. The 1959 measure doubled these amounts, increasing the capital to £1,000,000 and the liability limit to £50,000,000. These limits are still in force to-day. In accordance with the Government's policy, the act was again amended in November, 1959, by a measure which varied the maximum percentage risk which the corporation could cover, the maximum percentage having been originally fixed at 85 per cent. Under the terms of the amending measure, the maximum cover was fixed at 85 per cent, for commercial risks of insolvency or default on the part of a private buyer and up to 90 per cent, in the pre-shipment period and 95 per cent, in the post-shipment period for what are termed political risks. The definition of political risks covers risks which arise from the action of a foreign government, such as exchange transfer blockages, the imposition of measures such as import licensing controls and, in another field, war or revolution. It is interesting to compare the facilities provided by the Australian Export Payments Insurance Corporation with those provided in other countries. In Canada and the United Kingdom, the relevant legislation already contains national-interest provisions, and these provisions have been quite successful in operation in both countries. In Canada, business totalling more than 300,000,000 dollars has already been done under the national-interest provisions without the payment of a claim. In the United Kingdom, over a ten-year period, a surplus of £2,300,000 sterling has been shown. When we look at the latest records available - those up to the end of 1958 - we find that at that time transactions under the national-interest provisions in the United Kingdom legislation totalled more than £28,000,000 sterling. This bill, which is designed to embody national-interest provisions in the Export Payments Insurance Corporation Act, was introduced by the Government on the recommendations of the Consultative Council of the Export Payments Insurance Corporation and the Export Development Council. As you, **Mr. Speaker,** know, both of these bodies are composed of prominent and experienced business men who are doing a great job for their country. They considered that these national-interest provisions should be embodied in the act, and the Government has accepted their advice. The Associated Chambers of Manufactures of Australia and the Railway Rolling Stock Manufacturers Association have actively supported the recommendations of the Consultative Council of the corporation and the Export Development Council. When cover is granted by the corporation in the national interest, the corporation will, in effect, be acting as an agent of the Government in matters such as the issuing of contracts, the collection of premiums and the payment of claims. It is envisaged that the premiums payable under the national-interest provisions will vary in accordance with the assessment of the risks involved in each particular case. As has already been stated, the business written under these provisions will be treated entirely separately from the normal operations of the corporation and separate accounts will be maintained and will be presented annually to the Parliament. Such business, of course, will not be included in the ceiling which, as I said a few moments ago, is placed on the total outstanding liabilities of the corporation and which, at present, is fixed at £50..000..000. As I explained to the honorable member for Lalor when he put the Opposition's arguments, when a case is put to Epic, as the corporation is sometimes known, under the national-interest provisions, the proposal will be referred to the Minister for Trade for careful consideration by Cabinet before a decision is made. Some of the factors concerned have already been mentioned, but I think it is desirable at this stage to mention them again, because they are quite important considerations which the Government had before it prior to the introduction of this measure. The nationalinterest provisions are being introduced with certain factors in mind. First, these provisions will cover a proposition which has promise of opening up a worthwhile new export market for Australian products. The House will remember that I stated earlier that Epic has already provided insurance cover up to date in more than 100 markets throughout the world. Secondly, these new provisions will stimulate an industry within Australia which has a high export potential. Thirdly, they will provide for transactions which are important to a particular area or industry in Australia from the stand-point of national development. Fourthly, these provisions will promote transactions which would confer some obvious and significant benefit in respect of our trading relations with other countries. With respect to the proposals that are contained in this bill, the Government has at present actively under consideration, or has announced, a number of other very definite and complementary aids to export development. The first is its proposals for tax allowances and incentives, which have already been announced. Secondly, with the object of assisting to influence favorably the basic climate for exporters within Australia, the Government is pressing firms to re-examine their position in relation to export franchises. Restrictive export franchises, of course, which operate in some instances at present, are clearly not in the national interest. Thirdly, a number of decisions have already been made with respect to certain commodities, and these decisions will be put into effect in the future. The first of these is the Government's decision to permit the export of certain quantities of iron ore on a carefully controlled and limited basis which will ensure that the reserves essential to Australia's industries are preserved for the future. This policy will provide a stimulus to the discovery of new deposits and to more detailed investigation of existing ones. As far as the steel industry is concerned, the Government is at present engaging in discussions and is investigating ways and means of enabling Australia to become a major and continuing net exporter in the future. Excise duty on coal for export has been waived as an incentive to encourage the export of this commodity to overseas markets. In the field of public works, the Government has considered sympathetically large public works needed in the States to increase exports directly. I refer to such matters as road development in the north, including the north and west of Queensland, the Northern Territory and the northern part of Western Australia. This will particularly assist the beef cattle industry and the mineral industries in these areas to increase their export potential. At the same time, the Government is encouraging and assisting the States to improve port and loading facilities for the development of the coal export trade. Further, consideration is being given to the provision of assistance for standard railway gauge work from Broken Hill to Port Pirie, with certain modifications that have been suggested by South Australia. This will, in effect, assist the export of minerals and ores from Broken Hill. Encouragement and assistance is also being given to the Western Australian Government for gauge work that will assist in the establishment of an iron and steel industry in that State. Some definite promotional activities, in association with this new export payments insurance proposal, are being introduced to further our trade efforts, particularly in the Middle East and in South America. It is intended to open up new trade posts in these areas and to strengthen other posts there in the near future. In conjunction with this, additional trade missions are being organized on an official basis. Negotiations are being undertaken which will result in improved shipping services, particularly to South American ports. Every effort is being made through the Trade Commissioner Service overseas, through trade publicity programmes and through the Australian National Travel Association to improve our tourist trade. Other matters under consideration relate to warehousing, and a number of specialists have been introduced into the Department of Trade to assist in investigations in this field. I think I may safely claim that all these measures indicate that the Government is determined actively to encourage export development. This bill, which is commended, meets the additional requirements of exporters in the field of exports payments insurance. The functions of the corporation will continue to remain under review, with the object of ensuring that, consistent with commercial prudence and the nonprofitnonloss basis on which this corporation was established, it will continue to operate to meet all future reasonable requirements of the Australian exporter. {: #subdebate-38-0-s2 .speaker-JAG} ##### Mr CREAN:
Melbourne Ports .- 1 should like to comment briefly on two matters on which the honorable member for Darling Downs **(Mr. Swartz)** touched early in his speech. My colleague, the honorable member for Lalor **(Mr. Pollard),** this afternoon said that in his view all insurance ought to be nationalized. I merely point out to the honorable member for Darling Downs that at least the form of insurance that we are considering at the moment is an example of insurance that has been nationalized. This form of insurance is carried on by a government undertaking, presumably because no one else would carry the sort of risks that were involved. The fact that these risks have been accepted on a national scale has, to some extent at any rate, meant an improvement in Australia's export trade. Equally of some significance is the fact that, unlike some other forms of insurance, this undertaking is conducted on the very laudable basis of no profit, no loss. Presumably, it should charge sufficient to cover - and no more - the cost of the service that is provided in underwriting the risks involved. I should like to draw the attention of the House to the rather peculiar way in which this no-profit no-loss assessment seems to be working out in practice. I shall refer to the income and expenditure statement of the Export Payments Insurance Corporation for the year ended 30th June, 1960. It is to be found at page 14 of the annual report of the corporation, which we now colloquially refer to as Epic. The statement shows that for the year ended 30th June, 1960, the income of the undertaking was, in round figures, £100,000. Of this income, £47,000 came from premiums received on the risks insured and the remaining £53,000-odd was income from investments. The expenditure of the under taking for the twelve months was £62,000. This left an excess of income over expenditure of £38,000 in round figures. I point out that the income from investments is derived from the investment in Commonwealth Government securities of the £1,000,000 initial capital that was provided by the Government out of Consolidated Revenue. This yields £50,000, in round figures. If this £50,000 were not available - it does not come from the earnings of the corporation - the undertaking, instead of showing a surplus of £38,000, would in fact show a deficit of something of the order of £15,000. I query whether on this basis the undertaking is being run on what the Minister for Trade **(Mr. McEwen)** refers to as a no-profit no-loss basis. In my view, the method of financing this undertaking means that a subsidy of the order of £50,000 has been given to those who have chosen to insure under this method. I do not think that any other explanation is possible in the light of the figures given in the statement of income and expenditure. I hope that the Minister will comment, perhaps during the committee stage, on whether the undertaking is being run on a basis that meets his test of no profit and no loss. This seems to me a rather peculiar way, to say the least, of financing an undertaking - to borrow £1,000,000 from Consolidated Revenue and to invest that £1,000,000 in the securities of the same Government. It is a rather odd way to provide income for this undertaking, but if this income were not available to it, the undertaking would have shown a defict of about £15,000 instead of a surplus of £38,000. I should like now to deal with the substance of the bill before us. This provides for a new kind of insurable risk and that is a risk that can be undertaken in what is called the national interest. If such a risk is to be undertaken, it is undertaken after consultation between the corporation, the Minister for Trade, the Treasurer and other members of Cabinet, if need be. I should like to cite certain references that appear in the last annual report, from which I have already quoted figures. To my mind, it indicates a deficiency in Australia in relation to the provision of finance for a certain kind of trade which would be undertaken if there were some other means of obtaining finance. For the information of honorable members, I quote an article that was published in the December, 1960, issue of a London publication called " The Banker ". The article is by **Mr. Paul** Bareau, a well-known financial writer in Great Britain, and is headed, " Export credits where Britain lags ". Tn it, the writer says - >It is argued in industrial circles- That is, industrial circles in Great Britain - that what has hampered British exports has been not merely the inadequacy of E.C.G.D.- which is the Export Credit Guarantee Department, the equivalent in Great Britain of the Export Payments Insurance Corporation out here - but the unavailability of the necessary supplies of medium-term credit even when such cover is provided. I suggest that that kind of gap exists in the Australian economy at the moment, and it is pointed to in one or two references contained in the fourth annual report of the Export Payments Insurance Corporation, whose charter we are amending this evening. On page 7 of that report, the corporation points to the fact that since its inception it has issued a total of 265 guarantees. That is to say, over a period of three years, there have been 265 individual examples of insurance undertaken under this scheme, which indicates that the people who have recourse to this kind of insurance are comparatively few in number. When we take into account the fact that for the year ended 30th June, 1960, the last year for which statistics are available, there were 127 separate policies current, and the face value of the business insured was £26,429,903, we realize that, in round figures, the average size of each transaction covered varies between £200,000 and £250,000. Those are fairly solid transactions, and the corporation points to the fact that apparently there is not sufficient catering for what it calls the small traders. It mentions that there were many small traders who, for a variety of reasons, found it difficult to establish themselves in the export field. What we propose doing to-night does not in any way meet that deficiency. I suppose it may be said that this deficiency arises from the size of the business offering. It is inevitable, in the kind of world in which we live, that a small firm wishing to make an export transaction of £10,000 or £15,000 will find it difficult to become embraced in the kind of machinery involved here. The second, and I think more significant, deficiency is that mentioned in the corporation's report under the heading, " Export of Capital Goods ", which appears on page 7. There, the corporation states - >By contrast with the previous year when some measure of success was achieved by insured exporters of capital goods, the current year proved to be disappointing. Some 29 offers covering prospective contracts aggregating £13,000,000 in value were made during the year with only ona success. That is to say, of these 29 transactions averaging about £400.000 each which it was sought to undertake, about which feelers were put out during the year, a sale was made and this machinery was used in only one instance. The report does point out that a number of the prospective contracts were still undecided and were still being probed at the date when the report was written, but at least we do have an indication there that some people in Australia who could sell goods of a capital kind - and I suggest they are the most significant kind - to such of Australia's Asian neighbours as Malaya, Burma and Indonesia, are unable to conclude contracts not because insurance facilities are inadequate, but because the provision of credit in some other form is inadequate. It is possible that this undertaking is limited by the provisions of the Berne Convention, which set a time limit of something like five years on these transactions. I understand from reading the technicalities connected with the matter that a further four years may be allowed between the date of the letting of the contract and the shipment of the goods, so that some transactions may take as long as nine years to complete, and very few firms can wait nine years for final payment. Other firms could sell the goods if they could provide longer terms of credit. That is the sort of thing that **Mr. Bareau** pointed to as a deficiency in the system operating in Great Britain, and it would seem that a similar deficiency exists in the Australian scene. The honorable member for Darling Downs **(Mr. Swartz)** indicated that the national interest clause that we are writing into t tie legislation to-night already exists elsewhere. I think it has been in force in Great Britain since 1954, or thereabouts. The honorable member says it is in force in both Canada and Great Britain, but I point out that the new development announced by **Mr. Maudling, president** of the Board of Trade in Great Britain, is designed to off-set this gap in the provision of credit. I know that quite a few honorable members receive copies of the very useful document, "News from Britain", issued by the United Kingdom Information Service. I have a copy dated 13th April, 1961, headed, "Cheaper and Longer Credit in Britain for Overseas Customers ". Apparently, in Great Britain they have recognized the force of **Mr. Bareau's** argument that some contracts languish not because of the nature of the insurance offered, but because of the length of time which elapses before the buyer and seller are able to come to agreement over the terms of the contract. Apparently, in Great Britain, they are introducing a system under which, to meet such cases, the banking system backed by the Bank of England as the central bank of Great Britain, will finance the amount that cannot be negotiated satisfactorily between the buyer and seller during the period of negotiations. I would suggest that, instead of getting up to date five or six years later under the national interest clause, this Government could go further and explore the provision of some other machinery that will bridge the gap that seems to exist with transactions of a capital kind. The effect of it is that we are missing out on these transactions because we cannot come to satisfactory terms of credit. Australia should make some provision to cover transactions of that kind. In this connexion, I quote again from **Mr. Maudling's** press release which has stated - >Much of the business in these large schemes lies in " developing " countries- That, 1 suggest, is something that is very critical at the moment - which have a real need, both in terms of internal finance and of their foreign exchange position, to get these schemes under way at the earnest date and to pay over the long-term. The measures that the United Kingdom Government has taken in the past few days go quite a considerable way to remedying that deficiency. **Mr. Maulding's** press release also stated - >Under the new method, the British exporter will make and sell his products. He will get part payment with the contract and another part on completion (that part being at his own risk should there be any dispute as to performance). But the bulk will be paid by the overseas buyer out of a loan made to him for that purpose by a bank or institution in the United Kingdom; and that major part will be guaranteed by the Export Credits Guarantee Department 100 per cent, against the borrower's failure to repay any instalment at the due date. > >The essence of the new system, said **Mr. Maudling,** will be a pure borrowing relationship between the overseas borrower and the U.K. supplier of finance, with the E.C.G.D. standing as guarantor for repayment by the borrower. > > **Mr. Maudling** added that this new facility will be applied with much greater selectivity than the normal E.C.G.D. insurance. The Department will be scrupulous, he said, in seeing that what ought still to be treated as a supplier credit - and governed by the principles of supplier credit insurance accepted by all members of the Berne Union - does not secure the " soft option " of these new finance guarantees. I would suggest that there is a more realistic approach to this problem. It is not just a matter of extending the scope of insurable risks or things that will be underwritten, but a recognition that there is a gap in existence. It has nothing to do with insurance as such, but with the provision of credit over a long period of time. Apparently, in Great Britain if the banking system or individual banks provide advances for this kind of undertaking, they are exempted to that extent from the normal liquidity controls as they apply there. Something similar could be done in the Australian banking system. The machinery of the Reserve Bank, in association with other banks, could be used to pay off the person in Australia who produces the goods and sells to the buyer in a foreign country, because in many cases, the payment cannot take place until the capital machinery is actually installed and in use. The parties depend on the return from it to be able to pay it off, and that would seem to be an inevitable economic proposition. Reading between the lines of the corporation's report, it would appear that there is a considerable amount of business available to be tapped, but it will not be touched in any way by this national interest provision for it does not go far enough. It does not provide the credit to make up the leeway between the terms that buyer and seller can work out. I would direct the attention of the Minister for Trade **(Mr. McEwen)** to what has been done in Great Britain, and would suggest that this Government, which claims to be seeking to increase Australia's export trade, should look at the deficiency that is obvious here. lt has been suggested that certain trade cannot take place because of the taxation burden in Australia. Recently, the Government advanced a proposal associated with a rebate of pay-roll tax. That seems to me to be very piffling in the light of the problem that is involved. Apparently, it is not cost that is the problem in this connexion, but the provision of suitable finance at the other end of the transaction. That gap still exists in Australia. Apparently, it existed also in Great Britain. Economic writers in that country pointed to it, and I suggest that the same sort of circumstance exists so far as Australia is concered. I was rather interested to read in the Minister's speech that the sort of clause that is before us has been prompted by support which came, he said, from the Associated Chambers of Manufactures of Australia and the Railway Rolling Stock Manufacturers Association. The latter organization is a new one so far as I am concerned; but apparently it sees a prospect of being able to sell railway rolling-stock overseas as a result of this provision. I suggest that others would be able to sell something overseas if there were better facilities for medium and long-term credit. We offer no opposition to the passage of this measure, but suggest that the Government has to go a long way further to stimulate and activate Australia's export trade. {: #subdebate-38-0-s3 .speaker-DB6} ##### Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar -- Quite naturally, this measure is obtaining approval from both sides of the House. It is one part of the Government's plan to increase exports as a means of correcting any troubles in the Australian balance of payments. It is only part of that pattern and, indeed, the bill before us is an amendment to a scheme which the Government brought in earlier and which has been operating with success. As has been pointed out by the Minister for Trade **(Mr. McEwen),** the objective of the bill is to give additional encouragement to exporters who are acting in what is described in the bill as " the national interest ". Perhaps it might be as well for us to see what that national interest is as regards exports. In the positive sense, it is in our national interest to encourage under this bill exports which have long-term prospects, and which have prospects of great expansion but where the initial steps may be difficult and hazardous and may involve large outlays. The difficulties in new markets are not to be under-estimated. In the positive sense, therefore, these are the criteria which we look for in deciding which types of exports should be encouraged in the national interest. These are the positive criteria. There are, however, certain negative criteria that we should keep in mind. We should be careful in fostering any particular type of exports that we do not foster one that is likely to cause in the future embarrassment to the Australian economy through lack of continuity. I do not mean for one moment that we should not be doing what we can at all stages to dispose overseas of goods that we can make which are surplus to our own requirements in terms of our own productive facilities. What I mean is that we would be unwise to engage in heavy new investment in industries designed for an export market, which is transitory and unable to be sustained. Lack of continuity is something to be avoided in deciding which exports should be encouraged within the meaning of the term "national interest" which has been used in this bill. Lack of continuity in an export market can arise through either political or economc reasons. I shall say very little about political reasons because they are already well in the minds of honorable members. Of course, it is dangerous for us to make any home industry dependent upon a market which could be menaced deliberately by an enemy or which could be contracted deliberately by an enemy with the express objective of embarrassing us or bending our foreign policy in some way or other. These are truisms and I do not intend to discuss them to-night at any length. I rather want to talk about the economic factors which should warn us to avoid encouraging unduly those industries which have no continuity ahead of them. Once again I stress that I am not speaking of the use of existing investment for export; I am thinking rather of the undesirability of incurring heavy new investment to serve export markets which can be only transitory. In this matter we have to distinguish between exports which we make to high wage countries - the already industrialized countries - and exports which we make to lowv/age countries, particularly the countries of South-East Asia and of Asia in general. I am speaking now of our exports to these low-wage countries. Very often we have in Australia a degree of technical efficiency which is sufficiently great to outweigh the cost disparities occasioned by the difference in wages between the Australian and. shall I say, the Japanese, Hong Kong or Malayan producers. No doubt this technological gap - the difference between efficiency in Australia and in Asia - will continue but 1 do not think that it will continue at its present size. It will be a narrowing gap. This is happening because techniques are now much more quickly exportable than they were in the old world. In the last few years we have seen an immense increase in the productive efficiency of Japan. This has come about very largely because American interests have gone to Japan taking with them their managerial skills, their administrative skills, their techniques, their know-how and, in some cases, their machinery, and have married these to low wage conditions so that the technological gap, if not eliminated, is significantly narrowed. This is something that we must keep in mind when framing our future policy. It is true, of course, that when these things happen in the newly-industrialized countries wages rise as they are rising in Japan now, but they do not rise necessarily at the speed required to keep costs there at a level against which we can export. There may be a lag of many years. Indeed, the lag may persist because all of us hope and believe that the real wage in Australia will not remain stable but will continue to rise over the decades. This narrowing technological gap is of great consequence because it means in general that we have to be very wary of building up manufacturing industries to export to low-wage countries. As I have said, I am not suggesting that existing industries should not export the production which they can make with their existing plant. What I am saying is that we would be very unwise to undertake heavy investment indiscriminately in industries which can only hope for a temporary market. Because this technological gap exists to-day, it does not follow that it will always exist in its present dimensions. 1 suggest that in exporting manufactured goods to low-wage countries we should ask for the satisfaction of at least one of three conditions: They are, first, that our industry should have great natural advantages from its Australian location; secondly, that the industry should be producing goods which are more or less custom built, and thirdly, that we can rely on a pattern of reciprocal trade which will give us a continuing export market in the country concerned. This third condition partakes of a political flavour to some extent but I class it nevertheless as an economic condition. Let me examine these three points. The first relates to natural advantages. In an industry such as, for example, the iron and steel industry in which we have favorable geographical factors, sources of coking coal and iron ore, and in which the assembling of raw materials can be done comparatively cheaply, we may be able to think of some continuing export markets. Looking to the future let us consider, for example, aluminium. We have tremendous resources of bauxite from which alumina is made and we may be able to think of a continuing market, but when it comes to commodities which have a very high labour content and in connexion with which the natural advantages are fewer, we should be a little wary in committing too many of our resources to the export trade. We can do this with greater safety when the item concerned is what one would call custom built. There will always be, during our lifetime at any rate, a residual margin of skill in favour of the Australian workmen as against the Asian workmen - a margin of administrative and other efficiency. It may be a narrowing margin, but the margin will be there. If one is dealing not with items which can be mass produced but with items like heavy engineering parts or something of that character where production involves the application of a particular skill which is not easily learned, then the fact that the item is custom built, even though it is manufactured and has a high labour content, may enable us to maintain continuity of the market with some degree of success. I am not going to speak of the pattern of reciprocal trade as a condition to be satisfied when exporting manufactured goods to low-wage countries. This again is obvious, lt depends on the treaties and agreements which we can negotiate in the light of the various economic factors. It is not possible, I think, to lay down too many rigid general principles. I have spoken of the export of manufactured goods to low-wage countries, and I have suggested that we should not listen too readily, or without some reservations, to the siren songs of expanding markets for these manufactured goods. The position may be a little different, however, when we are thinking of the export of manufactured goods to high-wage countries. I am not at all certain that there are not more extensive markets for our goods in, for example, the United States of America and Canada than we are sometimes willing to believe. I believe that there is an opportunity in such markets to sell, not a very diversified range of articles, perhaps, but rather a relatively small number of items which we can produce here with great efficiency. The remarks that I have made about custom-built articles may apply with even greater force in regard to exports to highwage countries than they do in the case of exports to low-wage countries. Why, for example, can we not make for consumption overseas a significant amount of television film material which is at present made at great expense in other countries? I realize that I am referring to a very highly specialized field, and that we could, perhaps, deal with only one small corner of it. But costs of production of that kind of material are so much lower in Australia than they are in the United States of America that surely there is an opening for us in this sphere of activity. I have mentioned only one item in passing; I do not mean to imply that it is the only one or, indeed, even the most important one. If we want big developments in our export trade we should look not so much to our manufactured goods as to our old staples, and particularly to the development of such resources as minerals. The meat market appears, in international terms, to be a good market and a continuing one. lt may have its ups and downs from year to year, but the long-term prospects are certainly satisfactory. I do not share the general pessimism about the future of the grain market. It is true that tremendous surpluses in various countries hang over the heads of the producers of grains throughout the world, but these surpluses are not being added to at any great rate. Indeed, if the standard of nutrition were raised only to a small extent, inroads on these surpluses would be made very rapidly. The existing surpluses may seem large to us, but they are not large in comparison with the annual consumption, or what should be the annual consumption, of food throughout the world by the fast-increasing population. For this reason I am by no means pessimistic about the long-term future for grain. As for minerals, Australia has great potentialities. The embargo on iron ore has been lifted, or at least modified. I am a little concerned with some of the minor aspects of the matter of iron ore export, and I shall make some comments in this regard. At the present time, we have in Australia very large reserves of iron ore. They may not all be first class, and our reserves may not have been fully surveyed, but we know that we have quite extensive reserves, not only in South Australia and at Yampi Sound, but also at Constance Range in Queensland and in Tasmania and other places. Our main steelworks are located in New South Wales, and the amount of iron ore available in New South Wales is, so far as we kr.ow, fairly limited. It represents only a few years' consumption at the prevailing rate. It seems a little unfortunate that we are exporting, under our present policy, the one packet of ore that we should not export, namely, that which is adjacent to the New South Wales steelworks and should for this reason, perhaps, be held as a strategic reserve in case communications should be interrupted in the future as they have been in the past. Honorable members may recall that during the last war, when our consumption of iron ore was much below that of today, the steelworks in New South Wales, unable to arrange transport to obtain ore from the customary distant sources, were compelled to use small quantities of the New South Wales ore. This is the only reserve of ore in Australia which is really worth holding from a strategic view-point, and it seems to me a pity that under the present policy this is the one reserve from which ore is being exported. These are minor matters which perhaps may not be properly debated when discussing the legislation that is now before us. However, I believe they should be brought to the attention of the House. I have always been astonished that we have not made greater use of our opportunities to export coal, particularly coking coal. For many years I have been urging, both in this House and in correspondence with the appropriate department, that we should endeavour to increase our exports of coal. I am glad to find that what I have been saying for so many years has now been found by the Government to be correct. For at least eight or nine years I have been pointing out that a market for our coal is available in Japan. I was originally told that I was indulging in an impractical dream. However, I am glad to say that the dream has now become a very pleasant reality. I believe that in the past our coal export trade has been impeded by the inefficiency of the New South Wales Government. The transport and port systems in that State have together represented the mam obstacle to our efforts to increase coal exports. The New South Wales Government must bear a good deal of the blame for our failure to exploit, over the last decade, the opportunities that have been offering to us. In addition, things have been done with the approval of the New South Wales Government that have raised the cost of coal and prevented the development of extensive coal exports. Let us hope, however, that these are things of the past, and that there will be some change of heart on the part of those responsible. The proposal made for the establishment of warehouses is indeed a good one. I can remember the honorable member for Mitchell **(Mr. Wheeler)** and myself making a joint recommendation to the Government along these lines five or six years ago. It seems to me now, as it did then, that this proposal would provide a good opportunity for the development of Australia's export trade. I do not want to take up the time of the House any further in this connexion. This bill is receiving commendation on both sides of the House, and I hope that in implementing it we will seize some of the opportunities I have mentioned and avoid some of the dangers to which I have drawn attention. Finally, I would say that in regard to our balance of payments, we need to think not only of our exports. Desirable as it is that we should think of them, we should also think of the better development of Australian industry in respect of import replacement. {: #subdebate-38-0-s4 .speaker-1V4} ##### Mr CAIRNS:
Yarra .- The honorable member for Mackellar **(Mr. Wentworth)** is not exactly right in saying that both sides of the House are commending this bill. The Opposition is not opposing it, which is quite a different thing. The honorable gentleman has a great ability to express very simple propositions in a most erudite and complex way, and as a consequence he appears to think that what he says gains some weight. I hardly think that that is the case. He has, however, somewhat spoilt an erudite and complex speech by making a rather shabby political point towards the end when he blamed the Government of New South Wales for not developing its port facilities so as to make the export of coal cheaper and more effective. It is true that the port facilities of New South Wales have not been developed as they might have been, but the port facilities of every other State in Australia have not been developed as they might have been either. If we are going to lay any responsibility or blame at the door of any State government, we should lay it at the door of this Government also, because it has a special responsibility in relation to ports and has the money with which to modernize them if they are to be modernized at all. It is quite a shabby political point simply to pick out one State government for special blame in this respect. The erudite and complex propositions which the honorable member made were simply these: Australia should not put into secondary industry a large volume of capital because we may not have continuity of export of manufactured products to low-wage countries. He gave as the reason for this that we have at the present time a technological advantage over a number of Asian countries. Having selected Japan for special attention, I think he has selected a country over which we have never at any stage had a technological advantage. In a great range of manufactured goods Japan has always had a technological advantage over Australia. It is not true, as he suggests, that this advantage is narrowing. It was never there, because with modern technical devices and large investible funds even under the Zaibatsu before the war and with American capital flowing into the Japanese industrial structure after the war, these factors in combination have produced a cost of production in Japan which is probably the lowest in the world. This is not an advantage which Australia has ever possessed or possesses now. Another proposition which the honorable member made was that we might have an advantage over other Asian countries. The question of this advantage is not determined by production in those countries by the indigenous people but by competition in those countries from goods produced in Japan, Western Germany, the United States of America, Czechoslovakia and the United Kingdom. Those are the ones we have to be concerned about if we are to be concerned with the continuity of this market. The very erudite and complex lecture which the honorable member has given to us seems to ignore the common sense propositions which would have been put forward by some one not nearly so erudite. The honorable member for Mackellar ended with a proposition with which I agree: It would be a mistake to rely - if we ever did, and I do not think we did - upon these gimmicks which the Department of Trade is inventing, such as the Export Payments Insurance Corporation and tax remissions on export goods of a secondary type. It would be a mistake to think that these gimmicks would be worth more than the paper they are written on. I think the honorable member for Mackellar is right as far as Australia's exports are concerned, because we have to look to the basic staples for the future for a great proportion of our exports. I return to the strict limits of this bill. The Exports Payments Insurance Corporation is a device of nationalization - national insurance - to insure business that private profit insurance companies will not take on. It is the principle of nationalization, under a Liberal government, that you hand over to the State the things in which there is no profit or little profit for the benefit of private enterprise and you leave the large profit fields for private enterprise exclusively. You nationalize the places where you would lose money. The title of the act upon which this corporation is based reads - >An Act to promote Trade with Countries outside Australia by establishing an Export Payments Insurance Corporation to provide Insurance against certain Risks arising out of that Trade not normally insured with Commercial Insurers. Over the years we have not been able to get commercial insurers to insure this kind of thing, because so much of what is done involves a loss and they will not insure it. So you nationalize that section of the business because it is absolutely essential, the Government says, in the interest of the nation that it should be insured. We cannot rely upon private enterprise because it will do only business out of which it will make a profit; so we set up a national corporation - and that is what this is - in the national interest to insure something which is important and which private enterprise will not touch. The honorable member for Lalor **(Mr. Pollard)** in opening the debate for the Opposition, said, in effect, " As far as we are concerned that is not good enough. If it is all right for the Government to nationalize losses, it should nationalize gains too. And it could give the States and the Commonwealth of Australia and the people the same advantage in business as private corporations and monopolies have." This is no new doctrine. It was put forward by David Syme, the proprietor of the Melbourne " Age ", in a book called "Australian Democracy" in 1878. It is a basic proposition and one of common sense and not one you have to look to socialist theorists to define, but one which any ordinary Australian with common sense could define - that it is not a sound proposition to allow the profits all to be taken off by private enterprise while you force the Government to carry the losses, and that is what the Government is doing here. {: .speaker-JNZ} ##### Mr Bandidt: -- What losses? {: .speaker-1V4} ##### Mr CAIRNS: -- I will tell the honorable member in a minute when I deal with the figures, because I intend coming to that. As the honorable member for Lalor says, let us nationalize some of the gains and set up an insurance corporation which will do the profitable business instead of the loss business. Let me remind the Government what there is in this field. First of all let me explain that this is a procedure only to insure the risks of payment. People sell goods overseas and they might not be paid for them, so we insure them against the risk of non-payment; but there is a very big field of insurance in external trade other than this; I refer to the carriage and storage of goods. As it costs Australia as a whole some £40,000,000 or £50,000,000 a year to do this, why do we not insure this profitable business through our Export Payments Insurance Corporation? Let us bring that business into this field and that will do two things: It will make the Government a lot better off, and it will save Australia a great volume of overseas funds, because a big proportion of that £40,000,000 or £50,000,000 of business is done at the present time by overseas finance. If we set up an organization here which can do that business we will save ourselves that amount. All this amendment does is to extend the principle of insuring losses - insuring bad business - over a wider field. The Government has decided that the corporation at present does not quite reach far enough down into the bad business field where the losses are greatest. So we are now considering an amendment to push us further down into the field where losses are made. The Minister said - >The bill provides that the commissioner would refer to the Minister for Trade proposals which the corporation would not normally cover but which would merit consideration as national interest propositions. These are propositions in which the risk of loss is even greater than that in the ones which the corporation insures at the present time. Despite this, the Government argues that these transactions should be insured in the national interest. So we are going to take on even more risky propositions than before in the national interest. We admit that these propositions should be taken on. The Opposition does not oppose the bill. But certainly it does not commend it. We could not commend a bill that gives to the Commonwealth Government only the risky business - the losses - to deal with. We ought to go further than that. On page 5 of the report on the corporation we see that there are five main types of business which the corporation may at present insure. There are what are called comprehensive contracts and shipment guarantees - that is insurance guarantees over the whole of the exporter's insurable business for up to twelve months. That is business which normal private insurance has not been willing to touch. Then there are specific contracts and shipment guarantees in relation to capital goods. These are goods that will be sold, presumably, to countries which may have difficulty in paying - not countries in which the prospects of paying are extremely bright, but only the doubtful or risky ones. Then there are service guarantees to engineers, architects, and other technical people who render services in other countries where there is a risk as to payment. But if services are rendered, say, in the United States of America or in some other country where there is no risk concerning payment, then the corporation will not be concerned with that business. Then there is a processing guarantee for exporters selling goods which have to be specially processed in the country in which they are sold and where there is some risk involved. Finally, there are what are called " stock-holding guarantees ". These are all fields which have not been the subject of commercial business before and the reason why they have not been the subject of such business is that the risk has been too great. The Opposition has made its position quite clear on his bill. It is not enough to confine the business of such an insurance corporation to business of this kind. It is not enough for two reasons: The first reason is that the Commonwealth should avail itself of the more profitable fields of insurance. The second reason is that it is not enough to rely upon the insurance of the payments for export because that is not the real problem. The honorable member for Melbourne Ports **(Mr. Crean)** pointed out that the real problem was the ability of the countries concerned to pay for these exports in the first place. I think it is now fairly well known to honorable members that a 1958 United Nations economic survey pointed out that in 1958 alone the downward movement in the terms of trade of countries producing raw materials and primary products for export destroyed for them more than they had gained from all types of economic aids since 1950. The one year's adverse turn in the terms of trade involved them in a loss greater than their gain from the Colombo Plan, from economic aid by the United States of America, through the International Bank, or from any other source in the eight preceding years. So exports insurance is clearly not enough. It is not possible to make up the leeway simply by means of an insurance corporation. I think that this raises the question implicit in what the honorable member for Mackellar said. What is necessary to ensure that the underdeveloped countries in which the risks are involved will develop the ability to pay for exports from Australia and other countries? First, those countries must obtain the powers of national self-government. They must escape from external economic control as many of them are rapidly succeeding in doing. They must get national independence of government for the advancement of their own people. Secondly, they must have economic development, which was seen by the honorable member for Mackellar as something that would cause competition within those countries with Australian exports to them. But that economic development will also create demand so that, in turn, those countries will be able to buy Australian exports more, readily. It seems to me that the market that will be created in those countries will be for Australian staples such as meat, grain and wool. The demand of countries such as India and China need be raised only by less than 1 per cent, to enable them to double or treble their demand for Australian staples. This is the great hope, it seems to me, for exports from this coun try. As I have said, I think that very little will come from the gimmicks of the Minister for Trade - from his Export Payments Insurance Corporation and his tax remissions on exports. It is all a lot of talk and hot air. It makes good headlines for the press and it could lead numbers of the Australian people into the false feeling that something is being done. But it does not amount to much more than the paper it is written on. The next point to which I should like to direct the attention of the House is the amount of business that has been done so far by this corporation. The record, now, is a most interesting one. On page 7 of the 1960 report of the corporation we find that the number of transactions handled was very small indeed. There were 43 in 1958, 91 in 1959, and 127 in 1960, a total of 265 since the corporation commenced business. The next striking fact about the guarantees that have been given is that they are for extraordinarily large amounts. In the first year of operation, 43 guarantees were given for business valued at £11,126,630, an average of £250,000 per guarantee. This is an extraordinarily large amount. The report gives no indication of the kind of business. What were the 43 guarantees which averaged £250,000 each? This was certainly not the kind of business that could be undertaken by a small or medium sized Australian manufacturer. This looks like the kind of business that would be undertaken by the very largest of Australian industrial concerns. Is that what this corporation is designed to assist? In the following year there were 91 transactions, totalling £21,000,000, an average of £230,000 for each transaction. In 1960 the number rose to 127 and the value of the insured business was £26,429,903, an average of £208,000 per transaction. This is not the kind of business that a small or medium sized manufacturer would do. It is obviously the kind of business that the very largest of Australian concerns might do. I think the House wai entitled to some information, either in the corporation's report, in the speech of the Minister for Trade, or somewhere else, as to what kind of transactions amount to these sums of money. The next question - and this was raised in an interjection by the honorable member for Wide Bay, who perhaps is going to follow me - concerns unprofitable business. He asked why 1 said that this was unprofitable business. {: .speaker-JNZ} ##### Mr Bandidt: -- No, I used the word il losses ", not " unprofitable ". {: .speaker-1V4} ##### Mr CAIRNS: -- Then let us deal with it on that basis. The 1960 accounts of the corporation show, on page 14, that the premiums on risks insured in 1959 amounted to £85,561. That, in other words, was the income from business in that year. The expenditure on operating the corporation was £42,697 in 1959, so the profit on business operations was about £43,000. But in 1960 quite an interesting and important change took place. The report tells us that in 1960 the premiums on risks insured amounted to £46,789 and the expenditure on the operation of the corporation was £61,986. There was a loss of £15,197. What I should like the Minister to tell me, if he will, is why the value of premiums on risks insured fell from £85,561 in 1959 to £46,789 in 1960, although apparently a lot more business was done. There were 127 policies current in 1960, as against 91 current in 1959. Despite the increase in the number of policies, the value of the premiums on risks insured fell to a little more than half of the value in the previous year, leaving a net loss of £15,197 on operations. In other words, the corporation has appeared to make a profit only because of the book transaction which we criticized when it was made. We can see no economic reason, although there might be an accountancy reason for it, for transferring to the corporation capital to the amount of £1,500,000, presumably in Commonwealth bonds, on which the interest earned in 1960 was £53,965. It is only by that artificial book entry that the corporation appears to have made a profit in 1960. Therefore, I should think that the position is fairly clear. The corporation has been undertaking unprofitable business, and it has operated at a loss on current business in 1960. Of course, this kind of situation may well be justified in the national interest. Tt may be that this corporation will achieve some of the things that the Minister has said in previous speeches it was designed to achieve. This loss of £15,197 is, after all, only a small loss, and it might be justified. But in order to judge whether or not it is justified the House, I submit, needs more information than is provided either in the report or in the speeches made by the Minister. So, the position taken by the Opposition is that we are not opposing this bill. It may be quite necessary to have a corporation to insure business of a risky or unprofitable nature which would not be undertaken by a company in private enterprise. It may be necessary to do this in the national interest, but we submit that such a corporation should also enter the field of profitable business, and at the same time make an income for the Commonwealth because it is as entitled to income just as much as are private businesses in this field. At the same time, it would save Australia a considerable sum in overseas funds. We emphasize that there is a great scarcity of information about the operations of this corporation. We should like to know why premiums on risks covered were so much lower in 1960 than they were in 1959. We would also like to know more about the kinds of transactions that the corporation has insured. The transactions are of very large amounts in average. The average was £250,000 in 1959, but, despite an increase in business, it came down to £208,000 in 1960. So, there are a great many questions in relation to this bill which the House is entitled to have answered. We are left in the position that we can do no more than not oppose the bill. {: #subdebate-38-0-s5 .speaker-JNZ} ##### Mr BANDIDT:
Wide Bay .- The subject of export payments insurance is a rather dry subject, as we have discovered in this debate, although I will say that the honorable member for Lalor **(Mr. Pollard)** did introduce one or two interesting but irrelevant ideas. He tried to show us that we should nationalize all insurance. {: .speaker-KYC} ##### Mr Pollard: -- I did not say all insurance; I said fire insurance. {: .speaker-JNZ} ##### Mr BANDIDT: -- I understood the honorable member to say that all insurance should be nationalized. If he meant that only fire insurance should be nationalized then. 1 should like to know how he was connecting his remarks to export payments insurance. I think we might look for an analogy to the nursery rhyme, which, could be parodied as follows: - >When the pie was opened The Lalor bird began to sing, " Now wasn't that a dainty dish? We'll nationalize the thing." The honorable member for Lalor has executed a remarkable feat. He has said that when a Government undertakes something that nobody else will do; that is nationalization. I suggest that the meaning of nationalization is to take over a business that is already being run privately. That is to say, it is necessary to have an existing business to take over from private enterprise before it can be said that a business is being socialized. But the honorable member for Lalor says that by doing a job that nobody else is willing to do, the Government has nationalized a business. That is a new definition of the word nationalization. I wonder whether the honorable member will see 'hat that definition is inserted into' Labour's socialization plank. My mind goes back to the time when Labour decided to nationalize another field of activity in the community - banking. That was not a case of running something that nobody else would run. It was a case of taking over something that was already in existence. It meant depriving the existing concerns of finance and socializing them. I should like to read to the House section 13 (3.) of the Export Payments Insurance Corporation Act. because some of the honorable members who have interjected obviously are not capable of reading it for themselves. It states - >The Corporation shall not enter into contracts of insurance under this section against risks that are normally insured with commercial insurers. Recently, in Queensland, the high rate of claims against insurance companies in respect of motor car accidents had brought the insurance companies to the point at which they considered that they could not continue to undertake motor vehicle insurance. As it happened, they were permitted to increase their premiums. Had they not been permitted to do this, the private companies would have had to go out of this field of insurance, and it would have been left to the Queensland State Government Insurance Office. According to the definition put forward by the honorable member for Lalor by implication, that would have meant the nationalizing of motor vehicle insurance in Queensland, which, I think, is a rather novel idea of nationalization. I have cited section 13 (3.) of the principal act in order to indicate that the important thing is that the insurance undertaken by the Export Payments Insurance Corporation under the principal act permits transactions that could not otherwise have taken place, since private concerns would not insure them. The honorable member for Lalor, in addition to treating this as a policy of nationalization, put forward a further proposition. I should be interested to know whether it represents Labour policy. He said that, in addition to selling wheat on credit, we should, give it to countries such as mainland China in the existence of circumstances similar to those which are to be found at present in that, country. The Australian Labour Party, so far as I know, has never yet given away wheat in such circumstances when it has been in office. I admit that the Labour Government on one occasion went close to giving away wheat to a neighbour when it entered into a transaction with New Zealand at low prices. But at no time has a Labour government given any grains to needy countries. I think it is worth while to consider for a moment the proposition advanced by the honorable member for Lalor. When we talk about giving away our grains to other countries, the first question that arises is: How much should we give them? Should we give them only the surplus that remains after our normal sales have been made, or should we give them what they need? For example, if we have a small surplus of wheat this year - assuming that our sales go well, as they seem to have been going - should we be satisfied to give to mainland China a mere 100 tons of wheat? What, would be the use to China, in her present plight, in which she needs hundreds of thousands of tons of wheat regularly, of just a few tons of wheat given by us? So we are faced with the very difficult question: Mow much should we as a nation give to mainland China? Then there is another difficult question: To what countries should we give grains? Should we give them just to mainland China or should' we draw up a list1 in order of priority of the countries that need grains? In short, we would not have enough grains in this country to give what other countries needed, let alone to sell in order to make our living, if we adopted that policy. By developing this idea of giving away wheat, we would use up the resources of the nation in order to give something to other countries, needy and all as they may be, without helping ourselves. The history of Australian trade bears out the proposition that charity must necessarily begin at home. {: .speaker-KYC} ##### Mr Pollard: -- The honorable member has not yet heard of the Food for Peace Campaign. {: .speaker-JNZ} ##### Mr BANDIDT: -- The suggestions made by the honorable member for Lalor have diverted us from the main theme, **Mr. Deputy Speaker.** It is very clear that the original Export Payments Insurance Corporation Act, which was passed in 1956 in order to assist the export of various goods, has had1 remarkable success. The honorable member for Yarra **(Mr. Cairns)** spoke about losses. In all the transactions that have taken place under this scheme since 1956, there has not been one loss. To say that there are losses because in a particular year the premiums charged totalled less than did the expenses of the corporation is merely to split straws and quibble. The honorable member said that in 1960 the premiums charged totalled less than did the expenses. If we set off the expenses each year against the premiums each year, we shall find that, on the whole there is still a profit. The point to remember is that, regardless of the total brought in by premiums and regardless of the purely administrative costs of running the business, the transactions that have taken place since 1956 have not involved Australia in any loss, because the deals that have been made have, remarkably, all been successful. We must pay tribute to the men who administer this scheme for the great skill that they have shown. The face value of the policies issued so far totals more than £75.000.000 and the cover under current policies totals more than £24,000,000. In addition to increasing trade, the export payments insurance scheme has done one further thing: It has protected traders against loss. A trader who wishes to em bark on a big export venture goes to the Export Payments Insurance Corporation and, in next to no time, he finds out whether the potential buyers are or are not satisfactory. If in the eyes of the experts of the corporation they are not satisfactory, no transaction is entered into. Before this scheme was instituted an exporter who wished to sell goods overseas took the risk himself. He did not have access to any of the information and expert knowledge that the officers of the corporation have. This scheme has had very fine results because it has prevented great losses which would otherwise have occurred in the normal course of trade. The prevention of these losses has been made possible because the experts of the corporation know where the bad risks are. The honorable member for Melbourne Ports **(Mr. Crean)** made a very thoughtful contribution to this debate. He said that there were no small transactions in this field, but he did not mention, as it would have been desirable for him to do, that small transactions are no use if they involve losses. He did not mention that there being no small transactions could possibly have been associated with the fact that a lot of deals that may have been suggested would not be satisfactory because they may have involved doubtful risks overseas. I think it is worth keeping that in mind, because it is not a bit of use having a scheme if it merely involves the Government - the people of Australia - in loss. Surely, whether the deals are big or small, the result is what counts and the result is to the credit of the corporation. Clause 5 of the bill seeks to introduce a new section 16a, and I think it is worth while reading part of the proposed newsection. It states - >Subject to the next succeeding sub-section, where - > >the proposed contract would impose upon the Corporation a liability that the Corporation is not authorized to undertake, or would not undertake in the ordinary course of business, the Corporation may refer the application to the Minister for consideration under this section. Then it goes on to say that the Minister may give directions to the Corporation. Although the bill perhaps is not perfect, it does two things. It enables sales that would not otherwise be made in the ordinary course of business and it also enables quite a number of sales on credit extending over a period of years, if they are in the national interest. I think the future will decide just how far we will have to go in the normal course in order to develop our trade satisfactorily. Instead of taking the Government to task for being careful in its amendments to the act, we should commend it for hastening slowly, because I think that the success that has been achieved so far is a good augury for the future. **Mr.** WHEELER (Mitchell) 19.431.- The honorable member for Wide Bay **(Mr. Bandidt)** said during the course of his speech that this was not a bill to become overexcited about, and with that I agree. But I think the honorable member for Lalor **(Mr. Pollard)** and the honorable member for Mackellar **(Mr. Wentworth)** made some thought-provoking contributions to the debate. I do not wish to misquote my old friend, the honorable member for Lalor, but 1 think he re-affirmed his belief in nationalization. Here was no namby-pamby declaration of faith and no pandering to the finer susceptibilities of democratic socialism, whatever that may be - I do not know. I understood the honorable member for Lalor to say, and this was characteristic of his bluntness and candour, that if he had his way he would nationalize insurance companies. I think the House agrees that that is what the honorable gentleman said. He was supported in those remarks by other honorable gentlemen opposite. {: .speaker-K8B} ##### Mr Curtin: -- It is the Australian Labour Party's policy. {: #subdebate-38-0-s6 .speaker-KZP} ##### Mr WHEELER:
MITCHELL, NEW SOUTH WALES -- There you are; the honorable member re-affirms it. There cannot be any doubt whatever of what will happen in the future to insurance companies under a socialist government, because here we have a re-avowal of the socialistic doctrine of nationalization. I think I will leave it at that, because it has been openly stated and openly re-affirmed. We on this side of the House, naturally enough, are opposed to any form of nationalization or socialization of industry. {: .speaker-JSU} ##### Mr Bryant: -- Why? {: .speaker-KZP} ##### Mr WHEELER: -- Because of the wide difference between a sound Liberal outlook and the morbid outlook of the socialists. Having looked at honorable gentlemen opposite and at the enlightened countenances on this side of the House, I can see the difference between straight-out honest to goodness Liberalism and the morbid doctrine practised on the other side. In introducing the measure, the Minister for Trade **(Mr. McEwen)** said that the Government was anxious to encourage Australian exports and to strengthen the export earning capacity of our primary and secondary industries. The bill is one of the measures designed to help to this end. It is also designed to encourage or to act as an inducement for Australian industries to develop overseas trade. This is a commendable move and should be supported, but to break into the export market at present is not an easy matter. The honorable member for Mackellar has pointed out the difficulties confronting the high-cost producing country and the advantage that the low-cost producer naturally enjoys. Consequently, the range of manufactured goods must necessarily be low. International trade now is living in a crazy world in which a very big proportion of all exports can be classed actually, if not legally, as dumped - that is, sold at prices which have been artificially lowered. This is done either by selling below the home price or by giving a government subsidy by tax remissions or some other device. We in Australia seem to have little alternative but to join in this crazy race. The truth is that a lot of nations have introduced subsidies on exports in an attempt to sell abroad goods that cannot be sold at home because they are too dear. They cannot beat the imported goods on their home market; yet they hope to beat them overseas. What they really do is to export at a loss, a loss disguised either as a subsidy or a tax remission. The Australian manufacturer, aside from high costs, has another obstacle which I shall refer to as the second tariff. There are tariffs on imported goods, but our very high Australian taxes are in effect a tariff on local goods. This gives the imported article an advantage in many instances. It was laughable to read recently that the interstate executive of the Australian Labour Party held the view that taxes on high incomes in Australia were lower than those abroad. The Australian Labour Party no doubt hopes to finance its give-away election programme by higher taxes on big incomes, but it is just trying to fool the public. Most secondary production in Australia comes from public companies. They pay a company tax of 8s. in the £1 on any profit they distribute to shareholders. A further personal income tax is levied. For high incomes, the combined effect of the two taxes is higher than those levied overseas. In other countries, as a rule, only one tax is levied. With our high taxes and high costs, our local manufacturers are being elbowed out of the Australian market. By giving them some tax relief and some other types of Government assistance, it may be possible for them to sell more in overseas markets, but this will be selling at a loss in many instances from the national point of view. By all means let us use every effort to increase our exports, but our best efforts, I am afraid, will leave us short unless we can do something about the flood of imports. It benefits nobody but the shipping companies if each country pays out subsidies to sell its goods abroad at a loss when they could be sold on the home market if the price was right. Some time ago, the Government took one of the most courageous and genuine steps any country has taken towards establishing freer national trade. It virtually abolished import restrictions. But there is no denying that this drastic action has created many problems in the local economy. The Government has announced that its policy is to deal with economic problems as they occur. In other words its economic policies are flexible, as they verily should be, and it has not hesitated to change a policy when circumstances have so dictated. I sincerely hope it will not be inflexible or rigid on this matter of import controls because import controls are the key to many of our problems. Undoubtedly, the sweeping away of controls has done some good, lt has helped to keep our prices in check, and that was the principal object in abolishing controls. But there are still many things being imported which do not really affect our price or cost structure at all. I refer, for instance, to the wide range of /luxury imported foodstuffs and wines 'to be seen in many of our shops. If they were missing and the buyers had to turn to local productions, it would have no effect, for instance, on the basic wage. Another argument for free imports ii that they keep local industry on its toes, that they force it to maintain efficiency. But very frequently these luxury imports are no better than the Australian manufactured goods. They sell merely on snob appeal. There is a class of people who are prejudiced against Australian-made goods and who buy imported goods as a matter of principle, no matter what the quality. I submit that, by restricting the importation of these luxury items, we would save a great deal of our precious foreign exchange without any compensating disadvantage to us. That is the first step to be taken in the battle to restore our overseas reserves, and there are other steps which we must take. I cannot help feeling that, although there has been a slight favorable turn in the overseas trade position lately, there may be worse to come. For instance, Britain is under strong pressure to join the European Common Market. If she does, it will mean the end of the preferences we enjoy in Britain. Although the preferences we grant to British goods are very much bigger than the ones Britain grants us, what seems to be coming out of the discussions going on in Britain at present, is the proposal that she should try to sell us the idea of foregoing our preferences in the British market while still granting Britain her preferences in this market. That, I believe, would be a disastrous step. Whatever comes of the European Common Market negotiations, it seems clear that, on the balance, the European Common Market has worsened our position in trade with Europe. The position is so complex that I should like to see Parliament debate many other questions relating to overseas trade quite apart from those now under discussion. Because of that, I do grudge the long time given recently to debating the African question. That long debate was forced by a move from the Labour Party which seems to be most anxious to distract attention from Australian affairs at the present time. The Labour Party has just come through a period of policy window dressing in preparation for the next elections, and the goods it offers are so obviously designed to deceive rather than to serve that apparently it does not want them examined minutely. The Australian Labour Party has no answer to our local economic problems. Its members would much prefer to talk about Africa, about China or anywhere else in the world than discuss conditions on the home front. For my part, I support wholeheartedly the Government's efforts to boost exports but I am even more anxious to hear from the Government some proposal on the other side of the ledger - some proposal relating to imports, for I feel that balance will be achieved only by a substantial reduction there. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. In committee: Clauses 1 to 4 - by leave - taken together, and agreed to. Clause 5 (Contracts in national interest). {: #subdebate-38-0-s7 .speaker-KYC} ##### Mr POLLARD:
Lalor .- Clause 5 is really the operative clause of the measure and I wish to direct the attention of the committee to sub-clause (2.), which reads - >The Minister may give directions to the Corporation with respect to the circumstances or cases in which applications are, or are not, to be referred to him under this section, and the Corporation shall comply with any such direction. I think that provision requires some explanation. It would appear to me from reading it that once this measure is given assent to the Minister intends to set out a series of conditions under which the corporation may refer cases to him for consideration and direction as to future action. It would appear to me that this provision savours somewhat of lack of faith in the corporation itself. I should have thought that the experience and the good management of the corporation, which is evident from its annual report, would have been sufficient to persuade the Minister that he could safely leave with the corporation the decision as to whether cases should be referred to him. Personally, I would prefer to see the corporation refer all applications to the Minister. I know it is sometimes difficult to understand the draftsman's language, but if the clause means what it says it :simply means that at some later stage the Minister will send to the corporation a list of the circumstances in which applications are not to be referred to him and a list of the circumstances in which applications are to be so referred. This seems to me to be a rather restrictive provision which savours somewhat of a manoeuvre by the Minister to shelve personal ministerial responsibility. This of course would be in conformity with the attitude he has adopted towards many matters. By this manoeuvre, he seeks to set out in advance just what cases shall come to him and what cases shall not be referred to him. For instance, it might be suggested that applications should not be received from any corporation, public company or other organization which desired to do what this nation should do - give food away, or make some contribution towards the welfare of people in less fortunate lands. That brings me to the point made by the honorable member for Wide Bay **(Mr. Bandidt)** who said that the Labour Administration had never given anything away. I remind him that it was a Labour administration under **Mr. Chifley** that made a gift to the United Kingdom of £45,000,000, which was sufficient to enable it to buy at the prices ruling then about 60,000,000 to 65,000,000 bushels of wheat. That administration also made substantial contributions to all kinds of worthy causes, including an appeal for children. I recommend the honorable member for Wide Bay to read political history a little more thoroughly. {: .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr Turnbull: -- The honorable member said that the Labour Administration had not given away any wheat. {: .speaker-KYC} ##### Mr POLLARD: -- We gave £45,000,000 to the United Kingdom to enable that Government to buy grain. The honorable member conveyed entirely a false impression. I know this is a little wide of the bill before the committee, but I have made those remarks in passing to show what the Minister may or may not do. We have also heard the wild assertion made by the honorable member that the Labour Party would do something under national insurance to cover fire and other losses. If the honorable member studies some of the utterances of the Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies),** he will find that the right honorable gentleman has made statements in favour of the nationalization of public utilities; and if insurance is not a public utility I would like to kr.ow what it is. If the honorable member reads **Sir Frederic** Eggleston's book, " State Socialism in Victoria ", he will find that most of the socialist activities in Victoria were socialized by Liberal ministers. If he wants to go further to South Australia, he will find that the Liberal Premier, **Sir Thomas** Playford, socialized the supply of electricity in that State. However, reverting to clause 5 of the bill, 1 can see the drift of its provisions. This would appear to be in line with the usual attitude of the Minister for Trade in public administration. The Minister wants to be kept as aloof as possible from anybody who may want to importune him. He wants to keep away from anybody who might approach him and say, " We think our case is one that should go to the Export Payments Insurance Corporation ". In line with his usual attitude, he is setting out in advance for the corporation the specific types of persons who may become beneficiaries and obtain the approval of the corporation for insurance cover so that he will not be bothered. We all know the Minister's attitude to import licensing, which was most difficult to administer. People had important things to do in connexion with applications for import licences. The Minister would not see them. He would tell them to see his officers or somebody else. The Minister likes to remove himself as far as possible from the practical side of public administration. He has made a deliberate attempt under clause 5 of the bill to ensure that he will not be bothered with this sort of thing. He will set out in advance what these people may refer to him. It is the usual practice in political and administrative arrangements for the authority that is expert in a type of business or activity to be the authority to refer the matter to the Minister for consideration; but as soon as this bill is passed, an instruction will go out from the Minister that in circumstances A, B, C or D, the business affected must not be referred to him for approval. I want the Minister to clarify this decision. I want the committee to ensure that this sort of thing is not going to be of a continuing character. The Opposition has not the numbers in the House to defeat the sub-clause to which I have referred, but we are entitled to some explanation of what it is all about and why it is inserted. I would like to see a show of good faith by the Government in the administration on such an important activity as this. {: #subdebate-38-0-s8 .speaker-009MB} ##### Mr McEWEN:
Minister for Trade · Murray · CP .- To the extent that the honorable member for Lalor **(Mr. Pollard)** has spoken on clause 5 of the bill, he is wide of the mark. Of course, most of his remarks have had little to do with this clause at all. The Export Payments Insurance Corporation acts, in its normal sense, in a commercial manner. It exercises judgment on a proposal as to whether, subject to a particular premium, it can be regarded as a commercial transaction. It approves or rejects the business entirely on its own decision. The commissioner has the benefit of the assistance of a very high level consultative council which he can consult from time to time. This produces stability and clarity of policy. The type of business that is being covered under this so-called national interest clause of the bill obviously is one that is not attractive to the corporation as a business proposition; otherwise, there would be no need for this clause at all. So you start with the proposition that the business is not going to be commercially attractive for some reason or other; but there will be business entities that will go to the corporation and say, " I have a proposition along these lines ". The commissioner might say, " I can tell you pretty quickly that this is not the kind of business our corporation would accept ". The reply will be, " What about the national interest clause? " The commissioner may again say, " Make out your case. It must be capable of examination, and it must be worked out in detail. Let us have it, and we will refer it to the Government." All this can involve not only the commissioner and his officers but, much more importantly, the business house interested in the transaction also, in a good deal of work at home and perhaps quite a lot of work and expense overseas in bringing into sufficiently sharp focus a proposed transaction. If it is possible for the Government to say to the corporation before this point is reached, " It is no good referring to us business in respect of country A because we are not prepared to underwrite, under the national interest clause, business with that country ", then I am sure the honorable member for Lalor, who has had long administrative experience, will recognize that it is fairer to the business house to warn it that the proposition is destined to fail anyway before it goes to great trouble and considerable expense and involves other people in composing a case. That is all this clause is about. It does not compel the Minister but enables him to say to the corporation, " Here is some category of transaction that the Government has decided it would not be prepared to underwrite under the national interest clause ". The Minister, being in possession of that knowledge of government policy, will be able to say to the business house, " I have tried to obviate the difficulty, expense and time involved in composing a case". This seems to be a normal, businesslike precaution. I am sure that if we did not do that, but said that any case will be referred to the Government if it is not eligible under the commercial test, we would be much more validly criticized for allowing people to waste time and money in submitting a case that was destined to fail anyway. {: #subdebate-38-0-s9 .speaker-KYC} ##### Mr POLLARD:
Lalor .- The explanation of the Minister for Trade **(Mr. McEwen)** is quite unconvincing. Surely, if somebody goes to the officers of the Export Payments Insurance Corporation and suggests that his organization has a line of business that might interest the corporation or the Government and is worthy of consideration, at that stage at least he is entitled to the courtesy of advice from the corporation as to what he might expect. The advice might be favorable or unfavorable. On the one hand, they could say, " We think that the Government is unlikely to accept your case as suitable". On the other hand, they could say, " The exigencies of the present are such that we think you have a chance ". But this clause is most arbitrary. It is a matter of direction by the Minister. Surely he should be easily accessible to the corporation. Surely it is easy to visualize circumstances in which a direction given by the Minister would cease to be valid, even if only 24 hours had elapsed since the direction was given. Let us suppose that the Minister has advised the corporation that there is no possible hope that he will agree to insurance being granted on any transaction with, say, Viet Nam, Laos or whatever country one likes to name. A week later something might happen that would remove the basis for this direction. Surely it would be better to leave it to the good sense of the corporation to decide whether an application should be referred to the Minister. The party concerned might not go to the trouble of making out a formal written application. It might say to the corporation, " What is the position? " The corporation would reply, " A week ago the Minister gave a directive and that is all there is to it". Surely the position should be more flexible. This is an arbitrary proposal now to be introduced into the act. If this kind of thing were done in respect of every governmental or semi-governmental instrumentality the situation would rapidly arise in Australia in which the Minister would be hidden from the general public. People surely are entitled to have their cases dealt with by him and to hear from him. I think that the Minister is unreasonable. I think that the clause should be deleted. Surely the members of the corporation are intelligent and should be able to say to a potential customer, " I do not think you have any chance, but we will have a look at it and get in touch with the Minister ourselves within a few days ". Instead, under this provision the officers of the corporation will merely look to a directive which may be a month or six weeks old, although in the meantime changes in the political or economic situation may have removed the basis for the directive. The Minister should be available so that he can reconsider his directive in the light of changed conditions, otherwise an injustice may be done to some organization that seeks an insurance cover. We know that the Minister is not always on tap. We know that his deputy may not be familiar always with this kind of business, and there could be a completely arbitrary unfavorable decision in a very good case. I disagree with the Minister and hope that he will take this clause out of the bill. It has obvious disadvantages. It is arbitrary. A directive could be out of date in a week. There might be a country which is not recognized to-day but is recognized to-morrow, and the Minister should be available to alter the instructions that have been issued. I suggest that he further consider this matter even to the extent of having the bill amended when it is before the Senate. {: #subdebate-38-0-s10 .speaker-KMD} ##### Mr OSBORNE:
Minister for Repatriation · Evans · LP -- I am almost inclined to suspect that the honorable member for Lalor **(Mr. Pollard)** is deliberately pretending to be obtuse. I should have thought that he would not need his long administrative experience, to which my right honorable friend the Minister for Trade **(Mr. McEwen)** has justly referred, to see the necessity for this clause. In the first place, the clause is not arbitrary. It states - >The Minister may give directions to the Corporation with respect to the circumstances or cases in which applications are, or are not, to be referred to him under this section, and the Corporation shall comply with any such direction. One needs to bear in mind the whole scheme behind this amendment. The original act set up the Exports Payments Insurance Corporation, a government instrumentality, which was to take part in a new kind of insurance business, and which was to run on non-profit non-loss lines. In other words, the corporation was charged with the duty of running the business commercially so that it did not incur a loss. It was required also to work on a non-profit basis. Under this proposed amendment the corporation will be able to undertake a wider range of risks which may be unprofitable, but which may be necessary in the national interest. If the transactions fail, they fail at the national cost. Obviously, in those circumstances, the Government must have authority to determine the national interest in the particular case and what justifies taking a risk at government expense. In the course of time when, as the Minister has explained, experience is obtained in the nature of the applications that are made and the kind of risks that can be undertaken in the national interest, there will be a pattern of activity. What is the good of having a state of affairs in which individual after individual requests the corporation to put his application to the Government if it falls into a pattern which the Government clearly will not allow? There is an ordinary administrative need for some direction to be given. As I understand it, the objection of the honorable member for Lalor to this is that circumstances may change and some one may be prevented from having a proper proposition put to the Government. But what is to prevent the corporation suggesting to the Government that the direction might be altered because circumstances have changed? These directions do not have to be irrevocable. They do not even have to be made. The clause gives the Minister a power to do so if he thinks it advisable. In fact, the terms of the clause are, " The Minister may give directions ". This is an obvious and necessary amendment. Clause agreed to. Remainder of bill - by leave - taken as a whole, and agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill - by leave - read a third time. House adjourned at 10.20 p.m. {: .page-start } page 968 {:#debate-39} ### ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS The following answers to questions were circulated: - {:#subdebate-39-0} #### Medical and Hospital Benefit Funds {: #subdebate-39-0-s0 .speaker-4U4} ##### Mr Killen:
MORETON, QUEENSLAND n asked the Minister for Health, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How many contributors to medical or hospital benefit funds established under the National Health Act are contributors to the special accounts? 1. How many contributors have been transferred from ordinary accounts to the special accounts? 2. How many contributors are there in the special account operated by the Medical Benefits Fund of Australia? 3. How many contributors have been transferred from the ordinary account of the Medical Benefits Fund of Australia to the special account since the special account provisions came into force? {: #subdebate-39-0-s1 .speaker-JU8} ##### Dr Donald Cameron:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. At 31st December, 1960- Medical, 16,757; hospital, 288,495. 1. Not available. 2. At 31st December, 1960- Medical, 11,272; hospital, 25,024. 3. To 30th June, 1960- Hospital Special Account, 11,215; Medical Special Account, not available. {:#subdebate-39-1} #### Australian Military Forces {: #subdebate-39-1-s0 .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr Daly: y asked the Minister for the Army, upon notice - >How many changes of policy on Army administration have been made since 1949? {: #subdebate-39-1-s1 .speaker-K7J} ##### Mr Cramer:
Minister for the Army · BENNELONG, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP -- The answer to the honorable member's question is as follows: - >During the period in question the following major changes affecting the organizational structure of the Army have occurred: - > >The introduction of national service train ing in 1951. > >As announced in April, 1957 - > >the planning and preparations for a regular mobile brigade group of over 4,000 as a well equipped and readily available battle formation; > >the reduction in size of the national service intake. > >As announced in November, 1959 - > >the suspension of national service training, and the raising of a volunteer Citizen Military Force with improved availability and operational effectiveness; > >the reorganization of the opera tional components of the Regular Army and Citizen Military Forces on the new pentropic basis with special emphasis on building up the Field Force. {:#subdebate-39-2} #### Canberra Rentals {: #subdebate-39-2-s0 .speaker-JWX} ##### Mr J R Fraser:
ALP ser asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What action does the Government take to recover amounts owing by tenants of Governmentowned dwellings in Canberra where rent has fallen into arrears? 1. How many court actions for recovery of overdue rental were instituted by the Government in 1959, 1960 and during 1961 to date? 2. In the years mentioned - (a) Have eviction proceedings been taken against any tenants because of failure to pay rent? (b) Have any tenants been evicted from Government-owned dwellings in Canberra as a result of court orders for failure to pay rent? (c) Have any persons been evicted from Commonwealth-owned dwellings in Canberra for reasons other than failure to pay rent; if so, how many and for what reasons? 3. What laws in the Australian Capital Territory govern the eviction or ejectment of ten ants from Government-owned dwellings for failure to pay rent or for other causes? {: #subdebate-39-2-s1 .speaker-JXI} ##### Mr Freeth:
LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Immediately a tenant becomes in arrears tor rental to tie extent of two weeks a communication seeking payment is sent to him. If he fails within a further two weeks to make payment a final notice is forwarded with the intimation that failure to pay may result in the issue of a Notice to Quit. If there is no response to this final notice and there are no special or extenuating circumstances, the Deputy Crown Solicitor is requested to issue the Notice to Quit. If after the issue of Notice to Quit the rental arrears are not paid or the premises surrendered, application is made to the Court for a Warrant of Eviction. 1. 1959, 30; 1960, 9; 1961, 4 to date. Since 1959 the practice has been to issue a Notice to Quit prior to proceeding to Court action. This has resulted in a reduced number of Court cases. 3. (a) Yes. (b) Yes. (c) Seven - parting with possession. 2. Recovery of Lands Ordinance 1929-1938. {:#subdebate-39-3} #### Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee {: #subdebate-39-3-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: m asked the Minister for Health, upon notice - >On what dates has the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee met since 4th November last? {: #subdebate-39-3-s1 .speaker-JU8} ##### Dr Donald Cameron:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP -- The answer to the honorable member's question is as follows: - >The Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee has not met since 4th November, 1960. {:#subdebate-39-4} #### Taxation {: #subdebate-39-4-s0 .speaker-KXZ} ##### Mr Peters:
SCULLIN, VICTORIA s asked the Treasurer, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What progress has been made by the Taxation Committee established by the Government? 1. Will the committee's report be presented to the Parliament in time for its findings to be discussed before the next elections, or is it likely that the report will not be available until after the elections? {: #subdebate-39-4-s1 .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr Harold Holt:
LP -- The answer to the honorable member's questions is as follows: - 1 and 2. The chairman of the Commonwealth Committee on Taxation **(Sir George Ligertwood)** has advised that the committee has made good progress in its inquiry and is at present engaged in considering, preparing and settling its report. It hopes to complete the report early in June, provided no unexpected delays occur. {:#subdebate-39-5} #### Crimes Act {: #subdebate-39-5-s0 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward:
EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES d asked the Attorney-General, upon notice - >What nations have been proclaimed in accordance with the terms of the Crimes Act as nations to which the relative provisions of that act are to extend? {: #subdebate-39-5-s1 .speaker-126} ##### Sir Garfield Barwick:
LP -- The answer to the honorable member's question is as follows: - >At present there are none. The honorable member's question suggests that he must have overlooked the requirement in section 24aa that a resolution of each House of the Parliament must precede the making of any Proclamation under the section. If circumstances should arise in which it becomes necessary to bring the section into operation, the matter will thus automatically be brought to the notice of all honorable members. {:#subdebate-39-6} #### Australian Economy {: #subdebate-39-6-s0 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: d asked the Treasurer, upon notice- {: type="1" start="1"} 0. When did the Governor of the Reserve Bank, **Dr. Coombs,** first advise the Government that present trends in the national economy could develop dangerously unless corrected? 1. What was the precise nature of the advice tendered by **Dr. Coombs,** and was it accepted by the Government in its entirety? 2. If not, in what respects was it departed from? {: #subdebate-39-6-s1 .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr Harold Holt:
LP -- The answer to the honorable member's questions is as follows: - 1, 2 and 3. See answer in "Hansard" of 15th March, 1961, to question No. 46 which first appeared in Notice-Paper No. 2 of 9th March.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 18 April 1961, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1961/19610418_reps_23_hor30/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant