House of Representatives
7 March 1962

24th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 24th Parliament
  3. 1962

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

page 503

MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS

Mr MENZIES:
Prime Minister · Kooyong · LP

– I wish to inform the House that my colleague the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade (Mr. McEwen) is on a visit to North America and Europe for important discussions on Australian trade matters and on developments in the European Economic Community as they affect Australia. He will visit Washington and Ottawa before going on to the United Kingdom and Europe. In addition to the European Common Market questions, he will be taking up other major international commodity problems. During his absence, the Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Henty) will act as Minister for Trade and, in that capacity, will be represented in this House by the Minister for Repatriation (Mr. Swartz).

page 503

QUESTION

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

Mr CALWELL:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

– I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Will my right honorable friend make a statement to the House on the urgent necessity for an international agreement with adequate safeguards to end the testing of nuclear weapons by all nations and to provide for universal disarmament? Will the right honorable gentleman submit a resolution to the House in similar terms to the one adopted by the Prime Ministers of the Commonwealth of Nations at the last Prime Ministers’ Conference when they met in London in March, 1961, dealing with these related subjects?

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– This is a matter that I have had some discussion about with my colleague, the Minister for External Affairs. I think both he and I would wish that a statement should be made on this matter, and that such steps should be taken as would enable an effective debate to occur.

page 503

QUESTION

FINANCE

Mr ERWIN:
BALLAARAT, VICTORIA

– I direct a question to the Treasurer concerning the recent allocation of an extra £10,000,000 to the States. Can the right honorable gentleman inform the

House of the reason for this further allocation? Were the Premiers made fully conversant with the terms and conditions of this grant?

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
Treasurer · HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

-I am indebted to the honorable member for raising this matter because I was concerned to see some comment by the Premier of Victoria arising put of his presentation to the Victorian Parliament of his account of the outcome of the recent Premiers’ Conference and Australian Loan Council meeting in Canberra. Viewed against the total background, it seemed to me that his comments were unreasonable and certainly unfair tothe Commonwealth Government. We did explain quite carefully to the Premiers the reason for the proposals put forward at the conference, and a unanimous agreement was finally reached. It is not an unfamiliar experience, unfortunately, for the Commonwealth to find that after unanimity has been reached in discussions of this kind, individual spokesmen for State governments claim when they return to their home audiences that they have not been dealt with fairly; but in this case there was unanimous agreement on the decisions taken. It is, of course, not reasonable - that is the basis for my comment - to look at one aspect of the programme and see it unrelated to the arrangements made as a whole.

It is true that in the case of the nonrepayable cash grant of £10,000,000 made by the Commonwealth to the States, which was intended primarily for the speedy relief of unemployment, we did indicate a method of division which would ensure that the two States with the highest proportion of unemployment - Queensland and Tasmania - would receive a proportionately greater share of the total grant. But as I pointed out at the time, in making this recommendation we did not overlook the other measures in the Government’s programme. These include the income tax rebate which will operate proportionately on a much heavier scale in Victoria than in Queensland, the sales tax reduction on motor cars, and the investment allowance which will be a stimulus to consumption and have its effect largely on southern factories. These were all taken into consideration in the proposals we put forward at the conference.

It is a little ironical to find critical comment coming from Victoria, alleging unfair treatment, when I have received comment from other States to the effect that in their view Victoria was treated rather too liberally in the circumstances. I think that the Commonwealth dealt fairly and realistically with the situation as a whole.

page 504

QUESTION

EMPLOYMENT

Mr HAYLEN:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I address my question to the Minister for Labour and National Service. How many boys and girls left school at the end of the school year 1961? How many of these found employment? How many are still looking for jobs? Will the Minister have his department prepare for us in due course a break-down of these figures to indicate what happened to those who left school with the leaving certificate and those who left with the intermediate certificate? What were the job ranges and job opportunities in both cases? How many school leavers went to dead-end jobs? If, as reported,-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I ask the honorable member to shorten his question.

Mr HAYLEN:

– This is just the tailpiece: If, as reported by the unions, about 38,000. youths are still looking for work, what action has the Minister taken to call a conference of employers, the unions, vocational guidance experts and economists to devise the best and speediest methods of finding adequate and suitable jobs for young people?

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

– Last night I heard a very long and frivolous speech by the honorable member for Parkes. To-day he has repeated part of that speech.. He got his facts a little mixed because in one part of his speech he referred to the number of school leavers last year-

Mr Luchetti:

– I rise to order, Mr. Speaker. Is the Minister entitled, when answering a question asked in the House to-day, to reply to a matter raised during the debate last evening?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The Minister is in order but I think that he is starting off very badly. To be quite frank, the ques- tion was very long and I fear that the answer will be of similar length. This is contrary to the spirit of question-time. It would be a good thing if many honorable members approached this matterin the same way as their leaders do.

Mr McMAHON:

– As you have said, Mr. Speaker, the question is a very long and complicated one. For that reason, I ask that it be placed on the notice-paper.

page 504

QUESTION

CIVIL DEFENCE

Mr McNEILL:
CANNING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Will the Minister for the Interior tell the House whether he has received a request from the Government of Western Australia for equipment worth £30,000 for civil defence purposes? If he has, will he grant this request, and will he ensure that the new civil emergency organization in Western Australia receives the equipment without delay?

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

– The honorable member for Canning asks about civil defence equipment for the civil emergency organization in Western Australia. Last October, I made an announcement in which I gave some details about increased civil defence planning and the provision of assistance for State governments. That announcement included an offer to supply certain categories of equipment to the States, to the value of about £160,000. The offer was followed up by discussions between the Commonwealth Director of Civil Defence and the State directors, and I am happy to say that all the States have accepted the offer by the Commonwealth. -In the case of Western Australia, £30,000 was allocated, mainly for training equipment, including a certain amount of radio equipment. The itemized list has been approved and the materials should be available shortly.

page 504

QUESTION

TELEVISION

Mr GRIFFITHS:
SHORTLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Postmaster-General. Did the honorable gentleman officially open the Newcastle television station, NBN Channel 3, on Sunday last? If so, is he satisfied that the 400,000 viewers within the viewing area are now receiving satisfactory entertainment for their capital outlay and the amount paid in licence-fees? Is any study being made of the interference with reception and the distortion that occurs in pictures received in the fringe viewing areas? Has any thought be’en’ given to the erection of a booster station or the laying of coaxial cable to enable Sydney programmes to be relayed to the area to which I refer?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honorable member is dragging out the question.I ask him to be more concise.

Mr GRIFFITHS:

– When is it expected that a national station will be operating, so that more satisfactory viewing can be enjoyed by thousands of owners of television receivers, who now have no choice of programmes?

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

– I was not present at the official opening of the station, but, as the result of a request from the licensee, I made a tele-recording Of a short message to be used at the opening ceremony. I have not yet had any advice regarding the kind of reception experienced, although I have been told that the station is very well equipped and is giving a pretty good signal. As to the need for a booster station for the benefit of certain areas, the Australian Broadcasting Control Board will carry out its function, as it always does, of keeping itself informed about the kind of programmes being broadcast and the kind of reception being enjoyed. If it is necessary at any time to take further action to improve transmission and reception, such action will be taken after we have studied the full reports on the stations operating in phase three.

page 503

QUESTION

REPATRIATION GENERAL HOSPITAL, PERTH

Use by Commonwealth Games Athletes.

Mr LESLIE:
MOORE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Repatriation. Is the Minister aware that some concern has been expressed by ex-servicemen and their organizations in Western Australia with regard to a statement made by the honorable gentleman that beds in the Hollywood Repatriation General Hospital in Perth will be made available to athletes competing in the forthcoming Commonwealth Games who may become ill? Is he also aware that it is. feared that athletes may occupy beds to the exclusion of repatriation patients entitled to treatment at the hospital? Can the Minister give an assurance, and will he do so, that such a fear is completely unwarranted?

Mr SWARTZ:
Minister for Repatriation · DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I can assure the honorable member that repatriation patients will have priority in circumstances such as those he has foreshadowed. It is a fact that when I was in’ Perth a couple of weeks ago I met a deputation from the organizing committee for the Commonwealth Games. Having in mind the assistance that has been given or promised to the committee by other Commonwealth departments, including the very generous help offered by my colleague, the Minister for the Army, I was very happy to agree to allow one of the medical officers attached to the Repatriation Department in Perth to assist with the organization of medical arrangements for the games.

I intimated at the same time, in response to a request, that if beds not occupied by repatriation patients were available, we would be happy to provide ten beds for males and five beds for females during the period of the games and that these would be made available, of course, at a certain reasonable charge to the committee. It was made quite clear to the deputation at the time - this was published in the press in Western Australia also - that repatriation patients would have priority and that any arrangement made would not interfere with the normal operation of the Hollywood Repatriation General Hospital. I think that the honorable member will appreciate the fact that the Commonwealth is doing everything possible to assist in the arrangements for these games, which will be of national importance to Australia.

page 503

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT LOANS

Mr PETERS:
SCULLIN, VICTORIA

– I wish to ask the Treasurer a question. As vast quantities of packaged green peas from Holland have recently been on sale in Australian department stores, and as very recently the Australian Government raised in Holland a loan of 40,000,000 guilders, I ask: What goods for the development of this nation, besides the packaged green peas, of course, have come to Australia as a result of this loan?

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
LP

– I thought it was evident enough that there was no connexion between the two transactions. Australia gains material advantages in terms of both the cash made available and the strengthening of our overseas reserves by this first loan raised in one of the European Common Market countries. That holds some significance for us in terms of the normal trado activities between the two countries. We have our trade policy, which is well known to honorable members. We ourselves are considerable exporters to most of the countries of Europe. Indeed, most of the countries of Western Europe have an unfavorable trade balance with us. We surely do not begrudge them the sale of some goods to Australia in return for what they buy from us.

page 506

QUESTION

DEFENCE

Mr HAWORTH:
ISAACS, VICTORIA

– 1 wish to ask the Minister for Defence a question relating to the British White Paper on defence. In view of the fact that Mr. Watkinson, the United Kingdom Defence Minister, will visit Singapore late this month to discuss the proposed unified command bases in the Far Eastern area, and in view of the growing opposition in the United Kingdom to this plan, which will by-pass Australia in favour of Singapore, does the Australian Government propose specially to invite the United Kingdom Defence Minister to visit Australia after going to Singapore, in order that personal representations may be made to him for the establishment in Australia of one of the United Kingdom defence bases?

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

– I learned only this morning by cable that Mr. Watkinson was to be in Singapore from, I think, 23rd to 28th March, and I had intended, immediately after the conclusion of question time, to discuss the matter with the Prime Minister and see whether he would agree to our asking Mr. Watkinson to come here. I think, however, that Mr. Watkinson has a pretty tight programme. He will be away from the United Kingdom for only two weeks, and it may be difficult for him to come here. I should like to say that we have been in constant touch with the United Kingdom authorities, and we were in constant touch with Field Marshal Festing when he was in Singapore, concerning the problem that the honorable member has raised. We are still being fully informed of everything that happens.

page 506

QUESTION

OIL

Mr BRYANT:
WILLS, VICTORIA

– I address my question to the Prime Minister. What steps have been taken to protect Australia’s interest in the ownership of any oil discovered in this country? If any steps have been taken, what are they? Is there any danger that the ownership of oil found in this country will fall into foreign hands?

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– The problem referred to by the honorable member is to a very large extent a State problem, as he knows.

Mr Bryant:

– No.

Mr MENZIES:

– Oh, yes. To a very large extent it is a State problem, as he must know.

Mr Bryant:

– No! Surely the Prime Minister of Australia is concerned with oil!

Mr MENZIES:

– That is right. But I do not happen to be the Prime Minister of a unitary country. I know you are disappointed about that, but it is one of the facts of life. This is a problem that largely involves the State governments concerned. If the honorable member would like a statement to be prepared - I can well understand that he would - setting out what is being done by the Queensland Government in this instance, and by ourselves, I would be very happy to arrange with my colleague, the Minister for National Development, to have it prepared.

Mr Bryant:

– Yes, I would like to have it.

page 506

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE

Mr FAIRBAIRN:
FARRER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question, which is addressed to the Minister for Air, relates to the camp at the ammunition dump at Ettamogah, which has recently been vacated by the Royal Australian Air Force. As many organizations and individuals are anxious to purchase huts from this camp, will the Minister say whether it has been handed over to the Department of the Interior for disposal or whether it will be occupied by another department?

Mr BURY:
Minister Assisting the Treasurer · WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The storage huts previously used by the Air Force at this place are of interest to the Army. The Army has been given permissive occupancy of the huts, and I understand may want to occupy them permanently. There are also a few prefabricated houses in the area and I understand the Army is interested in them. As the honorable member is interested in this matter, I will make detailed inquiries. If I ascertain any information to supplement the answer I have already given, I will let him know about it within the next few days.

page 507

QUESTION

POST OFFICE, WYNDHAM

Mr COLLARD:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I address my question to the Postmaster-General, ls he aware of the cramped and extremely hot and uncomfortable conditions in which members of the staff of the Wyndham Post Office are obliged to carry out their duties? If so, does he intend to improve the conditions? What will these improvements comprise and when will they be commenced? If the Postmaster-General is not aware of the unsatisfactory conditions under which the staff works, will he make an early examination with a view to carrying out the necessary improvements?

Mr DAVIDSON:
CP

– I shall be glad to obtain the information requested by the honorable member for Kalgoorlie and supply it to him as rapidly as possible.

page 507

QUESTION

MINT WEED

Mr FAILES:
LAWSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister in charge of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization. I refer to reports of the spread of mint weed in the north-west of New South Wales causing some thousands of acres of valuable pasture land to go out of production. Will the Minister direct the immediate attention of the C.S.I.R.O. to this problem, which is said to be out of control under the present methods of eradication?

Mr FREETH:
LP

– I will convey the honorable member’s question to my colleague in another place and obtain an answer for him.

page 507

QUESTION

PORTUGUESE SAILORS

Mr NELSON:
NORTHERN TERRITORY, NORTHERN TERRITORY

– My question is directed to the Minister for Immigration. As court proceedings have prevented the House from discussing the deportation of three Portuguese sailors who sought political asylum in Australia, will the Minister give an assurance that, if the case is lost by the sailors, he will allow the whole of the circumstances to be discussed in Parliament before any further action is taken by him?

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

– As the honorable gentleman has said, court proceedings about these three Portuguese naval ratings who have deserted their ship are still current. In these circumstances, I think it would be most improper for me to make any comment on the case or to give any undertaking as to what may be done after the judgment of the court has been given.

page 507

QUESTION

REPATRIATION

Mr KILLEN:
MORETON, QUEENSLAND

– I address a question to the Minister for Repatriation. Is he in a position to say what improvements have been made in the treatment of repatriation patients at the Wacol mental institution in Queensland?

Mr SWARTZ:
LP

– I know the great interest that the honorable member for Moreton shows in the affairs of ex-servicemen in his electorate. It is pleasing to know of the personal interest he is taking in the unfortunate ex-servicemen who are patients of the Wacol Repatriation Pavilion at the Goodna mental hospital in Queensland. Over recent years, from a medical point of view, the use of tranquillizing drugs has had a very big effect in improving the general condition of patients in this pavilion. As a result, greater emphasis is being placed on vocational training which is so necessary to rehabilitate the exserviceman there.

I am very pleased to say that a new vocational training centre attached to the repatriation pavilion at this hospital is being built. It is already partly constructed and I understand it will be completed before the end of this financial year. It will provide facilities for occupational therapy which are not available at present, and which will be of great advantage in rehabilitating the patients there.

page 507

QUESTION

WOOL

Mr CLARK:
DARLING, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for Primary Industry: When does he propose to present to the House the report of the Wool Marketing Committee of Inquiry? Will it be made available for debate by this Parliament during the current session?

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

– This afternoon 1 propose to lay a copy of the report on the table of the House for the information of honorable members.

page 508

QUESTION

TARIFF POLICY

Mr TURNER:
BRADFIELD, NEW SOUTH WALES

– By way of preface to a question addressed to the Prime Minister, may I recall to the mind of the right honorable gentleman certain proposals made a few weeks ago by Sir John Crawford for a highlevel expert inquiry into the aims and purposes of Australian tariff policy, the principles to be applied to this end and the appropriate machinery for giving effect to it. So that the Government may not be caught up in the spiralling fears and uncertainty of primary and secondary industries,I ask the right honorable gentleman whether serious consideration has been given by the Government to this proposal and whether he is yet, or hopes shortly to be, in a position to clarify the Government’s intention in regard to this matter.

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– I may tell the honorable member that I have seen and read the proposals made by Sir John Crawford, whose opinions are to be treated with very great respect. I have been in correspondence with him and I expect quite shortly to have a full discussion with him about the matter.

The Government is giving very close consideration to the problem of tariff policy. It would be premature to make an announcement at this stage, but we propose, having put the matter under close study, to make our general position clear as soon as we can.

page 508

QUESTION

APPRENTICESHIPS

Mr HAYDEN:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Minister for Labour and National Service whether he is aware that some of this morning’s’ newspapers attribute to him a view to the effect that insufficient numbers - of youths are undertaking apprenticeship training in Australia to-day. Can the Minister substantiate that view in face of the fact that so many lads are unemployed to-day as a result of this Government’s policies and are desperately seeking apprenticeships at this moment? Is it a fact that the shortage of apprenticeships is in fact due solely to this Government’s policy which has created the unemployment?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– As to the honorable member’s first question, I did issue a press statement yesterday setting out that recently there had been consultations between the trade unions, the States, the employers and my own department on the subject of apprenticeships. I stated quite clearly that there was an urgent need for the training of an additional number of apprentices. I will let every member of the Opposition who wants it have a copy of the full report, which has been agreed to by the employers as well as the representatives of the Australian Council of Trade Unions.

As to the other two questions, I think the House will know that they are political. If I might give the answer now, we did register about 42,000 school leavers over the Christmas period. They are being rapidly placed in employment, and I shall make certain that in the next employment statement, which will be issued, I think, on 19th of this month, I deal with this matter specifically, and, 1 hope, to the satisfaction of all.

page 508

QUESTION

DRIED FRUITS

Mr BUCHANAN:
MCMILLAN, VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Primary Industry. Recently he issued a statement regarding the improvement of export packs of dried fruits. Has he also given consideration to ensuring that purchasers on the* local market shall know what quality they are getting, by seeing that all packs, and particularly those bagged by self-service stores, state clearly whether the quality is “MF” for manufacturing, or “1”, “2” “ 3 “, or “ 4 Crown “ and not just “ finest sultanas”, “finest currants”, Stc., a designation which gives no indication to the purchaser of the value offered?

Mr ADERMANN:
CP

– I will discuss the matters raised by the honorable member with the Commonwealth Dried Fruits Control Board and see whether any improvement can be made in the respects that he mentioned. I was under the impression that the marketing of dried fruits was quite satisfactory, but we will have a look at the matter he has raised.

page 508

QUESTION

EMPLOYMENT

Mr COURTNAY:
DAREBIN, VICTORIA

-I address a question to the Minister for Labour and National Service. Are the records of his department so kept that we could obtain a figure or a percentage showing cither the number or the percentage of recent school leavers who have failed to obtain employment? Could he indicate a figure or a percentage?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– I think honorable members will know that it is a little too early yet to be able to give precise and worth-while figures to the House of the number of school leavers who have been placed in employment and those for whom we are now seeking employment. After all, the figures are compiled with respect to the period from the last week in November to the last week in January and I do not think any one expects that all school leavers will be placed in employment the day or a week or so after they register. But we are doing our best to place these people in employment as quickly as we can. As I said in reply to another honorable member, I will have this matter especially dealt with in the next monthly report of the department relating to the employment situation.

page 509

QUESTION

WOOL

Mr KING:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA

-I desire to ask a question of the Minister for Primary Industry. Now that he has indicated that he will be tabling the report of the recent inquiry into woolmarketing, is he in a position to-day to say just who will receive a copy of this report and what arrangements have been made to meet the requirements of the individual wool-grower who is desirous of obtaining a copy?

Mr ADERMANN:
CP

– Copies of the report will be made available to honorable members who desire them; copies will be sent to the organizations vitally concerned in the welfare of the industry; and, of course, copies will be made available to the press. We should have a sufficient number of copies duplicated to supply those quarters, but I expect that there will be a really extensive demand for this report. We are making arrangements to have more copies printed and they will be sold, on request, for the cost price.

page 509

QUESTION

MONOPOLIES

Mr MAKIN:
BONYTHON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the Government considered the effect that can be made upon the wool-growing industry by mergers such as that of Goldsbrough Mort and Company Limited and Elder Smith and Company Limited and the colossal power that will be vested in one company, which in this case is claimed to be the greatest of its kind in the world? Is this amalgamation likely to be a threat to the wool-grower by preventing him from receiving the best price for his wool or for his land? Has the Commonwealth the constitutional power to deal with such trends in the commercial life of this nation and thus afford protection against monopoly practices prejudicial to the producers of this country? If it has not, will the Government seek an early opportunity to secure the necessary constitutional power?

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– I think my very experienced friend would agree thatthis is in part a question about policy and that in part it requires an investigation and statement of facts which would make it suitable to be placed on the notice-paper.

page 509

QUESTION

ELECTORAL

Mr WHITTORN:
BALACLAVA, VICTORIA

– Will the Minister for the Interior investigate the poor facilities available at polling booths used for all elections? Many polling cabinets appear to be constructed from old packing cases and grooves in the boards make it difficult for voters to mark their ballot papers. Will the Minister have a look at this problem so that better equipment will be available for the next election to be held in two and a half years’ time?

Mr FREETH:
LP

– After the last general election it did become apparent that there were deficiencies in the equipment used in polling booths. I asked the Chief Electoral Officer to make a thorough examination of all the equipment and to have the divisional returning officers examine the lighting and other facilities at all polling booths. Extensive re-equipment will be necessary. Some of the screens have been in use for from 30 to 40 years. An extensive programme of replacement is planned. The speed of replacement will depend, to a certain degree, on the funds available.It is planned that, instead of the softwood of which the honorable member complains, the screens will be made to a new design with laminex or masonite shelves. Also, the present ballot-boxes will be replaced by metal ballot-boxes. I hope that in the time that remains between now and the next general election there will be considerable improvement.

page 510

QUESTION

LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE

Mr O’BRIEN:
PETRIE, QUEENSLAND

– Is the Prime Minister aware that some Queensland local authorities are experiencing difficulty in securing additional funds, notwithstanding the interim loan allocations granted by this Government? Is the Prime Minister also aware that a request from the Pine River Shire Council for £15,000 was rejected yesterday by the Superannuation Board? If so, in view of the critical employment position in Queensland, will the Prime Minister direct financial institutions under his control to give, every consideration to loan requests from Queensland local authorities? Will he secure a review of the Pine River Shire Council’s request?

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– This matter does not fall entirely within my jurisdiction. I would have thought, from what the honorable member said, that most of it was within the jurisdiction of the Government of Queensland. If he will put his question on the notice-paper I will have it examined from that point of view.

page 510

QUESTION

TELEPHONE SERVICES

Mr JESS:
LA TROBE, VICTORIA

– Last night, in the House, the Postmaster-General stated that his department had received an extra £1,000,000 to spend in the balance of this year. Will the Minister assure me that the work needed to improve the telephone situation in the fast-developing La Trobe electorate will be given strong consideration when he is deciding where the money will be expended? This would gain three things: First, it would improve telephone facilities in La Trobe; secondly, it would reduce unemployment, and thirdly, it would save money being spent on stamps for making representations to, and receiving replies from, the Postmaster-General’s Department.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honorable member is now proceeding to give information.

Mr DAVIDSON:
CP

– The extra amount of about £1,000,000 made available to my department by the Government as part of the drive for the relief of unemployment has been allocated between the various divisions under which our expenditure falls - engineering, major building works, minor building works and repairs and maintenance. Special allocations have been made. Those allocations, . Mr. Speaker, have been guided, if I may put it that way, by two considerations. One is the need to provide extra employment in certain particularly well-defined areas in accordance with the advice given, to me by my colleague, the Minister for Labour and National Service the other is the urgency of our developmental works in both metropolitan and rural areas. There is a large amount of money to be expended in the engineering field, and that will provide considerable relief over and above that which was planned for this financial year for the provision of telephones. In fact, it is expected that as a result of those extra allocations we will be able to exceed, by about 12,000 installations, the telephone programme which was drawn up in August of last year. I cannot give the honorable member for La Trobe, at this short notice, an exact answer about developments in his own particular area, but I can assure him that telephone .expansion is taking place, particularly in the areas of Melbourne and Sydney.

page 510

QUESTION

NATURALIZATION

Mr McIVOR:
GELLIBRAND, VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Immigration. I preface it by informing the Minister that my attention has been directed to a number of cases in my electorate of people having lost their original naturalization certificates and, upon their making application for new certificates, having been refused these documents. Will the Minister inform the House of the procedure in cases of this nature? Is it possible for another certificate, similar to the original certificate that has been lost, to be supplied?

Mr DOWNER:
LP

– I am interested in what the honorable gentleman has to say, and I think that the House generally will agree that it is a very pleasing sign when our European settlers who assume Australian citizenship and British nationality prize their certificates of naturalization so highly that they feel sore about mislaying or losing them. Unfortunately, Sir, to the best of my knowledge ‘there is at present no legislative authority enabling the Government to Issue duplicate certificates of naturalization. What we can do, however, is to issue to an applicant either an evidentiary certificate or a declaratory certificate, the latter being merely a certificate to prove that he or she is an Australian citizen by birth, naturalization or registration. An evidentiary certificate is an extract - really a summary - of what was on the original certificate of naturalization and sets out, among other things, the date on which the applicant was naturalized. Sir, I think that the honorable gentleman’s question perhaps discloses a hiatus in the law as it now stands, and I can assure him that when the Government is considering some further amendment to the Nationality and Citizenship Act this is one of the matters that will receive attention.

page 511

QUESTION

SALES TAX

Mr TURNBULL:
MALLEE, VICTORIA

– Has the Treasurer received recently a request from the Australian Dried Fruits Association that sales tax on foodstuffs containing dried vine fruits be abolished? If so, in view of the need to foster the Australian dried fruits industry, which is a. large exporter, will the Treasurer consider this request urgently? If he has not received such a request , will he regard this question as a continuance of my long-sustained but so far unsuccessful advocacy for the abolition of this tax-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honorable gentleman is now making a statement.

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
LP

– The interest of the honorable member for Mallee in this matter is well known. However, while in the course of the year requests for the reduction or abolition of sales tax on a great variety of items are received by me - and I recall earlier representations to this effect in this particular case - I am not conscious of having received in recent times any representation in the matter. 1 will see whether any additional arguments have been presented. Certainly this item, in company with others to which our attention has been directed, will be reviewed when sales tax is next under consideration.

page 511

QUESTION

BUKA ISLAND

Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for Territories a question without notice con cerning the six-day hearing’ of the 636 cases arising from the disturbances on Buka Island. I ask the honorable gentleman what legal or official advice or representation was available to the 424 New Guineans involved in this remarkably expeditious hearing. In what proportion of the 588 cases in which convictions were recorded did the defendants plead guilty?

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

– I am not sure that the statistics quoted by the honorable gentleman are accurate, so what I say is not to be considered an endorsement of the facts as he has alleged them. These cases were heard before a Court of Native Affairs over which an experienced magistrate presided. One of the customary functions of the magistrate is to take care of the defence of the persons brought before him and, if necessary, to assign persons to their defence. It is also his customary responsibility to take care of the pleas entered by these people. My. information is that in some cases he directed that the plea should be one of not guilty; in other cases he accepted a plea of guilty. I think the honorable gentleman will understand that those who come before this Court of Native Affairs are not persons accustomed to a court of law. It was possibly their first appearance before any tribunal of this kind. I think we can rely upon a Court of Native Affairs as constituted in the Territory to be itself the custodian and protector of the rights of the people brought before it.

page 511

PARLIAMENTARY RETIRING ALLOWANCES TRUST

Motion (by Mr. Harold Holt) - by leave - agreed to -

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Retiring Allowances Act 1948-1959, Mr. Chaney be appointed a trustee to serve on the Parliamentary Retiring Allowances Trust.

page 511

COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES

Motion (by Mr. McMahon) - by leave - agreed to -

That so much of Standing Order No. 24 be suspended as would prevent the number of members appointed to serve on the Committee of Privileges being increased from seven to nine.

Motion (by Mr. McMahon) - by leave - agreed to -

That Mr. Clark, Mr. Cleaver, Mr. Drury, Mr. A. D. Fraser, Mr. Galvin, Mr. Killen, Mr. Peters,

Mr. Snedden and Mr. Turnbull be members of the Committee of Privileges, five to form a quorum.

page 512

HOUSE COMMITTEE

Motion (by Mr. McMahon) - by leave - agreed to -

That Mr. Speaker, Mr. D. J. Cameron, Mr. Failes, Mr. J. r. Fraser, Mr. Howson, Mr. Stewart and Mr. Stokes be members of the House Committee.

page 512

LIBRARY COMMITTEE

Motion (by Mr. McMahon)- by leave - agreed to -

That Mr. Speaker, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Drummond, Mr. Forbes, Mr. Gray, Mr. Kearney and Mr. Wentworth be members of the Library Committee.

page 512

PRINTING COMMITTEE

Motion (by Mr. McMahon) - by leave - agreed to -

That Mr. Erwin, Mr. Johnson, Mr. King, Mr. McNeill, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Uren and Mr. Wilson be members of the Printing Committee.

page 512

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS BROADCASTING COMMITTEE

Motion (by Mr. McMahon) - by leave - agreed to -

That in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Proceedings Broadcasting Act 1946-1960, the following members be appointed members of the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings, viz.: - Mr. Speaker, Mr. Chaney, Mr. Falkinder, Mr. Fuller, Mr. Fulton and Mr. Turnbull.

page 512

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE

Motion (by Mr. McMahon) - by leaveagreed to -

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Accounts Committee Act’ 1951, the following members be appointed members of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, viz.: - Mr. Allan, Mr. Cope, Mr. Costa, Mr. Davis. Mr. Kelly, Mr. Thompson and Mr. Whittorn.

page 512

LOAN BILL 1962

Message recommending appropriation reported.

In committee (Consideration of GovernorGeneral’s message):

Motion (by Mr. Harold Holt) agreed to -

That, in accordance with the provisions .of the moneys be made for the’ purposes of a bill for an act to authorize the Raising and Expending of a sum not- exceeding Sixty million pounds for Defence purposes.

Resolution reported.

Standing Orders suspended; resolution adopted.

Ordered -

That Mr. Harold Holt and Mr. Opperman do prepare and bring in a bi’.l to carry out the foregoing resolution.

Bill presented by Mr. Harold Holt, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
Treasurer · Higgins · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

When I introduced the 1961-62 Budget, I estimated that the Commonwealth would have an overall cash deficit of £16,500,000 in the current financial year, and I indicated that the Government would be seeking loan authority for the raising of treasury bills to finance that deficit. The purpose of this bill is to obtain loan authority to finance the probable cash deficit which will now, of course, be greater than that previously estimated because of the measures we have recently proposed.

It is, necessarily, somewhat difficult to estimate precisely what amount the cash deficit will prove to be. For one thing, if estimates of either revenues or expenditures vary from the result by only about 1 per cent., the effect on that overall result could be of the order of £20,000,000. The Government proposes, therefore, to provide against such uncertainties by seeking authority to borrow an amount which may prove to be somewhat more than is required to finance the deficit for the current financial year. Accordingly, in this bill, the authority of Parliament is sought to make a borrowing of £60,000.000 and to expend the proceeds of the borrowing.

It is proposed that the proceeds of the borrowing be applied to finance expenditure on Defence Services to the extent of £41,000,000 and to finance the redemption of maturing securities to the extent of £19,000,000. The maturing securities, redemptions of which are to be financed from the proceeds of the borrowing, are Commonwealth securities which were issued for war purposes. The borrowing, therefore, is to be wholly for defence purposes of the Commonwealth. Total expenditure. on Defence Services in 1961-62 was estimated in the Budget at £202,900,000. Of this total estimated expenditure it is now proposed that an amount of £41,000,000 should be charged to the Loan Fund where it will be financed from funds raised under the authority of this bill. A similar procedure for charging defence expenditure to . the Loan Fund was followed in 1958-59 and 1959-60 and in some of the war and early post-war years when total receipts were inadequate to meet total expenditures.

It is estimated that, in addition to utilizing the current receipts of the National Debt Sinking Fund, it will be necessary to call on the invested balances in that fund, and in the Loan Consolidation and Investment Reserve to the extent of £19,000,000 to finance redemptions of Commonwealth securities issued for war purposes. The borrowing will enable this to be done by providing cash for the realization of some of the investments of these funds.

I commend the bill to honorable members.

Debate, (on motion by Mr. Crean) adjourned.

page 513

LOAN (INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR RECONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT) BILL 1962

Message recommending appropriation reported. - In committee (Consideration of GovernorGeneral’s message):

Motion (by Mr. Harold Holt) agreed to -

That it is . expedient that an appropriation of “revenue and moneys be made for the purposes of a bill for an act to authorize the Raising of a Loan from the International- Bank for Reconstruction and Development in relation to certain Works to be carried out by the Snowy Mountains Hydroelectric Authority, and for purposes connected therewith.

Resolution reported.

Standing Orders suspended; resolution adopted.

Ordered-

That Mr. Harold Holt and Mr. Opperman do prepare and bring in a bill to carry out the fore-‘ going resolution.

Bill presented by Mr. Harold Holt, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
Treasurer · Higgins · LP

– I move- ^

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to obtain parliamentary approval for a borrowing of 100,000,000 dollars (£44,700,000) by the Commonwealth from the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. The proceeds of this loan will be used by the Commonwealth to assist in financing the section of the Snowy Mountains hydroelectric scheme which is now under construction and which will result in the diversion of the Snowy River through the Great Dividing Range to the Murray River catchment and the use of the diverted waters for the generation of electricity. The bill, when enacted, will also appropriate the Consolidated Revenue Fund to permit repayment of the loan and payment of interest and other charges associated With the loan.

The project to which the loan is to bc applied is the Murray 1 power station, together with the headworks that are necessary to bring the power station into operation. The works to be undertaken include the construction of three dams, two long tunnels, a pressure tunnel and twin steel pressure pipelines to carry water to the power station. The Murray 1 power station will have a capacity of 760,000 kilowatts, by far the largest capacity of any individual power station in the entire Snowy Mountains scheme. It is expected to commence production before the winter of 1966 and to achieve a capacity of 760,000 kilowatts before the winter of 1967. When a capacity of 760,000 kilowatts is achieved, it is estimated that 440,000 acre feet of water per annum will be diverted from the Snowy to the Murray for irrigation use along the Murray. When the Murray 2 power station and the Jindabyne storage are built later, the total, average increase in the water available for irrigation as a result of the diversion will be approximately 800,000 acre feet a year. :

The proceeds of the International Bank loan will be applied towards expenditure on the Murray 1 project from 1st July, 1961, onwards, and will be drawn. in instalments as the work proceeds. The total estimated cost of these works “ is about £92,000,000, which “ includes the Snowy Mountains Authority’s expenditure of general nature after 1st July, 1961, but does not include expenditure of almost £7,000,000 prior to 1st July, 1961. This expenditure will hot, of course, constitute the whole of expenditure on the Snowy -Mountains scheme between 1st July, 1961, and the date of completion of the Murray 1 power station. During that period there will be large expenditure on other Snowy projects, particularly the commencement of the Murray 2 power station and of the Jindabyne storage.

It may help to put the amount of the International Bank loan into perspective in relation to the financing of the Snowy Mountains scheme if I say that the loan of £44,700,000 compares with expenditure of £181,200,000 on the Snowy Mountains scheme up to 30th June, 1961, and with a preliminary estimate of £400,000,000 as the complete cost of the entire Snowy Mountains scheme. -

The drawing of the International Bank loan will not ‘ affect the arrangements between the Commonwealth and the States of New South Wales and Victoria about payments by the two States for Snowy electricity. In other words, the amounts so payable wm be precisely the same as if the Commonwealth itself had continued to finance the whole of expenditure on the Snowy Mountains scheme, and will continue to be determined in accordance with the agreement relating to the Snowy Mountains scheme which was signed in 1957 by the Commonwealth Government and the governments of New South Wales and Victoria.

This is the seventh loan made by the International Bank to Australia. The bank, as is well known, is a discriminating lender and, before it decided to make the loan to the Commonwealth, had examined the economics of the project in considerable detail. It concluded that the project was sound, and the loan of 100,000,000 dollars which the International Bank has approved is the largest loan ever made by the bank for a hydro-electric project, and it is one of the largest loans made by the bank in recent years for any purpose.

The terms on which the International Bank has agreed to make the loan available are similar to those cm which other bank loans are currently being made. The loan will be for a period of 25 years, and interest on the outstanding amount of the loan is payable half-yearly at 5i per cent., which includes the 1 per cent, commission which is added by the bank to its capital reserves. Although this loan carries interest at the bank’s current lending rate, which in its turn reflects the cost of borrowing by a favoured borrower in the main capital markets of the world, it might be mentioned that the average rate of interest paid on all Australia’s loans from the International Bank is 4-8. per cent., which is less than the current internal long-term bond rate in Australia. A favorable “ grace period “ has been allowed by the bank, .under which repayments do not commence until September, 1966. They are then due to be made halfyearly on an annuity basis until the loan is finally repaid by 15th March, 1987. Other procedural arrangements are similar to those made on the occasion of earlier Australian loans from the International Bank, particularly the 1956 loan to finance the purchase of aircraft for Qantas.

Drawings of the loan will be made by the Commonwealth from time to time on the basis that the bank will advance amounts equivalent initially to one-half of the expenditure incurred on the project since 1st July, 1961. Only a comparatively small proportion of the loan, will be received this financial year, but drawings will increase as the project gets fully under way, and the loan is expected to be fully drawn by the end of 1965-66. While most of the expenditure on the project will be in Australian currency, the loan will be drawn in such foreign currencies as are agreed between the Commonwealth and the bank (section 2.03 of the Loan Agreement).

The borrowing is one that comes within the Commonwealth’s 1961-62 loan programme, and therefore required the approval of the Loan Council to its terms and conditions. The amount of the loan has been, added. to the increased Commonwealth borrowing programme of £50,400,000 which the Loan Council approved at its last meeting for the purpose of financing housing advances to the State governments.

The loan will, of course, make an important contribution to the development of the economic potential of Australia. It will help the Commonwealth Government to press ahead with the largest single developmental project ever undertaken in this country and will add substantially to the funds available for developmental works planned or in progress throughout the length and breadth of the Commonwealth.

I commend the bill to honorable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Crean) adjourned.

page 515

STATES GRANTS BILL 1962

Message recommending appropriation reported.

In committee (Consideration of Governor-General’s message):

Motion (by Mr. Harold Holt) agreed to -

That it is expedient that an appropriation of revenue be made for the purposes of a bill for an act to grant Financial Assistance to certain States.

Resolution reported.

Standing Orders suspended; resolution adopted.

Ordered - .

ThatMr. Harold Holt and Mr. Oppermando prepare and bring in a bill to carry out the foregoing resolution.

Bill presented by Mr. Harold Holt,and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HigginsTreasurer · LP

.- I move-

That the bill be nowread a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to amend the States Grants Act 1959 in order to give effect to certain decisions of the Government arising out pf the recent Premiers’ conference. In order to enable honorable members to appreciate fully the circumstances giving rise to the proposed bill, I think it would be useful if I explained, as briefly as possible, the operation of the 1959 act.

The States Grants Act 1959 embodied the agreement which emerged from the June, 1959, Premiers’ conference. That agreement substituted a system of financial assistance grants for the system of tax reimbursement grants then operating. In essence, the act provided for a specified financial assistance grant to be paid to each State in 1959-60, the first year of its operation, and, in each year thereafter, a grant for each State to be ascertained by taking the grant paid to that State in the preceding year and varying it according to:

  1. The increase in population in the State during the preceding financial year; and
  2. The percentage increase, if any, in average wages for Australia as a whole during the preceding financial year.

In order to provide for some degree of improvement in the standards of services provided by State governments, the percentage increase, if any, in the average wage figure was to be increased by onetenth. This has become known as the betterment factor.

In order to make the position quite clear to honorable members, it might be desirable if I sum up the operation of the act in the following way. Thegrant to be paid to, say, Victoria in the financial year 1961-62. is arrived at first by taking the amount paid to that State in 1960-61, dividing this amount by the population of Victoria at 1st July, 1960, and multiplying it by the population of Victoria at 1st July, 1961.The resulting sum is then increased by 1.1 times the percentage increase, if any, in the level of average wages for Australia as a whole during 1960-61.

Mr Duthie:

– Whose brain-child is this?

Mr HAROLD HOLT:

– I can assure the honorable gentleman that it was gladly accepted by the State governments, and by Tasmania no less gladly than the other States. .

For most years of its intended period of operation, the population figures used in calculating the grants would necessarily have to be those estimated by the Statistician. The act provides, however, that in any year in which a census is taken, the population of a State as at1st July of that year, for the purpose of the act, is to be the population as revealed by the latest census results available at the time when the calculation of the grant is made. It is laid down in the act that the grant payable in any financial year is to be determined by the Statistician not later than 31st December of that financial year.

Since a State Government must have some idea of the grant which it is to receive in a, financial year before it can prepare its budget for that year, and since it is customary for revenue grants to be paid by the Commonwealth in the form of monthly advances from the commencement of the financial year, the Statistician prepares a preliminary estimate of the grants, in advance of the commencement of the year, usually during the preceding May or June. This estimate is, of course, based on the best estimates then available of likely movements in population and average wages for the year preceding the year in which the grant is payable. The .final determination of the grants, which is made some six months or so later, normally varies only slightly from the preliminary estimate, even though more accurate population and average wages figures are used. The monthly advances are, of course, adjusted to accord with the final determination.

Having outlined the procedures adopted in. arriving at the amount of the grants, I now. come to the purposes of this amendment. The amending bill has been drafted to give effect to two decisions reached at the recent Premiers’ conference to take account of the results of the census conducted in June, 1961. It would, I think, be convenient to take these two aspects of the bill separately.

The first is dealt with in clause 3 of the bill and the schedule referred to in that clause, and provides for specified amounts to be paid to three States in addition to the grants payable to them in 1961-62 in accordance with the final determination made by the Statistician in December last.

The reason for these additional payments is that the census of last year revealed the existence of substantial errors in the Statistician’s estimates of the populations of some States during the inter-censal period, that is, between 1954, when the preceding census was taken, and 1961. As a result the estimates of all State populations as at 1st July, 1961, on which the preliminary estimates of the grants for 1961-62 were based, proved to be greater or less than the figures based on the census and substantially so in the case of two States, Victoria and Queensland.

I would add here that there are very great difficulties in the way of accurate estimates of State populations between censuses. Although the Statistician’s estimates of the population of Australia as a whole are remarkably accurate in inter-censal years, it is extremely difficult to record accurately all movements of people between States. The Statistician has formulated plans for improving this aspect of the State population estimates, and we shall be seeking the co-operation of the States where necessary in that regard.

The effect of the census results on the grants for 1961-62 would have been relatively minor had the 1959 act allowed the Statistician, in determining the grants, to use census-revised estimates of populations as at 1st July, 1960, in conjunction with the census results for 1st July, 1961. The movements iri populations during 1960-61 estimated for use in ascertaining the preliminary estimates of grants in May, 1961, were not very different from the movements disclosed by combining the census results with census-revised estimates of State populations at 1st July, 1960. The Commonwealth proposed to the States at the Premiers’ Conference in June, 1961, that the act be amended to enable the Statistician to use census-revised estimates of population as at 1st July, I960, in his final determination of the grants for this year. Had this proposal been accepted, the grants as finally determined would not, for the reason I have already mentioned, have differed significantly from the preliminary estimates made in May, 1961, upon the basis of which States had framed their budgets for 1961-62. We were not’, however, able to secure the unanimous agreement of State governments to this course of action, and although some States which originally opposed the suggestion later changed their minds about it; there was never any unanimity on the point. We did- not feel justified in taking unilateral action, and the question ‘ was therefore deferred pending further discussions with the Premiers in the new year.

When the Statistician’s final determination of the grants was made in December last, the grant for Queensland proved to be £984,000 in excess of the preliminary estimate, while that for Victoria was £1,058,000 less than the preliminary estimate. Of the other States, both New South Wales and

South Australia received more than the preliminary estimate, while Western Australia and Tasmania received less. These other four States were, however, affected to a much smaller extent than was either. Queensland or Victoria. The Commonwealth Government could have proceeded to pay the grants as finally determined, in accordance with the act, and left it at that. We recognized, however, that to do so would have created difficulties for the three States whose grants would thereby have been reduced. In the current economic circumstances, and in view of the fact that the budgetary plans of these States had been based on the amounts represented by the preliminary estimates, we decided to pay them additional amounts which took into account the final figure for the increase in average wages during 1960-61. The additional amounts which resulted are those set out in the schedule to the bill. When added to the grants finally determined by the Statistician they represent a close approximation to the grants which these three States would have received had the 1961 census not been held. The remaining States, New South Wales, Queensland and South Australia, will of course be paid the higher grants finally determined in their case by the Statistician.

I come now to the other aspect of the amending bill. This is contained in clause 4 of the bill, which provides that the amount which is tobe regarded as the grant paid to Victoria in 1961-62, for the purpose of calculating the grant for that State in 1962-63, is to be £72.730,000..’ As I explained earlier, the grant paid to a State in any particular year forms the base amount used in calculating the grant for that State in the succeeding year. We have felt it necessary, in view of the large amount by which the final determination of Victoria’s grant for the current year was affected as a result of the operation of the present act, to write into the base for the determination of its grant for 1962-63 some part of the difference involved. If that were not done, Victoria would be penalized as a result of the quite fortuitous errors in population estimates during the inter-censal period. It did not appear to us that Victoria could fairly expect the whole of the additional amount, as shown in the schedule to be thus included in the base grant, and we therefore proposed a compromise which was accepted by the Premier of that State when it was put to him at the recent Premiers’ Conference.

The total amount which would be paid to Victoria this year, under the States Grants Act 1959, is £71,991,000. When the amount of £1,024,000 shown in the schedule to this act is added to that amount, the total amount which it is intended should be paid to Victoria this year is £73,015,000. The amount to be regarded as the grant payable to that State in 1961-62, for the purpose of calculating its grant in 1962-63, is, as I have said, £72,730,000. This last amount has been determined by calculating the grant which would have been payable to Victoria in 1961-62 had the population figures used in the calculation of its grants since the base year 1959-60 been revised on the basis of the recent census. That is, census-revised estimates of the Victorian population back to 1st July, 1959, have been applied to the 1959-60 base year amount to produce the amount given as being theoretically payable to that State in this financial year. We conceived this as being justified, in the case of Victoria, because of the very large amount involved. To have merely paid an additional amount in this financial year and left it at that without adjusting the base amount under the legislation would have deprived Victoria of substantial amounts of the order of £1,000,000 in the remaining three years covered by the agreement.

In the case of the other two States, Western Australia and Tasmania, this action has not been taken for two reasons. First, the amounts involved are much smaller. More importantly, however, since the budgets of these two States are the subject of annual review by the Commonwealth Grants Commission, there seemed to be little real purpose in adjusting the financial assistance grants to these States, and thereby only serving to affect the level of the special grants payable to them.

I commend the bill to honorable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Crean) adjourned.

page 517

STATES GRANTS (ADDITIONAL . ASSISTANCE) BILL 1962

Message recommending appropriation reported.

In committee (Consideration of GovernorGeneral’s message):

Motion (by Mr. Harold Holt) agreed to -

That it is expedient that an appropriation of revenue be made for the purposes of a bill for an act to grant and apply out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund sums for the purpose of Additional Financial Assistance to the States.

Resolution reported.

Standing Orders suspended; resolution adopted.

Ordered -

That Mr. Harold Holt and Mr. Bury do prepare and bring in a bill to carry out the foregoing resolution.

Bill presented by Mr. Harold Holt, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
Treasurer · Higgins · LP

– I move -

That the bill be how read a second time.

The purpose-‘ of this bill is to authorize payment to the States of amounts totalling” £10;000,000 in this financial year. These amounts ‘are being made available in the form of non-repayable grants, and are additional to the financial assistance grants paid to the States under the States Grants Act 1959.

In his statement of 7th February, the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) announced that Cabinet had, after valuable consultations with a wide range of industries and interests, reviewed the . present state of the economy and closely considered policy and appropriate action. He intimated that the Government was concerned both at the level of unemployment which was then evident, and at the weakness of confidence which existed. He went on to outline a series of measures which the Government intended to take to deal with this situation. In referring to those measures which were intended to produce the quickest possible results, the Prime Minister said:

We will put before the meeting of Premiers next week an offer to provide forthwith a special non-repayable grant of £10,000,000 for employmentgiving activities, mainly in the works field. The detailed application of this sum, as a supplement in the current financial year, will be discussed with ‘the Premiers. It is our intention that it should be supplied and allocated mainly on the basis of meeting employment needs.

In accordance with this undertaking, the Prime Minister put forward this offer at the recent Premiers’ Conference. At the same time he suggested to the Premiers a form of distribution which, having in mind the purpose of the grant and the significant variations in the incidence of unemployment in the various States, the Commonwealth considered to be appropriate. This suggested distribution had been drawn up having in mind the unemployment figures in each State and in particular, those relating to Queensland and Tasmania. A further consideration was the extent to which the other measures announced by the Government would contribute to meeting the employment problem in each State.

The Commonwealth offer, including the suggested distribution of the total grant, was considered by the Premiers along with the other Commonwealth offers to advance additional amounts to the States for housing and to support an increase in the borrowing programmes of State local authorities and semi-governmental bodies. It was, in a sense, a “ package “ offer and was considered as such.

In the outcome, the Premiers accepted both the total amount and the proposed distribution, which is now embodied in the bill before the House. The amounts to be paid to each State which are shown in the schedule to the bill are as follows: -

The grants, which I should emphasize will not involve the States in interest and repayment, are intended to provide finance for employment-giving activities, mainly in the works field. However, each State will be free to exercise its own judgment and to use its share of the grant in whatever direction it thinks proper. But the overriding general purpose of the grants is to provide employment.

As it is the intention also that the whole of the grant should be expended during this financial year the Government is naturally anxious that it should be in a position to commence to make payments of the grant to the States at the earliest possible date. For this reason, I would, in commending the bill to honorable members, express the

Government’s desire to. have the legislation dealt with as expeditiously as possible.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Crean) adjourned.

page 519

STEVEDORING INDUSTRY CHARGE BILL 1962

In Committee of Ways and Means: “ Motion (by Mr. McMahon) agreed to -

That, in lieu of the rate imposed by the Stevedoring Industry Charge Act 1947-1958, the rate of charge in respect of the employment of water; side workers on and after the first day of April, One thousand nine hundred and sixty-two, be Three shillings and fourpence for every man-hour of employment.

Resolution reported.

Standing Orders suspended; resolution adopted.

Ordered -

That Mr. McMahon and Mr. Fairhall do prepare and bring in a bill to carry out the foregoing resolution.

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

Second Reading

Mr McMAHON:
Minister for Labour and National Service · Lowe · LP

.- I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The bill is short and its purpose clear. It increases the rate of the stevedoring industry charge from 2s. 6d. to 3s. 4d. a manhour. The increase is to take effect from the beginning of April.

The stevedoring industry charge finances the operations of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority. These include payments of attendance money and the payment - in effect on behalf of all employers in the stevedoring industry - of annual leave, long service leave, sick leave and statutory holidays for waterside workers. The charge is a levy on manhours worked and is paid by employers in the industry. The charge was last increased in April, 1958. Since then the commitments of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority for payments to waterside workers have been increased considerably.

From July, 1959, by a decision of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitra tion Commission, the authority became responsible for the payment of annual leave taken, by. waterside workers. This item, which amounts to more, than £1,000,000 a; year, was formerly paid direct by the employers with the latter levying’ themselves, on the average, 9d. per man-hour to meet the cost. Also, as from 6th June, 1961,” the authority became responsible, pursuant to the 1961 Stevedoring Industry Act for payments for long’ service leave to waterside workers.

As to annual leave payments by the authority, it was recognized from the outset that the stevedoring industry charge would have to be increased to finance these payments to replace the self-imposed levy of the employers. However,’ it has been possible to delay this step to date because the employers handed over to the authority their Annual Leave Trust Fund of some £1,200,000 and because of the authority’s earlier strong reserves from which payments for annual leave have been met since the trust fund was exhausted. To the end of 1961, some £322,000 was disbursed in long service leave payments. Further major commitments under this head will not fall due generally until 1964.

In addition to the foregoing new items of expenditure, there have, since the current levy of 2s. 6d. per man-hour was introduced, been a margins increase and a basic wage rise, both of which affect the amount of statutory payments made by the authority to waterside workers. Further, as from. 1st November, 1961, the daily rate of attendance money payable to waterside workers was increased by a decision of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission from 24s. per day to 28s. 3d. per day. Attendance money payments have, for this reason and because of the falling off in shipping activity, risen considerably.

The position now is that the charge must now be increased to enable the authority to meet these new commitments. The Government considers that it should aim at a rate which remains stable over a period - a rate which enables the authority to meet its day-to-day commitments, which can fluctuate markedly and with little warning, and to build up some reserves against commitments that are now clearly foreseeable.

The fact is that the increase of10d. proposed is only1d. more than the average levy which employers had previously imposed on themselves to meet the cost of annual leave. The remaining1d. represents the net increased costs and potential costs attributable to the other factors already mentioned. I commend the measure to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr. E. James Harrison) adjourned.

page 520

WAR SERVICE HOMES BILL 1962

Second Reading

Mr ROBERTON:
Minister for Social Services · Riverina · CP

.-I move-

That the bill be now read a second time.

This bill has a twofold purpose: to amend the War Service Homes Act to reduce by £750 the minimum deposit required from purchaser’s where a home is sold to an eligible person under the rent purchase conditions provided in Part IV. of the act, and to increase by that amount the maximum advance available to borrowers under Part V. of the act. The reduction in the deposit and the increase in the advance proposed in this bill will apply to all types of assistance at present available under the War Service Homes Act. The bill provides for the amendments to come into operation on the day the act receives the Royal assent. Loans up to the increased maximum amount of £3,500 may therefore be made as and from the day that the act becomes law.

Though there has been a steady and consistent demand for war service homes loans since the end of the 1939-45 war, in recent times there has been a trend towards a reduction in this demand. As a period of some sixteen years has now elapsed since the termination of the 1939-45 war, some fall off in applications might reasonably be expected in the normal course of events. However, it has become increasingly evident that the decline in new applications was greater than might beexpected from a natural fall in demand due to the passage of time and to the satisfaction of a large part of that demand. It is apparent that, to some extent, applications have declined because some ex-servicemen can no longer bridge the gap between the maximum amount of the war service homes loan and the prevailing costs of constructing or of acquiring a home. In the Government’s recent review of the national economy this was accepted as a factor which was preventing many ex-servicemen from taking advantage of the benefits offered by the war service homes scheme.

Homes built under the war service homes scheme comprise an appreciable percentage of the number of homes built throughout the Commonwealth. Last year the War Service Homes Division financed the construction or purchase of 8,627 new homes. As has been the case over the last few years this represents approximately 10 per cent. of the new homes completed in Australia. The Government’s recent review of the national economy showed that an increase in the home-building rate was desirable. Naturally, when considering the ways and means of increasing the building rate, the Government took into account the housing needs of ex-servicemen and particularly views placed before it by the Returned Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen’s Imperial League of Australia regarding the maximum loan under the war service homes scheme. The increase in the maximum war service homes loan to £3,500 proposed in this bill is designed to offer the best possible proposition to the many exservicemen who are eligible but who have not yet applied for a war service home.

Family life is the foundation of a vigorous, progressive and a happy community. Homes are essential if the family is to live a dignified and full life. This Government believes in the principle of home ownership and has always accepted the responsibility of encouraging home ownership within its constitutional powers. The increase in the loan to £3,500 will enable the War Service Homes Division to Continue making its vitally important contribution to the national welfare by the provision of homes for ex-servicemen” and their families in all parts of Australia. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Whitlam) adjourned.

page 521

LOAN (HOUSING) BILL 1962

Message recommending appropriation reported.

In committee (Consideration of GovernorGeneral’s message):

Motion (by Mr. Bury) agreed to -

That it is expedient that an appropriation of moneys be made for the purposes of a bill for an act to Authorize the Raising and Expending of a sum not exceeding Seven million five hundred thousand pounds for the purposes of Housing.

Resolution reported.

Standing Orders suspended; resolution adopted.

Ordered -

That Mr. Bury and Mr. Cramer do prepare and bring in a bill to carry out the foregoing resolution.

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

Second Reading

Mr BURY:
Minister for Air and Minister assisting the Treasurer · Wentworth · LP

– I move -

Thatthe bill be now read a second time.

Honorable members will recall that on 6th February the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) announced, as part of its immediate measures to stimulate economic activity, the Government’s intention to advance, over the balance of the current financial year, an additional £5,000,000 to the States for housing. The allocation of this amount was to be discussed with the Premiers mainly on the basis of meeting employment needs in the building and associated industries. At the meeting of the Australian Loan Council on 15th February the Commonwealth agreed to raise the additional amount it was prepared to advance to the States for housing to £7,500,000 and the Loan Council approved of an increase of that amount in the borrowing programme for 1961-62.

The purpose of this bill is to authorize the raising, pursuant to this Loan Council approval, of further loan moneys totalling £7,500,000, which will be advanced to the States in 1961-62 for expenditure on housing in accordance with the terms of the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement.

The £7,500,000 is; of course, additional to the £42,900,000 already allocated for hous ing under the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement in 1961-62. The Loan Council adopted the following apportionment of this supplementary advance among the States: -

The original provision of £42,900,000 for housing in 1961-62 was, in itself, a record amount for advances by the Commonwealth for the housing requirements of the States. The additional £7,500,000 will raise to £50,400,000 the total of loan moneys to be advanced to the States under the Housing Agreement in 1961-62. This represents an increase of £13,200,000 or 35 per cent. over the aggregate of actual advances to the States in 1960-61 of £37,200,000. The allocation of the total sum of £50,400,000 amongst the States is as follows: -

In addition to its usefulness as an immediate stimulus to housebuilding, the provision of an extra £7,500,000 in the next four months or so will benefit not only those seeking accommodation through State housing authorities but also private home-builders to whom, under the Housing Agreement, not less than 30 per cent. or £2,250,000 must now be allocated. Thus the minimum total amount to be provided in 1961-62 for private home building, mainly through building societies, will become £15,120,000. A balance of £35,280,000 for erection of dwellings by the States will remain from the overall total of £50,400,000.

I commend the bill to the House.

Debate(on motion by Mr. Whitlam) adjourned.

page 522

TARIFF PROPOSALS 1962

Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 6); Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 7); Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 8); Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 9); Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 10); Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 11); Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 12); Customs Tariff (Canada Preference) Amendment (No. 1); Customs Tariff (Canada Preference) Amendment (No. 2); Customs Tariff (Canada Preference) Amendment (No. 3); Customs Tariff (New Zealand Preference) Amendment (No. 2); Customs Tariff (New Zealand Preference) Amendment (No. 3); Customs Tariff (New Zealand Preference) Amendment (No. 4); Customs Tariff (Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland Preference) Amendment (No. 1)

In Committee of Ways and Means:

Mr FAIRHALL:
Minister for Supply · Paterson · LP

– I move - [Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 6).]

That the Schedule to the Customs Tariff 1933-1961, as proposed to be amended by Customs Tariff Proposals introduced into the House of Representatives on the twenty-second day of February, One thousand nine hundred and sixty-two, be further amended as set out in the Schedule to these Proposals and that, on and after the eighth day of March, One thousand nine hundred and sixty-two. Duties of Customs be collected accordingly. [Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 7).] That the Schedule to the Customs Tariff 1933-1961, as proposed to be amended by Customs Tariff Proposals introduced into the House of Representatives on the twenty-second day of February, One thousand nine hundred and sixty-two, be further amended as set out in the Schedule to these Proposals and that, on and after the eighth day of March, One thousand nine hundred and sixty-two. Duties of Customs be collected accordingly. [Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 8).] That the Schedule t o the Customs Tariff 1 933-1961 , as proposed to be amended by Customs Tariff Proposals introduced into the House of Representatives on the twenty-second day of February, One thousand nine hindred and sixty-two, be further amended as set out in the Schedule to these Proposals and that, on and after the eighth day of March, One thousand nine hundred and sixty-two, Duties of Customs be collected accordingly. [Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 9).] That the Schedule to the Customs Tariff 1933-1961, as proposed to be amended by Customs Tarin* Proposals introduced into the House of Representatives on the twenty-second day of February, One thousand nine hundred and sixty-two, be further amended as set out in the Schedule to these Proposals and that, on and after the eighth day of March, One thousand nine hundred and sixty-two. Duties of Customs be collected accordingly. [Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 10).] That the Schedule to the Customs Tariff 1933-1961, as proposed to be amended by Customs Tariff Proposals introduced into the House of Representatives on the twenty-second day of February, One thousand nine hundred and sixty-two, be further amended as set out in the Schedule to these Proposals and that, on and after the eighth day of March, One thousand nine hundred and sixty-two, Duties of Customs be collected accordingly. ». 17 1 5/61.- -R.- £221 [Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 11).] That the Schedule to the Customs Tariff 1933-1961, as proposed to be amended by Customs Tariff Proposals introduced into the House of Representatives on the twenty-second day of February, One thousand nine hundred and sixty-two, be further amended as set out in the Schedule to these Proposals and that, on and after the eighth day of March, One thousand nine hundred and sixty-two. Duties of Customs be collected accordingly. [Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 12).] That the Schedule to the Customs Tariff 1933-1961, as proposed to be amended by Customs Tariff Proposals introduced into the House of Representatives on the twenty-second day of February, One thousand nine hundred and sixty-two, be further amended as set out in the Schedule to these Proposals and that, on and after the eighth day of March, One thousand nine hundred and sixty-two, Duties of Customs be collected accordingly. [Customs Tariff (Canada Preference) Amendment (No. 1).] That the Second Schedule to the Customs Tariff (Canada Preference) 1960-1961 be amended as set out in the Schedule to these Proposals and that, on and after the eighth day of March, One thousand nine hundred and sixty-two, Duties of Customs be collected accordingly. {: .page-start } page 534 {:#debate-43} ### THE SCHEDULE Omit consecutive numbers 52 and 53 in column 1 and the particulars specified in columns 2 and 3 opposite to those consecutive numbers, insert the following consecutive numbers and particulars: - [Customs Tariff (Canada Preference) Amendment (No. 2).] That the Second Schedule to the Customs Tariff (Canada Preference) 1960-1961 be amended as se t out in the Schedule to these Proposals and that, on and after the eighth day of March, One thousand nine hundred and sixty-two. Duties of Customs be collected accordingly. {: .page-start } page 534 {:#debate-44} ### THE SCHEDULE That the Second Schedule to the Customs Tariff (Canada Preference) 1960-1961 be amended as set out In the Schedule to these Proposals and that, on and after the eighth day of March, One thousand hine hundred and sixty-two, Duties of Customs be collected accordingly. {: .page-start } page 534 {:#debate-45} ### THE SCHEDULE After consecutive number 61a in column 1 and the particulars specified in columns 2 and 3 opposite to that consecutive number, insert the following consecutive number and particulars: - [Customs Tariff (New Zealand Preference) Amendment (No. 2).] That the Schedule to the Customs Tariff (New Zealand Preference) 1933-1961, as proposed to be amended by Customs Tariff (New Zealand Preference) Proposals introduced into the House of Representatives on the twenty-second day of February, One thousand nine hundred and sixty-two, be further amended as set out in the Schedule to these Proposals and that, on and after the eighth day of March, One thousand nine hundred and sixty-two, Duties of Customs be collected accordingly. [Customs Tariff (New Zealand Preference) Amendment (No. 3).] That the Schedule to the Customs Tariff (New Zealand Preference) 1933-1961 as proposed to be amended by Customs Tariff (New Zealand Preference) Proposals introduced into the House of Representatives on the twenty-second day of February, One thousand nine hundred and sixty-two, be further amended as set out in the Schedule to these Proposals and that, on and after the eighth day of March, One thousand nine hundred and sixty-two, Duties of Customs be collected accordingly. [Customs Tariff (New Zealand Preference) Amendment (No. 4).] That the Schedule to the Customs Tariff (New Zealand Preference) 1933-1961 as proposed to be amended by Customs Tariff (New Zealand Preference) Proposals introduced into the House of Representatives on the twenty-second day of February, One thousand nine hundred and sixty-two, be further amended as set out in the Schedule to these Proposals and that, on and after the eighth day of March, One thousand nine hundred and sixty-two, Duties of Customs be collected accordingly. [Customs Tariff (Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland Preference) Amendment (No. 1).] That, on and after the eighth day of March, One thousand nine hundred and sixty-two - **Mr. Chairman,** the proposals to amend the Customs Tariff 1933-1961 which 1 have just introduced and which are now being circulated to honorable members may be divided into four groups. Firstly, Proposal No. 6 re-introduces certain proposed tariff changes introduced into this House last year and which could not be debated at that time and were consequently validated until 30th June this year. Secondly, Proposals Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 10 introduce for the first time tariff changes consequent on recommendations by the Tariff Board on the following commodities: - {:#subdebate-45-0} #### Glucose, Ball point pens and pencils, Gelatine and animal glues, and {:#subdebate-45-1} #### Polyethylene Thirdly, Proposal No. 12 imposes additional temporary duties of1s. 3d. per gallon in respect of peanut oil and edible palm oil following inquiry and report by a deputy chairman of the Tariff Board. These goods will subsequently be reported on by the full Tariff Board. Lastly, Proposal No. 11 introduces changes made by the Government in respect of imported unmanufactured tobacco. Rates of duty are not changed but the wording of the tariff item is altered to require that a manufacturer entering imported unmanufactured tobacco at the concessional rates of duty shall hold a certificate issued by the Minister for the purposes of the tariff item. The issue of a certificate shall be conditional upon the manufacturer meeting certain requirements about usage and stock holdings of Australian-grown tobacco leaf. As announced last week by the Minister for Trade **(Mr. McEwen),** those requirements are that the manufacturer use a prescribed percentage of Australian-grown tobacco leaf in his manufactured tobacco products and that he hold stocks of Australian leaf at a level which will ensure that adequate quantities of matured Australian-grown leaf are available to meet the percentage provisions. Adverting to the changes arising from consideration by the Government of the Tariff Board reports on ball point pens and pencils, gelatine and animal glues and polyethylene, I would remind honorable members that these reports followed the imposition of temporary duties by deputy chairmen in April, July, September and October, 1961. The rates now proposed supersede the temporary duties then imposed. In accordance with the Tariff Board's recommendations, increased duties will apply to the cheaper types of ball point pens and pencils. A redraft of the tariff items relative to all pens and pencils has been made in the interests of improved administration but except in respect of ball point pens and pencils the incidence of the existing duties has not been changed. Increased duties generally have been imposed on gelatine and animal glues. The opportunity has been taken to redraft the tariff items on musical instruments, parts and accessories but no changes in rates have been made. The Tariff Board's report on polyethylene recommended that additional duties be not imposed on high density polyethylene but increased duty on low and intermediate density polyethylene. The Government has implemented the Tariff Board's recommendations. In respect of glucose the Tariff Board has recommended increased protection on glucose of the types made in Australia but has recommended that the duties on dextrose, a pure form of glucose, not made in Australia, revert to the level existing prior to the deputy chairman's report. The other proposals amending the New Zealand Preferential Tariff, the Canada Preferential Tariff and the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland Preferential Tariff are complementary to the proposals to amend the Customs Tariff and are essentially drafting amendments to maintain preferential margins of duties. I commend the proposals to honorable members. Progress reported. {: .page-start } page 537 {:#debate-46} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-46-0} #### TARIFF BOARD {: #subdebate-46-0-s0 .speaker-KEN} ##### Mr FAIRHALL:
Minister for Supply · Paterson · LP -- I lay on the table of the House a report by a deputy chairman of the Tariff Board on the question of whether temporary duties should be imposed on peanut oil and substitute oils. I also lay on the table of the House the reports of the Tariff Board on the following subjects: - >Ballpoint pens and pencils, > >Gelatine and animal glues, Glucose, and Polyethylene resins and moulding compounds. Ordered to be printed. {: .page-start } page 537 {:#debate-47} ### SALES TAX (EXEMPTIONS AND CLASSIFICATIONS) BILL 1962 {:#subdebate-47-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed from 21st February (vide page 52), on motion by **Mr. Harold** Holt- >That the bill be now read a second time. {: #subdebate-47-0-s0 .speaker-KSC} ##### Mr SPEAKER (Hon Sir John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA -- There being no objection to the procedure proposed by the Minister, that procedure will be observed. {: #subdebate-47-0-s1 .speaker-JF7} ##### Mr BEAZLEY:
Fremantle .- The effect of the measures now before the House is to reduce the sales tax on cars and station wagons from 30 per cent. to22½ per cent., and to reduce the sales tax on commercial vehicles from 16) per cent. to 12) per cent. Although the Government is reducing the sales tax on cars and station wagons from 30 per cent, to 22) per cent, the rate is not yet as low as the 1 6) per cent, which was the figure before the special 40 per cent, sales tax of the emergency period was imposed in late 1960. Still more remote is it from the 8) per cent, which was the rate of sales tax on all vehicles at the time of the Chifley Government. It is interesting to look at the Government's sales tax measures relating to motor vehicles. I think it is quite important to recognize that we have moved into a different way of thinking about sales tax. We are not discussing a revenue producing device. The Government revealed openly for the first time in October, 1960, that it had moved to a position in which it regarded sales tax as a device for controlling the economy in a number of important aspects to which 1 propose to refer soon. I shall outline the history of sales tax on motor vehicles beginning with the coming into power of the Curtin Government. When the Curtin Government came into power the sales tax on all vehicles was 10 per cent. On 1st May, 1942, the government of the day increased the sales tax on vehicles to 12) per cent. Japan was then in the war and I am not certain how much selling of vehicles was going on at that stage or how effective the tax was as a revenue-producing device. On 15th November, 1946, the Chifley Government reduced the sales tax on all types of vehicles to 1 0 per cent. On 8th September, 1949, that Government reduced it further to 8) per cent. Sales tax of that order is clearly a device for raising revenue. We began to move into a different concept of sales tax early in this Government's term of twelve years in office. On 13th October, 1950, the Government introduced a differentiation between sales tax imposed on cars used for private purposes and on vehicles used for commercial purposes. On that date, cars and station wagons had imposed upon them a 10 per cent, sales tax while on commercial vehicles and trucks 8) per cent, was imposed. Then came the beginning of the Government's use of sales tax as an economic weapon. On 27th September, 1951, the sales tax on cars and station wagons was increased to 20 per cent, and on commercial vehicles to 12) per cent. It was reduced on cars and station wagons to 16) per cent, on 10th September, 1953, and no change was made in the rate for commercial vehicles. On 15th March, 1956, in one of those supplementary budgets, the sales tax on cars and station wagons was increased to 30 per cent, and on commercial vehicles to 16) per cent. Those rates remained until 16th November, 1960, when the tax on cars and station wagons was increased to 40 per cent. - the highest it has ever been - but the tax on commercial vehicles remained at 16) per cent. On 22nd February, 1961, the rate of 40 per cent, on cars and station wagons was cut back to 30 per cent. On trucks and commercial vehicles it remained at 16) per cent. From 9th February, 1962, it is proposed that the sales tax on cars and station wagons shall be 22) per cent, and on trucks and commercial vehicles 12) per cent. This economic weapon is designed by the Government to serve a number of purposes. First of all, it is intended to divert investment. The Government has frequently criticized any effort on the part of the Opposition to advocate capital issues control Government supporters have objected to any government having control over investment except, perhaps, in time of war emergency. But although all sorts of governments genuflect to private enterprise and say that they win not control investment, they have in fact always tried to control investment by some means. This is true of the government of **Mr. Kennedy** in the United States of America just as it is true of the present Government here. If you have import controls and you say to importers, "We will allow you to import steel-making machinery which will be in class A, but we will not allow you to import ice cream-making machinery which will be in class B", you are determining in what direction capital shall be invested. You may then say that investment controls are socialistic but, in fact, you are determining the nature of the capital equipment which is to come into the community. Admittedly, this is not an all-over control. It relates only to imports. But if you impose sales tax at the rate of 40 per cent, and you set out deliberately to knock certain industries in an inefficient, harsh and frequently unjust manner, you, in fact, control investment. In using -this device you have to damp down certain industries that are already in existence. The Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies)** made a speech at the opening of a great new Ford factory. He spoke about the glories of the car industry and of its significance to Australia. This investment, according to him, was a wonderful thing. Within six months the first penal instalment of sales tax on cars was imposed under the Government's policy. For the first time the sales tax on cars was raised to 30 per cent. Here are investors who have gone to the trouble of investing in an industry, who have installed elaborate equipment, who have been commended for doing so - and then it is decided by the Government that this sort of economic activity has reached a stage where it has become undesirable because it is drawing imports into the country, or for some other reason. So a penal tax is imposed on the industry. Something similar happened not very long before the sales tax on cars was increased from 30 per cent, to 40 per cent. The Prime Minister was invited to speak at the opening of either a great new General Motors-Holden's plant or a new Ford plant at Broadmeadows - I am not quite sure which - and on that occasion he again spoke of the significance of the car industry. Within six months thereafter he dealt a heavy blow at the industry in the form of an increase of sales tax on cars and station wagons to 40 per cent. To-day, sales tax has become a weapon to divert investment. It has become a weapon to divert trade. It has become a weapon to divert the community's expenditure.. It has become a weapon to divert employment. We do not have direction of labour here. That would be quite wrong. The Government says that that was a wartime feature only. The Treasurer **(Mr. Harold Holt)** said, when the 40 per cent, sales tax was imposed on cars, that this would ensure a diversion of labour and materials to other occupations. I do not think that the diversion actually took place, as the displacement had run through the community and had increased unemployment. That increase of unemployment would not have taken place had it been simply a case of diverting labour to other occupations. When you use the sales tax in this way you are using it to achieve the same result, almost, as is achieved by direction of labour. You are not saying positively to a worker, " You shall go to work in a certain industry ", but you are attempting to achieve the same result negatively by trying to divert labour from the car industry. This is an inefficient weapon in all respects, because it is not sufficiently selective. If you are going to say that certain forms of occupation are undesirable you ought to be able to say that certain other forms are desirable. When there is direction of labour - and I am not advocating direction of labour - the Government has to carry the responsibility if it positively diverts people from one occupation to another; but if you have purely negative controls like sales tax, and knock out a particular industry by subjecting it to a penal tax, you do not actually take responsibility for what happens to the people displaced from that industry. We have not seen this used as other than a very blunt weapon. Psychologically, of course, it has proved a disastrous weapon, and the reason is that there are certain goods used by the community which you might say are status goods. When Great Britain was in her post-war difficulties her neighbour across the Channel, Belgium, had her difficulties too. **Sir Stafford** Cripps, the British Chancellor of the Exchequer, and **Mr. Spaak,** the Belgian Economics Minister, pursued diametrically opposite policies. **Sir Stafford** Cripps said that the rehabilitation of Britain must be through austerity. He said, " All our imports that we can possibly apply to capital equipment to rehabilitate British industry we will apply, and in consumer goods we must go short". Britain maintained food rationing and so on. **Mr. Spaak,** who was, like **Sir Stafford** Cripps, a socialist, proposed a quite different solution from that proposed by **Sir Stafford.** He took the point of view that if you wanted people to work there were certain incentive goods that you should have in the windows of the shops. It was found in Britain that people had wages to spend but, under austerity, there was nothing much to buy with those wages. So **Mr. Spaak** filled the shop windows of Belgium with all sorts of luxury goods and said to the Belgians: " There you are. They are all dear, but work like blazes and you will get them." I am not sure whose recovery - Britain's or Belgium's - was the more spectacular, but there you have the two differing concepts. Now let me return to the car industry in Australia, about which we have been talking a great deal. That industry has become very significant in the Australian economy, quite apart from the labour it employs or the materials it utilizes, because if anything is a status symbol in Australia to-day it is the possession of a car. Maybe the standard of living and the:'economy of this country have been so advancing that we are moving to the point where, as in the United States, the status symbol will be the possession of two cars, and from there we may move to the point where the status symbol will be possession of a speed boat. However that may be, I think it would be true to say that the status symbol in Australia to-day is a car. When this particular industry was knocked this symbol of prosperity was knocked, and this produced1 the crisis of confidence that the Government spoke of so much in a recent debate in this Parliament. There are, however, certain other things that we need to look at. The car industry is also pre-eminently a hire-purchase industry. We should remember, also, that when people bought cars when the rate of sales tax was 30 per cent, or 40 per cent., the sales tax, paid by the distributing companies to the Government in the first place, was passed on to the purchaser as part of the price of the car. There are thousands of people in Australia to-day who are paying hire-purchase interest on sales tax which the distributing company from which they bought paid into the Government's revenue. The sales tax of 30 per cent, or 40 per cent, became part of the price of each car sold at that time so, I repeat, thousands of people in Australia to-day are paying hirepurchase interest charges on the tax - and a good many companies are therefore, in the long term, making a profit out of sales tax. Assuming that sales tax raised the price of a car from £1,000 to £1,400, the hire-purchase charges are based on that £1,400. That, I think, is an aspect of this tax that we need to look at. Honorable gentlemen opposite declaim that income tax is inflationary - which it is not. In fact, it is always used as a counterinflationary device. They claim that sales tax is not inflationary. They should have a look at the inflationary aspects of hirepurchase interest charges on the sales tax component in the price of cars. The discriminating between industries which is implicit in this legislation - because this is just a luxury rate of tax which is imposed on the car industry^is another .matter that we need to look. .at. Honorable, .gentlemen opposite speak -..*>f incentives. The possibility of owning a home, the possibility of owning a car, are great incentives to work in this community. The burdens that people assume, in purchasing homes and cars are, as a matter of fact, a factor in industrial stability. You may regret the fact or you may praise it, but people who are in debt in these hirepurchase fields are not usually people who want any interruption in their work through industrial disputes; and when the Government, in dealing with the car industry, made cars more difficult to obtain it did, I think, produce disincentives in the community. I do not want to labour the point made in the last debate, but I do want to reiterate this point: When sales tax of 40 per cent, was imposed in November, 1960, it was imposed on car components that had already been imported. Last night I mentioned the acres of cars standing round the factories. The 40 per cent, sales tax was imposed in order to stop things that had already been made from being sold. It would have been much better to allow the companies- to 'sell those cars without the imposition of - the additional sales tax and responsibly to have put an import quota on the components they could use in future reconstruction. It is very interesting to read the speeches that were made by the Treasurer in November, 1960. Indeed, I ask honorable gentlemen to look at the statements that were made at that time to the effect that the proposed measures would divert labour and materials. This Parliament is asked to vote on taxes that are alleged to have certain desirable effects, as was stated in 1960, but it never gets a report on how the proposals worked out. Can we get an honest report on how those measures diverted labour from the motor car industry and where the labour went?' If honorable members do not want that information, we should not be so hypocritical as to pretend to the public, when we make statements advocating these things as instruments that will have certain effects, that they will actually have those effects. The Treasurer made certain claims in 1960. Did his proposals work out the way hesaid they would do? The Parliament is entitled to a report. It is entitled/not merely to prophecies on how something will work, but to a report on how it did work, especially on such vital questions as persons being transferred from one occupation to another and the apprenticeships in the industry that were encouraged or discouraged. We are now apparently moving back into a phase where we will encourage the motor car industry again. The sales tax is to be cut from 30 per cent. to22½ per cent. But surely there must be a great uncertainty in the minds of young people beginning apprenticeships whether this will be an oscillating industry where, according to decisions made in Canberra, it may advance with a low rate of sales tax or be stopped with a high rate of sales tax. It would be a very good thing if we tried to divert labour and controlled imports by other devices and got back to the stage where, if we are to have the sales tax, it is only a revenue device. {: #subdebate-47-0-s2 .speaker-KBH} ##### Mr WILSON:
Sturt .- As usual, the honorable member for Fremantle **(Mr. Beazley)** has given a very reasoned argument and set out what I believe to be the vital differences between the thinking of the socialist. Labour Party and the Liberal and Country. Parties. The honorable member for Fremantle said we are not discussing a revenue device. I think I would agree with him in fundamentals. This bill has an economic purpose rather than a revenue purpose. The honorable member said this was a device for controlling the economy. If the honorable member means - as I think he does - that the purpose of this bill is to help in providing full employment and stability in the economy, I agree with him because, as the Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies)** said, the purpose of these economic measures that are now being placed before theHouseoneafterthe other istocarry out the policies of the Government in bringing about full employment and the stability of the economy. The honorable member for Fremantle said that the Labour Party would do things in the direct way, whereas he charged us with doing them in the indirect way. In other words, if the Labour Party wishes to divert labour from an industry which is absorbing too much of the labour resources of the country, the socialist Labour Party will do it by the way it employed when in power - that is, by man-power controls. By legislation, it would direct a man to leave the job of his choice and go to the job that the Labour socialists thought he ought to do. {: .speaker-JF7} ##### Mr Beazley: -- I said I did not believe in such controls. {: .speaker-KBH} ##### Mr WILSON: -- As the honorable member has interjected, he did say that he did not believe in those methods; but at the same time he did say just as definitely that the Labour Party would do these things in the direct way, and the direct methods are those that were used by the Labour Party during the eight years it was in office, namely, by man-power controls and by directing people to go to jobs not of their choice but of the choice of the Labour socialists. I agree with the honorable member that there is a fundamental difference between the thinking of the Australian Labour Party and the thinking of this Government. We believe there are other ways of bringing about stability of the economy and full employment than by pushing people about and directing them. {: #subdebate-47-0-s3 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order! I direct the honorable member's attention to the fact that the scope of this bill is very limited. The honorable member is getting on to matters of policy. {: .speaker-KBH} ##### Mr WILSON: -- I am dealing directly with the statements made by the honorable member for Fremantle. With your permission, **Sir, I** shall continue to deal with the speech that the Chair permitted just before I rose. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- I shall permit the honorable member to continue so long as he keeps in mind the subject-matter of the bill. {: .speaker-1V4} ##### Mr Cairns: -- I rise to a point of order, **Mr. Speaker,** because I think it is important at this stage to define the scope of the debate on this bill. I direct attention to the speech made by the Treasurer **(Mr. Harold Holt)** in introducing this bill. The right honorable gentleman said - >As all honorable members know, these measures form part of the plans the Government has made following upon the recent comprehensive review of the economy, for immediate action to reduce unemployment. I submit that the point made here is that this bill is not just a revenue-raising measure, but has to do with the management of the economy as a whole for the purpose of reducing unemployment. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- The honorable member will not be in order in pursuing that line. There may have been a passing reference to the matter he has mentioned. I think a passing reference is reasonable, but I do not believe that we should depart from the measure which relates to sales tax on motor vehicles by discussing all the ideologies of the political parties throughout the world. {: .speaker-KBH} ##### Mr WILSON: -- The honorable member for Fremantle said that the Government was using the sales tax weapon to divert investment. He said that the Labour Party would do it the direct way bv capital issues control and other direct means. Again, his statement reveals the fundamental difference between the thinking of the socialists and that of this Government. We believe that there are other ways - and the sales tax is one way - in which investment can be channelled into the right direction without having direct control over capital issues and over the business of private enterprise. In the September quarter of 1960, 83,000 motor vehicles were produced and sold in Australia. Production at that time was at the rate of 330,000 motor vehicles per annum. Is there any manufacturer in Australia or any member of this House who believes that, with a population of 10,500,000, Australia could go on producing and selling motor vehicles at that rate? I have discussed this matter with a great many motor car manufacturers in Australia and I have not yet found one who believes that we could have continued producing and selling at that rate. They admit candidly that the production and sale of motor cars towards the end of 1960 was at a rate which Australia could not possibly maintain. The Government was faced with two alternatives. On the one hand, it could have allowed the manufacturers to continue to use steel, which was in short supply, and man-power, which was in short supply, and to produce at this excessive rate until eventually stocks had been built up to such an extent that the weaker of the manufacturing brethren must have gone bankrupt. The motor car. manufacturers do not hesitate to admit that they were over-producing towards the end of 1960. In the discussions I had with them they told me that they had to keep pace with their competitiors and while their competitors continued to over-produce they had to do the same thing. So, one alternative was for the Government to do nothing about the position. It could have acted as the Labour Government acted in 1930 and have allowed the boom bubble finally to burst with the result that one-third of our population would be walking the streets looking for a job. The Liberal-Country Party Government does not believe in interfering with industry unless interference is essential for the welfare of the whole community. But when faced with the situation which existed in 1960, when inflationary pressures were extreme and when thousands more motor cars were being produced than ever could be sold if production continued at that rate, the Government decided to put a brake on the accelerating boom to bring- {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order! The honorable member is now debating Government policy. He is answering what the honor> able member for Fremantle said, but I* think the Chair was far too lenient with that honorable gentleman. This bill has a 'very limited scope. The second-reading speech certainly made some passing reference to policy, but I would ask the honorable member for Sturt and other honorable members not to take advantage of that to try to develop a debate outside the terms of the bill. This measure relates to sales tax on motor cars. It has nothing to do with what appeared in shop windows in Belgium or Great Britain in the post-war period. {: .speaker-JF7} ##### Mr Beazley: -- Were you in the chamber, **Mr. Speaker,** when it was arranged that all this sales tax legislation should be debated as one? {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- That does not affect the issue before the Chair. {: .speaker-1V4} ##### Mr Cairns: -- Your decision, **Mr. Speaker,** seems to me to misunderstand completely not only the effect but also the purpose of a measure of this kind. If it is relevant for me to do so at this point, may I direct your attention to the speeches which were made by -the Treasurer on the occasions when sales tax was increased or reduced. over the last five or six years as well as on this occasion? Those speeches show clearly that it was the Treasurer's purpose- to relate these measures to the condition of the economy as part of Government policy. That, I believe, is the significance of this measure. Your decision misunderstands completely its economic importance. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- I have read the bill and I find great difficulty in interpreting it in that way. I ask the honorable member for Sturt to proceed and I shall again check the second-reading speech, but I do not think it justifies a wide debate on economic policy. {: .speaker-KBH} ##### Mr WILSON: -- I have followed directly, and I propose to quote word for word, what the Treasurer said in 1960 when introducing his proposal to increase sales tax on motor cars - what he said last year on the measure to reduce sales tax, and what he said in his second-reading speech on the bill now before us. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- We are dealing with the second-reading speech on the present bill, not with any other second-reading speech that the Treasurer has made. I suggest that the speech was very carefully prepared. {: .speaker-KBH} ##### Mr WILSON: -- I am following closely not only the Treasurer's second-reading speech but also the speech made by the honorable member for Fremantle. When the Treasurer has been permitted to follow a certain line, which has been followed also very ably by the honorable member for Fremantle, I submit that I am entitled to follow an identical line. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order! The secondreading speech covers a little over one page. I admit that the Treasurer in that speech made passing reference to this matter of policy, so, if the honorable member wishes to emulate the Treasurer he should make only a passing reference to it also and not give it priority over the subject-matter before the Chair. {: .speaker-KBH} ##### Mr WILSON: -- I must bow to your ruling, **Mr. Speaker,** but I should like to refer to the Treasurer's speech on 15th November, 1960, as recorded on page 2852 of " Hansard ". He said- >We propose to use such direct measures as we have at hand to steady down -activity in the building and motor vehicle industries. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order! That matter is not before the Chair. {: .speaker-KBH} ##### Mr WILSON: -- The Treasurer was dealing with an identical bill in which- {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order! The honorable member now is canvassing a ruling of the Chair. I have directed his attention to the Treasurer's speech and if the honorable member proposes to make more than a passing reference to economic policy he will not be allowed to continue. The fact that the honorable member for Fremantle made some departure from that principle is the reason why the Chair has been tolerant until now. We cannot have a general debate on policy. {: .speaker-KBH} ##### Mr WILSON: -- I can only proceed to quote what the Treasurer has said. If I am not permitted to do that I am left with the alternatives of disagreeing with your ruling or not continuing with my remarks. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- That is in the honorable member's hands. He is referring to a matter which is not before the Chair. {: .speaker-KBH} ##### Mr WILSON: -- I am dealing with as identical bill in relation to which the Treasurer- {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order! The honorable member is out of order and if he pursues that line of discussion I shall have to ask him to resume his seat. {: .speaker-1V4} ##### Mr Cairns: -- I move - >That the honorable member for Sturt be heard. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- That question does not arise. I ask the honorable member for Sturt to comply with the spirit of the Treasurer's second-reading spee/'.. {: .speaker-KBH} ##### Mr WILSON: -- *I* am afraid that I cannot continue unless I can follow the line taken by the Treasurer and by the honorable member for Fremantle. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- I am asking the honorable member to take the line followed by the Treasurer on this occasion and not on some other occasion. {: .speaker-KBH} ##### Mr WILSON: -- I shall not continue with my speech. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- I call the honorable member for Melbourne Ports. {: #subdebate-47-0-s4 .speaker-JAG} ##### Mr CREAN:
Melbourne Ports .- I should like to point out what my colleague, the honorable member for Fremantle **(Mr. Beazley),** pointed out, namely, that this House is considering a taxation measure which reduces the amount of tax currently payable on motor vehicles, motor vehicle parts and motor vehicle accessories. This measure will have the effect, at least, of altering the revenue yield from sales tax. One of the odd features of this bill is that no attempt has been made to calculate what will flow from this. Unless something like one-third more motor cars are sold than was envisaged when the Budget was presented, there will be a short-fall in sales tax yield. I would have thought that the Treasurer **(Mr. Harold Holt)** would at least have made some attempt to calculate what the effects of this measure will be. It is regarded as one of the prerogatives of a Parliament that it should be given an opportunity to know what it is doing in financial matters. But it seems to be clear from the remarks of the Treasurer, not only on this occasion but also on other occasions, that the measure is not primarily concerned with the amount of revenue to be obtained, although it must be indirectly concerned with this aspect. Its main purpose seems to be to increase the total sales of motor cars in -he Australian community. 1 join with my colleague from Fremantle in expressing the opinion that we in this House are entitled to ask - and people outside this House would, I am sure, want to know - how far the Government intends to allow the motor car industry to develop. The Treasurer himself stated on 21st February of this year - >In recent months the demand for motor vehicles has become progressively stronger. The Govern ment, however, wishes to accelerate this improvement because it recognizes the importance of this industry from an employment stand-point. In order to show what measures with a contrary intention - not to reduce but to increase sales tax - did to employment in the automotive industry, I direct the attention of the House to a publication of the Victorian Chamber of Manufactures, " Economic Service", No. 23, issued on 24th August, 1961, which points out that between 30th November, 1960, when the increased sales tax on motor vehicles was first imposed, and 7th July, 1961, total employment in the automotive industry fell by 35 per cent. Apparently the Treasurer envisages that the proposed reduction of sales tax will result in employment in the automotive industry rising to something like its former level, and I do not think anybody needs to have me stress the overall importance of the motor industry to the Australian economy. This is not a matter that involves only the sale of motor vehicles. We must consider also the ancillary effects on the rubber industry, the steel industry and the distribution services, as well as on Australia's balance of payments overseas. It is from a confluence of all those considerations that this measure has sprung. I think, **Sir, that** you should take particular not,e of the fact that this is, I believe, the first occasion on which it has been openly admitted in this Parliament that taxes are being imposed, not so much as .revenue-raising devices, but, as my colleague from Fremantle has pointed out, as a means of diverting economic activity, or, in some cases, even of choking it off completely in a particular direction. The sales tax was first increased for the purpose, of reducing the overall sales, and, therefore, indirectly, the production of motor vehicles, because the industry absorbed too much of Australia's resources, both internal and external. On this occasion, realizing that what was done at that time was a mistake, the Government is trying to correct the mistake, without aiming, perhaps, to get the automotive industry back to the level from which it fell. I think that it is here that we come to the question that the Parliament and the community should ask: What plans has the Government in mind if, as a result of this measure, the total sales of motor vehicles In Australia should begin to rise to something like the order at which they were running in November of 1960, when the sales tax weapon was first wielded by the Government? The Treasurer at that time expressed alarm at the fact that production was running at a rate of 330,000 vehicles a year. Total production is now running at a level much below 250,000 a year. This represents a significant fall. Just how far does the Treasurer intend to allow this measure to go? Are we to " .have, in another two or three k months, a further measure which will bump_up the J' rate from 22i per cent. to . 30 per cent, or more? "That, I think, is the kind 'of' information that the honorable member for Fremantle was probing for. We certainly saw a difference in philosophical approach between the honorable member for Fremantle and the honorable member for Sturt **(Mr. Wilson).** It should not surprise any one, **Mr. Speaker,** to find in this Parliament differences of philosophical approach to matters of this kind*. What we on this side of the House are pleased to see is an admission by the Government that there must be economic planning if we are to use our economic resources to the best advantage. There may be arguments as to whether that planning should be of a direct and authoritarian kind, or whether it should be subtly implemented by means of a tax such as this. Surely nobody in this House would attempt to deny now that the production and sales of motor vehicles in Australia are significantly affected according to whether the rate of sales tax is 22i per cent, or 40 per cent. There is one vital factor missing in all ^ these considerations; there is no attempt ""by the Treasurer to estimate what the overall revenue effects of this measure will be. As I said earlier, the revenue effects may not be the prime consideration, but we must remember that the tax is still being kept on. After all, why not take the tax off altogether? If that were done, the level of production would probably surge much higher and more rapidly than it will with the tax left at the present level of *22i* per cent. The Treasurer seems to me on this occasion to be trying to use the steering wheel of sales tax fairly sensitively, and this is a matter that is worthy of note by the Parliament. We could argue the point, I suppose, whether too much of the resources of the Australian nation are going Into the motor car industry. For the year 1959-60, for instance, Australian motorists contributed f 77,000,000 by way of sales tax, or about 47 per cent, of total sales tax collected from all sources. This information appears in a document circulated recently by the Chamber of Automotive Industries of New South Wales, which all honorable members have probably seen. It is headed, "Attention AH Motorists! Stop Car Tax ". Apparently, this document is addressed to buyers of motor vehicles, for it states - >The dealer didn't pay this - you did. We on this side of the House want to know how much the buyers of motor vehicles are likely to pay in aggregate in the remaining part of this financial year. I suggest that at some stage during the consideration of this measure the Treasurer ought to give some indication of the amount. If he is unable to do so, **Sir, that** only gives point to the contention of some honorable members on this side that this is not primarily a revenue measure at all but is an economic device - a control, if you like, or a plan designed to regulate the production of motor vehicles. It is designed, in this instance, to increase the output of vehicles. The motor industry in its various forms, in full flush, employs, I think, more than 100,000 people. About one out of every ten people engaged in manufacturing in Australia finds employment directly in the automotive industry. The effects do not stop at that industry, however. They are multiplied and extended to other fields as well. If we were allowed to refer to what happened on a previous occasion, we could point out that the Treasurer had said then that even he believed that there was a limit to the resources which the nation could devote to this industry. He said - >There are limits to the resources we can afford for the production of items such as motor cars as against other requirements of our growing economy . . We support him in that contention. We now ask: What level of production does he think the motor car industry ought to be able to attain? This is a matter of some significance to honorable members. I am sure that it is a matter of great significance to people outside this House, and particularly to employees in the industry and to those persons who have chosen to put their capital in this great industry. I think that something like £500,000,000 of capital has been sunk in plant and buildings in this industry in Australia. The motor industry is perhaps the greatest single source of employment in the country. Yet, as a result of a tax measure introduced in this House about sixteen months ago, about one-third of the total employment in the industry was lost. We all hope that employment in the industry will increase as a result of the proposed reduction of sales tax. Any increase in the output of motor cars and in employment, of course, will be reflected in the total collections of sales tax imposed on vehicles. At this stage, we have no clear indication of whether, at the new rates of 22) per cent, on passenger vehicles and 12) per cent, on commercial vehicles, motor cycles and motor vehicle parts and accessories, the sales tax yield will be as great by 30th June next as the Treasurer estimated when he presented his Budget in August, 1961. Perhaps the Treasurer has an indication of whether or not this will be so. I hope, as I said earlier, that he will intervene, perhaps at the committee stage, and tell us what the indications are. First, how many motor cars does he think will be sold in the next quarter, let us say, as a result of the stimulus of the lower rates of sales tax? If sales soar higher than he expects they will go, does he propose to take panic measures of the kind that he took before and bump up the rates again? These things are of some interest both inside and outside this House. We on this side of the chamber, **Mr. Deputy Speaker,** support a reduction in sales tax on motor cars. Indeed, we support a reduction in sales tax on anything. We hope that ultimately the sales tax will be abolished as a form of revenue. We regard it as a blunt and often brutal instrument, even at the petty level mentioned this afternoon by the honorable member for Mallee **(Mr. Turnbull),** who told us that the currant is taxed when it goes into a bun and not when it is sold in a packet unmixed with anything else. These are. points of nice judgment, perhaps. Nevertheless, I suggest that many items in addition to motor vehicles could have been chosen by the Treasurer on this occasion to provide an economic stimulus. We are grateful that he has seen some of the light, and we hope that he will consider the pleas of those who make biscuits, cakes, ice creams, cosmetics, razor blades and, if you like, electric shaving devices. I hope that all those items will be considered and that something will be done to lower significantly the heavy toll which sales tax imposes, unjustly in many instances, on large sections of the Australian community. We welcome this measure as far as it goes, but I repeat that we would like from the Treasurer some indication of how much revenue he expects to derive and of the level to which he considers the production of motor vehicles in Australia ought to be permitted to rise. {: #subdebate-47-0-s5 .speaker-KCS} ##### Mr DRUMMOND:
New England -- **Mr. Deputy Speaker,** I congratulate the honorable member for Fremantle **(Mr. Beazley)** on the most enlightening way in which he opened the debate this afternoon. I congratulate, also, the honorable member for Melbourne Ports **(Mr. Crean)** on the way in which he extended the arguments of the Opposition and the ability with which he scouted round certain things. That does not mean to say that I agree with the conclusions which were arrived at. However, I do agree that this measure raises a matter of first importance. According to the Treasurer **(Mr. Harold Holt),** one of the purposes of the resolution on which this bill is founded is to reduce the rate of sales tax on commercial motor vehicles, motor cycles and motor vehicle parts and accessories from 16) per cent, to 12) per cent. Those items are the ones with which this measure is directly concerned, but there is an associated proposal to reduce from 30 per cent, to 22) per cent, the rate of sales tax on passenger motor vehicles. The honorable member for Fremantle, who, as I have intimated, led for the Opposition in this debate, pertinently raised the question: Why were the sales tax rates increased in the first place and why are they now to be reduced? That opens up the whole matter and poses a question which, I consider, should be answered one way or the other, without the rules of the debate being broken. The honorable member for Melbourne Ports asked, " Why were the rates increased on a previous occasion? " He went on to say that the increase had been a mistake in the first place, and he continued, " This repeal is a correction of that mistake". That begs the whole question. Were the previous increases a mistake? Perhaps I may use an analogy here. A person with heart trouble who is threatened by a car while crossing the road will sprint out of the vehicle's way, even at the risk of heart failure. On another occasion, when the carriage-way is clear and the air is balmy, if there is no threat from a motor vehicle, he will just walk quietly across the road. He would have made a mistake by committing suicide in the first instance and he would have been equally unwise to take risks in the second instance. The honorable member opened up the question as to whether the increases were a mistake. This had been canvassed skilfully by the honorable member for Fremantle. I entirely agree with the Opposition's argument that the history of sales tax reveals that it has been used as a weapon, not solely to produce revenue but more as a means of correcting an imbalance in the economy. It is quite clear that that is so. It is also quite clear that when the sales tax on motor vehicles was increased to 40 per cent., sales tax was being used as a weapon to combat what the Government thought - and rightly thought - was a most dangerous trend developing in the community. I am at one with the Opposition on this point and, if I may say so, I am still a heretic on the subject of the financial power that resides in the Commonwealth. I believe that the Commonwealth should have greater financial power. If the Government had been able to exercise certain powers constitutionally at an earlier date, it would not have been necessary for the sales tax on motor cars to be increased. I have made no bones about this. My belief that the Commonwealth should have greater financial power does not arise from any party decision. I am, perhaps, party to a non-party decision but I do not propose to recant. However, we are discussing what happened under the existing Constitution. The situation was that the manufacture of motor vehicles was spiralling. The honorable member for Sturt **(Mr. Wilson)** referred to this. There was in fact overproduction. Similar over-production in America and Canada had resulted in 6 to 8 per cent, of the work force being unemployed. The effects of over-production of motor vehicles were felt right through the steel industry in those countries. We were in danger of the same situation developing here. But there was a greater danger. If the Government had not taken drastic action, many more investors would have suffered. We know what happened with the Chevron-Hilton group, but if the Government had not acted, the effects would have been more widespread than they were. I am not here to apologize for what the Government has done. I think the Government acted rather late and, having waited as long as it did, it should have left the motor industry to take the responsibility for the results of its own over-production. However, in acting as it did, the Government allowed the motor industry to unload on to the Parliament responsibility for what subsequently happened. We, as human beings, are prone to unload on to others the responsibility and the blame for results that have arisen from our own action. However, the rate of tax on motor vehicles and parts is now being reduced. Whatever may have been the trend earlier when sales tax on this item was increased, it is a matter for congratulation that some of the load on the motor vehicle industry is now being removed. If we continue to tax the means of capital investment and production, we continually load costs on to industry at a time when there is obvious need to reduce the burden. The Government has recognized that this is so. Transport can be affected if undue taxes are imposed on it. It is most important that any burden which adds to the cost of commercial transport should be removed. As motor vehicles are items of capital expenditure which, in the nature of things, tend to wear out rather quickly, they represent in totality and in outlay a very considerable burden on industry. I know that the question arises as to whether the action now taken will be inflationary. This has been raised explicitly in discussion and implicitly in the bill before the House. The Opposition and people outside the Parliament have claimed that certain inflationary trends may follow -a deflationary policy. I am a believer in the theory of Lord Keynes. He said, first, that we cannot have inflation while we have a surplus of goods and services and we have any serious degree of unemployment. The second part of his theory, as I understand it, is that as soon as the unemployment trend is passing, expenditure should move from the public area into the private area, and shade into it so that there is no continuing inflationary expenditure by government at a time when the work and money should be absorbed into the private sector of the community. The situation in Australia to-day is not as serious as that in many other countries. However, the degree of human suffering is too serious and I believe, consequently, that the idea of injecting money into the economy is perfectly sound. One way of takup the slack is to do what the Government h doing now, and that is reduce the burden upon an industry which, given some degree of assistance, should justify its existence by exporting to a far greater extent than it has up to the present. I personally hope that the theory of the use of sales tax as a weapon of economic policy will be kept as far in the background as is possible. I consequently find myself entirely in accord with the action of the Government at this time. The honorable member for Melbourne Ports asked whether the previous increase of sales tax was a mistake. I say emphatically that at the time and in the circumstances it was not a mistake. There was no alternative. Whether it ought to have been applied sooner and less drastically is a matter for argument. But the honorable member probably knows that in a democracy a government cannot move any more quickly than the community will allow. The community must suffer before it will agree that the action proposed to be taken is right and then it will blame the Government for not having taken the action earlier. Opposition members will find that this is so if, by accident, Labour is given the reigns of office. I say emphatically in answer to the honorable member that the policy was not a mistake. I say also that this, therefore, is not a correction of a mistake; it is a readjustment according to the actual circumstances of the case. I had thoughtfully worked out a carefully designed speech to enable me to trace step by step a reply which I hope would have been an effective one to some of the arguments adduced by the honorable member for Fremantle **(Mr. Beazley),** but, since 1 do not wish to fall foul of the Chair in view of the ruling which has been given, I can only say in conclusion that at the present moment there is no danger of inflation from what the Government is doing, and I do not think that that danger will appear until unemployment has dropped to at least 2 per cent, of the work-force. When ^unemployment has dropped to that percentage, then, in my opinion, it will be necessary to allow the principle of offering to private enterprise the incentive of lower taxes to move that particular sphere. Nobody has talked about it very much, but we. have tried to the fullest extent in this country the theory of high taxes and, despite all that we have been able to do, values and prices have chased one another like a dog chasing it own tail. I think it is about time we had more moderate taxation which would leave more money in the hands of those in the private sector which could be borrowed by the Government instead of being taxed out of them. This would give them not only more money but more incentive to save and to put more energy, money and enterprise into the business of developing Australia. I believe that is a sounder policy than those that have emanated from the Treasury since I have been a member in this House. I have been silent on the subject hitherto because I do not pose as a financial expert, but at least I have some knowledge of the principles. One of the principles which I think has gone awry is this one of ever-increasing taxation. I think we have reached the limit and that the Government is wise in its policy of retracing its steps. I hope it will go much further so that the money will be left in the hands of the people to be lent to the Government, if necessary, and not taxed out of them, for high taxation only destroys their incentive to expand their activities. {: #subdebate-47-0-s6 .speaker-1V4} ##### Mr CAIRNS:
Yarra .- As the Treasurer **(Mr. Harold Holt)** has told us, the purpose of the resolution we are discussing and of the eight bills that will follow it is to give effect to the Government's proposal to reduce the rates of sales tax on motor vehicles, motor vehicle parts and motor vehicle accessories. The present rates of 30 per cent, and 16) per cent, are to be reduced to 22) per cent, and 12) per cent, respectively. I think these reductions are good in themselves. Personally - and I think all honorable members on this side agree with me - other things being equal, I favour a reduction of taxes of this kind. I do so mainly for two reasons. First, I favour a reduction of sales tax because sales tax is an inequitable tax. It is not paid by the manufacturer of the product upon which it is levied; it is paid by the consumer of that product. Whether sales tax be, levied solely upon luxuries, the things that only well-to-do people will buy, or whether it be levied on a wider range of goods such as motor vehicles, it is most difficult to avoid its being paid by people in proportion to the aggregate they spend upon consumption. The amount paid has nothing to do with their capacity to pay as determined by their income or their property; it is levied in proportion to the amount that they actually spend upon the goods that are taxed. We are in favour of a reduction of this kind of tax because it is an inequitable tax. Secondly, we favour a reduction of this kind of tax because it is a tax which is most easily transferred. Over the years, the manufacturers who produce the motor cars upon which this tax is levied have formulated a well practised accounting method under which taxes of this kind are treated as part of the cost of production. They go into the cost of the article produced. One manufacturer follows exactly the same kind of procedure as do the others. So these taxes almost automatically go into the cost of production. Therefore, we on this side of the House favour a reduction of a tax of this kind because it is an inequitable one and because it is one which can be transferred so easily. The history of this kind of tax does not go back very far. It will take only a minute or two to trace. Sales tax was first introduced in 1930, when it was a mere 2) per cent., and it remained at a very low level, remarkably enough, until about 1950. In the first twenty years or so, the rate of sales tax was never above 10 per cent. It ranged from 2) per cent., when first introduced in 1930, and was increased on 13th October, 1950, to 10 per cent, for motor cars and 8) per cent, for trucks, lt was only on 27th September, 1951, that the second change in the rate of sales tax levied on motor vehicles in this country took place. On that date, sales tax on motor cars and station wagons was increased to 20 per cent, and that on -trucks to 12) per cent. At that time the sales tax on motor cars was doubled, and ever since 27th December, 1951, the sales tax on vehicles of this kind has been levied at what the honorable member for Fremantle **(Mr. Beazley)** called penal rates. That is the first point I would like to make. For about twenty years, the sales tax on motor cars in this country was levied at a relatively low rate. Since 1951, it has been levied at penal rates - they have been very high. From 1930 to 1950, sales tax was levied in Australia mainly for revenue purposes. But since then, the sales tax on motor cars in this country has not been levied for revenue purposes; it has been levied for purposes of influencing or determining the allocation of resources in industry. It has been levied either to discourage or encourage - or recourage, if I may use such a word - the production of motor cars in Australia. We could examine this bill at considerable length in relation to its effect on revenue. We could discuss the rates of tax that have been levied by the Government during its term of office; but to do so would be to miss almost completely the significance of a proposal of this sort. The honorable member for New England **(Mr. Drummond)** has said that this bill is one of numerous measures to be taken to stimulate the economy, and here emerges the second point that I should like to make. The Government is now concerned to stimulate the economy, but, throughout 1961, it was concerned to repress the economy and, at the end of last year, it went to the people saying that it wanted to be judged upon its record. On the one hand, the Opposition said there should be some stimulation of the economy, and on the other hand the Government said, " No, we want to be judged upon our record ". The Government also said, " If a stimulus of the economy was necessary we would propose it, and provide it", but now, of course, some change has taken place. {: #subdebate-47-0-s7 .speaker-KIH} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:
LYNE, NEW SOUTH WALES -Order! I remind the honorable member for Yarra that he is transgressing slightly. He is dealing in generalities. I ask him to relate his remarks to the subject-matter of this bill. {: .speaker-1V4} ##### Mr CAIRNS: -- Very well, **Mr. Deputy Speaker.** I will refer specifically to two questions asked by the honorable member for New England **(Mr. Drummond).** The first question he asked was whether there would be inflation as the result of this measure. I think he stated that some members on this side of the House - I have not heard it said from this side of the House, but I have heard it elsewhere - said that now that industry has some stimulus as the result of the reduced sales tax and other measures there is a danger that there will be too much spending in the near future and inflationary conditions will again occur. If the honorable member is at all disturbed about this, he need not worry. The Australian economy, in the next twelve months, has to employ about 250,000 people if it is to get anywhere near full employment. I think, despite what the Government has done in recent weeks in this and other measures to which this bill is related, there will be no fear whatever of inflation. The second question that the honorable member for New England asked was whether it was a mistake, as had been alleged by the honorable member for Melbourne Ports **(Mr. Crean),** to increase the sales tax to 40 per cent. in the first place. Here we have to examine this question, as he did, in relation to the motor car industry itself. The Government faced a situation at the end of 1960 where, it said, the conditions in the motor car industry had to be dealt with. Speaker after speaker on this side of the House has made this point and the Treasurer, in his speech on this resolution - I quote him directly - said - >As honorable members know, these measures form part of the plans the Government has made, following upon the recent comprehensive review of the economy, for immediate action to reduce unemployment. > >The Government has had the advantage of close and frank discussions with representatives of the motor vehicle industry. That industry has passed through a period of reduced sales and a falling level of employment. This has had repercussions on manufacturers who supply component parts and accessories for motor vehicles. So the Treasurer was directing his speech from references to the motor car industry to other branches of the automotive industry and was discussing the effect on the manufacture of component parts and accessories for motor vehicles and showing the broad economic significance of this measure for the people in the industries mentioned by the honorable member for Melbourne Ports. As he pointed out, those industries involve £500,000,000 worth of capital and the direct employment of perhaps 300,000 or 400,000 people. The Treasurer is taking us, in this short but effective speech, into the. furthermost corners of the automotive industry and is showing the effects that the changes will have. {: #subdebate-47-0-s8 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- Order!I suggest that the honorable member for Yarra has taken us into certain spheres which have not been covered by the Treasurer in his speech. He has made certain suggestions regarding what the Treasurer had in mind, but those matters do not appear in the right honorable gentleman's speech. The main reason why I have intervened is to point out to the honorable member for Yarra that I hope that, in following that course, he is not thinking that the Chair will permit him to remain in those spheres, because I should like to tell him at this moment that it will not. {: .speaker-1V4} ##### Mr CAIRNS: -- I am endeavouring to show that this bill is not a narrow, revenueraising measure, but one which affects the whole of the Australian economy and, in particular, the automotive industry. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- I point out to the honorable member that a decision has already been made on the scope of the debate on this bill. **Mr. Speaker** has already ruled on the procedure and I suggest to the honorable member that he remember the decision that has been made and remain within the confines of the bill. {: .speaker-1V4} ##### Mr CAIRNS: -- **Mr. Deputy Speaker,** I will go back precisely to the Treasurer's speech and will quote directly from it. He said - >In recent months, the demand for motor vehicles has become progressively stronger. The Government, however, wishes to accelerate this improvement because it recognizes the importance of tha industry from an employment stand-point. The Treasurer is saying that he is producing this sales tax measure now because he wishes to accelerate the demand for employees in the motor industry. His speech continued - >It has, accordingly, proposed that the reductions should take effect on and from February 7th, 1962, the day following the date of the Prime Minister's announcement. There is no question about it. This was the position taken by the Treasurer. This reduction of sales tax which we are now discussing is part of a series of actions that the Government has taken in relation to the condition of the economy. As I pointed out a few moments ago, and as was apparent from ' the submissions of the honorable member for Fremantle **(Mr. Beazley),** since 1951 sales tax in this country has had a penal aspect. It has been used since 1951 for certain purposes. It reached as high as 40 per cent, on 16th November, 1960, and we are submitting that the Government was ill informed on this matter, that it did not have clear in its own mind what it wanted to do and that it was not facing up to what it eventually had to face. The honorable member for New England asked, " Was any mistake made in this respect? " We say clearly, " Yes, a mistake was made." A mistake was made because the Government did not make itself aware of what was happening in the motor car industry. In 1961 the Minister for Labour and National Service said - >It is not for the Government to determine what is a suitable level of production and sale of motor vehicles in Australia. That was a quite positive statement. But several days later the same Minister said - >I do not know what the production capacity is, but in November last year we formed the opinion that a production rate which reached a level as high as 310,000 vehicles a year was far too great. Clearly the Government was saying, in one breath, " We have no intention of determining or interfering with the production rate of vehicles in the motor car industry ", but in almost the next breath, the Minister said that the production rate was far too great. He said: " It is not for the Government to determine these things. I do not know what the production capacity is ". But in November, 1960, the Government had concluded that the level was far too great and now, presumably, it concludes that the level is too low. Certainly it is a proposition which the Government is asking us to accept. I think, in passing, it is as well to note that although the Minister for Labour and National Service said he did not know what the production capacity of the motor car industry was, that capacity was well known when he made that statement. The journal of the automotive industry published, month after month, a statement of what the capacity was and I think it was then 325,000 vehicles a year. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- Order! Again I suggest that the honorable member is taking a long time in making his passing reference. I ask him again to come back to the terms of the measure before the House, which deals with the reduction of sales tax on motor vehicles from 30 per cent, to 22) per cent. He may make a passing reference to the justification or otherwise of the percentage - that will be in order - but he will not be in order in making his whole speech on it. I think the position is that- {: .speaker-KDA} ##### Mr Duthie: -- **Mr. Deputy Speaker,** I deeply regret it, but I wish to move dissent from your ruling. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- No ruling has been given. The Chair has only asked that the honorable member for Yarra make his remarks relevant to the bill before the House. {: .speaker-JSU} ##### Mr Bryant: -- I take a point of order. **Mr. Deputy Speaker,** the honorable member for Yarra is discussing things which are important to the bill. They relate to the reasons stated by the Minister for introducing this measure. I suggest that he is in order. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- There is no substance in the point of order raised by the honorable member for Wills. The Chair has suggested that the honorable member for Yarra make his speech relevant to the bill. That is still the situation. {: .speaker-KDA} ##### Mr Duthie: -- **Mr. Deputy Speaker,** I would now move dissent from your ruling on the point of order taken by the honorable member for Wills **(Mr. Bryant).** I think that I am in order in so doing. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- From what ruling are you dissenting? {: .speaker-KDA} ##### Mr Duthie: -- Your answer to the honorable member for Wills. He took a point of order and you said that there was no substance in the point of order. I am dissenting from your ruling. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- At this stage, in order to assist the honorable member for Wilmot, I will rule that what the honorable member for Yarra has been saying is irrelevant to the bill. If the honorable member for Wilmot desires to take exception to that ruling he may do so. {: .speaker-KDA} ##### Mr Duthie: -- I certainly take exception to your ruling and move - >That the ruling be dissented from. **(Mr. Duthie having submitted his objection to the ruling in writing)** - Question put. The House divided. (Mr. Speaker - Hon. Sir John McLeay.) AYES: 56 NOES: 59 Majority . . 3 In division: AYES NOES Question so resolved in the negative. Sitting suspended from 6.10 to 8 p.m. {: #subdebate-47-0-s9 .speaker-JWI} ##### Mr FOX:
Henty .- The measure is designed to reduce the rate of sales tax on motor cars from 30 per cent. to 22½ per cent., and on commercial vehicles, motor cycles, automotive parts and accessories from 16) per cent, to 12) per cent. If I am to keep within the narrow confines of the bill in the way that has been already laid down, I believe that, at the best, I will be able to express an opinion as to whether or not the measure will achieve the purposes for which it has been introduced. I do not think it possible even to get into a good, healthy argument about it, because I believe that members on both sides of the House are in agreement with the bill.. {: .speaker-1V4} ##### Mr Cairns: -- What {: .speaker-JWI} ##### Mr FOX: -- Do I understand that you oppose the reduction of sales tax? {: .speaker-1V4} ##### Mr Cairns: -- No, the purpose of the bill. {: .speaker-JWI} ##### Mr FOX: -- The purpose of the bill, as outlined by the Treasurer **(Mr. Harold Holt),** is to help to reduce unemployment. {: .speaker-JSU} ##### Mr Bryant: -- I rise to order, **Mr. Speaker.** The honorable member for Henty is, I understand, starting to deal with the question of unemployment in referring to the general purposes of the bill, and I would refer to your earlier ruling that this is not relevant to the debate. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order! The position is quite clear. It is that, when a member is dealing with any subject-matter before the Chair, any passing reference is in order, but to take the debate away from the subject-matter before the Chair is out of order. {: .speaker-JWI} ##### Mr FOX: -- I did not even have an opportunity to catch up with it, let alone pass it. What I was saying was that the Treasurer, in introducing the bill, said that its purpose was to reduce - I had better not use the word " unemployment " - the number of those persons- {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order! The honorable member will be quite in order in making reference to any comment made by the Treasurer in his second-reading speech. {: .speaker-JWI} ##### Mr FOX: -- The Treasurer said that the motor industry had passed through a period of reduced sales, with a falling level of employment which was reflected in other industries which supply component parts for the automotive industry. He went on to say that the Government recognized the importance of the motor car industry to the Australian economy and the extent of its influence on the employment market. He further said that the Government wished to accelerate the recent improvement in sales which had taken place in the motor industry, and for that purpose he had introduced this bill to reduce the sales tax applicable to motor vehicles. The honorable member for Fremantle **(Mr. Beazley)** chided the Government, in his speech, for using sales tax as an economic weapon, and referred to the fact that during the life of the last two Labour governments the rate of sales tax on motor vehicles had fluctuated between 10 per cent., 12) per cent, and 8) per cent. He said that sales tax levied at such rates was obviously for the purpose of raising revenue, but that once the rates were raised far above those levels sales tax became an economic weapon. In answer to that statement, I remind the honorable gentleman, who has perhaps forgotten it, that during the regime of the Curtin and Chifley Labour governments sales tax rates ranged from 5 per cent, to 25 per cent. Admittedly this was during war time, but the 25 per cent, rate was still in operation when the Chifley Government was defeated in December, 1949, which was more than four years after the end of the war. That rate of 25 per cent, was double the figure mentioned by the honorable member for Fremantle as the figure at which the tax was obviously for the purpose of raising revenue. I ask the House to consider whether the rate of 25 per cent, levied by the Chifley Government was not used as an economic weapon. {: .speaker-JF7} ##### Mr Beazley: -- You are not suggesting that the rate was 25 per cent, on motor vehicles? {: .speaker-JWI} ##### Mr FOX: -- No, I am not suggesting that, but you did say that rates of sales tax of the order of 10 per cent, or 12) per cent, were quite reasonable as revenue producers, but that once the rates went far beyond that they could no longer be regarded as revenue raisers but must be regarded as an economic weapon. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order! I think the honorable gentleman will be wise to return to the bill. {: .speaker-JWI} ##### Mr FOX: -- I must bow to your ruling, **Mr. Speaker.** I had not reached the honorable member for Yarra **(Mr. Cairns).** Perhaps I can tell the honorable gentleman, who interjects now, that to me he resembles more and more every day an immoral goose. To assure you, **Mr. Speaker,** that I mean nothing personally offensive to the honorable gentleman I explain that an immoral goose is one which does not stick to its proper gander, and I think that under the circumstances the description is rather apt. {: .speaker-1V4} ##### Mr Cairns: -- That is a foxy thing to say. {: .speaker-JWI} ##### Mr FOX: -- Whatever honorable gentlemen opposite may or may not believe about this measure I am of the opinion that the motor industry itself is very much in favour of it. I have here a copy of the " Commonwealth Automotive Review " No. 16, for February, 1962, which reports as follows - >At the General Meeting of the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries held in Canberra on 15th February, the incoming **President Mr. B.** L. Burton, commended the Government measures designed to stimulate the economy and which were recently announced by the Prime Minister. > > **Mr. Burton** said that the Motor Industry was particularly encouraged by the specific assistance given to it by the reductions in sales tax levels on cars, commercial vehicles and parts. This, allied to the other general measures designed to encourage consumer confidence, should go far to give a wholesome stimulus to the economy and increase employment. Approval of the Government's policy is also expressed in the " Taxpayers' Bulletin " of 17th February, which states in an article, as follows - >It should be borne in mind that these reductions in sales taxes will be of very substantial benefit to those many manufacturing concerns in Australia which provide parts for the motor vehicles manufactured by the big manufacturing concerns. > >One of the leading manufacturers of *motor* vehicles in Australia has stated that there are some 4,000 manufacturers producing component parts for the vehicles produced by its organization and it would seem that the effect of these reductions in sales tax will be felt by a large number of manufacturing concerns throughout Australia and will not only benefit the large manufacturers of motor vehicles. I believe that this optimistic opinion, **Mr. Speaker,** has been borne out by a statement made recently. I thing it was last night's issue of the Sydney " Daily Mirror " which contained a report of a statement attributed to **Mr. Harlow** Gage, managing director of General Motors-Holden's Proprietary Limited, that sales of the company's vehicles had jumped by 37 per cent, in February over the sales made in January. A spokesman for the Ford motor company is reported in the same newspaper as saying that sales of his company's vehicles had increased by 23.7 per cent, in February as compared with January's sales. When one considers that sales of motor cars in Australia reached an all-time high in the month of January this is an astonishing result. It was also pleasing to read that **Mr. Harlow** Gage had stated that since the beginning of this year his company, General Motors-Holden's Proprietary Limited, had re-engaged more than 1,000 persons in the motor car industry. Now I turn to the honorable member for Yarra. I cannot say that I return to him, because I had not got as far as referring to his statements. He also, apart from making a statement about the use of sales tax as an economic weapon, said that sales tax was an inequitable tax. I should like to remind him that sales tax was introduced by a Labour government. Labour was quite happy to use the tax as a revenue producer when it was in office, even to the extent of applying a rate of 25 per cent. Labour had increased the rate from 15 per cent, to 20 per cent., and subsequently to 25 per cent. I should like to refer to other statements made by spokesmen for the motor industry, because I believe that all sections of that industry approve this legislation. The chairman of the Volkswagen company is recorded in the Melbourne " Age " of 7th February, which was the day following the announcement of these measures by the Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies),** as saying - >The reduction in the sales tax will mean expansion and increased employment for the Volkswagen organization. A director of the Ford motor company was reported in the same issue of that newspaper to have stated that the Ford company was pleased with the breadth of the measures and the effects these would undoubtedly have in restoring faith in the growth and prosperity of the country. The " Sydney Morning Herald" of 7th February quoted **Mr. Daunt,** secretary of the Federated Chamber of Automotive Industries as having said - >The measures should generally infuse confidence resulting in increased employment and production in the industry. The president of the New South Wales Chamber of Automotive Industries stated - >We particularly welcome the reduced sales tax for commercial vehicles which must accelerate a more efficient movement of goods. I hope you will pardon me, **Sir, for** making so many quotations, but if I have to confine myself to the narrow limits of the bill, I can only express an opinion, and as we have not had time to see the effects of these measures, I have to quote the optimistic expressions of spokesmen for the motor industry when the rate of tax was reduced. The general secretary of the Motor Traders Association of New South Wales stated - >This will have a very definite effect in overcoming the continued loss of employment in the motor industry. It will remove the uncertainty which was holding off buyers and will have a very definite effect on sales. Obviously, the motor industry ls pleased. In fact, the only criticism I have heard from any spokesman for the industry was to the effect that the reductions of sales tax did not go far enough. They would like to see the sales tax reduced even more. That is only natural. The spokesmen for any industry will battle for the very best deal they can get and personally I would like to see lower rates of sales tax applied to motor vehicles; but the Government has to raise revenue and there are limits to which concessions can be made in any one year. I also have no doubt that when the Government deems that the time is right, it will consider a further reduction in the sales tax on motor vehicles. I am of the opinion that the motor industry has already turned the corner and I shall quote figures I have obtained from the Commonwealth Statistician in support of that statement. I have already mentioned that the sales of motor cars in January reached an all-time high level in Australia. I have the " Monthly Review of Business Statistics " No. 291 which gives the figures only .up to the end of December, 1961, but it contains the sales figures for January, 1961, and they are interesting when compared with the January figures for previous years. In January, 1960, the number of motor cars and station wagons sold in Australia totalled 14,132. In January, 1961, after the November, 1960, measures had come into operation increasing the sales tax from 30 per cent, to 40 per cent., new motor cars and station wagons registered in the whole of Australia totalled 12,704. In January of this year the figure had risen to 15,760 which was more than 1,500 greater than in January, 1960. I endeavoured to obtain the February figures from the Commonwealth Statistician, but unfortunately they were not available. However, he provided the figures for Victoria and Queensland and they should be interesting to honorable members. I want to compare like with like to get a true comparison. In Victoria in February, 1960, new motor cars and station wagons registered totalled 5,683. After the rate of sales tax had been increased, Victorian registrations fell in February, 1961 to 3,907, but in February this year they rose to 4,832 or nearly 25 per cent, more than in February a year ago. In Queensland there has been an even more spectacular recovery. In February, 1960, registrations there totalled 2,127. {: .speaker-1V4} ##### Mr Cairns: -- I rise to a point of order, **Mr. Speaker,** in view of your earlier ruling concerning debate on the matter in this bill. It seems that the honorable member for Henty is making an examination of the fluctuations in the number of motor cars produced and registered. This is the sort of matter I was discussing when I was ruled out of order. Not only has the honorable member failed to pass his subject in making reference to it, but he has been on it for some minutes. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order! It is difficult for the Chair to decide when the remarks of any honorable member are irrelevant. The Chair can only expect from all honorable members the utmost co-operation when faced with a problem of this sort. I suggest to the honorable member for Henty that he confine his remarks to the bill. He has been drifting away from it and he would be wise to return to the measure. {: .speaker-JWI} ##### Mr FOX: -- It appears to me that we have on the other side two immoral geese. T do not think that the honorable member for Yarra **(Mr. Cairns)** likes the figures that I have cited. In deference to you, **Mr. Speaker,** may I say that I wanted to quote the figures for February of this year The point I am trying to make is that the reduction of sales tax, which is already operating, has had a definite effect on the motor industry. I can understand that honorable members opposite do not want to hear these figures. In Queensland in February last year, 1,159 new motor cars and station wagons were registered and as a result of the reduction in the sales tax, registrations increased to 1,999 in February of this year, an increase of 72 per cent, on the previous February. This is a definite indication that the reduction to be implemented by this bill has had the desired effect. Before sitting down, I want to refer to a matter which is, I hope, relevant to the bill. If you rule me out of order, **Mr. Speaker,** I shall be content to accept your ruling, but this relates to an aspect of the reduction in sales tax on motor vehicles. The schedule of the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act 1935-61 provides for an exemption of sales tax on aids to manufacture. It has been suggested to me that there should be a similar provision regarding aids to delivery. I want to give an example not having relation to any particular manufacturer or customer. Let us suppose a manufacturer makes products in Melbourne and sells them to a customer in Mildura. He charges the goods at an ex-factory price and employs a carrier to deliver them to Mildura. The customer pays sales tax on the ex-factory price of the product. But if the manufacturer purchases a motor vehicle to make his deliveries and undertakes to deliver the goods to Mildura, his customer pays the sales tax on both the ex-factory price and the cost of delivery to Mildura. The Taxation Branch collects sales tax on both the goods and the cost of transport. It has already collected sales tax on the sale of the vehicle to the manufacturer. But when the manufacturer employs an outside carrier the Taxation Branch collects sales tax on his motor vehicle at the time of purchase but not on the freight. By employing an outside carrier, the manufacturer can sell at a price exMelbourne, thereby saving the customer sales tax on the cost of delivery. By buying his own delivery vehicle and making the delivery himself, he commits his customer to sales tax on the freight. He believes he should be able to claim sales tax on the vehicle as an aid to delivery. I pass this idea on to the Treasurer in the hope that when he is reviewing the rate of sales tax on motor vehicles he will consider this suggestion. For the reasons I have stated, I sincerely support the measure. {: #subdebate-47-0-s10 .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr L R JOHNSON:
Hughes -- Opposition speakers in this debate have been endeavouring to show that the Government has been using the sales tax to regulate the production of motor vehicles. Although we do not disagree with this, we believe that the Government has sought to attain its objectives in the wrong way. Many honorable members including myself have had an opportunity to debate similar proposals. In fact, when the measures for an increase in the sales tax came before us, many of us had the opportunity to discuss the proposal at great length. Of course, that was well before the election, when there was a considerable degree of tolerance. I must' confess that, like other honorable members who have participated in the debate, I have had my wings clipped to-night. To use more modern jargon, I feel that my propulsion has been spent before I have got into orbit. I can only rely on your generosity, **Mr. Speaker,** as other honorable members have done. However, it is fairly apparent that the scope of the Treasurer's speech gives us a certain amount of latitude. I take the opportunity to make particular reference to those parts of the Treasurer's notes, which have been circulated, pertaining to unemployment. Of course, the bill is something which flows automatically from the unemployment position. The Treasurer said - >As honorable members know, these measures form part of the plans the Government has made, following upon the recent comprehensive review of the economy, for immediate action to reduce unemployment. That seems to be the principle reason why the Treasurer **(Mr. Harold Holt)** has done something about the sales tax on motor cars. He went on to talk about the economy in these terms - >The Government has had the advantage of close and frank discussions with representatives of the motor vehicle industry. That industry has passed through a period of reduced sales and a falling level of employment This has had repercussions on manufacturers who supply component parts and accessories for motor vehicles. I suppose every honorable member would concede that it is appropriate to discuss this matter since that was the nature of the Treasurer's introduction to the measure. I am sure, **Mr. Speaker,** that you would not want to discourage any challenge to, or comment on, the Treasurer's introductory announcement that he has had these discussions with industry particularly with a view to reducing unemployment. With your acquiescence, I propose to talk about this unemployment, {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order! The honorable member must confine his remarks to the subject-matter before the Chair. Until now he has done so, but I warn him not to pursue too far the line which he has indicated he proposes to take. But he will be in order in making a passing reference to it, as the Treasurer did. {: .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr L R JOHNSON: -- Thank you, **Mr. Speaker.** To indicate the extent of the Treasurer's passing reference - I have already referred to two very long paragraphs - I should like to read a further extract from the Treasurer's notes on the resolution. It is in these terms - >In recent months, the demand for motor vehicles has become progressively stronger. The Government, however, wishes to accelerate this improvement because it recognizes the importance of this industry from an employment stand-point I want to mention that aspect because if you take those several passages from the Treasurer's remarks, no subject-matter remains. It would be absolutely superfluous and a complete and utter waste of time for honorable members to indulge in a debate for which there was no subject-matter. However, I am content to take my advice from you, **Mr. Speaker.** {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- 1 remind the honorable member that there is a subject-matter before the Chair - the sales tax on motor vehicles. The subject of unemployment is not before the Chair. The honorable member will be in order in making a passing reference to unemployment, but that is all. Whether the present good nature of the Chair will continue is the problem. {: .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr L R JOHNSON: -- 1 am very grateful for your final remarks, **Mr. Speaker.** I do not want to keep the House unduly long, but I want to say that the Government's previous tax on the motor industry was both pernicious and provocative. It was pernicious because of its discrimination against the motor industry and so many large associated industries. It was provocative- {: .speaker-1V4} ##### Mr Cairns: -- And irrational! {: .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr L R JOHNSON: -- It was provocative and irrational, as my colleague states, in the ruthlessness of the deterrent which it applied. The degree of ruthlessness is almost unprecedented. There is plenty of evidence to show - this is the thing which gave rise to the Treasurer's substantial comment - that the movement in sales tax on motor cars has incurred the displeasure of the Australian community. I think that is a relevant statement to make. The high sales tax impositions sent the confidence in our economy cascading to a very low level. They affected not only the motor industry but also the public confidence in the economy generally. Obviously that is a relevant statement to make. A sequel to all this - and this again is a passing reference - was the challenge by my good friend, the Lord Mayor of Sydney, to the Minister for the Army **(Mr. Cramer)** in the Bennelong electorate in the last election. One of the main issues raised there was the sales tax on motor vehicles. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order! The honorable member must return to the subjectmatter before the Chair. {: .speaker-K5L} ##### Mr Cope: -- What was the final result of the poll? {: .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr L R JOHNSON: -- I am not permitted to make any further reference to that matter, but the Minister for the Army is still here. He, like his colleagues, is suffering a considerable degree of remorse and repentance, but they still have a lot more penance to do. Their death-bed repentance, if you like to call it such, has not been sufficient. Even the proposition we are discussing now is not enough to win back the people's confidence in thi Government on the one hand and in the economy on the other hand. The purpose of this bill is to reduce the 30 per cent, sales tax on motor cars, station wagons and other passenger vehicles to 22) per cent. This reduction is to be retrospective to 7th February, 1962. The tax of 16) per cent, which applied previously to commercial vehicles, motor cycles and parts and accessories is to be reduced to 12) per cent. We applaud these proposals because we think the reductions are desirable. But we wonder what the Government has in mind in introducing this measure. Has it anything in mind relating to the level of employment which must be sustained in the motor industry? {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order! {: .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr L R JOHNSON: -- Can I not make any reference at all to it? {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order! The honorable member will return to the bill. {: .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr L R JOHNSON: -- In any case, as conceded by the Treasurer in his introductory remarks, obviously this is the result of the community's reaction to the Government's indiscretions in by-gone times, and especially those of November, 1960. The Opposition believes that the Government by its misdemeanours and its cavalier and carefree mishandling of the economy helped to change the state of this Parliament. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order! {: .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr L R JOHNSON: -- That is only a passing reference. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order! The honorable member must not transgress too far. {: .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr L R JOHNSON: -- We remind the Government that it is dealing with a very important industry when it proposes to change the sales tax on motor vehicles. It might not be recognized generally that Australia is the fourth most highly motorized country in the world, and it is interesting to learn that at 31st December, 1961, no less than 3,977,000 Australian people held a driver's licence. I mention these figures to indicate how seriously the Government's proposals, which we are discussing to-night, are viewed by the Austra lian people. We must give this measure adequate consideration. The motor industry, including all its ramifications such as service stations and the sale of part's and accessories, is said to employ something like one-seventh of the Australian work force. Even for honorable members opposite it should be easy to appreciate that if the Government does the wrong thing in relation to sales tax, a large section of the community is affected. If you reduce sales tax too drastically you can create a great demand for employees in the motor car industry. Conversely, if you increase sales tax to any great extent you can probably lower the level of employment in that industry to a point at which the Australian economy could be devastatingly affected. However, **Sir, I** do not want to develop that aspect of the matter any further. The actual expenditure on road transport, including expenditure on roads themselves and on motor vehicles, is said to have reached the astronomical figure of £1,362,000,000 in 1956-57. This shows how serious is the sales tax measure that the House is . now considering. Threequarters of the total tonnage of goods carried in this country goes by road transport. Only one-quarter of these goods is carried by other forms of transport, including shipping and air transport. Road traffic now amounts to 29,000,000,000 vehicle miles a year. These figures constitute a formidable array of arresting facts, about which I have no doubt that honorable members opposite knew very little. It is important that I bring these matters to the attention of the House, because if a mistake is made in connexion with sales tax, and the rate is set either too high or too low, the effect will reach out into all sections of Australian industry. That is the main reason why I make these points. We of the Opposition feel that the rate of tax is still too high. We contend that this Government is sales-tax-happy, and the figures that I shall cite in this regard do not make pleasant reading. {: .speaker-1V4} ##### Mr Cairns: -- The members of the Government do not look too happy at the moment. {: .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr L R JOHNSON: -- As the honorable member for Yarra has said, the supporters of the Government do not look very happy right now, probably because they realize J am going to show the extent to which sales tax has increased. Sales tax receipts have risen from £42,000,000 in 1949-50 to £173,000,000 in 1960-61. I am not sure whether there will be an Increase or a decrease in that figure as a result of the measure that is now before us. I am hoping that there will be a decrease, because the Opposition takes the view that sales tax is a pernicious and surreptitious tax, which stealthily takes its toll of people who frequently do not realize that they are being taxed. Sales tax is imposed on a great many different items. We hope the Government will go on reducing sales tax, not only on motor vehicles but also on many other articles. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order! I think the honorable member had better come back to the subject of motor vehicles. {: .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr L R JOHNSON: -- I did not think 1 was very far astray, **Mr. Speaker.** {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- The matter of sales tax on anything other than motor vehicles is not before the Chair. {: .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr L R JOHNSON: -- Then, **Sir, may** 1 not make even passing reference to sales tax imposed on other commodities? {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- No. I think the honorable member realizes that he is out of order. {: .speaker-KEP} ##### Mr Falkinder: -- Sit down! {: .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr L R JOHNSON: -- I do not intend to sit down, because there are many other pertinent and relevant facts for me to put before the House, and I think I will have **Mr. Speaker's** permission to put them. This is the eighth time on which the Government has altered the rate of sales tax on motor vehicles. Whether these alterations have been warranted or not is a matter upon which honorable members on different sides of the House will have divergent views. However, the number of alterations clearly shows that the Government has no guiding star and no centra! plan for the motor car industry. It has given no indication of the number of vehicles that it thinks should be produced. It has said nothing about the degree to which the industry should be encouraged to produce or deterred from producing. The Government's policies in this direction have fluctuated up and down like the peaks and valleys of the Snowy Mountains. This has not been good either for the motor car purchaser on the one hand or for the manufacturing entrepreneur on the other. Certainly it has not been good for the Australian economy. The Government's policies have been most erratic indeed, lt is fair to say that during the time in which these eight changes have been made in sales tax, the motor car industry in Australia has been made an Aunt Sally to be shied at. To use the Australian vernacular, it has become the usual thing to do the industry over from time to time, reducing the sales tax if it is desired to stimulate and make more buoyant the community's purchasing power, and increasing the sales tax, and so depressing the motor vehicle industry, if it is thought necessary to curb community spending. Of course it is not only the car manufacturers who suffer; the motor vehicle owners are also adversely affected. They get it from all directions. Not only do they suffer from the incidence of a very high rate of sales tax - and I contend that this rate is still too high - they are also compelled to pay petrol tax, licence fees, registration fees, road taxes and all kinds of other imposts. Let me give in slightly more detail the history of movements in rates of sales tax on motor vehicles since this Government came to power. In 1949 the rate of sales tax on motor cars was 8) per cent. In October, 1950, it increased to 10 per cent. In September, 1951, it doubted in one jump, going to 20 per cent. In September, 1953, it was reduced slightly to 16) per cent. In March, 1956, in the little, budget that was introduced shortly after the election in December, 1955, the rate of sales tax on motor cars was increased to 30 per cent. In November, 1960, it went up to 40 per cent. In February, 1961, it was restored to 30 per cent. In the lifetime of this Government the rate of sales tax was increased from 8) per cent, to 40 per cent. Our contention is that these movements indicate most erratic policies on the part of the Government. We are not at all sure what the Government's motivation has been, but we do think it would be a very good thing indeed if it established some kind of target, so that every person concerned would know where he was going. When this Government took office the sales tax on a Holden motor car amounted to £58 10s. What it is to-day I am not sure, because 1 did not have time to obtain the exact figures, but I can tell the House that when the 40 per cent, rate of sales tax was in force the tax on a Holden car was more than £400. This is the extent to which we have discouraged motor car ownership in Australia. It is also an indication of the way in which we have discouraged motor vehicle production. We contend that there are many reasons why the manufacture of motor vehicles should be encouraged. We do not think a motor car is a luxury. We also think that there is a good export opportunity for the motor car industry. In this connexion it is interesting to note that in 1959 we were able to export only 4,302 motor cars. When one realizes that all this trouble emanated from a deterioration in our balance of payments, it becomes obvious that there is a pressing need to stimulate the export of motor cars. We are very disappointed on .'his side of the House that the great Chifley aspiration of a people's motor car has been dissipated by high rates of sales tax. I remind the House that it was the Australian Labour Party that first gave expression to this great aspiration. However, motor vehicles have now become tremendously expensive because of the huge profits that the manufacturing companies have been allowed to make under the benevolent patronage of this Government, and also because of the everincreasing rates of sales tax. We want honorable members opposite to realize that in very many countries a motor car is no longer considered a luxury, as it apparently is considered by members of the Government of this country. {: .speaker-KDS} ##### Mr Failes: -- I take a point of order, **Mr. Speaker.** I understand' that this bill had reference to commercial vehicles and motor cycles, and that it did not refer in any way to motor cars, which are covered in an entirely different schedule. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order! There is no substance in the point of order. Motor cars are covered by this bill. {: .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr L R JOHNSON: -- I do not know why a member of the Australian Country Party would take objection to that kind of contention. The honorable member may well hang his head in shame and look embarrassed, because he has failed to honour his trust to country people. I heard members of the Country Party in the election campaign advocating reduction of the sales tax on motor cars. Many of them disowned the Government and made out that they had no part in increasing the sales tax on motor vehicles. Why is the honorable member for Lawson **(Mr. Failes)** exhibiting this sensitivity now? In Canada, a country similar to our own, where very great distances have to be travelled, the car excise duty of 7) per cent, has been completely eliminated. There is now no such tax on motor vehicles, because the Canadian Government recognizes that they are especially important to country people. We have the clear-cut statement that the Canadian Government no longer considers motor vehicles to be a luxury. But, apparently, the honorable member for Lawson does, because he criticizes my contention that sales tax on motor vehicles should be reduced to the minimum. When we look at some of the movements in sales tax, we have to recognize that sales tax at high rates, or even at low rates, is inflationary. Even the proposed new rates could well have an inflationary effect. Such an effect, of course, would be most undesirable. Let us think of the people who would buy motor cars. Some of them might be constituents of the honorable member for Lawson, engaged in primary production. {: .speaker-JOA} ##### Mr Barnes: -- When Labour was last in office, I could not buy a motor car. {: .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr L R JOHNSON: -- Some of them might be constituents of the honorable member for Mcpherson, engaged in the running of race-horses, which is perhaps the honorable member's principal occupation. Whether a purchaser of a motor vehicle for use in his occupation is a producer of wheat, wool or anything else, or whether he is a taxi-driver or a butcher, we can say that a high rate of sales tax will be absorbed in overhead costs and become part , of the cost structure. {: .speaker-1V4} ##### Mr Cairns: -- Sales tax is a transferable tax. {: .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr L R JOHNSON: -- It is a transferable tax, indeed. If the price of the car bought by a taxi-driver goes up, he passes his increased costs on by increasing the fares paid by the passengers who use his taxi. This sort of thing sets in train wage demands and still higher costs, which are most disturbing to the Australian economy. No one can deny that this is the case. The additional overhead is superimposed on existing costs in order to yield the predetermined price or profit level. That is the fact of the situation. Whatever may be the Government's motive in sometimes increasing and sometimes reducing sales tax, it should always remember that sales tax, whether imposed on motor cars, on dog biscuits or on anything else, is inflationary. The reduction of this tax to the minimum possible limits is a good thing, because, as the honorable member for Yarra has said, it is a transferable tax; it is passed on. If you want to arrive at an equitable tax which is imposed fairly, obviously you have to concentrate on the capacity to pay personal income tax and company tax. That is the principle that we have been trying to hammer into the minds of members of the Government for such a long time. If we had made progress in this regard, we would have avoided a great deal of the difficulties, inconvenience and hardship that have been inflicted on the Australian community. In passing, I want to mention the effect on registrations of motor vehicles as a result of changes in the rates of sales tax. In 1959, registrations of all motor vehicles, excluding motor cycles, totalled 267,013, and in 1960, 310,359. One would have expected the number of registrations to increase in a fast-growing and expanding economy, but, unfortunately, it crashed to 237,740 in 1961. No one can deny that this was principally a result of the increase in sales tax. It is interesting to note that some of the most important aspects of the Australian way of life have been affected - probably some of those which the Government hoped would never be affeeted. In 1961, total registrations fell by 26.5 per cent. The point that I want to impress on Government supporters is that registrations of trucks fell most of all - by 27.4 per cent. This was the decline in the registrations, not of luxury vehicles such as big Holden motor cars driven about the countryside without any passengers, but of trucks used in commerce and industry. Was this intended by the Government when it increased sales tax? I certainly hope not. If it were, such an attitude could justifiably be described as unAustralian. Registrations of panel vans, another kind of vehicle used extensively in industry and commerce, fell by 27.1 per cent. Registrations of utilities showed the next highest percentage, with a decline of 21.7 per cent. Ordinary vehicles, such as sedans, showed a decline of 15.4 ner cent. - that even smaller percentage being most desirable, as I am sure every one will concede. Over the years, a very erratic tendency has been apparent. In 1955, total registrations of new vehicles - I emphasize the word "new"- totalled 177,168. The number fell in 1956 to 154,108, in 1957 to 152,580 and increased in 1958 to 172,429. It went up again in 1959, when it reached 187,563, and again in 1960, when 226,311 new vehicles were registered. In 1961, there was a sudden fall to 172,182. I have not time to trace the whole thing through, but this large decline coincided with the increase in sales tax. You do in fact regulate the production and registration of motor vehicles by varying the rates of sales tax, and this Government stands condemned for having been guilty of bringing about a very substantial and drastic diminution in the output of vehicles, with heavy unemployment as a consequence. We hope that the measures now proposed will retrieve the situation. I intended to talk about a number of other things pertaining to employment, which has a very substantial bearing on this bill, as the Treasurer indicated. It is sufficient for me to say that employment fell from 39,520 on 15th November, 1960, to 31,000- {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order! The honorable member is now out of order. He must not pursue that line of discussion. {: .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr L R JOHNSON: -- May I just finish with this point in passing, Sir? {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- The honorable member is out of order, and if he pursues that line, I shall ask him to resume his seat. {: .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr L R JOHNSON: -- I do not want you to do that, **Sir, because** there are many other pertinent points for me to make. The Victorian Chamber of Manufactures has shown conclusively that mass unemployment results when sales tax is increased. We on this side of the House are very pleased that the Government has had enough sense drummed into it by the Opposition to do the right thing on this occasion. But we want to remind it that it must set a pattern and put before the industry and every one associated with it a plan. The Government must tell the industry the level of production at which it aims over a prescribed period of years. If it continues this erratic course which I have outlined, with all its consequential hardship to the Australian people continuing unabated, the situation will not improve. The Government has shown no savvy in this matter, and no understanding or comprehension of the problems involved. Therefore, it is apparent that this Administration will have to resign if we are to bring security and stability back to the motor industry in Australia. {: #subdebate-47-0-s11 .speaker-JYO} ##### Mr CLEAVER:
Swan **.- Mr. Speaker,** the honorable member for Hughes **(Mr. L. R. Johnson)** referred with some vehemence to the impact on sales of motor vehicles of increases and decreases in the rates of sales tax. I wonder whether he and his colleagues would like to compare registrations of motor vehicles at the time of the previous Labour Administration with registrations to-day. What about the low number of registrations years ago. What about petrol rationing? What about the blackmarketing that occurred at the time of the previous Labour Administration? {: .speaker-JSU} ##### Mr Bryant: -- I rise to order, **Mr. Speaker:** Surely the honorable member for Swan is out of order, in view of your earlier precise and masterly ruling on the subject. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order! If the honorable member for Wills did not take such a frivolous point of order I could listen to the honorable member for Swan, who is fully, aware of his rights in the debate. If he transgresses, he will receive the same treatment as other honorable members receive. {: .speaker-JYO} ##### Mr CLEAVER: -- Let me assure you, **Sir, that** I am conversant with the problem which arises from this bill. I want to say to you now that my intentions are to confine my speech to a pattern that will not transgress. I give you an assurance that I will speak specifically on the subject of sales tax on motor vehicles, Australia's experience of sales tax on motor vehicles and the impact of sales tax on the motor industry. I will make only a passing reference, I trust, to any other economic aspects. I think I can give you an assurance, **Sir, that** I shall not refer to astronauts in orbit, to Lord Mayors in Sydney, to race horses, to Ash Wednesday or even to Labour's socialistic ideals. I shall endeavour not to touch on these matters at all. The Treasurer **(Mr. Harold Holt)** in his second-reading speech on one of the bills before us pointed out that a schedule of sales tax is to be repealed, leaving commercial vehicles to fall into the category of unspecified goods which are subject to the general rate of sales tax of 12) per cent. I hope that if I get into trouble in the course of my speech, I may be able to resort to this general category of 12) per cent. I hope this may cover any sin of omission into which I fall. This legislation implements part of the Government's programme to stabilize the national economy announced by the Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies)** last month. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order! The honorable member must not pursue that line. If he wants to make a passing reference to that subject, he may do so. He would be very wise to confine himself to the bill. {: .speaker-JYO} ##### Mr CLEAVER: -- The legislation provides for the sales tax rate of 30 per cent, on motor cars, station wagons and other passenger motor vehicles to be reduced as from 7th February last to 22) per cent., and the rate of 16) per cent, on commercial motor vehicles, motor cycles and motor vehicle parts and accessories to be reduced from the same date to 12) per cent. These reductions have a wide application within the whole of the motor vehicle industry. I suggest, as I think a colleague of mine did, that they will give a very substantial benefit to the large number of manufacturers providing parts or accessories for the vehicle manufacturers. One recognized vehicle organization has estimated that some 4,000 component manufacturers are linked with its vehicle production programme in this country. It is quite apparent, therefore, that the ramifications of this sales tax measure are vastly wider than the major vehicle factories and the actual output of finished vehicles. The sales tax reductions will have a very helpful impact in many thousands of smaller industrial concerns making their contribution to Australia's expanding motor vehicle industry. I think it is pertinent for me to point out that the export of motor vehicles is not just a dream for Australia to-day. The motor vehicle industry has proved that it can satisfy overseas market demands. It is no longer dependent upon the home market, and this Government will continue to give every help it can to any export drive by manufacturers. This will assist greatly to bring equilibrium to the motor vehicle industry. Confidence has been engendered by this sales tax measure and other measures that have been announced by the Government. Last evening in this chamber, we had a very splendid, stimulating speech from the AttorneyGeneral **(Sir Garfield Barwick).** He said that confidence is an essential ingredient to the solution of any economic instability. How true it is that Opposition members who have preceded me in this debate have been frantically eager to score politically. They have lowered their sights by destroying to some extent this quality of confidence in the community. If honorable members opposite are lacking in confidence, let me remind them that the leaders of commerce and industry are confident and the public, I believe, will take more notice of the leaders of commerce and industry than of Opposition members who follow the call of their dismal leader. In commercial and industrial circles, the Government's February measures- {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order! The honorable member attempted to make a passing reference to this subject, but he has not come back to the bill. If he confines his remarks to the measure before the Chair he will be in order. {: .speaker-JYO} ##### Mr CLEAVER: -- Having made that point about confidence, let me say that it should be profitable for the House to consider the place of sales tax, which embraces this sales tax on motor vehicles, in the national Budget and the modern usage of Budget provisions - this to me is analogous to a Budget provision; it is sales tax and sales tax is a provision in the annual Budget - to contribute to the overall economic balance of the country. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order! I think the honorable member is drifting away to discuss an economic issue. He is also drifting away as if this were a Budget speech. I ask him to co-operate with the Chair and confine his remarks to the subject-matter before the Chair - that is, sales tax on motor vehicles and parts and the reduction of sales tax. {: .speaker-JYO} ##### Mr CLEAVER: -- I did want to say in that respect that a sales tax measure of this kind has an aspect of being an economic weapon. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order! I warn the honorable member that if he pursues this line he will leave me no alternative but to remind him that he is irrelevant. I will then be compelled to ask the honorable member to resume his seat. The House has already decided what is irrelevant, and the matter with which the honorable member is now dealing is irrelevant. {: .speaker-JYO} ##### Mr CLEAVER: -- The honorable member for Fremantle **(Mr. Beazley),** who led for the Opposition in this debate, dealt with constant changes. This has been the theme of many Opposition members regarding sales tax. This is a change in the rate of sales tax on motor vehicles. The honorable member for Fremantle constantly referred to this change and made the usual suggestion that the Government has a stopandgo policy. The Government cannot be denied flexibility in this field of sales tax. The more rapidly the Government acts the more flexible its policy will have to be to allow for equally rapid reversal when the desired stability, which is so often the objective of a measure of this kind, is achieved. Honorable members are fully informed on the alarming influence of the motor vehicle industry on the economy in November, 1960. On 15th November, 1960, the Treasurer **(Mr. Harold Holt)** explained the reasons for the Government's decision to increase the sales tax rate on motor vehicles. He said - >We are doing this, firstly, to cut back the rate of buying of these vehicles, which has become higher than the current condition of our economy can reasonably be expected to support. Industrially, the performance of the motor industry in Australia has been impressive and the Government fully recognizes the great contribution H has made to our development. But we have also- {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order! I must warn the honorable member. He is reading from a speech that was made in the previous session and it is not relevant to the confined subject-matter before the Chair. He is not doing what I am encouraging him to do and I must ask him to keep off any question of policy, of unemployment, or anything outside the problem of sales tax on motor vehicles and parts and the reduction of sales tax. {: .speaker-JYO} ##### Mr CLEAVER: -- The Treasurer, in speaking about sales tax on motor vehicles at that time- {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order! The honorable member is now out of order. If he pursues that line I shall have to instruct him to resume his seat. {: .speaker-JYO} ##### Mr CLEAVER: -- Not so long ago, as the House will well recall, the rate of sales tax on motor cars and passenger-carrying motor vehicles was 40 per cent. When that rate was applied, the Government indicated very clearly that its imposition was a temporary measure. At that time, the rate, for reasons which I am not free at this stage to recapitulate, was fully justified. Contrary to all the estimates of the Opposition, the increase then from 30 per cent, to 40 per cent, was treated by the Government as an emergency measure. It was short in life, but it served its purpose. The Government was attacked on that measure, but again I want to underscore the point I made earlier in my speech, that there is need for flexibility in the application of sales tax, in this particular instance, a tax on motor vehicles. Having made my point about the need for increased sales tax on motor vehicles at that time, and having stated the reason for the reduction of the tax from 40 per cent, to 30 per cent., I think it pertinent, with your permission, **Mr. Speaker,** to remind the House that the Treasurer said that the Government was satisfied that the general measures it had applied would be sufficient to keep the demands of the motor industry within reasonable bounds. In accordance with its published assurance the Government decided that the additional sales tax should be removed forthwith. **Sir, that** was a clear statement that the Government had honoured an assurance regarding this imposition of a 40 per cent, sales tax rate which was nothing more than a temporary, emergency measure. We are pleased to give cognizance to the fact that Australian living standards are closely related tq the sale of motor vehicles. In the eleven years to the end of June, 1961, almost 2,500,000 motor vehicles were registered. As the population rose in that period by more than 2,225,000 persons, it can be said that Australia required about one new vehicle for every person added to the population. Now we come to 1962. What is the present position of the motor industry? So often in this House do we go back over the years and compare statistics that it seems that we must get a lot of fun out of reaching back into the years that have gone. There is a lot to be learned from the experience of those years, but there is also a lot to be learned from the current situation, and it would be fitting for us in this National Parliament to take a good sensible look into the future, make our estimates and see whether our ideals and aspirations will fit the demands that come upon us as honorable members. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order! As long as :he honorable member will make his remarks fit the bill, I shall be happy. {: .speaker-JYO} ##### Mr CLEAVER: -- **Sir, this** speech, made under very great difficulties, has been tailored to fit the bill. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order! It does not sound like it on occasions. {: .speaker-JYO} ##### Mr CLEAVER: -- The January, 1962, registrations of motor vehicles numbered 19,535. They were substantially up on the registrations of motor vehicles for January of last year. The record of monthly registrations, which I have here, reflects the influence of the 1960 deterrent to which I have made reference. But I say again that confidence in the future abounds in the whole of the motor industry. Let me specifically contrast the motor registrations figure of19,535 for January of this year with the 16,260 for January of last year. The position in December, 1961, was reasonably acceptable because registrations then totalled 20,550 as against the declining figure of 22,386 in the month of December twelve months earlier. The impact of the heavier sales tax introduced in November, 1960, was then being felt. The only other month to which I need refer is February, 1961, when motor vehicle registrations totalled 1 6,995. Other material that I have before me indicates that that figure will have been heavily surpassed in the month of February, 1962. The Government's announcement in relation to this item and others in February of this year has already given the impetus to the motor industry which was desired. General MotorsHolden's Proprietary Limited, one of the major motor vehicle manufacturers, has put on no fewer than 1,010 workmen since 1st January, and sales of this company's vehicles have jumped by 37 per cent. for the month of February, thus substantiating the suggestion I made a moment ago of a transformation in the registrations for February this year as compared with those for February of last year. I think it was my colleague the honorable member for Henty **(Mr. Fox)** who referred to the fact that the managing director of General Motors-Holden's Proprietary Limited said only a day or so ago that the steep increase on January sales is very encouraging. He said he had found much optimism among the dealers in motor vehicles throughout the country. It is also interesting that this reduction of the tax from 30 per cent. to 22½ per cent., for passenger vehicles has given a shot in the arm- {: .speaker-JF7} ##### Mr Beazley: -- Does that also mean that if you had taken the tax off earlier the revival would have been earlier, too? {: .speaker-JYO} ##### Mr CLEAVER: -- The honorable mem-; ber for Fremantle hada long, uninterrupted opportunity to make his speech. I am suffering disabilities which the honorable member ought to recognize. I wantto conclude by pointing out that themotor vehicle industry, notwithstanding current rates of sales tax, is riding high into the future for record sales. So confident' is that industry that it has indicated that it is prepared to invest millions of pounds in further expansion. The spokesman for the company I have mentioned said recently that its £15,000,000 expansion scheme, begun in August,1960, was expected to be completed in 1963. He said that the credit squeeze and the subsequent easing of restrictions had made no difference whatever to its overall plan to increase passenger vehicle production to 150,000 a year, or 627 every working day. In addition, other vehicles are to be produced in heavy quantities annually. He said that so far £290,000 had been spent on extending the Pagewood plant in New South Wales and about £10,000,000, **Mr. Speaker,** on its establishments in your own State of South Australia. He said that when the scheme had been completed £27,000,000 would have been spent on expansion since the company began its operations. There is much that I would have liked to say. I think honorable members are well aware of the material that I have had to set aside because we have been circumscribed by the ruling of the Deputy Speaker in respect of this debate. The Opposition has tried to make much of the changes in sales tax rates, particularly in the rate of tax on motor vehicles. This House is well aware of the terrific demand being made upon the country's steel supplies and the impact upon imports that the motor industry was making because of boom conditions in 1960. The House needs to be reminded of the justification for the action taken in November, 1960, and of the circumstances of the situation that resulted in the reduction of the rate of sales tax on motor vehicles from 40 per cent. to 30 per cent. in February of last year. It is an indication that this Government is using, soundly and justifiably, the flexibility of sales tax as one of the many weapons related to budgetary measures. I had hoped that in this debate the Opposition might change its tune and give recognition, to the fact that success has come through the Government's measures, and that there has been no great disaster, despite its forecast. The fears which were temporarily felt in the motor industry were largely engendered by members of the Opposition, who, following their dismal leader, talked about gloom and the terrific impact that these measures might have. I think it was the honorable member for Fremantle **(Mr. Beazley)** who at one stage in the debate asked " Why does the Government not come along with a tabulation of answers to the various questions raised in relation to sales tax? " I think that we, in our speeches, on this particularly restricted measure related to sales tax on motor vehicles, have scored our points and made the point that the Government's measures have been justified, that this industry has not been harmed, that re-employment is taking place and that the inflationary boom to correct which these measures were designed in November, 1960, was successfully halted. I have pleasure, therefore, in supporting the bill, but I think you will appreciate my position and sympathize with me, **Mr. Speaker.** I was disappointed that I could not speak more fully on many of the economic aspects relating to this measure which, fortunately, seeks a reduction in sales tax on motor vehicles rather than an increase. {: #subdebate-47-0-s12 .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr DALY:
Grayndler .- I think we are fortunate, **Mr. Speaker,** that you ruled as you did with reference to the remarks of the honorable member for Swan **(Mr. Cleaver),** because his embarrassment was apparent and you undoubtedly saved him from further discomfiture. You, **Sir, ruled** that he should relate his remarks to the bill, of which his knowledge was negligible. I would like to reply, first of all, to a few of his remarks. He stated that the reduction of sales tax on motor cars had been responsible for a 37) per cent, increase in employment. This brings me to the point that the increased sales tax should never have been imposed, that the state of affairs I have mentioned should never have occurred, and that if these restrictions had been lifted earlier, the industry could have received an earlier and more effective stimulus. It is unfair of the honorable member for Swan to compare what he calls the flexibility of the Government's policy in the matter of sales tax with the position at the time Labour was in office. When all is said and done, petrol rationing was imposed to save this country, and members of the Government who criticize and compare a war-time measure, which meant much to Great Britain and was designed for the salvation of this country, with the present Government's policy, are guilty of one of the most contemptible actions possible. It could come only from those who to-day sit on the Government benches. This measure reduces the sales tax on motor cars from 30 per cent, to 22) per cent. As the honorable member for Hughes **(Mr. L. R. Johnson)** said earlier to-night this is the eighth occasion on which changes have been made by this Government in the sales tax on motor vehicles. To-night this measure is another step, we know not where, in the scheme that the Government evidently has to destroy this industry by restricting it or expanding it as the case may be by the imposition and lifting of sales tax. The measure also reduces the sales tax on commercial motor vehicles, motor cycles, motor vehicle parts and accessories from 16) per cent, to 12) per cent. This instances a further change in the sales tax impositions by this Government. Sales tax on motor vehicles, as on other items, is a most unjust and inequitable tax, and be a person who buys a car worth £1,000 or £100, the sales tax imposition is at a flat rate. That is most unjust. When Labour was defeated in 1949 we were in the process of eliminating sales tax not only on motor vehicles but also on other items. At that stage sales tax on motor vehicles was down to 8) per cent. It was left to this Government to impose this tax at a rate of 40 per cent. The reduction that this Government now boasts about is from 30 per cent, to 22) per cent., which is 14 per cent, above the rate that Labour imposed in 1949. On this question of sales tax on motor vehicles, which was so ably debated to-night by the honorable member for Hughes let me read some interesting passages to members of the Country Party, who look upon cars as a luxury for the people whom they represent. Their party is, in the main, responsible for this imposition of sales tax and the increases and decreases in the rates that are made from time to time. The right honorable A. W. Fadden, M.P., said, at page 15 of his policy speech in 1949 with reference to this important question of sales tax - >If the Socialists are defeated, therefore, rates of taxation both direct and indirect, can and will be steadily reduced. What is the position? The sales tax on motor vehicles has been aided, abetted, supported and sponsored in this Parliament by members of the Country Party, together with the Liberals, and has risen to a maximum of 40 per cent! It is unprecedented in this day and age. As the honorable member for Hughes said, members of the Country Party expect the country people to go back to the horse and buggy instead of riding in cars, as they are entitled to do. It was mentioned earlier to-night - I will repeat it - that the sales tax on a Holden car, has been increased, under this Government, from £58 to £207. That is not a bad effort for a party which believes in tax reduction! It is an increase from 8) per cent, to 40 per cent, in the course, as the honorable member for Hughes mentioned, of not fewer than eight changes in sales tax on motor vehicles made by this Government. Sales tax collections on motor vehicles alone represent 44 per cent, of the income from sales tax on all items in Australia. In other words, these impositions have been placed on the motor industry and on motor vehicles in particular by the Country Party and the Liberal Party, who went to the country in 1949 pledged to reduce direct and indirect taxation. Is it any wonder that to-day Government members sit there limited in numbers, bereft of policy and stealing the policy of Labour and others, because they know that the policies which they have espoused and which they have tried to-night to support, are not acceptable to the Australian people? To Honorable members opposite who claim that the motor industry wanted this stimulus, which did not effect it much, I say we should look at some of the advertisements at the time when the 40 per cent, imposition was made. The reason why we are debating the reduction of this tax to 22) per cent, to-night is that the motor industry was practically destroyed by this tax. The Government lost seats over it and practically lost - I do not think we would have deplored his going greatly - the Minister for the Army **(Mr. Cramer)** on this issue alone. In rebuttal of what has been said by members opposite to-night, I will quote what the imposition of the 40 per cent, sales tax - or even 22) per cent, has meant to the motor industry. Here is the answer by the Chamber of Automotive Industries in New South Wales as it appeared in an advertisement in the "Sydney Morning Herald " of 25th November, 1960. I will quote extracts and then ask for leave to have this advertisement incorporated in " Hansard ". It states - >The threatened increase in sales tax on motor vehicles singles out the Australian motorist for the most unfair and discriminating treatment ever imposed on any one section of the community. That was when the tax was raised to 40 per cent, and now the Government, because it is reducing the tax to 22) per cent, after causing chaos in the industry, says it is doing something out of goodness of heart. The advertisement continues - >Already in the life of the present Government, sales tax on motor vehicles has increased from Birds per cent, to 30 per cent. A further 10 per cent, is indefensible. It says, further - >It calls for the widest immediate protest to members of the Senate who hold the fate of the Bill in their hands. That is interesting. On the sales tax in respect of motor cars the advertisement says - >In sales tax alone, motorists contributed £77,000,000, which was 47 per cent, of sales tax collected from all sources. The dealer didn't pay this - you did. That points out the effect of this legislation on the motor industry generally. I have not time to read this advertisement in full but I ask for leave to have it incorporated in " Hansard " as an indication of and a guide to, particularly for members of the Country Party, the effect this legislation has on the economy and particularly on the motor industry. I ask for leave to have this advertisement incorporated in " Hansard ". {: .speaker-KIH} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock: -- Is leave granted? Government supporters. - No. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- Leave is not granted. {: .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr DALY: -- That hardly surprises me. Unfortunately, **Mr. Deputy Speaker,** your colleagues in the Australian Country Party were the ones who cried out the loudest against the incorporation of the figures. That is understandable when you consider how they have sold out the country people in relation to a commodity which should be regarded as essential but which they apparently consider to be a luxury. I have here a further article in respect of sales tax which I think merits reading. It is also taken from the " Federal News Letter " of the Australian Automobile Association. This journal was constantly read by honorable members opposite until the Government interfered with the industry by increasing the sales tax on motor cars. I suppose that the Government now lists it among the Tory papers like the " Sydney Morning Herald " which should not be read by Government supporters. In its issue dated 6th March, the *' Federal News Letter " states - >In March, 1956, when the sales tax on cars was increased from 16) to 30 per cent., **Mr. Menzies** said - "We are well aware of the benefits which will ultimately flow from this great industry, but we are convinced that proper counter-inflationary action requires that some temporary restraint should be laid upon it." > >Four and a half years later (November, 1960) sales tax on cars was increased from 30 to 40 per cent., and that inequitable rate prevailed for 98 dark days; it was reduced to 30 per cent, in February, 1961. > >Whilst the recent, and long overdue, reduction to 22) per cent, is welcomed by all motorists, they will not be content until the 16) per cent, rate is restored. > >Anything above that indicates that the Government regards motor cars as being in the " luxury " class, which, of course, they are not. As the Tariff Board said in its 1958 Report on the Australian Automotive Industry - " Motor transport in these days is no longer a luxury; the bulk of it is essential for the carrying of passengers and goods." > >In the year 1960-61 all Sales Tax receipts amounted to ?173,000,000. Sales Tax on motor vehicles and parts yielded ?74,000,000- about 44 per cent, of the total. There is a condemnation of the Government! The Government's action in increasing the sales tax was defended by the honorable member for Mallee **(Mr. Turnbull),** the honorable member for Richmond **(Mr. Anthony)** and other Government supporters, together with certain Ministers. None of us will ever forget those days when **Senator Wood** and **Senator Wright** in another place held forth against the iniquitous legislation increasing sales tax on motor cars. **Senator Wood** was ostracized by Government supporters because he said that the legislation was unjust. He stuck to his principles but **Senator Wright** ultimately gave way. They were the people who with the Labour Party stood up against the increased sales tax and the destruction of the motor car industry. The fact of the matter is that during the period in which sales tax was levied on motor cars at the rate of 40 per cent., there were protests by several supporters of the Government despite the contention- of the Treasurer **(Mr. Harold Holt)** that this rate of tax was essential to prevent inflation. As I have said, **Senator Wood** and **Senator Wright** stood out publicly against the tax and were ostracized by their colleagues and threatened with expulsion from their party. What is the position to-day? We find that sales tax has been reduced. In the face of strong criticism it was reduced to 30 per cent, some time ago. Those members who supported the 40 per cent, tax are the people who to-day say that it was only put on as a temporary measure. The many thousands of people who bought cars when the sales tax was 40 per cent, were taken down. The " Daily Mirror " of 22nd February, 1961, published the following report: - > **Senator Ian** Wood (Liberal Queensland) to day urged the Government to remit the extra 10 per cent, sales tax people had paid on new cars. " Those who paid the extra tax were mulcted of money to meet a burden that was unnecessary," he said. > > **Senator Wood** said that the reversal of Government policy on the car sales tax vindicated- his stand in the Senate last year. Is it any wonder that Government supporters do not want to defend this measure? Only obscure back-benchers are standing up to debate the bill because they know that the Government has put it over the Australian people. If it had not been for the result of the general election, particularly in the case of the Minister for the Army **(Mr. Cramer),** I doubt whether this bill would have been before us to-day. 1 want the honorable member for Richmond, who I understand will follow me in this debate, to repeat what he said when the 1960 legislation was introduced. He then said that he supported the measure 100 per cent. He said that the motor car industry had.to carry this burden. He demanded that the Government impose the highest taxation on the motor car industry .in order to restore stability to the economy. The honorable member for Mallee, as usual, put his foot in it. He said, " 1 am 100 per cent, behind the legislation". I suppose that, within the next half-hour, he will tell us that he is in favour of this -measure also. On the question of sales tax on motor cars, Government supporters, particularly Country Party members, change like the weather. They know not what is wanted and they care little. On this issue they are prepared to sell out the people whom they represent and blindly follow at the heels of the Government. I think the bill is a further indication of the inability of the Treasurer and the financial advisers of the Government to study carefully the measures they introduce and to realize their implications. I do not wish to go into the question of unemployment. I understand that I will be out of order if I do that. The only thing that gives me comfort is that both you, **Mr. -Deputy Speaker,** and your distinguished colleague, the Speaker, have been fairly reasonable on this subject. You have curbed Liberal and Country Party members as well as Opposition members. However, having a greater knowledge of the subject, we on this side of the House have debated the measure with more ability than have Government supporters. Sales tax on motor cars is closely related to the general welfare of the people. I know that the motor car industry makes great demands on our resources both internal and external. I believe, with certain sections of the community, that it is nearly time that all parts for motor cars were manufactured in Australia. Factories should be established here to manufacture motor car parts and we should make more of them in order to reduce the drain on our financial resources. The motor industry might well take heed of that suggestion. Here we find the Government imposing a high tax on this industry. Do not forget that, according to the 1949 election propaganda, this is a tax reduction Government. The honorable member for Hughes, in an excellent speech made in the face of great difficulties, put figures to this Parliament which are worth reading by all members. The instances that he gave of individual increases in taxation on motor cars and the total imposition on the industry are facts which all Government supporters might well consider. According to one newspaper the sales tax policy of the Government is like a fairy story. The paper headed its article " Round and Round with Holt ". The article states that in November, 1960, the Treasurer said that increased sales tax had ;o be imposed on motor cars to stop inflation. It quotes further statements by the Treasurer on subsequent dates until, on 21st February, 1961, the Treasurer could speak no longer and the Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies)** announced that the additional sales tax had been removed. In other words, this bill has been forced on the Government. It knows not where it is going in respect of sales tax on motor vehicles. The motor car industry can thank the people of this country for nearly voting this Government out, otherwise the sales tax would not have been reduced. A significant fact is that hardly any supporter of the Government has bothered to come into the House and listen to the debate on this measure. They blindly follow the Government. They know little of the bill's implication and they care less. I suppose that we cannot quibble at the reduction except to say that it should have been much more. I should like honorable members opposite who support this reduction to say why they previously supported the increase in sales tax. These measures should not be idly passed. Especially in an industry such as this, effect should be given only to a policy which will be beneficial instead of detrimental. As you well know, on every occasion on which the sales tax on motor cars has been discussed in this Parliament, it has received great headlines in the press and elsewhere. I do not know of any single act of this Government in all its spheres of economic policy that has produced such revulsion of feeling against the Government as its fiddling around with the sales tax on motor cars, motor car parts and allied goods. I join with members on this side of the House in congratulating the Government on its deathbed repentance. The fact that it has seen the light on this occasion is something which, though I suppose is not a matter for congratulation, we may well welcome. Ot course, when all is said and done, the continuation of a rate of 30 per cent, sales tax could not do anything but adversely affect the motor industry generally, which plays such a great part in our economy. It could have destroyed this very flourishing industry. I will be interested to hear, as will other honorable members, the views of the Australian Country Party members in this House. I would be delighted to hear them explain their attitude to this important measure and indicate whether or not they will substantially increase the sales tax on motor cars the next time the Government gets into a little financial difficulty. On the general principle of sales tax, with particular reference to the measure under discussion, let me say that I hope that some time the government of the day - whether a Liberal government or a Labour government - will realize that sales tax on motor vehicles inevitably increases the price to the consumer, and in no circnmstances can be entirely justfied. Sales tax was levied originally on motor cars and other items as a war-time and a depression measure, in a time of great crisis. The fact that sales tax on motor vehicles was raised to 40 per cent, is to the eternal discredit of the Government responsible, whose members and supporters claim that they have the welfare of the motor industry and the welfare of the people generally at heart. Countless thousands of people who bought cars when the rate of tax was 40 per cent, paid more for their cars than they would otherwise have had to pay, and I say that there is a justifiable case for making a refund of the extra amounts paid by these people. Such a proposal has already been refused by the Government. I hope to-night that in another place **Senator Wood** of Queensland will smile pleasantly when he recollects what he went through when, in an attempt to protect the people working in the motor vehicle industry, he resisted Government pressure and voted against the increase of sales tax on motor vehicles to 40 per cent. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- Order! I think that the honorable gentleman's steering is a bit awry. He should return to the bill. {: .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr DALY: -- It was a passing reference, **Mr. Deputy Speaker.** You have been very generous to me. Despite criticism from your own party, you have been tolerant in your approach during this debate. I conclude by saying that I welcome the reduction of sales tax with which the measure deals, and I hope that this tax will ultimately disappear from our taxation calendar. Let me congratulate the Government on its act of repentance. I am delighted to see that the Prime Minister is here personally to witness the fulfilment of something that was forced on him by the result of the general election and which is welcomed not only on this side of the House but by the Minister for the Army **(Mr. Cramer),** who brought it about. {: #subdebate-47-0-s13 .speaker-L19} ##### Mr LESLIE:
Moore .- When the honorable member for Grayndler **(Mr. Daly)** rises to speak, 1 always regret the abolition of entertainment tax. I think that every member of the House and everybody in the galleries - and you yourself, **Mr. Deputy Speaker** - would be only too happy to contribute generously to the Treasury for this entertainment by an honorable member who is able to make what purports to be a serious speech, damning the Government and everything else right, left and centre, but with his tongue clearly seen to be firmly planted in his cheek and with a happy smile on his face. He reminds me of wartime, when recruits were being taught to fire machine-guns in short, snappy bursts but did not know what target they were firing at. That is precisely the case with the honorable member for Grayndler. He rattles away like a machine-gun without any obvious target in sight. Opposition members dealt, in their speeches to-day, with the increase of the sales tax on motor cars from 8) per cent., which I think was the figure the honorable member for Fremantle **(Mr. Beazley)** said it stood at in 1949, to, ultimately, 40 per cent. I think that the tax was 8) per cent, in the time of the Chifley Government. But, damn it, **Sir, you** could not buy a motor car at that time! It would not have made any difference if there had been no sales tax on cars then. A car or other vehicle was just not obtainable. That was the kind of administration we had under the Labour Government. Besides, we bad no petrol then. It was a time of extreme shortage. {: .speaker-KDA} ##### Mr Duthie: -- We had just come out of a war. {: .speaker-L19} ##### Mr LESLIE: -- We had just come out of a war! This country had just bad at that time a long period of extreme mismanagement. You people opposite did not know how to get the country back on its feet. Two years after the present Government was returned to office in 1949 the country was teeming with goods. {: .speaker-JSU} ##### Mr Bryant: -- I rise to order, **Mr. Deputy Speaker.** Both you and **Mr. Speaker** have given certain rulings in this debate. I am sure that the honorable member for Moore is going wide of the substance of the bill and therefore is transgressing against the earlier rulings. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- Order! 1 am sure that the honorable member for Moore has an appreciation of the contents of the bill and will keep to the matter before the House. {: .speaker-L19} ##### Mr LESLIE: -- I can assure you, **Mr. Deputy Speaker,** that I know the contents of the bill. In any event, I remind honorable members opposite that interjections are at all times highly disorderly, but when they come from the pit of sheer lack of knowledge, amounting to ignorance, one must be patient. I can only ascribe my departure from the narrow subject of the bill to my desire to educate members of the Opposition. I was referring to the increase of the sales tax on motor cars from 8) per cent, under the Chifley Government to 40 per cent, under this Government, and I was making the point that at the time of the Chifley Government, when that lower rate of tax was in operation, it was not possible to buy a vehicle of any kind. People would have been prepared to pay sales tax at the rate of hundreds per cent, to obtain a motor car or other vehicle. Furthermore, what vehicles were available then were all imported. We had no Australian motor industry. We had assembly plants but we had no manufacturing industry, and all motor vehicles and parts carried a substantial import tax or primage duty. Once the Australian motor industry was established sales tax was imposed on a basis comparable to the import duties, and consequently the sales tax on cars went up from 8) per cent. That is a simple thing to understand. {: .speaker-K8B} ##### Mr Curtin: -- How do you work that out? {: .speaker-L19} ##### Mr LESLIE: -- I would not expect the honorable member for Kingsford-Smith to be able to work anything out. The Opposition has kept on saying that we impose and retain high sales tax on motor vehicles on the presumption that the motor industry is a luxury industry and that the possession of a motor vehicle is the possession of a luxury. I remind honorable members that the Labour Government in New Zealand had a 40 per cent, sales tax on motor vehicles up to, I think, the year before last, when it was reduced to 33) per cent. - which is still high. Let me remind them also that in Great Britain a duty of 50 per cent, is levied on motor cars plus a 10 per cent, surcharge - the equivalent of a duty of 55 per cent. Compare that with the very small rate of tax which this Government is now reducing. This is a comparatively small rate of tax, yet the Opposition has the darned nerve to say that we imposed this tax because we believed a motor car was a luxury. The honorable member for Hughes **(Mr. L. R. Johnson)** said there was no sales tax on motor vehicles in Canada. I tried to ascertain where he got that information but I have been unable to trace it. I would like the honorable member to tell me where he got the information as it would be interesting to make a comparison with the sales tax in the United Kingdom and New Zealand. {: .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr Daly: -- Make your own researches! {: .speaker-L19} ##### Mr LESLIE: -- I am quite capable of doing so. But I do not like to see members of the Opposition or anyone else get away with something that might not be quite factual. I want to check up on things that they say. If I cannot check them myself, I am sure that the honorable member will give me the information if his statement is based on fact. I hope the honorable member for Hughes will tell me what I want to know. We have had the peculiar spectacle tonight of supporters of the Labour Party commending the Government for reducing the rate of sales tax on motor vehicles, saying they support the proposal but kicking up the dickens of a hullabaloo about it. Why? The simple reason is that the Opposition knows that the Government has taken action - as it so often does - that is correct and has won the approval of the people concerned, both manufacturers and consumers. That is what hurts the Opposition. {: .speaker-K8B} ##### Mr Curtin: -- What roti {: .speaker-L19} ##### Mr LESLIE: -- That is the only answer the Opposition has to my statement. Of course it hurts the Opposition to know that this Government has won the popular acclaim and the applause of the people. I should like to develop that theme, but it does not come within the ambit of the proposal before the House. However, I will have another opportunity during the next three years or more that I remain in this House to tell the Opposition just where if gets off. {: .speaker-JF7} ##### Mr Beazley: -- Do you think we made a mistake with our preferences in the electorate of Moore? {: .speaker-L19} ##### Mr LESLIE: -- That matter is also outside the ambit of this bill. I rise at any time only to correct wrong statements made by the Opposition or those which are not founded on fact, or to give the Opposition information. The suggestion that this Government raised the sales tax on motor vehicles since 1949 merely to obtain revenue is false. I should like to refer to the statements made by the honorable member for Fremantle **(Mr. Beazley)** in which he discussed this proposal in relation to economic measures, but I understand that has not been permitted and so I shall not trespass on your generosity in your treatment of other honorable members, **Mr. Deputy Speaker.** I support the bill. I believe the Government has acted correctly. The Government must be right because the Opposition supports the proposal. I believe that the purpose of the measure is already being achieved and will continue to have effect. I hope that every member on the Opposition side will be honest and admit that his Government has done the right thing at all times according to the circumstances for the general benefit of the country. {: #subdebate-47-0-s14 .speaker-KVT} ##### Mr THOMPSON:
Port Adelaide -- It was rather interesting to listen to the honorable member for Moore **(Mr. Leslie)** and also to the honorable member for Swan **(Mr. Cleaver).** The honorable member for Moore referred to the sales tax on motor cars in the United Kingdom. He should put the facts honestly before the people. He should know that there is a high rate of sales tax on motor cars in the United Kingdom to encourage the export of motor vehicles and sustain the manufacturing industry there. The rate of tax in the United Kingdom is. designed to discourage the home market and was not imposed merely to. raise revenue. The reasons for the sales tax in the United Kingdom are not the same as they are here. The speech of the honorable member for Swan was remarkable. He said that the Government increased the sales tax on motor vehicles to 40 par cent, to prevent the high consumption of steel in the motor car industry and the employment of so many men. He said that the Government had done the right thing. Now the honorable member says that in a short time we will produce more motor cars. If it was wrong two years ago, why is it right now? I am sorry that the honorable member for Moore spoke before me to-night because, according to the list of speakers, I was to follow the honorable member for Richmond **(Mr. Anthony).** {: .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr Turnbull: -- The Opposition changed its list of speakers too. {: .speaker-KVT} ##### Mr THOMPSON: -- I am not condemning you for it: I only say that 1 am sorry the list was altered because when the sales tax on motor vehicles was increased to 40 per cent. I followed the honorable member for Richmond in the debate. On that occasion the honorable member gloried in the increase of sales tax to 40 per cent because he said too many motor cars were being built. " Look at all the old cars ", he said. "Why cannot the people use them?" I thought to-night , that when the honorable member for Richmond spoke before me, he would be able to tell me where all the old motor cars have gone, and why it is necessary now to encourage the production of new motor vehicles. The manufacture of motor cars and the imposition of the sales tax are subjects very close to me. The extensive works of General Motors-Holden's Proprietary Limited in Woodville are in my electorate. It was there that the company began to build an Australian car, and it did so with the assistance of the Chifley Labour Government. Between 5,000 and 6,000 persons are employed there, and in addition all round the district there are ancillary industries which make parts and other goods for the Holden company. It would be difficult for me to say exactly how many people in my district are associated with the manufacture of motor vehicles. When the Government increased the rate of sales tax to 40 per cent., I said it did not realize what it was doing to the economy. The sales tax was then 30 per cent, and I pointed out that those engaged in the motor industry were receiving so much in wages that their income tax payments gave the Government substantial revenue. In addition to the men who were working during the week, there was a lot of maintenance work on Saturdays and Sundays. Persons employed on that work were earning big money and paying heavy taxes. I pointed out that if there was a decline in employment, revenue from income tax would fall. I pointed out also that the reduction in the number of cars which would be built while the 40 per cent, sales tax applied would mean a lower return in sales tax yield than would be the case with the tax standing at 30 per cent. That is not the only effect of sales tax. A few weeks after the 40 per cent, tax was imposed I visited what is practically the largest car sales agency in my electorate. In discussing with one of the proprietors the effect of the increased sales tax and of the credit squeeze I put to him that I thought the credit squeeze was a bigger hindrance to sales than was sales tax. He replied, " No, you are not right there because with the increase in sales tax, which causes a corresponding increase in the price of a new car, we are giving a bigger trade-in allowance ". I think every one knows that in the great majority of cases a car is traded in when a new car is purchased and the purchaser then pays the difference between the trade-in allowance and the price of the new car. The proprietor ot the car sales firm added, "Although purchasers are paying a higher price for the new cars by reason of the increased sales tax, they are receiving such an appreciable increase in trade-in allowance that they are not losing as much as you might think they would lose". Mention has been made of the Government's stop-and-go policies. When sales tax was reduced from 40 per cent, to 30 per cent, the gentleman to whom I have referred said to me: "The Government's action in increasing sales tax and then taking it off again has hit us very badly. We sold a good many cars when the sales tax was 40 per cent, and we took in so many older models as trade-ins that the only way now by which we can sell them is to make a considerable reduction in the price." I am not sure now whether he told me that the company had to wipe off £3,000 or £4,000 representing reductions in the sale price of the traded-in vehicles. When business firms are hit so hard by the Government's actions can any one wonder at the result of the election last December? The business people are the ones who felt the effects of the Government's policies. For the Government to say that it did the right thing for this country and for honorable members opposite to glory in what the Government did indicates to me that they lost all sense of proportion and perspective and merely grabbed at the first proposal which was put before them. To indicate the unfairness of the way the Government acted in this matter I remind honorable members that a deputation met the Treasurer and asked for the 40 per cent, sales tax to be reduced. In no uncertain terms he told the deputation: " No, we shall not Ji that. The increased sales tax is doing the job that we want it to do and it will remain." What happened? Within 36 hours of the Treasurer's statement the Prime Minister announced that the sales tax was to be reduced from the following day to 30 per cent. What a remarkable thing to happen! About half-past six that evening one of my sons came to show my wife and me the new car which he had taken delivery of that day. While he was showing it to us the man next door who had just heard the 6.30 news came to us and said, " The sales tax on cars has been reduced to 30 per cent.". My lad had lost 10 per cent, of the sales tax he had paid by buying his car one day too soon. If the Government had been honest in its intentions and had done the right thing, the Treasurer would not have stated the day before the sales tax was reduced that it would not be altered. I do not claim that he should have told the deputation, before the Prime Minister made his announcement, that sales tax would be reduced, but if the tax was to be reduced on a Tuesday, I think it was, the Treasurer, if he did not know on the Monday what the Prime Minister intended to do, should have thrown his hat into the ring for being treated in such a way. If the Treasurer knew on the Monday, if Monday was the day before the announcement was made, that the sales tax would be reduced, he was not being fair and honest in telling the deputation, which comprised not members of the Labour Party but people who were interested in the motor industry, that the sales tax would not be reduced. The case to which I have referred is not the only one of which I have knowledge. All honorable members know very well the effect of the reduction. I am not far wrong when I say that the Prime Minister announced the reduction in sales tax in an effort to win back the support of some of the people who had been hurt so much. He said on one occasion that you cannot help treading on some one's corns when you do these things, but every one knows that the man who is trodden on is not too happy about it. If that man was a supporter previously it is pretty certain that he would, be a supporter no longer. If you had a big business and that man was one of your customers and you trod on his corns and hurt him pretty badly, he would not remain one of your customers very long. So it is with the people of this country. You can go so far in imposing your will on the people but there will come a day when the people will turn on you. I have stated for years that governments are defeated not by the policy put forward by the Opposition but by their actions and the things that they have done while they have been in office. Before the election people came to me and asked, " What will be the result?" I said: "Anything can happen in an election. " I never realized that the Prime Minister of this country could make so many obvious mistakes as he made during the previous eighteen months or two years. The first mistake he made was when he increased sales tax. But that was not enough. He then put the financial throttle on the people with the credit restrictions. Every one was hurt. {: .speaker-JWV} ##### Mr Chaney: -- I rise to order, **Mr. Speaker.** You ruled out of order the honorable member for Sturt **(Mr. Wilson)** but [ do not think that he transgressed as far as the honorable member for Port Adelaide is transgressing now. {: .speaker-KSC} ##### Mr SPEAKER (Hon Sir John McLeay: -- Order! The honorable member for Port Adelaide is an old campaigner. He knows how to keep within the confines of the bill. {: .speaker-KVT} ##### Mr THOMPSON: -- I was endeavouring, **Mr. Speaker,** to avoid saying anything which would give you reason to call me to order. Any time that you say that I am out of order I will cease. But it ill behoves the honorable member for Perth **(Mr. Chaney),** the Whip of his party, who is senior to the honorable member for Swan, to say nothing while you had to call the honorable member for Swan to order continually for taking his remarks beyond the scope of the bill. In fact, you had to tell him that if he did not confine his remarks to the bill he would have to resume his seat. I have not gone anywhere near the distance outside the bill that the honorable member for Swan went, and I shall not go in that direction now. All I have been trying to do is to illustrate the effect on the economy of increased sales tax and credit restrictions. I shall not debate the effect of credit restrictions; I simply mention them. I have stated already that I never thought the Prime Minister would make such big mistakes as he made in the eighteen months before the last election, and I have enumerated some of those mistakes. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order! I suggest that the honorable member should not wander too far from the subject-matter of the bill. In particular, he should not get on to matters of policy with which the bill is not concerned. The subject-matter of the bill relates to motor vehicles and the reduction of sales tax applicable to them. The honorable member may also make a slight passing reference to related policy matters. {: .speaker-KVT} ##### Mr THOMPSON: -- Well, it was only a passing reference that I was making. I could go even more deeply into the question, but I would be pulled up if I started talking about credit restrictions, for instance. I am not doing that. I am not talking about the Government's policy, except insofar as it concerns sales tax. After all, the policy of the Government involves the imposition of sales tax, and I could not speak on the subject of sales tax and contend thai I was not dealing with policy. The Treasurer **(Mr. Harold Holt)** pointed out in his speech when introducing the resolution in connexion with this matter that the purpose was to help the motor industry make a comeback because this meant a great deal to the country. {: .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr Turnbull: -- But that was said in committee, was it not? {: .speaker-KVT} ##### Mr THOMPSON: -- We are not in committee now. {: .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr Turnbull: -- I know we are not. That is why you should not be making those references. {: .speaker-KVT} ##### Mr THOMPSON: -- 1 suppose, **Mr. Speaker,** that the honorable member for Mallee believes he could teach you something about procedure, but I really do not think he needs to interject, because I believe you can do the job yourself. The question that we should ask is this: Why did the Government reduce the rate of sams tax from 40 per cent, to 30 per cent, and then from 30 per cent, to 22) per cent.? I do not know why it did so, but I think the reason was that the people had frightened the Government by the protest they had registered at the election. The Government had suffered a severe kick in the pants from the voters and this, I believe, was the reason for the decision to reduce the sales tax. The honorable member for Swan has said that we must be flexible, that we must be prepared to increase sales tax if it is thought that too many motor vehicles are being sold, and to reduce the tax if it is considered desirable that the industry should sell more vehicles. The honorable member used more polished phrases than I have done, but I believe that I have given his meaning. The honorable member says the Government is right in adopting flexible policies. He says it is right to put up the sales tax one day, bring it down the next, and then put it up again later. Well, I am just wondering what the position will be in the future. As was pointed out by the honorable member for Grayndler **(Mr. Daly)** and others, when this Government came to power in December, 1949, the rate of sales tax was 8) per cent. After ten months the Government increased it to 10 per cent. After another eleven months it was increased once more to 20 per cent. The rate remained at this level for about two years and was then reduced to 16) per cent. People were pleased to see the Government make this reduction. That was an example of the flexibility that the honorable member for Swan speaks about. The reduction to 16) per cent, was made in 1953. Two years later the Government again demonstrated its flexibility by increasing the rate to 30 per cent. However, this did not have as strong an effect as the Government had hoped for, and so in 1960 the rate went up to 40 per cent. Demonstrating its flexibility again, the Government reduced the rate in February, 1961, to 30 per cent., and in February, 1962, it has now decided to bring down the rate to 22) per cent. The rates I have cited, of course, apply to motor cars. I know that there are different rates for commercial vehicles and other vehicles, but I have not time to go through them. What I am afraid of is what this Government may do next with these flexible policies. It put the rate up twice, brought it down twice, put it up twice and again brought it down twice It is on the cards that the rate will go up twice again. Where will we be then? The Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies)** has said to the people, "We do not want you to judge us on promises; we want you to judge us on our records ". Well, I have given the House the Government's record in the matter of sales tax on motor vehicles. It has taken the rate up and down so many times that one gets the impression one is on a see-saw. My fear is that when conditions in the motor vehicle industry start to look pretty good again the Government will say, " These are the people who can pay more of this tax ". We all know that sales tax is a hidden tax. Honorable members on this side of the House have always believed in direct taxation, so that every one would know just what he was paying. When the rate . of sales tax on motor cars was increased to 30 per cent. and later to 40 per cent., people were asking, "How much tax will we really pay? ". They tried to work it out from the prices they paid for their motor cars, but most of them did not take into account the fact that the tax was not calculated simply on the price quoted by the dealer. The dealer pays the tax on the price he is. quoted by the wholesaler, and then he eventually sells the vehicle after adding a further amount for extra sales tax. As I say, it is a hidden tax, whether it is imposed on motor vehicles or on any other commodities. Just in passing I might say that if people with families generally realised that they were paying12½ per cent, sales tax on practically all the school books needed by their kiddies they would be up in arms. I know that I cannot develop that argument, **Mr. Speaker,** and I. merely mention it in passing to illustrate how sales tax is a hidden tax. I am not arguing the point whether it is right or wrong to place a tax of 12i per cent. on kiddies' school books, but I am merely suggesting that the parents as a rule do not know that they are paying the tax. {: .speaker-JYO} ##### Mr Cleaver: -- I take a point of order, **Mr Speaker.** Unfortunately your attention has been diverted while the honorable member has been getting away from the subjectmatter of the bill. He is talking about sales tax on items other than motor vehicles, and he is now getting into the general economic field, to which I was not allowed to refer. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order! I will hear the honorable member for Port Adelaide. He is fully aware of his obligations. {: .speaker-KVT} ##### Mr THOMPSON: -- I was making the point that people purchasing motor cars generally do not know how much they are paying by way of sales tax. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- In that case the honorable member was in order. {: .speaker-KVT} ##### Mr THOMPSON: -- I do not like sales tax. I would sooner increase income tax, saying to the chap on £5,000 a year, " You will have to pay half a crown more", or saying to myself, on a couple of thousand a year, " You will have to pay a couple of bob more." As I say, I would rather do that than perpetuate these hidden sales taxes that governments seem to glory in. I do not refer only to this Government when I make that statement. The honorable member for Swan said that Labour had. introduced sales tax. He was no doubt speaking about the sales tax that was brought in in the time of the Scullin Government. That measure was taken because the government at that time could not get revenue. The banks would not let the government have any money. **Sir Otto** Niemeyer said to the government, " You must accept what I lay down. Reduce pensions or stew in your own juice." I know that some honorable members will say that I am getting away from the subject, but I am simply replying to the suggestions made by the honorable member for Swan about the introduction of sales' tax. The tax was introduced at that time not to prevent people from making motor cars, or from purchasing various' commodities; it was introduced because it was an absolute necessity. The Government had to find some way of gathering income to help the people who were down and out. The Labour government of that time was amply justified in imposing sales tax, but the Government of to-day can find very little justification for its actions. Honorable members opposite have referred to a publication entitled " Commonwealth Automotive Review ", published by the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries. The issue for February, 1962, states that in August, 1930 - that was a time when the Scullin Government was in office - the rate of sales tax on all kinds of motor vehicles was 2½ per cent. That rate represents £2 10s. in every £100. In those days, one could get a motor car for £400 or perhaps less. {: .speaker-KDA} ##### Mr Duthie: -- A new one, too! {: .speaker-KVT} ##### Mr THOMPSON: -- Yes. At £2 10s. in every £100, the sales tax on a car costing £400 was £10. I am not sure of the exact figure, but we have been told that the sales tax on a Holden motor, car is now, I think, £267. There is no comparison between sales tax of that order at the present time and the rate levied by the Scullin Government at a time when it needed money. Yet Government supporters try to compare the two. Sales tax of £10 in the days of the Scullin Government does not compare with sales tax of £267 or more at the present time. The present heavy rate of sales tax has been imposed for a purpose. That purpose is not to help the motor industry, but to try to prevent people from buying motor cars. The honorable member for Richmond and others said, when the rate was last increased, that there were too many people working in the motor industry and that increased sales tax would reduce the number and make workers available to other industries that required men. That was the reason why the Government increased sales tax on motor vehicles. However, it has now changed its attitude, because it realizes, as I think even the honorable member for Swan realizes, that by helping the motor industry to increase production it will put people back to work. The honorable member mentioned the number of workers put off by General Motors-Holden's Proprietary Limited. I cannot guarantee this, but I understand that all those who were dismissed by that company at its plant at Woodville, in South Australia, have been offered their jobs back with the increase in activity there, but many of them have, in the meantime, obtained other jobs and are not prepared to go back to the jobs that they previously had with the company. We must remember another thing about the motor industry. There was a big demand for men in that industry and it was employing workers who were well over 70 years of age. In the last year or two, those older men have been told that they have to make way for younger men. Quite a lot of new workers are going into the industry, not only because some are able to take the places of employees who formerly worked in the industry and now will not return to it, but also because old men have been put off on account of age. I support the bill. I hope that we shall be able to reduce sales tax on motor vehicles even further and that we shall be able to reduce sales tax on other goods also, **Mr. Speaker.** {: #subdebate-47-0-s15 .speaker-KXZ} ##### Mr PETERS:
Scullin **.- Mr. Speaker,** the Australian Labour Party, when in office, imposed sales tax on motor vehicles for good reasons and according to logical principles. Immediately before World War II., the sales tax on motor vehicles was 6 per cent. In May, 1940, the rate was increased to 8) per cent., and in November, 1940, to 10 per cent. {: .speaker-ZL6} ##### Mr Hasluck: -- Labour was not in office in 1940. {: .speaker-KXZ} ##### Mr PETERS: -- No. In 1942, after Labour had taken office, the rate was increased to 12) per cent. During the war, increased sales tax on motor vehicles had some justification because there was a need to raise money. Income tax was as high as 18s. 6d. in the £1, and governments could raise more money only by indirect methods. There was also another reason for imposing sales tax on certain goods produced in this country. That was the need to divert materials and man-power used in certain industries, such as the motor industry, to war purposes for the protection of this country. In 1946, soon after the war had ended, the Labour Government reduced the rate of sales tax on motor vehicles to 10 per cent. The same Government, in September, 1949, reduced the rate to 8) per cent. In 1950, the present Government raised the rate on cars and station wagons to 10 per cent. Why it did that, I do not know. Was it done in order to deter people from buying motor cars? In 1950, this Government raised the rate on cars and station wagons to 20 per cent. Apparently, it wished to discourage the people further from using motor vehicles. In 1953, this Government reduced the rate on cars and station wagons to 16) per cent. The point that I want to make is this; There must be some guiding principle. There must be some reason why governments do things. There must be a reason why a government decides that it will reduce the rate of tax on motor vehicles by 7) per cent, rather than by 10 per cent., or that it will increase the rate by 5 per cent, rather than by 20 per cent. There must be an objective reason for the choosing of a particular rate. What can be the reason for increasing the rate on any occasion? ls it to discourage the use of motor vehicles or is it to raise money that is really needed? If the rate of tax is increased in order to raise money that is really needed, the government of the day should not reduce direct taxes at the same time as it increases sales tax. But that is what this Government has done on several occasions. It has not been animated by a particular principle. It has not decided, for example, to increase the rate of sales tax on motor cars by 7) per cent., if that rate has been chosen on any occasion, because an increase of 7) per cent, would return a particular amount in revenue, that specific amount being really required. The Government did not increase the rate on motor cars to 40 per cent, in November, 1960, because it wished to raise a specific amount in sales tax that it could not get, or was unwilling to obtain, by other means. It raised the rate to that level for a specific purpose - to discourage the sale of motor cars. It stated that this was necessary in order to improve the country's economic position. That was the Government's object. If that was its object, why did it not discourage the entry of millions of pounds worth of motor vehicles from overseas. If the Government wished, in an hour of national economic crisis, to prevent more motor cars from being used by the people of this country, it should have discouraged, not the sale of Australian-made vehicles, but the import of vehicles from overseas. During 1960-61, and for some years previously, fully assembled and part-assembled vehicles entered this country at the rate of about £7,000,000 annually. That is shown in a report obtained from the Parliamentary Library by my friend, the honorable member for Lang **(Mr. Stewart).** I suggest that if in manipulating sales tax on motor vehicles, the object of the Government is to improve our economic position - it cannot have any other object - it should not have said as a government that it would indiscriminately tax motor cars off the roads, irrespective of their origin. If motor cars are taxed off the roads, the home industry is damaged at least as greatly proportionately as are the industries of other countries that sell a cheaper type of motor car on the Australian market than even the cheapest of the Australian-made motor cars. That must, of course, be obvious. The Government is not following any reasoned or logical principle in the imposition of sales tax. When it was in a panic it raised the sales tax on motor vehicles to 40 per cent., because it wanted to discourage the sale of motor cars. As I say, this discouraged' the sale of all motor cars and not just those that were imported. Now the Government says that the industry has been discouraged enough and must be encouraged. It now reduces the rate of tax by 7) per cent. That is not very logical. All that the Government is doing is to give way to the pressure applied by a specific section of industry. It is reducing the rate now by 7i per cent, after having reduced it earlier, at the instigation of the same group, by 10 per cent. The Government is not motivated by the logic or the principles that are applied by the Opposition. As the honorable member for Port Adelaide **(Mr. Thompson)** said, we do not like sales tax or any indirect taxation. Therefore, we approve of this type of tax being reduced in substantial amounts. We say that the Government's reduction of 7) per cent, should be considerably more. But the Government deserts its own principles and reduces sales tax by 10 per cent, and then by 7i per cent, merely because it is scared of the automotive industry. {: #subdebate-47-0-s16 .speaker-KUX} ##### Mr STEWART:
Lang .- The bill we are discussing is a further example of the flexibility of the Government's policies. It is now common knowledge that the Government's policies are so flexible that they can be twisted into any shape. " Flexible ", according to the dictionary, means easily bent and pliable. There is no doubt that the Government's policies can be bent. If I had the time, I would like to relate the history of the Government's application of sales tax to motor vehicles from 1960, when it increased the tax to 40 per cent, to February, 1961, when it reduced the tax to 30 per cent., to the last Budget debate, when many Government supporters in both the Liberal Party and the Australian Country Party had much to say about the need to curb the activities of the motor car industry, to the announcement on 7th February by the Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies)** that sales tax on motor vehicles would be reduced from 30 per cent, to 22) per cent, and on trucks from 16) per cent, to 12) per cent. The Government has had a completely erratic and inconsistent approach to the motor vehicle industry. The reduction of sales tax on this occasion shows once again that the Government, its advisers, its Ministers and the back-bench members have no idea of the thoughts in the minds of the people. The Government has been told time and time again by members on this side of the House, by the motor vehicle industry, and by others interested in the welfare of Australia that the action it has taken would create and has. created the unemployment that is rife at the moment. The Government failed to take this advice. Various Government supporters are on record as saying that they knew what was good for the economy better than did any adviser, any theorist or any " long-hair ". In November, 1960, the Government raised the sales tax on motor vehicles to 40 per cent. Though this increased rate applied for only 86 days, it caused the motor vehicle industry to suffer a catastrophic decline. Between 8,000 and 10,000 employees, or about 20 per cent, of the total employed in the industry, were dismissed. Many, many more thousands of employees in subsidiary industries were also dismissed. I would have thought that the Treasurer **(Mr. Harold Holt)** in introducing this measure would have given some indication of the rate at which the Government wanted the motor vehicle industry to produce. What is the maximum number of vehicles that this Government believes should be manufactured? Is it 200 cars a day, 500 cars a day, 1,000 cars a day or 5,000 cars a day? The Government has given no indication to the House or to the industry, as far as we know. The industry once again has been allowed to take the bit between its teeth and gallop off on increased production. How long will the Government allow the industry to increase its production? When will it again, over night and without any warning, increase the sales tax perhaps to 40 per cent., as it has done in the past? The Australian Labour Party believes that the motor vehicle industry should be fostered. I remind honorable members opposite that in 1946 or thereabouts the Chifley Labour Government encouraged the General Motors organization to commence the production of an Australian motor car. The honorable member for Moore **(Mr. Leslie)** and other members of the Australian Country Party have said that in 1948 and 1949 it was not possible to buy a motor car. At that time, the Labour Government was applying a rate of sales tax of only 8) per cent. The Labour Government had sufficient foresight in the immediate post-war years to know that a motor vehicle industry had to be established in Australia if we were to encourage secondary industries and develop an Australian motor vehicle industry. If it had not been for the foresight of the Labour Government in those years, there would not have been any motor vehicle industry in this country now. It is all very well for honorable members on the other side of the House now to criticize the Labour Government because they were unable to purchase motor cars in 1949. They would still not have been able to purchase motor cars to this day had it not been for the action of the Chifley Government in helping to establish a motor vehicle industry in Australia. To emphasize my point, I shall give the total value of motor vehicles, parts and accessories that have been imported into Australia since 1959-60. They totalled £82,944,352 in 1959-60 and £74,238,416 in 1960-61. All that money was spent overseas. To foster the development of the Australia motor car industry which was established with the assistance of the Chifley Labour Government, would mean the saving of a considerable amount of money to Australia. If this Government was interested in developing Australia it would see to it that those motor car manufacturing companies which are now established in Australia would manufacture all components here instead of purchasing so many of them from their parent companies in various other countries. This would save a big drain on our overseas resources. In addition, a further reduction in sales tax could be made because our overseas reserves would then be in a healthier position and the motor car industry would prosper to a far greater degree. I feel that, in addition to helping the motor car industry by reducing sales tax, this Government should insist that all the components of motor cars already substantially manufactured here should be made in Australia. Until that is done, we shall find it essential to continue levying a certain amount of sales tax on motor vehicles. The greater the prosperity enjoyed by the motor car industry, the lower the prices will be. In turn, more people will be able to buy cars and there will be less need to levy sales tax on the sale of motor vehicles. One point I would like to make at this stage is that during previous debates on sales tax measures in this House members of the Country Party have, time and time again, shown a completely erratic, inconsistent and irrational approach to the subject. In the State of New South Wales, primary producers are allowed concessions on the registration of their motor vehicles, but when we are discussing sales tax on motor vehicles, tractors and other things which are used very extensively in country areas, we find the honorable member for Mallee **(Mr. Turnbull),** and the honorable member for Moore **(Mr. Leslie),** and various other honorable members getting up and lauding the Government for increasing the tax. If members of the Country Party had any inclination to help the people they are supposed to represent, they would insist that primary producers be allowed special sales tax concessions on motor vehicles and parts because the development of our primary industries is of great importance to the prosperity of Australia. But the members of the Country Party generally remain silent about these matters of great moment to Australia, even when country interests are being prejudiced. They say not a word against the proposals of this Government to increase sales tax. They certainly laud the Government when sales tax is decreased, but they sit silent as the grave, making no protest whatever, when that tax is increased. Whilst dealing with the subject of sales tax on motor cars and motor accessories, I suggest to the Treasurer and the Government that an indication should be given to the motor car manufacturers in this country at this stage that they, too, could make some concession to the economy of Australia. In order to encourage the sale of motor vehicles, the Government has reduced sales tax but at the same time most of the motor car manufacturing companies in Australia are making exorbitant profits and most of those profits are being sent overseas. I doubt whether one company manufacturing motor vehicles in Australia makes public its balance sheet. If concessions are to be made to this industry by the Government, then I feel it is also imperative that the Government should insist that the companies which are making these exorbitant profits should reduce the prices of their motor vehicles. The Labour Party would prefer to have no sales tax at all levied on motor vehicles because it believes that it is the right of every family in Australia to possess every possible amenity to make living more comfortable. In these days, it is essential that families in particular have a motor car or a motor vehicle of some kind to carry them round the country. I repeat that I feel that, while making this concession of a reduction of *H* per cent, in sales tax, the Government should insist also that the motor car manufacturers reduce the prices of their vehicles to bring them closer to the figure that can be paid by the ordinary person in Australia. I should like again to point out to the House that whereas it falls to the lot of the Treasurer to introduce unpopular legislation and budgets which provide few concessions, when sales tax is to be decreased substantially the announcement is made by the Prime Minister. I do not wish to cast any aspersions at all on the Treasurer, but I do feel that if it is good enough for him to come into this House as the Treasurer and introduce unpopular bills it should also be good enough for him to make the popular announcements. I hope that in the very near future the Treasurer will be able to" claim once again that he is more than Treasurer in name. I hope that he will stand up for his rights and get back to the standard which we came to expect from him in the past. Finally, I want to say that, because of its policy, this Government has caused a great deal of unemployment throughout Australia, particularly in the motor car industry. The reduction in sales tax on motor vehicles has given a fillip to the motor car industry and I hope that this will continue, but I also hope that the Government will see to it at the same time that a fillip is given to the economy generally so that the 130,000 people now unemployed will be able to find gainful employment. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. In committee: The bill. {: #subdebate-47-0-s17 .speaker-JAG} ##### Mr CREAN:
Melbourne Ports -- Now that the Treasurer **(Mr. Harold Holt)** is sitting at the table, we would appreciate answers to two questions that have been raised by this side of the House during the debute. I draw the attention of the committee to the fact that when the Budget was submitted in October of this year it was estimated that sales tax would yield £160,800,000. Almost half of the sales tax revenue is collected from the sales of motor vehicles, and at the time the Budget was framed the sales tax rates operating on motor vehicles were 30 per cent. on motor cars and 16) per cent. on commercial vehicles. The purpose of this measure is to reduce the sales tax on motor cars from 30 per cent, to 22½ per cent. and that on commercial vehicles from 16) per cent, to 12½ per cent. These reductions must have some impact on this figure of £160,800,000. The committee is anxious to hear from the Treasurer what he thinks the overall effect will be as at the end of June. That is the first question I should like him to answer. I come now to my second question. In November, 1960, sales tax on motor cars was lifted from 30 per cent. to 40 per cent., with a view to curtailing the overall activity in the motor car industry. Assuming, as apparently the Government does assume, that a reduction in sales tax from 30 per cent. to 22) per cent. on motor cars and from 16) per cent, to 12½ per cent, on commercial vehicles will stimulate the sale of motor vehicles, what level would the Treasurer, in various economic circumstances, think was dangerous in terms of the overall activity of the Commonwealth, particularly taking into account his view that there should be some limit to the demands made by any industry, including the motor car industry, on the economic resources of the nation, both internally and externally? I would appreciate it if he could give me the answers to those questions - the likely ultimate effect on the revenue and what level he thinks is reasonable so far as the overall activity in the motor car industry is concerned. ' {: #subdebate-47-0-s18 .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
Treasurer · Higgins · LP -- **Mr. Chairman,** 1 will try to give an answer, even if not as complete as either the honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr; Crean) or I would wish, to the two points he has raised. It will not be through any lack of good faith or endeavour on my part if the answers, particularly with regard to the first matter, cannot be as full as he presses me to supply at this moment. I am not able to say offhand, but I can secure for him, a figure which would indicate the loss of revenue, assuming that the level of sales remains unchanged. But I am sure he would acknowledge that that is not a very realistic way of looking at this matter, because the reduced rate of sales tax - considered together with other measures taken by the Government - is likely to lead to a considerable increase in the purchase of motor cars. Indeed, that is the principal purpose behind the reduction. It is not a question of extending taxation relief for the sake of giving some tax concession. There is behind the proposal the intention that some stimulus should be given to employment, production and sales in the motor car industry. While the figure which the honorable member mentioned to the committee was computed on the 30 per cent. rate as it applied to private motor vehicles earlier, it does not necessarily follow that because we have reduced the rate we will suffer some loss of revenue in consequence. If the sales increased beyond the loss of revenue which would have occurred had the rate remained where it was, and if sales had remained at about the same level, you could end up by showing increased rather than decreased revenue collections. We had an illustration of the way in which this can work when we imposed the 40 per cent. rate over the previously existing 30 per cent. rate in November 1960. At that time, despite the fact that we had a higher rate of sales tax, the revenue actually decreased in comparison with collections on the 30 per cent. rate. For that reason I cannot be precise in my answer on this question. I hope that with the increased sales of motor vehicles there will be little loss of revenue. But in any event, if we get the results that we are seeking in other directions, the loss of revenue becomes a secondary matter. On the other point, I think we have had an interesting revelation of the attitude of mind of honorable members opposite. As I understand the question put by the honorable member for Melbourne Ports - it was put even more directly by the honorable member for Lang **(Mr. Stewart)** - we are invited to say what we, as a government, regard as the target which should remain in the motor industry. Before I deal with that matter let me remind the committee of the circumstances in which we took our action in 1960. At that time there was such heavy pressure from the automotive industry on our resources of manpower, materials and overseas funds, that it was felt we were living well beyond our means and that action of a quite drastic nature had to be taken in order to bring the drain on our resources and overseas funds to more manageable proportions. May I remind the committee that in November, 1960, imports of petroleum products, components, motor cars, steel, rubber and other items which were going into the motor car industry, had increased from a previously high level of f 152,000,000 per annum in 1959. The year 1959 was itself a period of considerably increased activity in the motor car industry and from that previously high level these imports had moved to a rate of over f 200,000,000 a year. So action was taken at that time to bring our imports within our national resources. We have a different situation to-day, when we have resources and manpower available. To-day the financial situation in the community has liquidity and, therefore, it becomes desirable, in our judgment, to provide some stimulus to this very important industry which is a great employer of labour, not only directly but also through the subcontractors and service industries in the automotive field. Whereas at one period the demands were heavier than we could comfortably manage, at the present time there is, within our resources, capacity which can usefully be taken up. I think that on a little reflection the honorable member for Melbourne Ports will realize the implications of what he is putting forward when he says, "You nominate a target". This s a highly competitive industry. Are we, in effect, to say what the target should be for each of the principal manufacturers inside this industry? Or is the proposition that, having indicated a target which we think is a reasonable one having regard to the national resources at the present time, we should throw on the industry the onus of carving up some share of this total inside the industry? It is a pretty picture that the honorable member presents and I would be interested to sit in as an observer at the discussions when General Motors-Holden's Proprietary Limited, the Ford Motor Company, Chrysler Australia Limited and other people sit down to decide how much of the market is to be allocated to each of them. I suggest that it is an entirely unrealistic proposition and certainly not one consistent with the kind of free enterprise economy which we, on our side of politics, are determined to maintain in this country. All we say to the motor car industry is: "You are a very valuable industry. We have never challenged that proposition. You are a great employer of labour. We want to see you using the resources available to you within our capacity, as a community, to sustain." We must have some sense of balance in these matters. We cannot allow - as I have heard it expressed - the tail to wag the dog; we cannot allow the motor industry to assume proportions unreasonable in relation to the total national effort. We certainly do not attempt to prescribe, in any narrow terms or in terms of compulsion, what the limit of activity in the industry should be. We will deal with this industry according to the state of the national economy from time to time. That does not mean that we will have to be coming in frequently in any arbitrary or interfering way nor, I hope, will the situation arise again within any measurable distance of time. We had an abnormal boom period in 1960. One of the principal elements in giving a boom character to the situation then was the motor industry at that time and we took action accordingly. Currently, there is less activity than we all wish to see. Because this is such a vital element in the economy as a whole we have taken action appropriate to a desirable degree of stimulus in the automotive industry. In the period ahead of us we shall certainly be striving to maintain a very much more stable and sustained growth in which this kind of fluctuation in treatment can be avoided. Certainly that is our aim. I believe that the motor industry understands this and will respond to the present situation in a confident way. {: #subdebate-47-0-s19 .speaker-JF7} ##### Mr BEAZLEY:
Fremantle .- The Treasurer **(Mr. Harold Holt)** spoke about the mental attitudes of the Opposition. I think there is a chance occasionally for us to discuss what is right and not who is right. After all, the Treasury is a precise instrument. The Minister spoke about free enterprise and made some other generalizations. But these taxes are not applied as stabs in the dark. It was made perfectly clear to us in November, 1960, that the Government had made certain calculations. It was made clear that the sales tax then being imposed was intended to divert labour and materials. The measures then introduced must have been based upon some estimate of an excessive flow of labour and materials into the motor industry. Surely, now that the Government is reducing sales tax, it is not stabbing blindly in the dark. Surely it has obtained some precise figure or has made an estimate of what is going to happen about labour and production in this industry. There will be factors that cannot be taken into account, of course. It is no use government supporters saying that they believe in free enterprise. The Government took strong measures to curb it in November, 1960. Now it is taking certain measures to release it. As for the statement that no one needs to be told anything precise in terms of labour and that the Government has no targets in mind for the industry, this only means that the situation is allowed to reach a crisis point and then the Government slams the axe down. It would be much more intelligent to give some indications of the Government's thinking beforehand. We had all sorts of prophecies about the wonderful effects of what was done in November, 1960. Now we do not get any statement from the Government as to whether what it thought would happen did happen. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr Harold Holt: -- We have said previously that wc thought we had achieved our objective. {: .speaker-JF7} ##### Mr BEAZLEY: -- What the honorable member for Melbourne Ports **(Mr. Crean)** was asking for was information based on the kind of estimates that must be discussed" by the Government and the Treasury. The Government makes these decisions. Are we to believe that everything is being done purely experimently; that the Government increases the sales tax and sees what happens, and then takes it off and again sees what happens? {: #subdebate-47-0-s20 .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr TURNBULL:
Mallee .- It appears to me that the honorable member for Fremantle **(Mr. Beazley)** has illustrated in his speech the difference between Government policy and Labour policy. Labour . would set some kind of target for the motor industry and would more or less control it. The Treasurer **(Mr. Harold Holt)** has explained very clearly, I think, the reasons for raising sales tax on motor cars to 40 per cent, in 1960. He has also explained what has happened now and why we are reducing sales tax to 22) per cent. That is quite clear. No member of the Labour Party can say what will happen in this country in the next few years. The expansion of the motor industry will depend on the soundness and flexibility of the economy. The honorable member for Fremantle has asked the Government to state some target. He has asked it to say how far this measure will go. This depends on many factors. It depends on such things as the price of primary products and the kind of seasons that we have. It depends on the soundness of the economy. No one can look into a crystal ball and see what is going to happen with regard to prices and seasons. After all, we are dependent more than any other country, perhaps, on our primary products, upon good seasons, and upon good prices overseas. Such things as the Common Market may affect this question. Yet the honorable member for Fremantle says that the Government should set a target! The honorable member for Melbourne Ports **(Mr. Crean)** asked a question, but he did not ask that a target should be set. The honorable member for Fremantle put a different proposition. The Treasurer has given the answer. You cannot tell what will happen in the future. You do not know what costs will be. The Government has been watching these things closely. I am sure that the Government does not want to restrict the motor trade under any circumstances. The Treasurer made that very clear to-night. I do not think that a proposition such as that advanced by the honorable member for Fremantle can be put forward with any logic. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. {:#subdebate-47-1} #### Third Reading {: #subdebate-47-1-s0 .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HigginsTreasurer · LP -- by leave - I move - >That the bill be now read a third time. May I answer, as best I can, a query which was made a little earlier by the honorable member for Melbourne Ports **(Mr. Crean)?** I did tell him that we could not give an estimate of loss of revenue because that would be contingent upon future levels of sales, but that we did have an estimate of what the loss would be, assuming that the level of sales remained unchanged. That estimate is £4,500,000 in respect of the whole of the sales tax concessions which the Government has announced on private and commercial vehicles. Naturally, we assume that there will be an increase in the volume of sales, and this will be reflected in the revenue. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. SALES TAX BILLS (Nos. 1 to 9) 1962. In Committee of Ways and Means: Consideration resumed from 21st February (vide page 52), on motion by **Mr. Harold** Holt- {: type="1" start="1"} 0. That, on and after the seventh day of February, One thousand nine hundred and sixtytwo, the rate of sales tax . . . (vide page 51). Question resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported. Standing Orders suspended; resolution adopted. Ordered - >That **Mr. Harold** Holt and **Mr. Adermann** do prepare and bring in bills' to carry out the foregoing resolution. Motion (by **Mr. Harold** Holt) agreed to - >That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions in regard to the first and second readings, committee's report stage, and third readings being put in one motion covering several or all of the Sales Tax Bills Nos. 1 to 9, and the consideration of several or all of such bills together in a committee of tha whole. Bills (Nos. 1 to 9) presented by **Mr. Harold** Holt, and passed through all stages without amendment or debate. {: .page-start } page 584 {:#debate-48} ### ADJOURNMENT Electoral - Defence Equipment - Television Programmes - Sales Tax on Motor Vehicle. Motion (by **Mr. Harold** Holt) proposed - >That the House do now adjourn. {: #debate-48-s0 .speaker-KYS} ##### Mr REYNOLDS:
Barton .- There are a few matters to which 1 want to refer briefly to-night. The first concerns the proposed electoral redistribution - a matter which was raised in the House about two weeks ago by my colleague, the honorable member for Lang **(Mr. Stewart).** I presume that when the honorable member for Lang raised that matter he was well aware of the desperate plight of this Government at the present time. He was also cognizant of the fact that even though the Labour Party was able to poll at the last general election more than 300,000 votes in excess of the aggregate obtained by the Liberal Party and the Australian Country Party, the Labour Party is still occupying the Opposition benches in this place. All these things tend to make one a little suspicious and cautious about proposals for electoral redistribution. Just in a casual way, when I was in the Parliamentary Library, I picked up a booklet or a journal called "The Australian Liberal". This journal is the official organ of the Liberal Party in New South Wales. I am willing to be educated even by my political opponents, so I began to thumb my way through the journal. I was looking at the issue for January, 1962. I noticed an article headed, "N.S.W. Members in New Ministry", surveying the aftermath of the last federal election. The writer noted rather mournfully that fifteen Government supporters had been defeated at the election, and he was also disappointed to have to relate that three Ministers had been defeated. He went on then to refer to the re-allocation of portfolios. Then I came upon a paragraph which was in very heavy type, to give it extra emphasis. I can say that I never expected to read such a blatant statement of expectation from an electoral redistribution as I read in that paragraph of that article. I will read what the last paragraph on page 7 of the January, 1962, issue of the " Australian Liberal " had to say. It is only a short paragraph, but I think it carries a pretty heavy punch. It reads - >It is believed certain that, following the. expected redistribution, which may reduce by one the number of electorates in the inner Sydney suburbs, the Party will regain its N.S.W. strength and possibly increase it. In other words, this journal is making a prediction at this stage that the Liberal Party, as a result of the redistribution, will regain the five seats.it lost in New South Wales and might increase its strength. There are no two ways about that. I do not think anybody could interpret the statement, in that paragraph in any . other way. The article predicts that this could happen, even allowing for the fact that New South Wales is expected to lose one seat in the redistribution. This is a matter of considerable disquiet to me. I should like to think that there were other possible interpretations of the statement made in the article. I find it most disquieting to think that a government, however desperate its plight may be, is prepared to hope that somehow the will of the people can be circumvented by a redrawing of Commonwealth electoral boundaries. I am certain that the Australian people will be carefully watching what happens in that electoral, redistribution. I am reminded of what happened last Saturday in South Australia, where the Labour Party, polling over 56 per cent, of the total vote, is still not able to convincingly claim the Government, benches in the South Australian State Parliament. I am simply mentioning that, and I am saying that the people of Australia will be very watchful at the time of the electoral redistribution, in the face of such a statement from such an authoritative journal as " The Australian Liberal ", which, I repeat, is a Liberal Party organ in New South Wales. Its prediction that, as the result of the electoral redistribution, with' its redrawing of boundaries, the Liberal Party will regain the five seats it lost in New South Wales and may even increase its strength beyond that is a pretty blatant sort' of statement to make. I will not delay. the House on that matter, because there is another matter to which I wish to refer - not concerning the next election, but concerning the election just: past. I am very happy indeed that one of my constituents is the third person elected in the New. South Wales Labour Senate team. I am referring to Senator-elect Doug. McClelland. Senator-elect McClelland was a member of the Commonwealth Public Service before 9th December. The position that has arisen is a constitutional matter. I am not blaming anybody for it, although it is an invidious position. Senator-elect McClelland had to resign from his position in the Commonwealth Public Service, I suppose six or seven weeks before election, day, in order to be eligible to stand for election to the Parliament. He is a man with a young family, and he was on a very good salary. He voluntarily relinquished his job in order to take the opportunity of election to the Senate. That is all right, but it seems to me pretty hard that a man who is not going to be on the pay-roll of this Commonwealth Parliament until 1st- July is left without a regular job. Senatorelect McClelland had a good job as a court reporter, and one has to be an extra capable man to hold down that kind of job. Now be is in the position of having to hawk hisservices round the community in order to obtain temporary employment to carry him and his family over this period - amounting to the best part of eight months. Senator-elect McClelland has no authority or function so far as the running of the Federal Parliament is concerned, but I cannot really see why, if he were allowed *to* return to his job until he does, in fact, take his place in this Parliament and goes on the Commonwealth pay-roll, his position would be placed in jeopardy. Despite pleas and inquiries, including an inquiry put to him by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Whitlam),** the Prime Minister was not prepared to give an authoritative statement' on Senator-elect McClelland's position. In fact, he wrote to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition on 7th November concerning this matter. In this letter, the Prime Minister stated in part - >In your letter you advised me that the SolicitorGeneral had written to the Chief Reporter about the matter, and that **Sir Kenneth** Bailey had said that it would not be within his province to furnish **Mr. McClelland** with advice on the question whether McClelland's reappointment by the Public Service in the period between his election and the commencement of his term of office as a **Senator, if** he were successful at the election, would, by virtue of Sections 44 and 45 of the Constitution, cause his place as a **Senator to** become vacant. This was before the election. The final paragraph of the letter is relevant and it states - >As this is a question which remains to be answered, the Public Service Board does not wish at this stage to attempt to formulate a precise policy on the re-employment in the Public Service of a Senator-elect. Whilst the Board would be willing to examine the circumstances of any case as and when it arises from a specific application by a Senator-elect for employment, you should know that it doubts- That is the Prime Minister taking a policy point - the desirability of a Senator-elect being employed in the Public Service. I am suggesting that this is a big disability to place on public servants who aspire to become members of this Parliament. The fact is that they have to face up to being in the unhappy position of losing their jobs for something like eight months before going on the pay-roll of the Parliament. This disability is placed on a great group of persons who, as everybody knows, give outstanding service to the community. I cannot understand why a senator-elect, without any authority and with no function in this Parliament, should not be allowed to continue in his employment until a time approximating the day when he actually takes his place in the Parliament, begins his parliamentary duties, and receives his parliamentary salary. The matter requires examination. {: #debate-48-s1 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order! The honorable member's time has expired. {: #debate-48-s2 .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr DALY:
Grayndler .- The matter I wish to raise concerns the Minister for the Army **(Mr. Cramer).** It has been raised in this Parliament before by the honorable member for Wills **(Mr. Bryant)** and others, but I think a stage has been reached where possibly a royal commission into the expenditure and administration of the Minister for the Army and his department would be justified. Since 1949, we have spent £2,000,000,000 on defence, and the experts say that we are more defenceless now than we were in 1939 when war broke out and a government of similar political colour to the present one was in office. I would say that the Ministers occupying the relevant portfolios in the Government ought to be known as The Misfits. We have an economist as Minister for Air, a distinguished former officer of the Royal Australian Air Force as Minister for the Navy and an estate agent as Minister for the Army. When we look at the administration of the Army, we realize that the Minister is completely out of touch with modern requirements, does not know what is needed and is wastefully spending countless millions of pounds of Australia's money on material that is not justified and is practically useless. Some time ago, an article appeared in a newspaper concerning the Centurion tanks. This is the first opportunity I have had to . raise this matter since the article appeared, but it has been mentioned in debate in this Parliament, and the Minister has refused to answer charges that he squandered £9,000,000 of the people's money on these tanks. The Sydney "Sun" not long ago published this article with a nice, smiling photograph of the Minister for the Army. Apparently the photograph was taken before the election because the Minister has not smiled that way since. The heading in the newspaper stated - {:#subdebate-48-0} #### What Was The Government {:#subdebate-48-1} #### Thinking About . . Tanks that can't Move. I shall read the article because it explains in full the position regarding these tanks and makes charges that the Minister must answer. The article states - >Australia's front-line armour - more than 100 Centurion tanks costing £9 million - has never been north of Puckapunyal in Victoria. > >The giant50-ton machines have been at Puckapunyal for more than five years because they can't be shifted without great trouble, expense and time. > >They cannot be' shifted over any distance because railways in New South Wales and Queensland cannot carry them and road bridges are not wide or strong enough. > >When Army exercises were held at Mackay, in North Queensland, several years ago, the tanks were not there. 1 suppose the potential enemies did not notify the Minister that they might be around- > >This annoyed North Queenslanders. > >As a result, the Minister for the Army, **Mr. Cramer,** announced that the Federal Government would buy four tank landing ships from Japan. > >The ships were United States disposals, and were in " mothballs " in Japan. > >They arrived in Australia more than two years ago. > >But Defence experts say their holds have never held a Centurion tank. > >One of the ships is carrying supplies in New Guinea. > >The Centurion tank issue has aroused a mixture of anger and amusement in North Queensland. > >If the tanks were needed up north in a hurry, the Army could possibly transport sixteen of them within a fortnight. > >Each ship is capable of carrying four of the armoured "white elephants". > >A Defence expert said to-day that tanks would first have to be sent to Melbourne by rail and the Victorian railways with its bigger gauge could handle them, but New South Wales could not. > >The building of the new standard-gauge railway between Melbourne and Albury will not affect this, as the old, wide-gauge railway will still be operating for intra-state transport. > >The four ships, if they were in Melbourne, could take four tanks each and get them to North Queensland after a voyage of more than a week. > >The ships would then have to return to transport the remainder of the tanks - sixteen at a time. Then there is a photograph of a Centurion tank too bulky to move. This is a monument to the maladministration of the Minister for the Army in respect of equipment which should be mobile. Does this mean that any enemies would have to notify us when they would land? If they wanted to fight even outside Melbourne, the Minister's tanks could not be there. In addition, I understand from the experts that these tanks have a range of 30 miles. Work out how long it would take them to move even from Puckapunyal to the border of Victoria. I understand that they use four gallons of fuel to the mile and hold 120 gallons. This indicates that the tanks are completely obsolete for warfare in Australia. It would be probably impossible to shift them for the defence of northern Australia or anywhere north of Puckapunyal. The fact that they have to be transported by ships sixteen at a time spread over weeks shows the complete incompetence of this Government concerning defence. These are reasons why there should be a royal commission into the squandering of £2,000,000,000 of Australian money. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Whitlam)** in his most intelligent way, for which I am grateful, has informed me that this is the Melbourne line. We had the Brisbane line in the Second World War when the government of the day was prepared to give away the northern part of Australia so long as it was north of the Brisbane line. Now we find that these tanks are immovable. It is said that only two bridges in Australia will carry them - the Sydney Harbour Bridge and the Story Bridge in Queensland. The Minister has refused to give an explanation for the expenditure of £9,000,000 on this equipment. These matters were raised in the Budget debate and no doubt they were raised during the election campaign when the Minister for the Army, for all his brillance and organizing capacity, succeeded in having his majority reduced from 7,000 to 700. That, in itself, is an indication that not only the sales tax on motor vehicles was important in that campaign. Incompetence of this sort in defence, aided, sponsored and abetted by the Government, is also something for which the Minister and the defence authorities of the Government must answer. I should like the Minister for the Army to give us an explanation. This is important. I should like to know how much of the £2,000,000,000 has been squandered on similar types of equipment. In a splendid speech some time ago, the honorable member for Fremantle **(Mr. Beazley)** showed up the shortcomings of the Royal Australian Navy in respect of equipment it was buying, including submarines and things of that nature. The Royal Australian Air Force, of course, speaks for itself. I suppose it is almost as defenceless as it was in 1939. During the recent election campaign, the Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Calwell)** referred to the type of equipment that was available for the Navy, the Army and the R.A.A.F. for the northern parts of Australia. One reason why we have so many new members from that part of Australia is that not only were the statements of the Leader of the Opposition correct, but the people believed them. It is useless for the Minister to bluster about these matters. It is no use saying that everything is all right and the tanks are efficient. Have they been used in the past five years outside the parade ground where they are? Is it correct that they can be transported only in ships? Is it a fact that our rolling-stock will not carry them and that they cannot pass over our bridges? Is it a fact that we have £9,000,000 worth of equipment which could not defend Melbourne in a crisis unless we were given a couple of weeks' notice? These are matters that require an explanation, and I hope the Minister will give one. I do not want to elaborate further on his administration but I have an answer to a question that I asked a few months ago which shows that the Australian Army has more officers than men. That in itself shows that the Minister's handling of matters associated with Centurion tanks and equipment generally and the general administration of the Department of the Army should be kept under strict surveillance. The needs of our time demand that there should be a full investigation and a complete explanation by the Minister of why this money has been squandered. I make those submissions to the Government. I have not much confidence that I will receive a satisfactory answer because evidently the only reply that honorable members opposite appreciate is the one that they themselves receive from the ballotbox. The honorable member for Franklin **(Mr. Falkinder)** who is interjecting is one Of those outspoken critics who says a good deal against the Government. But he has a peculiar arrangement. He may say what he likes provided that he votes with the Government. He was a notable airman and I would like to see him give some practical indication of the substance of his remarks in the House about the shortcomings of the Minister for the Army and other Ministers handling portfolios associated with our defence forces. If he were truthful he would vote with the Opposition when the opportunity arises from time to time. This is a first-class opportunity for a couple of those rebels opposite who state their views in the party room and who speak in the House of their liberal principles and their right to vote as they wish, to throw the Govern ment out as it should be thrown out. But they will remain silent. Possibly even the honorable member for Chisholm **(Sir Wilfrid Kent Hughes)** will support the Minister for the Army on this occasion. He is one of the rebellious back-benchers. I should like to hear from the other so-called defence experts who, when the Government had a majority of 32 in this House, had plenty to say but who to-day are significantly silent because they know that the Government's majority has been chopped to ribbons because of the incompetence that I have mentioned. I make those few brief submissions to the Minister. It is nice to see him happy again now that he is out of the Lane Cove area. He was so disappointed with the number of votes he received at the election that for the first time since he has been Minister for the Army he did not attend the passing-out paradeat Duntroon last December. That is the first passing-out parade he has missed probably because he thought he would be passing out himself about the same time. Let the vocal back-benchers opposite who are interjecting contrary to Standing Orders stand up and say their piece. If they really believe that the Minister has a case, let them get up and support his attitude on this matter. {: #subdebate-48-1-s0 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order! The honorable member's time has expired. {: #subdebate-48-1-s1 .speaker-K7J} ##### Mr CRAMER:
Minister for the Army · Bennelong · LP .- It really is hardly worthwhile replying to the honorable member for Grayndler **(Mr. Daly).** I do so only in the interests of other honorable members who may be deceived by some of the extraordinarily foolish utterances that he has made and so that the House may be aware of some of the facts relating to the Centurion tanks. I disdain to reply to the honorable member's stupid carping criticism because it is in line with his usual style. He is very amusing. He is a very good friend of mine. At one time he represented a section of the electorate which I represent now. I know that he has a very personal interest in' me and that he watches very carefully what I do. But let me tell the House something about these Centurion tanks. They were purchased before I became Minister for the Army, and they are the best tanks of their kind in the world. Nothing better than the Centurion tank is manufactured anywhere. They serve a very useful purpose. They performed admirably and did a magnificent job during the Korean war. The honorable member for Grayndler may not know that. The Centurion tank is a big vehicle weighing 50 tons! It is not the type of vehicle that you transport to various areas for minor exercises and things of that character. They are located at Puckapunyal where they are used in exercises. The Armoured Corps is stationed there at present. If the circumstances warranted the use of the tanks they would be of great value to this country. Despite what the honorable member has said, the tanks can be transported by road, rail and sea. If the honorable member would like to accept my invitation he can come with me to-morrow to the Royal Military College, Duntroon, to see one of the Centurion tanks which was brought from Puckapunyal to Canberra two weeks ago. With regard to their transport by road, the Army has a considerable number of specially constructed transport vehicles which can take the Centurion tanks to any part of Australia. {: .speaker-JSU} ##### Mr Bryant: -- Except that the bridges will not carry them. {: .speaker-K7J} ##### Mr CRAMER: -- Most bridges will carry them although there may be bridges in certain parts of Australia which cannot do so. Already the tanks have been taken to different parts of Australia. They can be transported by rail, particularly since the standardization of the gauge between Victoria and New South Wales. {: .speaker-KUX} ##### Mr Stewart: -- But that happened only one month ago. {: .speaker-K7J} ##### Mr CRAMER: -- That is right. They can be transported by rail quite simply. Mechanical repairs on the Centurion tanks are carried out at Bandiana, near Albury, not at Puckapunyal. Therefore, the tanks are taken frequently from Puckapunyal to Bandiana. They can be transported by sea. The honorable member referred to the ships used for this purpose. We have purchased four LSM's. These vessels of 1 ,000 tons displacement can each transport five Centurion tanks so that, if necessary, we can transport twenty Centurions at any time to any part of Australia irrespective of whether landing facilities exist, because they can be landed on beaches. As I have said they can be transported over the roads. In fact, we hope to have at least two Centurions take part in our exercises very shortly at Singleton. But we do not usually take them great distances to exercises because their weight of 50 tons does not justify their movement. The Armoured Corps can obtain all the experience it needs at Puckapunyal. It is absurd, and indeed very damaging I think, to have this carping criticism about a very important part of the armament of our defence forces. I do not see that anything is gained by members of the Opposition trying to criticize a piece of armament which will, be of great value should the occasion arise to use it. I hope these tanks will never have to be used, even though they have cost the amount which the honorable member mentioned. It is completely false to say that they cannot be transported. They can be transported by road, by rail and by sea. There is no substance whatever in the honorable member's statement. {: .speaker-JSU} ##### Mr Bryant: -- What about transporting them by air? {: .speaker-K7J} ##### Mr CRAMER: -- They weigh 50 tons and they cannot be transported very well by air. Let the Opposition joke about this matter. This is in line with much of the criticism which emanates from the Opposition. {: .speaker-JF7} ##### Mr Beazley: -- What is their range? {: .speaker-K7J} ##### Mr CRAMER: -- I cannot tell you that precisely. Not only can they be taken on the transport vehicles which have been designed especially to take them, but they can move on the road themselves. However, the vehicles which transport them would be faster than the tanks. {: .speaker-JF7} ##### Mr Beazley: -- What is their own range in action? {: .speaker-K7J} ##### Mr CRAMER: -- Their own range is comparatively short but they can be transported by several vehicles that we have At least six big transport vehicles are available to move these tanks to any put of Australia. To raise a question of this kind is foolish and does not do justice to the honorable member for Grayndler. It the honorable member wanted to know something about Centurion tanks he had only to walk around to my office and discuss the matter with me. But, of course, this is not a genuine complaint. It is one of those facetious complaints by means of which the honorable member tries to get some publicity. It is really quite absurd, and it is certainly not in the best interests of Australia. {: #subdebate-48-1-s2 .speaker-K5L} ##### Mr COPE:
Watson .- The Minister for the Army **(Mr. Cramer)** obviously declined to answer the question as to what mileage these tanks get to the gallon, or what is the gallonage to the mile. If we are going to transport these tanks by sea, then, as the honorable member for Grayndler **(Mr. Daly)** has suggested, we will have to ask an attacking force to' give us a couple of weeks' notice, so that we will know that they will not have their submarines and their bombing aircraft attacking the vessels that transport the tanks. The matter I particularly wish to refer to this evening concerns the many films of crime and violence being shown on television programmes throughout this country. On 20th February last I asked the PostmasterGeneral **(Mr. Davidson)** whether he would be prepared to set up a committee of inquiry, similar to the one that has been appointed in the United States of America, to inquire into the harmful effects on viewers of the crime and violence films displayed on television. The programme that is receiving most attention by the committee in the United States of America is " The Untouchables". No doubt many members of this Parliament have seen these films and keep on seeing them, and I think they would agree with me that too much crime and violence are displayed in films of this nature. In them we see murders, we see garrottings, we see dope peddlars selling dope to young children. This is all supposed to be of interest to Australian viewers. The particular series I mentioned, "The Untouchables ", depicts notable gangsters of the 1920's, such as Al Capone, Dutch Schulz, Legs Diamond and the various members of Murder Incorporated. It depicts just about every one but the members of the Country Party. I believe, **Mr. Speaker,** that we should set up a committee of inquiry such as I have suggested, because there is no .doubt that these programmes can have a harmful effect on a small percentage of the youth of to-day. We all know the great propaganda value of any kind of film, and the influence that films have on the lives of young people. If a new kind of hairstyle for women - or even for men - is shown in a film, within a couple of weeks the youth of Australia is adopting the new style. When some one appears in a film wearing a suit in a new' fashion, we find that shortly afterwards our young people are all wearing similar suits. These films of crime and violence have a powerful influence on sections of our young people. They see crimes committed in these films and they say to themselves, " Those fellows got caught, but I can get away with it". If it is good enough for the authorities in the United States of America to set up an inquiry, it is good enough for us to commence one here, so that we may reduce the harmful effect of these films on our young Australians. I should also like to refer to other films that are shown on television programmes, in which we see people who were film stars fifteen or twenty years ago. Their films are still being displayed, even though many of the stars have long been dead - deader even than the Country Party. Some of these films have been displayed several times. Then I come to the COW.boysandindians kind of films. Several of them are shown every night in the week. I get so sick of watching the cowboys win that I now barrack for the indians. These are the things that we see on our television programmes. We see shootings, crimes and violence, and this is all supposed to be of interest to the young people of Australia. I know that there are some very good imported films of light comedy and of mystery, and there are also some very good Australian productions. I know one member of this Parliament in another place who is a leading actor, and I think he takes quite a good part, even though he belongs to the opposition party. He plays the part of a judge in one series. In my opinion, **Mr. Speaker,** the commercial television stations of Australia, are not doing the job of giving the people good entertainment. Neither are they giving Australians the opportunity to appear on television programmes so that they can become used to the medium. If they did so, there might be a possibility of our seeing more Australian performers in the future. On one programme, Revue 62, I have seen deadbeats from America whom nobody likes to see or to hear. Yet we have good talent in Australia, performers who could run rings around these people if they were given a go. Finally, **Mr. Speaker,** I have another complaint to make about commercial television stations. They broadcast too many advertisements. In so doing they spoil the entertainment value of their programmes. One night recently I saw four advertisements one after the other. The first was about pink Camay, how it makes you so beautiful. I switched over to another station and all I heard was " Heavenly soft, Sorbent, Sorbent, Sorbent". This is the kind of thing that is going on all night. I believe there are too many commercial television stations that clutter up their programmes with these advertisements. In conclusion I appeal to the Government to set up a committee to inquire into the harmful effects on our youth of the films of crime and violence that are now seen on programmes broadcast by commercial television stations. {: #subdebate-48-1-s3 .speaker-RK4} ##### Mr HAYDEN:
Oxley .- The matter I wish to raise concerns a constituent of mine in the Oxley electorate. He has specifically asked me to put this matter before the Parliament, and be nas no objection to my mentioning his name. He is a **Mr. Linning,** a bus proprietor in the provincial town of Gatton, which has a population of about 8,000 people. It is appropriate that this matter be brought up to-night because we have been occupied with a debate on the matter of sales tax on motor vehicles. This particular matter of complaint, however, goes back to early last year. **Mr. Linning** has conducted a considerable volume of correspondence with the Government, and particularly with the Treasurer **(Mr. Harold Holt),** who I wish was here to-night to give this matter serious consideration. The Treasurer has said that his decision, which involved a rejection of **Mr. Linning's** claim, cannot be varied. I believe that the Treasurer could bring a little human compassion to his consideration of this problem. If he did so, instead of adopting the cold, aloof attitude usually displayed by the Government towards Australian citizens, he would be doing the Government and the people a considerable service. As I have said, **Mr. Linning** operates a bus service in Gatton. Through his enterprise and industry he has provided a very welcome convenience and service for the public of Gatton and the surrounding rural areas. Before the establishment of the service no such facility existed for the convenience of the public in the district. The greatest benefit is to the children, particularly in the rural areas, who have to attend school. Most of the bus services are timed for the convenience of school children, and they are subsidized by the Education Department. **Mr. Linning** is a man who deserves the encouragement of the Government. He was a wage-earner, a fitter and turner in the railway workshops at Ipswich, before he set up in business. He established his bus run with an old bus, and the business eventually expanded so that he could afford a new vehicle. He placed an order with United Kingdom Motors Proprietary Limited of Brisbane in the early part of 1961 for a 5-ton Austin truck fitted with a bus body capable of carrying 39 passengers. The price was £4,545. The delivery date set was 20th August, 1961. He could not have put the vehicle in service before that date and it would have been no use to him before then. The bus arrived in Brisbane several days before the specified delivery date and it was stored in one of the pavilions at the Royal National Association ground. With the approach of Brisbane's annual exhibition, U.K. Motors Proprietary Limited found it necessary to remove the vehicle from the storage shed, because the shed was needed for display purposes for the show. So the company was pressing in its entreaties to **Mr. Linning** to accept delivery of the bus, although he endeavoured to hold off. As I pointed out, the bus would not have been of advantage to him until well after 20th August, and delivery was not required before that date. **Mr. Linning** succumbed to the entreaties of - I would not say that he was forced by the company to accept delivery early - and. accepted delivery of the bus on1 4th August. What happened? A little over 24 hours later, the 162/3 per cent. sales tax on buses was abolished by the Government. As a consequence, this man stands to lose - in fact, he has lost - £582 7s. 3d. That is the amount of the sales tax that he paid. He would not have had to pay it if he had taken delivery of the bus on the day on which he wished to take delivery. There are peculiar circumstances in this case, **Sir. It** is an exceptional case with extenuating circumstances. **Mr. Linning,** although he signed for delivery of the bus on 14th August, did not sign up under the hire-purchase agreement until 20th August. On a technical point, and due to circumstances more or less beyond his control, he has been forced to pay a heavy penalty. This man is prepared to make a contribution to the community. He wishes to buy more new buses. Slowly, through his arduous and very praiseworthy efforts, he is building up his company. He deserves all possible encouragement, particularly from a government which claims to promote private enterprise. **Mr. Linning** deserves encouragement, and what better way would there be for the Government to extend encouragement to private enterprise than by giving him *a* rebate of the sales tax which he has paid? I repeat, **Sir, that** the circumstances in this case are exceptional. This is a case truly deserving of sympathetic and favorable treatment by the Government. In conclusion, I suggest that if the Government were to unbend in this matter and get down from the lofty perch on which it has set itself, if it were to feel the true pulse of the people and take heed of the little problems which make up the daily life of the average person, it could claim greater support from the people of Australia. Until it is prepared to do this, it cannot expect such support. I entreat the Treasurer to reconsider his attitude in this case. I am certain that if he were to present to the House an amendment to the sales tax legislation for the purpose of giving **Mr. Linning** a rebate of sales tax, no impediment would be placed in his way, in view of the extenuating circumstances. If the right honorable gentleman were to do this, he would make a great contribution to the development of a rapidly expanding rural area. {: #subdebate-48-1-s4 .speaker-JSU} ##### Mr BRYANT:
Wills **.- Mr. Speaker,** the honorable member for Oxley **(Mr. Hayden),** of course, is appealing for. help where no help is likely to be given. He will know, when he has been here a little longer, that Ministers have little say in the government of this country. I have risen, **Sir, in** order to assist the Minister for the Army **(Mr. Cramer)** in his appreciation of the situation of Australia's armed forces, and to support my friend, the honorable member for Grayndler **(Mr. Daly),** who was accurate in his appreciation of the situation respecting the Army's tanks. The Minister may talk as loudly and as long as he likes. I ask honorable members simply to consider a few of the facts of the matter. The Centurion tanks, as the Minister pointed out, were not purchased by him. But he has to accept the Warne, just as the people of Australia will have to accept the results of the faulty defence appreciations of this Government over the last twelve years. The Centurion tank, as the Minister pointed out, weighs 50 tons. Within a few miles of the Puckapunyal Army camp is a rather massive road bridge over the Goulburn River. At least, it is a lengthy one. I am informed by the engineers in charge of the roads there that the bridge will not carry a Centurion tank. If it will not carry a tank, it is even more unlikely to carry one of the transporters of which the Army is very proud when the transporter is bearing a Centurion tank. This situation, **Mr. Speaker,** is a clear demonstration of the ineffectiveness of this Government's planning. {: .speaker-K7J} ##### Mr Cramer: -- How did we get a Centurion tank to Canberra, then? {: .speaker-JSU} ##### Mr BRYANT: -- The ordinary procedure is to take these tanks to the Dysart siding, load them on rail trucks and take them across the Goulburn River to their destination by rail. That has been the procedure for years. On occasions, the Army may have fluked getting one of these tanks across the bridge by road; but I am sure that the authority of the Victorian Country Roads Board would not be obtained for this. If the situation with respect to the Goulburn River is as I have described it, the situation with respect to other rivers in Australia will be the same. I do not raise this matter in any lighthearted way. It is simply a tragedy that, within a few miles of the head-quarters of the Armoured Corps, as the Minister calls it, there is a bridge the replacement of which any government with a proper defence appreciation would have attended to long ago. The Centurion tanks, then, provide another demonstration of the Government's inadequacy and of its failure to appreciate Australia's defence needs. These 50-ton tanks are magnificent fighting vehicles as the Minister has said, but they are completely useless to us. Let us just ask this question: How many ships on the Australian coast can carry vehicles of this sort? 1 understand that before we obtained the new tank landing ships, or LST's, as they are called, there were three of the River class ships which could carry these tanks. The LSTs, as the Minister has pointed out, can carry four or five of these tanks at a speed of ten or twelve knots. So a journey to Perth would take ten or twelve days and the return trip ten or twelve days. Any honorable member who is capable of doing simple arithmetic can work out for himself that we would probably take three or four weeks to get a dozen Centurion tanks to Perth. That is another question to be considered. Then let us consider the ports of Australia. How many of Australia's ports could handle the loading and unloading of 50-ton tanks? Most honorable members have considerable experience of the geography of this country. They will know that there are probably not more than three or four ports in this country that could handle these tanks. At how many railway stations could they be effectively loaded and unloaded? One of the difficulties with the Centurion tanks is that they have to be driven over the ends of railway trucks for loading and unloading. I simply put to the House these points which I have mentioned. The Minister may talk himself into believing that these tanks are adequate for Australia's defence. He may put on a show here, but let no one else talk himself into relying on these tanks for Australia's defence. Another question raised here was: What is the range of these tanks? As I recall, the Centurion tank has a fuel capacity of 120 gallons. In ordinary operations, across open country, one might travel 30 miles on a tankful of fuel. So they use about 4 gallons of fuel to the mile. On one occasion when I was working with some of these vehicles, one or two of them consumed 14 gallons of fuel in travelling 1 mile. That is the equivalent of a consumption of 70 gallons in 5 miles of operation in an ordinary exercise. This high rate of consumption puts these tanks out of court all together as realistic military vehicles for the Australian forces. The ' Minister for the Army only fools himself, the House and the country if he thinks that these tanks are in any way adequate or can properly contribute to Australia's defence. As the honorable member for Grayndler said, we shall need three weeks* notice to give us time to get them anywhere where they are needed. Indeed, I suggest that we shall need at least three months' notice. As far as I can determine, an enemy would have to travel down the Hume Highway and cross the Goulburn River before the Armoured Corps could engage him. {: #subdebate-48-1-s5 .speaker-KFH} ##### Mr FORBES:
Barker .- I rise to speak briefly because I feel, as I am sure most honorable members of this side of the House do, complete disgust that the honorable member for Grayndler **(Mr. Daly)** should indulge in his usual clowning and buffoonery on the subject of defence. AH he does in such circumstances is to empty the House. His performances have no real effect. But he has brought exactly the same technique to bear on a vital aspect of our defence policy and revealed out of his own mouth, by his clowning and buffoonery, that he has not even bothered to check his facts. He did not even think the matter was important enough to raise it with the honorable member for Wills **(Mr. Bryant)** who at least knows something about the technical operation of tanks. However, even that honorable member's knowledge of their deployment and where they fit into the overall defence structure is appalling. If the honorable member for Grayndler was serious in the criticism that he was making and was not just trying to hold our defence effort up to mockery, he could have spoken to the honorable member for Wills, if he did not want .to go to the Minister for the Army **(Mr. Cramer)** or some responsible officer. He did not do anything like that. He stood up and, as I have said, indulged in his usual clowning and buffoonery on this vital subject. The Minister for the Army has given a complete answer to what the honorable member for Grayndler and the honorable member for Wills have said. They have fallen into the same trap as that into which every honorable member on that side of the House has fallen when speaking on defence matters Their conception of the defence of Australia does not extend beyond the shores of this country. Presumably, the honorable member for Wills wants us to have Centurion tanks stationed at 10-yard intervals around the Australian coastline. Apparently, that is the only way to solve the problem that he raised. We live in a continent. Wherever we stationed our tanks, or whatever type of tanks they were and however mobile they were, they still would take a long while to get to any particular part of the continent. As I have said, the Opposition's conception of defence does not extend beyond the Australian coastline. Members of the Opposition appear to want to fight a war on Australian soil. The criticism that was made by the honorable member for Wills in this debate can have no other meaning. I repeat what the Minister for the Army said - that the normal transport services of this country are perfectly capable of transporting Centurion tanks to any part of this continent. They can do it in the same time and with the same despatch as the transport services in any other country. The honorable member for Wills knows perfectly well - although, of course, he did not mention it - that in the type of warfare in which tanks are engaged, they are not restricted to the use of existing bridges; the Army puts down its own bridges, if necessary, in order to overcome obstacles. The honorable member knows that perfectly well, because that was a part of his training. His own dishonesty- {: .speaker-JSU} ##### Mr Bryant: -- **Mr. Speaker,** the honorable member for Barker is accusing me of dishonesty. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order! The honorable member will resume his seat. When the honorable member for Barker has finished his speech, if the honorable member for Wills wants to make a personal explanation he may do so then. {: .speaker-JSU} ##### Mr Bryant: -- Can I not take a point of order now? I want the honorable member to withdraw that statement. He cannot accuse me of dishonesty. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order! The honorable member for Wills and the honorable member for Barker will resume their seats. 1 did not hear the phrase used by the honorable member for Barker and the chief reason for that is the behaviour of honorable members .pf the Opposition. I do not know what the honorable member said. {: .speaker-KFH} ##### Mr FORBES: -- The honorable member for Wills knows that what I have said is true, because of the training that he had as an officer of Her Majesty's forces in this country. When he made his speech to-night in support of the buffoonery of the honorable member for Grayndler, he did not mention the relevant facts about an assessment of the capacity of the Centurion tank. If the honorable member takes objection to the word that I used previously, I will not use it again. However, because of his training he knows perfectly well that he did not present to the House a correct picture of the capacity of the Centurion tank in its particularly setting and context. Although, when he rose to speak he said that, unlike the honorable member for Grayndler, he would not deal with this matter lightheartedly, in my view, **Sir, he** certainly skated over the truth of this matter. {: #subdebate-48-1-s6 .speaker-KGX} ##### Mr HAYLEN:
Parkes .- I want to deal for a moment and just lightly with the problems of the Minister for the Army **(Mr. Cramer)** in relation to tanks and the things that have been said about them. The best comment I can make on the remarks he made some time ago and those he has made to-night about his administration of the Army is to say that I saw in the " Sydney Morning Herald " a picture of the Minister with a tin helmet on his head and an automatic rifle in his hand, and if ever I saw Annie Oakley in person, I saw her at that moment. That gives me the lead in to talk about something in which I am sincerely interested and to thank the honorable member for Watson **(Mr. Cope)** for his comments on Australian television programmes. For some time I have had on the notice-paper a question asking for an answer from " Old Postie ", the Postmaster-General **(Mr. Davidson),** who tootles from his corner to the table and never answers a question coherently. My question refers to television, which is a serious and urgent problem in Australia. In the television programmes presented by commercial stations there is nothing that has one degree of Australianism in it. The honorable member for Watson has said truly to-night that we are just being degraded in our entertainment. I want to know whether I will ever get an answer to the question that I have on the notice-paper, which is addressed to the Postmaster-General who is referred to affectionately in the House as " Old Postie ", and who seems to have devoted his life to giving postmen asbestos trousers so that dogs will not be able to bite them but who will do nothing dramatic about the more technical aspects of his portfolio. The most serious aspect of this problem is that, while the' television companies are making enormous profits, we are being given shocking programmes. They are not only shocking; they are also unAustralian. We are having dumped upon us all the stuff that the Americans will not use. I remind the House that one of the Ministers in President Kennedy's Administration has drawn attention to the problem of programme standards and has instituted an inquiry. I think the honorable member for Barton **(Mr. Reynolds)** mentioned this some time ago. It is said that it is impossible for an ordinary man to sit in his armchair at night and to watch a full four hours of television without being disgusted and nauseated. That is a matter for the Yanks themselves to control. But we are getting this same poor stuff poured into our homes night after night. It is almost impossible to look at the programmes. What do the companies make out of these programmes? This is the point that the honorable member for Watson was not able to drive home because he did not have the time. In my question on notice, I asked - ls it a fact that TCN Channel 9, Sydney, and GTV Channel 9, Melbourne, have made a combined profit of £647,553 for the year? I asked further - >Is this profit equal to 44.7 per cent. on capital employed during the year and on which a 20 per cent. dividend has been declared? The two television stations I mentioned are owned by **Sir Frank** Packer's group and work in association. The legislation introduced by the Government provided that there was not to be a monopoly, and licences were issued on the understanding that stations would provide a certain percentage of Australian programmes. They do not provide Australian programmes but buy cheap and nasty material overseas. As a result, they are able to make enormous profits. Apart from programmes, for the sake of our families we must see that the standard of advertising is improved. One night I came home from a Labour League meeting and sat down to watch television. A gentleman with a persuasive voice said, "This is 37½ yards longer". After listening raptly, I found he was speaking about the difference between the length of one brand of toilet paper and another brand. What has that to do with the culture of the Australian people! {: .speaker-KYC} ##### Mr Pollard: -- Was it Sorbent? {: .speaker-KGX} ##### Mr HAYLEN: -- No, it was not Sorbent. It was called " Dawn " - you have to get up early to use it. That is the low level to which we have fallen. Television could be a miraculous medium if it were properly used, but it is now only a joke. I repeat that the programmes we see on television are shocking. Before a programme is shown we sometimes see a notice saying that it is not fit for children. But we know that the family is watching the programme and the notice is merely a joke. I made a suggestion in my question on notice, but the Minister has not answered me. My question included the following: - . . will he instruct the Australian Broad casting Control Board to require these programmes - Programmes similar to those mentioned by the honorable member for Watson - to be preceded by such notices as "This film is 21 years old, therefore it is an adult Western", "This film has been repeated three times on this programme. If you miss it this time, tune in again next week" or "This is not an Australian film and has provided no employment for outofwork Australian actors, actresses, scriptwriters, cameramen and technicians". If such notices did precede these programmes, we would show that we were awake and are not a race of rubes that can be sold this cheap-skate stuff. We speak about the unemployment problem in this country, but the Government does not seem to realize that many Australian actors, actresses, scriptwriters, cameramen, photographers, technicians and others who have wanted to get a job in the industry have been wiped out by the Government's stupidity in allowing many second, third, fourth and fifth-rate programmes to come into the country. What effect is this having on the children, who are the most avid watchers of television? It is extremely dangerous to allow these programmes to be shown to them. As the honorable member for Watson said, we cannot get a standard of Australian entertainment because the Government has proscribed the Australian programmes. Actors Equity has asked that more time be allotted to Australian programmes, and we have asked that a system be adopted which would allow only a small quota of overseas programmes to be shown on television. The British Government has laid down that 77 per cent, of the programmes shown on its television screens must be British. The United States of America excludes everything but its own nationally-produced programmes. But we, of course, being the rubes of the world, take, everything that is second, third, fourth or fifth rate. I say now that within the next month or so there will be a change of government. When this comes about, we will certainly press for a quota of Australian programmes to be shown on television. I thank the honorable member for Watson for raising this matter. Every one is nauseated by the programmes. It is just impossible to sit through them. The highly intelligent " Minister for unemployment ", if he ever has time off from worrying about the unemployed youths in the community, would not be able to sit through a night of the type of entertainment that is purveyed by any commercial elevision stations to-day. There is nothing in these programmes to promote Australianism and nothing to make the viewer feel good. Occasionally, a good film is shown, but in the main the films are cheap and nasty. They are purchased and shown merely to provide a high rate of profit for the television companies, which do not worry about the low-grade entertainment being offered to the Australian people. The reason I have endeavoured to bring this matter before the House so often is this: If the government of the day, whatever its political colour, issues a licence to a company to diffuse films and propaganda over television, it should ensure that the programmes have an Australian content. A government that does not do this commits a worse blunder than a government that purchases Centurion tanks which cannot get over the bridges. The present attitude of television companies amounts to a complete defeat of any propaganda approach that the Government may make to the people. It is encouraging a race of Yanks, a strange, composite race. {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: -- Zombies! {: .speaker-KGX} ##### Mr HAYLEN: -- Yes, zombies, as my deputy leader says. Our youths who watch television have no conception of what Australia stands for. Does the Government suggest that there are no good Australian plays, no good Australian actors, and no good Australian entertainment? If there are not, we have completely lost our way' in television. Under the present system, the entrepreneur has an opportunity to make lots of money and give us cheap and nasty entertainment. I remember that npt long ago six theatres in Sydney were playing comedies, drama, repertory and Shakespeare. They have all disappeared; but they have not been replaced by Australian television, though similar theatres in Britain and America have been replaced by television programmes produced in those countries. No good television programmes are shown in Australia. Take Channel 9 Sydney: Despite the fact that it has made profits of £647,000 in association with the Melbourne station - though this is against the spirit of the legislation- it has never yet shown an Australian drama. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order! The honorable member's time has expired. Question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 12.8 a.m. (Thursday). {: .page-start } page 597 {:#debate-49} ### ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS The following answers to questions were circulated: - Social Services. {: #debate-49-s0 .speaker-KZE} ##### Mr Roberton:
CP -- The answers to the honoiable members questions arc as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. Yes. 2. The cost of funerals has doubtless risen. 3. As is customary the Government will review the whole field of social services in connexion wilh the preparation of the Budget later this year. {:#subdebate-49-0} #### Medical Benefits {: #subdebate-49-0-s0 .speaker-RK4} ##### Mr Hayden: n asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. ls it a fact that a married couple in receipt of the age pension and entitled to medical benefits under the relevant act receive one medical entitlement card for their joint use? 1. As this system often causes undue inconvenience, particularly when each party desires to use the medical entitlement card at the same time at different places, will the Minister give consideration to the issue of a supplementary card, if necessary clearly marked as such, so that each party may utilize the benefits of medical entitlements without creating unnecessary inconvenience for the other? {: #subdebate-49-0-s1 .speaker-KVR} ##### Mr Swartz:
LP -- The Minister for Health has furnished the following reply: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. Generally a single entitlement card is issued to a pensioner to cover the needs of himself and his dependants under the Pensioner Medical Service. Experience has shown that this is the most satisfactory arrangement for most pensioners. 1. Where special circumstances exist which render it necessary for the pensioner's wife to have a separate entitlement card, a separate card is issued. {:#subdebate-49-1} #### Pensioner Medical Service {: #subdebate-49-1-s0 .speaker-JUF} ##### Mr Don Cameron:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · ALP n asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Why is each dependant of a pensioner who is entitled to free doctor services under the Pensioner Medical Service Scheme not issued with a medical entitlement card? 1. As many wives and children of pensioners who are entitled to this free doctor service are at times placed in a most embarrassing position and at times obliged to pay for medical service rendered because they cannot produce the card issued to the pensioner when required to do so for the reason that the pensioner may be carrying the card upon his person and be. absent from his residence when the doctor calls to treat one of the dependants, will the Minister cause to be issued to each dependant a card upon which that dependant may obtain the free doctor service to which he is entitled? {: #subdebate-49-1-s1 .speaker-KVR} ##### Mr Swartz:
LP -- The Minister for Health has furnished the following reply: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Generally a single entitlement card is issued to a pensioner to cover the needs of himself and his dependants under the Pensioner Medical Service. Experience has shown that this is the most satisfactory arrangement for most pensioners. 1. Where special circumstances exist which render it necessary for a pensioner's dependant to have a separate entitlement card, a separate card is issued. {: #subdebate-49-1-s2 .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr Daly: y asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What is the number of la) aged and (b) invalid pensioners receiving medical benefits at this date? 1. Mow many pensioners in each case are disqualified by the means test? {: #subdebate-49-1-s3 .speaker-KVR} ##### Mr Swartz:
LP -- The Minister for Health has furnished the following reply: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. At 31st December, 1961, there were 694,526 persons in receipt of age, invalid, widow or service pensions or tuberculosis allowances enrolled in the Pensioner Medical Service. 1. At this same date there were 91,379 persons in receipt of age, invalid, widow or service pensions who had not been issued with Pensioner Medical Service Entitlement Cards. Separate figures for age and invalid pensions ars not available. {:#subdebate-49-2} #### Taxation {: #subdebate-49-2-s0 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward:
EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES d asked the Treasurer, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What percentage of Commonwealth revenue in the years 1948-49 and 1949-50 was obtained by (a) direct and (b) indirect taxation? 1. What is the percentage in each instance for the latest period for which figures are available? {: #subdebate-49-2-s1 .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr Harold Holt:
LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The percentages of Commonwealth revenue in the years 1948-49 and 1949-50 represented by (a) direct and (b) indirect taxation, based on figures set out in the Commonwealth Budget, are as follows: - Direct taxation consisted of income tax, social services contribution, pay-roll tax, land tax, estate duty, entertainments tax, gift duty and gold tax. Indirect taxation comprised customs and excise duties and sales tax. The revenue of the Commonwealth is regarded as being the total receipts into the Consolidated Revenue Fund. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. The corresponding figures for 1960-61, the latest year for which figures of taxation collections and revenue are available, as published in the 1961-62 Budget, are as follows:- {: #subdebate-49-2-s2 .speaker-KXI} ##### Mr Webb: b asked the Treasurer, upon notice - >Will he consider an amendment of the Income Tax and Social Services Contribution Assessment Act to provide that verifiable fares or reasonable transport costs incurred by workers in travelling to and from their places of employment shall be allowable deductions for income tax purposes? {: #subdebate-49-2-s3 .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr Harold Holt:
LP -- The answer to the honorable member's question is as follows: - >I shall arrange for this proposal to be listed for consideration when the income tax legislation is under review during the preparation of the next Commonwealth Budget. {:#subdebate-49-3} #### Sirex Wasp {: #subdebate-49-3-s0 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: d asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Can he furnish any information as to the cause of the latest threat to the Australian softwood industry from the ravages of the Sirex wasp? 1. What steps have been taken or are contemplated by the Government to protect this important Australian industry? {: #subdebate-49-3-s1 .speaker-KVR} ##### Mr Swartz:
LP -- The Minister for Health has furnished the following reply: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The Sirex wood wasp has been established in Tasmania for some years. Some weeks ago the wasp was found on the mainland for the first time - in several localities in Victoria not far from Melbourne. The exact cause of the outbreak is not known. 1. Immediately the first incidence of Sirex in Victoria was reported a proclamation was issued under the Quarantine Act, placing under quarantine all coniferous plants in the counties where Sirex had been found, namely, Mornington, Evelyn and Bourke. Steps were taken to trace and destroy all infested trees. The Victorian Forestry Commission and the Commonwealth 'Plant Quarantine Service co-operated actively in this work. At the recent conference of Commonwealth and State Ministers held in Canberra, the Prime Minister indicated to the Premiers that the Commonwealth is prepared to contribute pound for pound with the State governments for the creation of a Sirex fund of £200,000, the Commonwealth to provide up to £100,000, for the eradication of Sirex. On Monday, 26th February, a conference was held between Commonwealth and State representatives to formulate measures for eradicating the disease. The conference appointed a committee of management, comprising three Commonwealth and four State representatives. The Committee of Management met on Tuesday, 27th February. A research sub-committee and a survey and eradication sub-committee were set up and authorized to undertake survey and eradication work and to initiate urgent research work pending the development of a complete programme. {:#subdebate-49-4} #### Defence Forces {: #subdebate-49-4-s0 .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr Daly: y asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice - >How many (a) officers and (b) men are in the (i) Army, (ii) Navy and (iii) Air Force? {: #subdebate-49-4-s1 .speaker-KWH} ##### Mr Townley:
LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - >The number of officers and other ranks in the three services, as at 31st January, 1962, was - {:#subdebate-49-5} #### Unemployment Statistics {: #subdebate-49-5-s0 .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr Daly: y asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How many (a) male and (b) female persons are registered for employment in (i) each Stale of the Commonwealth and (ii) Australia? 1. What are the (a) ages and (b) classifications of the persons registered in each case? {: #subdebate-49-5-s1 .speaker-009MA} ##### Mr McMahon:
LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The numbers of males and females registered for employment with the Commonwealth Employment Service in each State and in Australia, at 2nd February, 1962 (the latest date for which figures are available), were - {:#subdebate-49-6} #### These were persons who claimed when registering that they were not employed and who were recorded as unplaced at the date shown. The figures include those of persons - (i) who, since registering, had been referred to employers, but whose placement had not been confirmed at 2nd February; (ii) who, since registering, may have obtained employment without notifying the Commonwealth Employment Service; and (iii) receiving unemployment benefit. 2. (a) Statistics are not available, (b) Those registered for employment at 2nd February, 1962, were registered in the following broad occupational groups: - {: #subdebate-49-6-s0 .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr Daly: y asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How many (a) male and (b) female persons are registered as unemployed at the Commonwealth Employment Office at Newtown, Sydney? 1. What are the (a) ages and (b) occupations of those registered in each category? {: #subdebate-49-6-s1 .speaker-009MA} ##### Mr McMahon:
LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. At 2nd February, 1962 (the latest date for which figures *ate* available), 1,257 males and 619 females, who stated when registering that they were not employed, were registered for employment at the District Employment Office at Newtown. The figures include those of persons referred to employment but whose placement was not then confirmed, of persons who, since registering, may have secured employment without notifying the Commonwealth Employment Service and of persons receiving unemployment benefit. 2. (a) Statistics are not available, (b) Those registered at 2nd February, 1962, were registered for employment in the following broad occupational groups: - {: #subdebate-49-6-s2 .speaker-KXZ} ##### Mr Peters: s asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice - >What is the number of persons at present registered as unemployed at the Coburg and Collingwood Employment Offices, Victoria? {: #subdebate-49-6-s3 .speaker-009MA} ##### Mr McMahon:
LP -- The answer to the honorable member's question is as follows: - >At 2nd February, 1962 (the latest date for which figures are available), 1,966 persons, who stated when registering that they were not employed, were registered for employment at the District Employment Office at Coburg, and 2,238 persons were registered at the District Employment Office at .Collingwood. The figures include those of persons referred to employment but whose placement was not then confirmed, of persons who, since registering, may have secured employment without notifying the Commonwealth Employment Service and of persons receiving unemployment benefit. {:#subdebate-49-7} #### Employment and Unemployment {: #subdebate-49-7-s0 .speaker-K4Z} ##### Mr O'Brien: n asked the Prime Minister, upon notice - >Will he give a lead to private industry to reduce the high ratio of unemployment in Queensland by directing heads of departments to increase their starring, and, in particular, to absorb young school leavers who are alarmed and disappointed by the lack of opportunities offering at the present time? {: #subdebate-49-7-s1 .speaker-N76} ##### Mr Menzies:
LP -- The answer to the honorable member's question is as follows: - >The staffing of the Commonwealth Service is governed, as to its level and composition, by .the functions of Commonwealth departments and by the need to discharge those functions efficiently and economically. Staffing requirements are determined by the Commonwealth Public Service Board, and it is the policy of the board to maintain the staffing establishment by filling vacancies expeditiously. In doing so, the board endeavours, as far as it is possible, to recruit suitably qualified school leavers. Some 200 school leavers have been appointed to the Commonwealth Service in > >Queensland this year, and the- board expects that another 400 or so will be recruited to vacancies occurring during the year. On the matter of employment opportunities in Queensland, the Commonwealth has had special regard to the current incidence of unemployment in that State in determining the distribution between the States of the special non-repayable grant of £10,000,000 for expenditure on employment-giving activities in this financial year. Queensland received £3,340,000, or one-third of the total amount for all States. {:#subdebate-49-8} #### Oil {: #subdebate-49-8-s0 .speaker-K4Z} ##### Mr O'Brien: n asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development, upon notice - >In view of the national importance of the recent oil discovery at Moonie, can he assure the House of the Government's complete satisfaction with the further development of this field by Union-Kern?- {: #subdebate-49-8-s1 .speaker-JTP} ##### Mr Bury:
LP -- The Minister for National Development has supplied the following information: - >Union Oil Development Corporation and Kern County Land Company are carrying out an assessment and exploration programme in the Moonie area under the terms of an agreement with Australian Oil and Gas and upon land held under mining title by that company from the Queensland Government. The programme has been discussed with Departmental officers. The Government' is satisfied that it is carefully planned and is being carried out competently {:#subdebate-49-9} #### Petroleum Tankers {: #subdebate-49-9-s0 .speaker-K4Z} ##### Mr O'Brien: n asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Is it a fact that at least twelve petroleum tankers owned by overseas oil combines operate on the Australian coast? 1. If so, as a means of securing this trade and at the same time employing Australian shipyards and seamen and also reducing overseas payments for freight, is the Government considering the building of tankers for the Australian National Line? {: #subdebate-49-9-s1 .speaker-KMB} ##### Mr Opperman:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · CORIO, VICTORIA · LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Eleven overseas owned oil tankers at present hold continuing permits to engage in the coasting trade and a number of other tankers are granted single voyage permits from time to time. 1. The Government Is not at present considering the building of tankers for the Australian National Line. However, it is open to any company to build tankers in Australia for the coasting trade. In the event of such vessels being built, permits would not be issued for the use of overseas tankers where a tanker licensed under the Navigation Act is available. {:#subdebate-49-10} #### Government Loans {: #subdebate-49-10-s0 .speaker-1V4} ##### Mr Cairns: s asked the Treasurer, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What amounts and percentages of the Commonwealth Loan which closed on 22nd February were subscribed by - (a) the Commonwealth Trading and Savings Banks, (b) all other banks, (c) life assurance offices, (d) other insurance offices, (e) government provident and pension funds, (f) other pension and provident funds, (g) Commonwealth, State, local and semi-government bodies, (h) marketing boards and funds, (i) trustee offices, (j) companies, and (k) other holders? 1. Can he say why the banks, assurance and Insurance offices and other financial bodies preferred to invest in this loan instead of lending to private enterprise borrowers at higher rates of return? 2. Does the volume of investment by these bodies in this loan indicate that these lenders are unable to find private enterprise borrowers to take up their available funds? {: #subdebate-49-10-s1 .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr Harold Holt:
LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - 1., 2. and 3. As indicated in answers to questions on 11th March and 8th April, 1959, and on10th October, 1961, it has not been the policy of this Government, or of preceding governments, to release details of subscriptions to public loans unless publicity is specifically requested by the subscribers concerned. {:#subdebate-49-11} #### Tuna Fishing {: #subdebate-49-11-s0 .speaker-KF5} ##### Mr Gray:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND y asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice - >When is it proposed to make a decision on the request of the Gladstone Harbour Boardfor permission to establish at Gladstone a tuna fishing industry for export purposes? {: #subdebate-49-11-s1 .speaker-JLR} ##### Mr ADERMANN:
FISHER, QUEENSLAND · CP -- The answer to the honorable member's question is as follows: - >I am afraid there is no record of any such request having been received by me or my Department from the Gladstone Harbour Board. {:#subdebate-49-12} #### Telephone Services {: #subdebate-49-12-s0 .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr Daly: y asked the Postmaster-General, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How many telephone applications are outstanding in each of the following Sydney suburbs: - Newtown, Marrickville, Dulwich Hill, Lewisham, Summer Hill and Erskineville? 1. What is the (a) longest and (b) average waiting time in each case? {: #subdebate-49-12-s1 .speaker-KCA} ##### Mr Davidson:
CP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Newtown, 22; Dulwich Hill,14Summer Hill, 2; Marrickville, 19; Lewisham5; Erskineville, 10. 1. -- {: #subdebate-49-12-s2 .speaker-RK4} ##### Mr Hayden: n asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What was the proposed date under the original plans for the installation and operation of automatic equipment for subscribers to the Ipswich telephone exchange? 1. Has this date been changed to a much later date; if so, why? 2. When is it likely that the automatic equipment at this exchange will come into operation? 3. Will he give an undertaking that the installation of the equipment will proceed as a matter of urgency? {: #subdebate-49-12-s3 .speaker-KCA} ##### Mr Davidson:
CP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. A specific date for the installation of automatic telephone facilities at Ipswich has not been laid down at any stage. 1. No. 2. It is difficult to indicate precisely when automatic facilities will be provided, but on present indications, not before the latter part of 1964. 3. The conversion of Ipswich to automatic working will be undertaken as soon as practicable having regard to telephone subscriber development in the area. {: #subdebate-49-12-s4 .speaker-KXI} ##### Mr Webb: b asked the Postmaster-General, upon notice - >As age and invalid pensioners often need to make emergency telephone calls, will he consider either allowing pensioners a telephone rent free or charging them a reduced rate call fee? {: #subdebate-49-12-s5 .speaker-KCA} ##### Mr Davidson:
CP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - >The matter of concession telephone rates for age and invalid pensioners is one to which the Government has given close attention. The Government has also been made aware of similar requests from and on behalf of blind and other afflicted persons. As you know, the Budget for 1961-62 provided for an increase in the various Social Service pensions and, in reviewing the general rate of increases, it was decided that no further allowance such as concessional telephone rates could be made. It was also determined that future requests from individuals or organizations who considered they were entitled to special concessions should be handled by the Minister for Social Services or the Minister for Repatriation whichever was appropriate. {:#subdebate-49-13} #### Postal Department {: #subdebate-49-13-s0 .speaker-RK4} ##### Mr Hayden: n asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What uniform issues are made to postmen in Queensland? 1. How often are these issues made? {: #subdebate-49-13-s1 .speaker-KCA} ##### Mr Davidson:
CP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The following uniform issues are made to postmen in Queensland and all other States: - Jacket - one grey serge; Trousers- two pairs grey serge; Shirts - initial issue, three grey; subsequent issues, two grey; Ties - initial issue, two black; subsequent issues, one black; Headgear - one grey cloth cap; in addition, one fur felt hat or one tropical helmet may be issued on request every two years; Footwear - One pair of black boots or shoes. Alternative garments are available on request, as follows: - Shorts - two pairs in lieu of one pair of long trousers; Shirts - two in lieu of one jacket. *2.* (a) Uniforms (including shirts and cap): Every fifteen months, (b) Footwear: Every six months. {: #subdebate-49-13-s2 .speaker-JOO} ##### Mr Beaton:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA n asked the Postmaster-General, upon notice - >Is it proposed to establish an unattended postal station at Bendigo or any other city or town in the Bendigo Electoral Division? {: #subdebate-49-13-s3 .speaker-KCA} ##### Mr Davidson:
CP -- The answer to the honorable member's question is as follows: - >The contract for supply of mechanisms for ten postal stations is to enable further trials to be carried out with this type of facility. Three of these postal stations and the prototype units are scheduled for installation in Victoria. Initially, installations will be concentrated in the capital cities so that experience can be gained in the operating reliability of the units. Sites will be selected at busy locations where there is considerable pedestrian traffic. Extended use of this form of facility will depend on experience gained from the early installations now planned and its value to the public. Studies will be made in each State to determine relative priorities for locations et which the facility may be provided. It is likely that units will be provided subsequently at provincial centres but none of the units now on order are proposed for installation outside the metropolitan areas. {:#subdebate-49-14} #### Post Office, Zillmere {: #subdebate-49-14-s0 .speaker-JUF} ##### Mr Don Cameron:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · ALP n asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Is the present post office at Zillmere, Brisbane, too small to efficiently handle the volume of business required to be transacted? 1. Does the post office close for lunch from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. and thus make it necessary for the residents of Zillmere, who require postal services at that time, to travel to post offices in adjacent suburbs? 2. Is it proposed in the near future to build a new post office at Zillmere at which all postal facilities will be provided? 3. If not, will he have his department carry out an inspection of this suburb to obtain a suitable site upon which a new post office could be built at the earliest possible date? {: #subdebate-49-14-s1 .speaker-KCA} ##### Mr Davidson:
CP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Additional accommodation would be desirable but is not available at the present time. 1. Yes, but as from the 12th March, 1962, the office will be open continuously between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. 3 and 4. Yes. Negotiations for the acquisition of a suitable site have now been completed and a new building will be erected as soon as circumstances permit. {:#subdebate-49-15} #### Royal Australian Air Force: Housing {: #subdebate-49-15-s0 .speaker-RK4} ##### Mr Hayden: n asked the PostmasterWorks, upon notice - >In view of the urgent necessity of finding work for building industry tradesmen and others at present unemployed in Ipswich, and as contractors, in the main, presently engaged on building works on the Royal Australian Air Force housing area at Amberley, near Ipswich, utilize work forces drawn from places outside Ipswich, will he give early and favorable consideration to having the housing programme on this area carried out by the system of day labour instead of by contract? {: #subdebate-49-15-s1 .speaker-JXI} ##### Mr Freeth:
LP -- The answer to the honorable member's question is as follows: - >The current year's works programme ofthe Department of Air provides for the construction of ten (10) married quarters at the Royal Austalian Air Force Station at Amberley. A contract was entered into for these houses in December, 1961, consequently it is not possible to arrange the execution of the work by day labour. Australian Loan Council. {: #subdebate-49-15-s2 .speaker-N76} ##### Mr Menzies:
LP s. - On 27th February, the honorable member for Franklin **(Mr. Falkinder)** asked me a question regarding the share allocated to New South Wales of the expanded borrowing programmes agreed to and the additional funds offered by the Commonwealth at the recent Loan Council and Premiers' Conference meetings. I undertook to obtain for him the precise figures for New South Wales. They are - {: type="a" start="a"} 0. The New South Wales allocation of the increased borrowing programme for State works and housing for 1961-62 is £79,301,000, or an addition of £2,403,000; 1. New South Wales' share of the revised 1961-62 borrowing programme for semi-government and local authorities, which have programmes of £100,000 and over, is £30,365,000, or an increase of £2,256,000. In addition each such authority with an annual borrowing programme of less than £100,000 will, irrespective of the amount already borrowed this financial year, be permitted to borrow up to £100,000 during the remainder of the current financial year; 2. £99,249,000 will be paid to New South Wales as the Financial Assistance Grant for 1961-62. This is £131,000 greater than the sum New South Wales expected on the basis of the preliminary estimates of May, 1961, made prior to the Statistician's final determination which incorporated the results of the 1961 census; and 3. The New South Wales share of the special £10,000,000 non-repayable Commonwealth grant is £2,240,000. Since the purpose of this grant is to relieve unemployment, lt was allocated with regard to the degree of unemployment in each State and the fact that the other stimulatory measures I announced on 7th February will have proportionately greater beneficial effects on those States, notably New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia, where manufacturing industry, especially automobile production, is most concentrated. Harbour at Esperance. {: #subdebate-49-15-s3 .speaker-N76} ##### Mr Menzies:
LP -- On 22nd February, the honorable member for Kalgoorlie **(Mr. Collard)** asked whether I had received an application from the Western Australian Government for an amount of money to finance the construction of a land-backed harbour and wharf as Esperance in Western Australia. I have received no request from the Western Australian Government about this. Water Conservation. {: #subdebate-49-15-s4 .speaker-N76} ##### Mr Menzies:
LP s. - On 20th February, the honorable member for Stirling **(Mr. Webb)** asked me whether the Commonwealth had given further consideration to assisting Western Australia by sharing the cost of extending the comprehensive water scheme in the south-west of that State. The scheme to which the honorable member refers is covered by the Western Australia Grant (Water Supply) Act 1948- 1957. It involves reticulation of water to townships and homesteads in an area of about 4,000,000 acres inland from Perth, and also to towns along the Great Southwestern Railway from Beverley to Katanning. Originally, in 1946, the State had requested Commonwealth assistance for a scheme extending to about 12,000,000 acres. However, after investigation, the present scheme was adopted, and in 1948 the Commonwealth Labour Government of the day approved a maximum Commonwealth contribution of £2,150,000 or onehalf of the then estimated cost of this scheme. It became evident during the period of construction that the original cost estimate would be greatly exceeded. Following representations by the State, the present Commonwealth Government reviewed its provisions and agreed in 1957 that it would provide assistance on a £l-for-£l basis with the State for expenditure up to a total of £10,000,000, i.e., £5,000,000 by the Commonwealth. In 1960 the present Government of Western Australia proposed further that the Commonwealth meet half the cost of extension of the water reticulation scheme estimated to cost £17,500,000. This was, in effect, a proposal to re-institute the balance of the 12,000,000-acre scheme which had been put forward in 1946. The Commonwealth gave careful consideration to the request but reached the conclusion that there were insufficient grounds to justify special Commonwealth financial assistance for the proposed extension. {:#subdebate-49-16} #### Northern Rehabilitation Committee: Taxation Concessions {: #subdebate-49-16-s0 .speaker-KXI} ##### Mr Webb: b asked the Prime Minister, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has the Northern Rehabilitation Committee submitted a plan providing that, for a twenty-year period, wages should be free of tax and that company profits should be 60 per cent. tax free, with the remaining 40 per cent. also free of tax provided it was re-invested beyond the 26th parallel? 1. If so, has the proposal been recently examined? {: #subdebate-49-16-s1 .speaker-N76} ##### Mr Menzies:
LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. The proposal has been examined on a number of occasions since it was first put forward in 1951. Representations were renewed recently on behalf of the committee and are being considered together with other requests for taxation concessions received from various organizations. {:#subdebate-49-17} #### Civil Aviation {: #subdebate-49-17-s0 .speaker-JYJ} ##### Mr Clay:
ST GEORGE, NEW SOUTH WALES y asked the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has the hydrographic survey of Botany Bay been commenced? 1. What stage has been reached in the discussions which were to take place between officers of the Department of Civil Aviation and those New South Wales instrumentalities which are interested in the extension into Botany Bay of the short or 16/34 runway at Kingsford-Smith Airport? 2. Is it possible to set an approximate date for the commencement of this work? {: #subdebate-49-17-s1 .speaker-KWH} ##### Mr Townley:
LP -- The Minister for Civil Aviation has furnished the following information: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. A representative from the Wallingford Research Laboratories, England, has visited the site and has had discussions with representatives of the New South Wales Maritime Services Board and the Commonwealth Department of Works with a view to making recommendations in regard to model studies of Botany Bay. As a result of this visit it is expected that a preliminary report will be submitted by the representative during May, 1962, in which a qualitative assessment will be made of the problems associated with the fill in Botany Bay. It would, however, be towards the end of the year before a model study of the reclamation could be accomplished and some time in 1963 before a complete study of the effects of this fill and other reclamation and dredging proposals in Botany Bay could be completed. It is proposed, however, to prepare a submission for the consideration of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works on receipt of the qualitative assessment to be prepared by Wallingford's before the end of May, 1962. 1. Discussions with the State instrumentalities took place on 25th October, 1961, and as a result - {: type="a" start="a"} 0. The Metropolitan Water, Sewerage and Drainage Board have considered their requirements in regard to the protection of sewers which lie in the path of the runway to be extended and are about to forward these to the Commonwealth Department of Works. On receipt of these further discussions will take place. 1. The Department of Main Roads have laid down their requirements in regard to General Holmes Drive which lies in the path of the runway extension and only minor details require to be clarified before agreement is reached. 2. It is anticipated early agreement will be achieved with the Metropolitan Water, Sewerage and Drainage Board and the Main Roads Department and on receipt of the qualitative assessment from the Wallingford Research" Laboratories a submission will be made to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and assuming that committee gives approval to the project it would be hoped that a start could be made before the end of the 1962-63 financial year. {: #subdebate-49-17-s2 .speaker-KXI} ##### Mr Webb: b asked the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice - >Now that Perth is recognized as an international airport, will the Minister endeavour to arrange for the British Overseas Airways Corporation to operate through Perth? {: #subdebate-49-17-s3 .speaker-KWH} ##### Mr Townley:
LP -- The Minister for Civil Aviation has supplied the following information: - >Under the Australia-United Kingdom Air Transport Agreement of 1958 an airline of the United Kingdom may operate into Australia via Perth. Whether B.O.A.C. exercises the rights given by Australia under that agreement is, of course, a matter for consideration in the first place by the United Kingdom authorities concerned. At present I am not aware of any wish by B.O.A.C. to operate through Perth. {:#subdebate-49-18} #### Royal Australian Air Force {: #subdebate-49-18-s0 .speaker-KXI} ##### Mr Webb: b asked the Minister for Air, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Did the Royal Australian Air Force on 30th January make world news when the tanker Bridgewater which was broken in two was located over 200 miles from Fremantle? 1. Is it a fact that on 5th February nothing could be done in the time available to rescue a Japanese tuna boat in difficulties because the Air Force Neptune aircraft had returned to its base in the eastern States? 2. Was 11 Squadron of the Royal Australian Air Force originally stationed at Pearce, Western Australia, to protect Australia's vital oil line? 3. As delay could arise in moving a squadron to Western Australia in an emergency, will he consider again stationing a squadron at Pearce? {: #subdebate-49-18-s1 .speaker-JTP} ##### Mr Bury:
LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. It is true that the Royal Australian Air Force engaged in a search operation for the stricken tanker Bridgewater. I believe the success of their mission received world-wide publicity by press, radio and television. 1. Neptune aircraft are not capable of rescue at sea. Their role in cases such as the Japanese tuna boat is to search and locate the. vessel or survivors, to drop survival gear to such survivors, and to direct rescue vessels to the scene. There was no Neptune aircraft in Western Australia at the date under notice. 2. The decision to base No. 11 Squadron at Pearce was not directly related to the need to protect Australia's oil line. No. 11 Squadron had previously been based at Rathmines and at that time was equipped with frying boats. With the decision to discard flying boats and re-equip with landbased maritime aircraft, it became necessary to provide a land base. Royal Australian Air Force Base Pearce was available at this time and because of this the aircraft were moved there. Subsequently the squadron was moved from Pearce to the east coast because the war training of the squadron had been hampered by inadequate training facilities in Western Australia which are essential for its efficiency. 3. The defence of Australia is based on the qualities of mobility and flexibilty and on the ability of the Air Force to concentrate effective fighting strength when and where required at short notice. Royal Australian Air Force Neptune squadrons are organized on this highly mobile basis and may be moved at short notice within the Australian area of responsibility. In view of the rapidity with which these aircraft may be moved to Western Australia in emergency and the lack of proper training facilities there, it is not proposed to base a squadron of Neptune aircraft at Pearce at this stage. Foreign Companies in Australia. {: #subdebate-49-18-s2 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: d asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Can he say how many foreign companies have established (a) branches or (b) subsidiaries in Australia or have arrangements with existing Australian companies to manufacture their products under licence, franchise or on royalty conditions? 1. Do any of these arrangements limit the export opportunities of Australian industries; if so, to what extent? {: #subdebate-49-18-s3 .speaker-KVR} ##### Mr Swartz:
LP -- The Acting Minister for Trade has provided the following answers: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. At present some 700 overseas companies have established manufacturing -subsidiaries in Australia and many others, at least 1,500, have entered into arrangements with Australian companies to manufacture their products under licence. 1. Some, but by no means all, of these arrangements limit the export opportunities of Australian industries. Others give considerable assistance to export opportunities. The Government has made it plain that responsible management of overseas concerns should recognize that it is in their own interests, as well as in the interests pf the Australian economy as a whole, that Australian enterprise be permitted and assisted to compete freely in export markets. Subsidiaries and branches of overseas companies are increasingly making their contribution to export development. {:#subdebate-49-19} #### Wool and Artificial Fibres {: #subdebate-49-19-s0 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP n asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Is it a fact that, despite propaganda to the contrary, efforts by Australian manufacturers of knitted wool products are being seriously threatened by the entry into Australia of artificial fibres, particularly Terylene, which is manufactured and top dyed in England by Imperial Chemical Industries Limited and imported into Australia at a duty of as low as 7½ per cent.? 1. If so, will he take steps to counter effectively this ever increasing threat to the wool industry of this country? {: #subdebate-49-19-s1 .speaker-KVR} ##### Mr Swartz:
LP -- The Acting Minister for Trade has provided the following answers: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The Government has received no approach for action on the basis that the knitting industry is being seriously threatened by imports of artificial fibre yams. The use of artificial fibre yarns in the knitting industry has become more widespread over recent years but this has been a development within the industry and not one in competition with it. On the latest available statistics there does not appear to have been any reduction in the overall quantity of wool yarn used in the knitting industry. 1. The Tariff Board is currently examining the question of the protection which should be accorded the production in Australia of yarns including wool yarns.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 7 March 1962, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1962/19620307_reps_24_hor34/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant