House of Representatives
1 May 1962

24th Parliament · 1st Session



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

page 1733

QUESTION

PORTUGUESE SEAMEN

Mr BEAZLEY:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I desire to ask the Minister for Immigration whether there has been any change in the Government’s decision concerning the deportation of the Portuguese seamen who deserted from a Portuguese warship.

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

– This is a matter that has been the subject of considerable discussion and review from time to time between my distinguished colleague, the Minister for External Affairs, and myself. Since the honorable member has asked the question, I am glad to tell the House that in this matter the Portuguese Government has made a most welcome and most considerate gesture in that it has declared itself satisfied to discharge the men from their service and has also withdrawn its request, previously made to us, for the return of these men.

As my colleague, the Minister for External Affairs, has previously made quite clear, there has not been, and there still is not, a case for political asylum, because these men are not in the category of political refugees. But the question remains whether they should be deported from Australia. I now have to tell the House that the Government will allow them to remain here subject to normal immigration requirements and provided that they can obtain suitable employment. But in saying that I emphasize that the Government regards this as a special case. The circumstances are somewhat exceptional, and I hope nobody will regard this case as setting a binding precedent in the consideration of other cases.

page 1733

QUESTION

TELEVISION

Mr KILLEN:
MORETON, QUEENSLAND

– I address a question to the Postmaster-General. Will the honorable gentleman make available a report showing how frequency allocations for television are made? Will he say what factors influenced the decision to make a channel 0 necessary in the present stage of television development? In view of the highly technical nature of frequency allocations, will he make every effort to reduce the technicalities to a form that would be better understood by the House and by the country alike?

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

– The matter raised by the honorable member for Moreton is one to which I have given close attention during the past week. In the last two days I have had my technical experts, the radio engineers from the Australian Broadcasting Control Board, here discussing the matter with me. I have received a very comprehensive report from them. I inform the honorable member for Moreton that the report is very technical and I am trying now to reduce it to a form that will be less technical, and therefore more readily understood. I want to say that, as a result of my discussions with those officers, I feel - although I do not claim to be a technical man myself - that the decision of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board, which is charged with this task under the act, is perfectly sound from a technical point of view.

There are other aspects of this matter, however, which I am investigating. I assure the honorable member for Moreton and other honorable members that when I have been able to give a little further attention to reducing the report to a smaller size, I shall make a considered statement on the matter. I expect to be able to do that within the next day or two. If, in the meantime, any honorable gentleman on either side of the House would like to discuss this matter on a technical basis with my experts, I should be very glad indeed to make arrangements for him to do that.

page 1733

QUESTION

DEPORTATIONS

Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for External Affairs: In what circumstances does the Australian Government negotiate with the government of another country when it wishes to deport a citizen of that country from Australia? When the Australian Government does not recognize the government of the other country - for example, in the case of mainland China - through what channels do the negotiations take place?

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

– I have no particular knowledge of the matter to which

I think the honorable member has indirectly referred. If we have no representation in a country, and desire to make contact with the government of that country, we do so through a friendly country which has representation.

page 1734

QUESTION

RUBBER

Sir WILFRID KENT HUGHES:
CHISHOLM, VICTORIA

– I direct a question to the Minister for Trade. Is the entry of raw rubber into Australia at present subject to a tariff duty until after the New Guinea rubber crop has been cleared? Is other raw rubber then admitted free under by-law? Has the Government asked the Tariff Board to inquire into and report upon the question whether extra tariff duties should be placed on raw rubber from countries other than New Guinea to protect the manufacture of synthetic rubber in Australia? How would such a tariff affect the Malayan economy and the comparatively recent agreement between the Federation of Malaya and the Australian Government?

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

– I confess that I am a little rusty on this subject. My recollection is that the customs tariff provides that there shall be a duty, I think of 3d. per lb. on raw rubber, but that raw rubber shall be admitted duty free under by-law after the New Guinea crop has been taken up. That arrangement has operated for quite a while, to the satisfaction, I think, of every one. When I was negotiating an arrangement with the Government of the Federation of Malaya in 1958, I pointed out, before the conclusion of the arrangement, which included this provision about rubber, that there was to be established in Australia a synthetic rubber industry, and that it might prove to be necessary to impose a duty on raw rubber to protect that synthetic rubber industry. I stated that merely as a warning, so that there would be no doubt whatever of our good faith. That was understood by the government and the industry in Malaya as far back as 1958.

Now there is a reference to the Tariff Board on this matter. I do not carry in my mind the terms of the reference, but the Tariff Board, and certainly the Government, will consider the interests of the New Guinea natural rubber producers, the Australian synthetic industry and our good friends in Malaya who export raw rubber to this country.

page 1734

QUESTION

CURRENCY

Mr LUCHETTI:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Treasurer. Will he amplify the statement made to the press respecting the replacement of certain Australian coins? In view of the substantial cost of minting new coins, does this statement indicate that the Government will not implement the findings of the Decimal Currency Committee? If the Government has not made up its mind on this subject, will the Treasurer say when it intends to do so? As soon as a decision is made, will the right honorable gentleman make a statement to the House and to the public on this important matter?

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
Treasurer · HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

– The honorable gentleman asks, first, whether I will amplify the statement that I have already made. I shall gladly make available to him a copy of my first statement, which was not reproduced in full by the press. That statement gives an interesting account, with some of the historical background, of the minting of Australian coins.

I would like to clarify a point on which there seems to be some misunderstanding, at least in some sections of the press. There is no question of our minting one new set of coins and then, in the event of a decision to introduce a decimal currency, jettisoning that set of coins in order to produce a new set for a decimal currency system. Long before it become, practicable for us to mint new coins in the new mint in Canberra, this Government will have announced its decision with regard to decimal currency.

Already, we have re-affirmed our adoption of the principle of decimal currency. There are good reasons why we do not at this stage announce formally our intention to go ahead with such a system, or the timing of it. One of those reasons is that the United Kingdom and New Zealand are currently examining the question of whether they should adopt a decimal cur.rency system, and the outcome could have some bearing on final details in Australia. Important questions of compensation, foreign exchange and other matters are bound up with this general question.

The basic decisions to be taken prior to a final determination on decimal currency were a decision to establish a new mint capable of turning out the coins required over a. period well in advance of the introduction of decimal currency and a decision about a change in Australia’s coinage. Now that those two decisions have been taken and announced, we are ready to examine the next stage shortly and to consider whether or not we should adopt a decimal currency system. I think that in arriving at a decision on that matter we should take into account the outcome of the examination now taking place in the United Kingdom and New Zealand.

page 1735

QUESTION

VISIT OF UNITED STATES NAVAL VESSELS

Mr LESLIE:
MOORE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I address to the Minister for Defence a question which relates to the statement made by him about the itinerary of the four vessels of the United States Navy which are visiting Australia for the Coral Sea celebrations. The itinerary provides that the four vessels, between them, are to visit Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide, Hobart, Newcastle and Mackay. It is noticeable that Fremantle has been omitted. I ask the Minister whether there is any special or particular reason why the Western Australian coast has been omitted from the itinerary of these vessels. I ask, also, whether the Minister is prepared to intimate that, in view of the importance of the Western Australian coast and its vulnerability in terms of the defence of Australia, he believes that a visit by these vessels to the coast of Western Australia is essential.

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

– Visits paid to Australia by vessels qf the United States Navy on the occasion of the Coral Sea celebrations are arranged by the United States authorities and the Australian-American Association. These arrangements do not come within the province of the Department of Defence or the Department of the Navy. I think, if my memory serves me correctly, that Fremantle has been visited many times in Coral Sea week by United States vessels. I do not know why the vessels visiting Australia on this occasion are not to call at Fremantle, but there is doubtless very good reason for their not doing so. I think we are all indebted to the United States Government for the gracious and generous way in which it makes its ships available to come to Australia at this time of the year, and also allows some of its highest ranking and most distinguished officers to visit us.

page 1735

QUESTION

EDUCATION

Mr EINFELD:
PHILLIP, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I desire to ask the Prime Minister a question. In view of the very difficult situation which has developed in primary and secondary education in Australia despite the magnificent work in these fields that has been done by State governments, will the Prime Minister reconsider his attitude and favorably consider the possibility of appointing a special committee to inquire into the needs of primary, secondary and technical education in Australia?

Mr MENZIES:
Prime Minister · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · LP

– I have nothing to add to what I have previously said on this very important subject.

page 1735

QUESTION

CURRENCY

Mr JEFF BATE:
MACARTHUR, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I wish to ask the Treasurer a question. It is supplementary to the question asked by the honorable member for Macquarie. I hope I shall be permitted to descend from the higher planes of consideration of the matter of currency and speak of the desperate plight of people who fumble with large numbers of heavy coins in telephone boxes. Will the Treasurer confer with his colleague, the Postmaster-General, to see whether, when decisions are made about the minting of new coins, some arrangement can be made for the use of a single smaller and lighter coin for the initiation of telephone calls?

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
LP

– I shall be very glad to confer with my colleague on this matter, which quite obviously concerns the operation of the Postmaster-General’s Department in many ways.

page 1735

QUESTION

BROADCASTING

Mr MAKIN:
BONYTHON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Postmaster-General. It concerns frequency modulation radio broadcasts, which the Minister has caused to be discontinued in recent times. I understand that the honorable gentleman has stated that he is willing to make room available on the appropriate wave band for frequency modulation broadcasts if enough persons demonstrate a desire for this to be done. Has not the Minister received certain applications along these lines? How many such applications would he require before being prepared to sanction the re-introduction of this kind of broadcast?

Mr DAVIDSON:
CP

– The honorable member for Bonython refers to a decision, which has been announced and explained in this House, regarding the cessation of experimental frequency modulation transmission. The reason for such cessation, Mr. Speaker, has been canvassed on a number of occasions. lt derived from the need to increase the number of frequencies available in the very high frequency band for the extension of television services, particularly in country areas. It is true that I said that if frequencies could be made available for frequency modulation transmissions in the ultra-high frequency band, and if at some time there was a considerable demand for these transmissions, consideration would be given to making those frequencies available. I have not yet noticed such a considerable demand, although from time to time I have received various representations for the re-introduction of these broadcasts.

page 1736

QUESTION

REPATRIATION

Mr DRURY:
RYAN, QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Minister for Repatriation whether any consideration has been given to providing suitable office accommodation in Brisbane for the use of the repatriation appeal tribunals in that city.

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

– As the honorable member for Ryan knows, the assessment and entitlement appeal tribunals in Brisbane, as in other cities, are playing quite an important part in our repatriation system. I am sorry to say that the accommodation available for the tribunals in Brisbane has not been the best, from a number of points of view, but I am pleased to inform the honorable member that improved accommodation arrangements have now been made, and I expect that the No. 3 Entitlement Appeal Tribunal will move into new premises in Ilco House in Creek-street on the 14th of this month. That will provide additional accommodation for another assessment appeal tribunal in the old premises in Mary-street, Brisbane. It is interesting to note that the number of appeals, particularly those coming before the assessment appeal tribunals, is increasing. Last year, more than 3,100 appeals were heard by the two tribunals in Queensland alone. It is expected that, in addition to the extra accommodation available when the entitlement appeal tribunal moves to new premises, we shall have another assessment appeal tribunal operating in Queensland in the near future.

page 1736

QUESTION

SHIPPING

Mr JAMES:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the Minister for Shipping and Transport do all in his power to ensure that an Australian unionist crew is engaged to sail the Australian-owned and Australian-built tanker “P. J. Adams”, which was recently commissioned at Whyalla shipyards in South Australia?

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

– I have received considerable correspondence from various unions concerning the manning of this vessel and have replied to the effect - I think very logically - that this is a case where the Commonwealth Government gave a subsidy for the construction of the ship because of the state of the ship-building industry in Australia at that time, and that its construction had’ made a very great contribution to employment in the ship-building industry. I pointed out, however, that as we understand it the ship was built at a greater price to the company concerned through its being built in Australia, and that the company had therefore also made a contribution to the Australian shipbuilding industry. Considering all the circumstances, including the fact that the ship is not registered in Australia, it is open to the company to run its ship with the crew it selects. I repeat that, as a result of the ship being built in Australia, both the Commonwealth Government and the oil company concerned made a very great contribution to the Australian ship-building industry.

page 1736

QUESTION

WEST NEW GUINEA. S

Mr TURNBULL:
MALLEE, VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for External Affairs. As there is general acceptance of the proposition that the people of West New Guinea should be given self-government as soon as they have advanced sufficiently to receive it, and as the administration of that area in the meantime will have a great influence on self-determination, can the Minister state whether the native people of West New Guinea have been asked to express their opinion regarding choice of the interim administration?

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:
LP

– As I have said in this House before, the actual resolution of the dispute over West New Guinea between the Netherlands and the Indonesian Government is a matter for those two parties. There are at present being considered by the parties proposals which are not public proposals, and I think it better that I should not discuss them, or answer the honorable gentleman’s question, as that might be in one sense an indirect manner of discussing here the terms that I hope will be in discussion between the two parties.

page 1737

QUESTION

BROADCASTING

Mr FULTON:
LEICHHARDT, QUEENSLAND

– In directing a question to the Postmaster-General I remind the honorable gentleman that about twelve months ago he told a deputation from the Ravenshoe district progress association that the power output of broadcasting stations 4 AT and 4QR was being improved. These people now ask when this job will be completed, as reception in the area is very bad, and so far no improvement has been made to it. Can the Minister give me some information on this matter?

Mr DAVIDSON:
CP

– It is correct that I made a statement to a deputation in the terms mentioned by the honorable member. The position regarding 4AT was that the transmission equipment was to be improved, it being of an old war-time vintage, and that this would considerably improve reception. Station 4QR was to have its power increased in order to give a wider coverage than previously. I am not aware of the results achieved in regard to this, but I shall find out and let the honorable member for Leichhardt know the position.

page 1737

QUESTION

REPATRIATION DEPARTMENT

Mr FOX:
HENTY, VICTORIA

– I address a question to the Minister for Repatriation. Can he say whether the annual report of the Repatria tion Department will be available this year in sufficient time to enable honorable members to study it before the estimates of the department are considered during the Budget session?

Mr SWARTZ:
LP

– As the’ honorable member will appreciate, it is extremely difficult to compile and issue the annual report of a department with such wide ramifications as the Repatriation Department very quickly after the closing of the accounts at the end of the financial year. However, as the question has been raised I will take the matter up with my department and ensure that all possible expedition is used to produce the report by the time mentioned by the honorable member. I think I can assure him at this stage that the report will be available in time for the Budget debate.

page 1737

QUESTION

TAXATION

Mr PETERS:
SCULLIN, VICTORIA

– I address my question to the Treasurer. As it is reported that a member of one of the Government parties understated his income for taxation purposes and that his name was omitted by direction from the official list, recently published by the Commissioner of Taxation, of those who understated their income or evaded their legitimate taxation, I ask: Was any such name omitted from the list? If so, was it omitted by direction and, if so, by whom was the direction given? Whose name, if any, was omitted?

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
LP

– I shall be very glad if the honorable member will put me in possession of any information which he has on this matter. This is the first time that any such information has come to my ears and if the honorable member has a responsibly based charge to make I shall see that it is immediately investigated.

page 1737

QUESTION

TELEVISION

Mr STOKES:
MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA

– My question to the Postmaster-General is supplementary to that asked by the honorable member for Moreton, in reply to whom the Minister referred to the technical considerations in favour of the use of channel 0 for the additional television stations in Brisbane and Melbourne. I now ask the Minister whether he will balance the practical disadvantages of over 300,000 viewers in the Melbourne area, who will have to pay up to £16 for the conversion of their sets, against any technical recommendation which is against the use of another channel that is generally available on the present sets.

Mr DAVIDSON:
CP

– I am glad to inform the honorable member for Maribyrnong that one of the tasks in which I am engaged at present is balancing the various matters that come into the consideration of the channel 0 proposal. The honorable member referred, for instance, to 300,000 sets that will require to be altered. That is a figure which will be considerably inflated in eighteen months’ time. The honorable member referred also to an amount of £16 as the cost of converting a set. Conversions have recently been carried out in the Wollongong district, where a new channel, Channel 4, has come into operation. Taking into account the installation charge, those conversions have cost from £2 10s. to £7 10s. a set, depending on the type of set and other considerations. The actual equipment involved, which in technical jargon is known by the queer name of “biscuit”, costs about £1 10s. So my information is that some of the statements that have been made are considerably exaggerated. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, there are matters involved other than the cost of conversion. For example, it will be found, when my statement is made, that there is the very important question of the availability of frequencies for the further extension of television services, not only in the city areas but also throughout the country areas. All those matters are at present under consideration, and are being balanced.

page 1738

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Mr KING:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA

– I address a question to the Minister for Immigration. The honorable gentleman doubtless is aware that numerous country towns and cities are encountering great difficulty in obtaining medical practitioners, due to the over-all shortage of such practitioners. In view of the disastrous effect of this shortage on the health and welfare of residents in country districts, I ask the Minister whether the number of medical practitioners coming into Australia is in keeping with the number of other immigrants. If it is not, will the Minister confer with thé Minister for Health with a view to launching a campaign to increase the percentage of doctors among immigrants and so ease the position in rural areas to which I have referred?

Mr DOWNER:
LP

– I think it would be true to say that, since the inception of the post-war immigration programme, doctors have come to this country, mostly from the United Kingdom, but also from the continent of Europe. Some of the latter, in the course of time, under arrangements made with the British Medical Association, have been able to practise here. I know that the situation to which the honorable gentleman has alluded constitutes a real problem in some of the more outlying country towns. However, I should like to assure him that my department is ever on the look-out for opportunities to attract qualified professional men in general to this country, lt is some consolation to know that in spite of the big demand on medical services on the other side of the world, doctors are still coming to Australia, particularly from the United Kingdom, and are prospering here.

page 1738

QUESTION

DEPORTATIONS

Mr NELSON:
NORTHERN TERRITORY, NORTHERN TERRITORY

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Immigration. Having made a statement concerning the Portuguese sailors, will the Minister also make a statement on the position of the Malayan pearl divers who are under threat of deportation?

Mr DOWNER:
LP

– When the Minister for External Affairs and I, in our various discussions, were considering the complex and very difficult case of the Portuguese sailors we also let our minds range over the somewhat disputed case of the two Malayan pearl divers to which the honorable member for the Northern Territory has referred. He will probably be glad to know that I have this day decided to allow them to remain in Australia, subject to their finding suitable employment and subject to general qualifications of good character.

page 1738

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Mr FAIRBAIRN:
FARRER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation aware that a French airliner, the Caravelle Mark VI., is to visit Australia so that experts from Trans-Australia Airlines and Ansett-A.N.A. may have an opportunity to inspect it before selecting their new short-range jet aircraft? Would it be possible to arrange for this aircraft to land at Canberra so that members of the Parliament may have an opportunity to inspect it?

Mr TOWNLEY:
LP

– I am not sure, but I think this aircraft is scheduled to land at Canberra. I received a letter the other day from the French people, inviting me to fly in it. I shall find out definitely from the Minister for Civil Aviation whether the airliner will come to Canberra.

page 1739

QUESTION

SYDNEY (KINGSFORD-SMITH) AIRPORT

Mr CURTIN:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Prime Minister whether it is a fact that the KingsfordSmith airport is regarded as the main international terminal in Australia at the present time. I ask also whether it is a fact that. the top brass of the Department of Civil Aviation is no longer interested in modernizing the overseas terminal building or the air traffic control system at the KingsfordSmith airport. Could the right honorable gentleman inform the House whether it is the intention of the Department of Civil Aviation to transfer the international terminal from Kingsford-Smith airport to Tullamarine in Victoria? If not, could he tell us why all the expensive modern scientific air control equipment is being stockpiled at Tullamarine?

Mr TOWNLEY:
LP

– I will convey the honorable member’s question to my colleague in another place and see that he gets a reply.

Mr Curtin:

– I asked the Prime Minister.

page 1739

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Mr CHANEY:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– The question which I address to the Treasurer relates to that asked by the honorable member for Farrer. I know that the Government does not influence airline companies in the purchase of types of aeroplanes, but, if the Government does give either company financial guarantees for the purchase of certain types of aircraft, will the Government make certain that one of the conditions of the guarantees is that the jet aircraft purchased have sufficient range to fly from Melbourne to Perth or from Adelaide to Perth without the necessity to refuel?

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
LP

– Although appreciate the significance which the honorable member attaches to the financial provision to be made for matters of this character, I point out that on the technical aspects we look for guidance to our colleagues who are better equipped to tell us about these things. But I shall not ignore, in any Cabinet consideration, the very important aspect which has been mentioned to-day by the honorable member.

page 1739

QUESTION

DIESEL LOCOMOTIVE

Mr HAYLEN:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the fact that one of his own Ministers, the Minister for Shipping and Transport, referred to him in a press statement to-day as a diesel engine when speaking of the performances of a diesel engine known as the Robert Gordon Menzies. I should say that a comparison of the performances of the diesel engine and of the Prime Minister is well worth investigating. The Minister for Shipping and Transport says that the distance covered by the diesel engine Robert Gordon Menzies - not the Prime Minister - is equivalent to 60 journeys around the earth at the Equator - you all know what that means - with a yearly average of 143,000 miles. Does the Prime Minister think that he can match that? The second thing the Minister for Shipping and Transport says is that this engine has given 1,000,000 miles of service at an average cost of 2s. 8d. a mile. Having regard to the last Budget, does the Prime Minister think he can match that? If not, he should resign in favour of the diesel engine. Finally, the Minister for Shipping and Transport said that the diesel engine Robert Gordon Menzies could pull 1 ton for a distance of 1 mile on a teaspoonful of fuel. For the benefit of all honorable members, will the Prime Minister tell me what that fuel is?

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– I have not been favoured by the opportunity to read this most satisfying comparison between me and a diesel locomotive. I am indebted to my colleague, the Minister for Shipping and

Transport, for having honoured me in this fashion. But if we are talking in terms of locomotives, I confess I have heard the honorable member for Parkes referred to frequently as a Puffing Billy.

page 1740

QUESTION

EUROPEAN COMMON MARKET

Mr COPE:
WATSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for Trade whether it is a fact that, when being interviewed on ATN Channel 7 in Sydney last Saturday evening, he stated that neither he nor the Government had any knowledge of the United Kingdom Government’s intention to apply to join the European Common Market until last July when Mr. Duncan Sandys visited Australia?

Mr McEWEN:
CP

– That is quite correct. This Government had no knowledge that the United Kingdom would contemplate applying to join the European Common Market, if agriculture were included, until Mr. Duncan Sandys visited this country last July.

page 1740

QUESTION

WOOL

Mr NIXON:
GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA

– I address my question to the Minister for Primary Industry. Now that the report of the Wool Industry Committee of Enquiry has been released to members of this House, is the Minister in a position to say how many copies have been printed? Can the Minister assure the House that there will be plenty of copies for all who may be interested?

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

– When the report was released, about 300 roneoed copies were available for honorable members, the press and the wool industry. The demand has been widespread and the Government Printer has done a commendable job both in the production itself and in providing copies of the report expeditiously. We now have 7,000 copies available. They can be obtained by any one at a cost of 7s. each, post free. They are available in each capital city at the Commonwealth Sub-Treasury, at the Australian Wool Bureau and at the Government Printing Office, Canberra.

page 1740

QUESTION

SHIPPING

Mr CALWELL:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister for Shipping and Transport to explain what he meant to convey when, speaking at the opening of Interocean House, the new Sydney offices of the Royal Interocean Line, a Dutch line, last week, he said, on the question of overseas investment in Australia -

This is a recognition that we are walking the tightrope of national development with an assurance of success in attaining the magic formula of government management.

Mr OPPERMAN:
LP

– Naturally, not all of my speech has been reported in the press. I said that, after passing through difficulties which I had mentioned earlier in my speech, we had the formula of adequate Government management, which had been proved in the past few months with the overcoming of unemployment, with the solving of balance of payment difficulties - though the Opposition had said for months that this could not be done - and with the general upward trend in the economy, which is recognized by every one in Australia and overseas as well.

page 1740

QUESTION

UNITED KINGDOM IMMIGRATION POLICY

Mr DRUMMOND:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I desire to ask the Prime Minister a question. Has his attention been directed to an advertisement inserted in the press by the High Commissioner for the United Kingdom, announcing the application of certain immigration regulations by the United Kingdom Government to the people of this Commonwealth? If the right honorable gentleman’s attention has been directed to this advertisement, or even if it has not, will he convey to Her Majesty’s Government the profound regret of great numbers of people in this Commonwealth that for the first time in the 180 years of our existence we are to be treated as aliens when we return to the motherland of the people from whom we sprang?

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– I have not only seen the advertisement referred to by the honorable member; I am not unfamiliar with the negotiations that have gone on about this matter for some time past. The honorable member may be quite assured that the comments of the Australian Government have been made on the proposals at all relevant stages. I think I am right in saying that some of the original proposals were somewhat modified in the light of what we had to say. But in the long run, of course, this problem of the immigration - to use that expression - laws of the United Kingdom is just as much its prerogative as our immigrations laws are our prerogative.

page 1741

QUESTION

PHARMACEUTICAL BENEFITS

Mr GRAY:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

– I desire to ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Is it a fact that twelve months ago an important drug called largactil was added to the free list and that this decision was generally regarded by the psychiatric practitioners as a progressive move? Also is it a fact that this drug was removed from the free list a few weeks ago, and that as a consequence a good deal of hardship will be created for those needing to use it, because it will now cost them between £2 and £4 a month? Finally, can the Minister explain why this valuable drug has been removed from the free list while vitamin tablets, A.P.C. mixtures and many similar preparations have been retained?

Mr SWARTZ:
LP

– I have no knowledge of the matter raised by the honorable member, but I will see that his question is referred to my colleague in another place and an appropriate answer obtained for him.

page 1741

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following bills reported: -

Tariff Board Bill 1962.

Customs Tariff Bill 1962.

Customs Tariff (New Zealand Preference) (No. 1) Bill 1962.

page 1741

QUESTION

EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK

Mr SPEAKER (Hon Sir John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I have received a letter from the honorable member for Blaxland (Mr. E. James Harrison) proposing that a definite matter of urgent public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely -

The Government’s failure to honour its obligations under the 1951 International Labour Organization Convention and Recommendation concerning Equal Remuneration for Men and Women Workers for Work of Equal Value.

I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. (More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places) -

Mr. E. JAMES HARRISON (Blaxland) with the object of eliminating at the earliest possible moment inequality in the payment for work of equal value irrespective of whether such work is performed by male or female workers. The Government stands condemned for its failure to take the necessary action to honour its obligations to the International Labour Organization. Decisions, to which the Government was a party, were taken by the organization in 1951.

It is true that the Government put Australia’s attitude in a near negative form when it abstained from voting on Convention No. 100, but it did vote for Recommendation No. 90. It becomes important to be specific about what the convention and recommendation provide. We should keep in mind that when these matters were before the I.L.O., we were represented not on a government level but on a national level. The first part of Article 2 of Convention No. 100, on which the Government failed to vote, provides -

Each Member shall, by means appropriate to the methods in operation for determining rates of remuneration, promote and, in so far as is consistent with such methods, ensure the application to all workers of the principle of equal remuneration for men and women workers for work of equal value.

The Government, representing Australia, failed to vote either for or against that resolution. The first paragraph of Recommendation No. 90 is in these terms -

Appropriate action should be taken, after consultation with the workers’ organizations concerned or, where such organizations do not exist, with the workers concerned -

to ensure the application of the principle of equal remuneration for men and women workers for work of equal value to all employees of central Government departments or agencies; and

to encourage the application of the principle to employees of State, provincial or local government departments or agencies, where these have jurisdiction over rates of remuneration.

It is hard to imagine that a government representing a country like Australia would vote for this resolution but in eleven years do nothing to implement it in respect of its own employees. This morning I received from the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. McMahon) a statement in relation to conventions and recommendations adopted by the 42nd session of the International Labour Organization in 1958. Among other things, the Minister said-

The convention and recommendations are farreaching in their coverage and scope. Some aspects - for example, equal pay - have already been canvassed in Australia in some detail and the views of the Commonwealth and the State Governments are well-known.

At least we can say that the views of the Commonwealth Government and the present Minister are well known. The answer they give is, “ No “. In simple terms, they believe in cheap labour wherever it can be employed. Since the 1951 resolution was taken, 38 countries have incorporated provisions for equal pay in their constitutions, 38 countries have ratified Convention 100, 38 have equal pay legislation, 43 give equal pay to civil servants and 77 give equal pay to teachers. But this Government, which has been represented consistently at the International Labour Organization conferences, has turned its back on the principles for which it voted. This Government has seen fit to do nothing about this matter. I put to the House that the Government has dodged its responsibilities by sheltering behind arbitration authorities. I expect that we shall hear something of that sort talked about to-day on the Government side. The fact is that the present Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt) and the Minister for Labour and National Service have begged the issue. They have employed subterfuge to escape dealing with the real fundamental issue of international obligations.

Sir, the present Minister for Labour and National Service and the Government - because the Government takes responsibility for the Minister’s actions - have failed to do anything about this matter, but we find that an anti-Labour government in Great Britain adopted the principle of equal pay for equal service in respect of teachers and the Public Service six years ago. A Cabinet decision was reached to implement the principle over a period and the principle of equal pay became fully operative in 1961. In New Zealand, a Labour government introduced legislation to provide for equal pay for work of equal value in November, 1960. Let me say quite frankly that soon, when a change of government takes place in Australia, a Labour government here will take similar action. The New Zealand plan was designed to be implemented over a period of three years. From 1st April, 1963, there will be no differentiation between rates of pay for equal work.

In introducing the measure, Mr. Nash, who was then the Prime Minister and leader of the Labour Party in New Zealand, said -

I cannot understand any argument against equal pay.

The present Nationalist Party Prime Minister, Mr. Holyoake, who was then Leader of the Opposition, said -

We have no quarrel with the bill.

From 1st April, 1963, little New Zealand, which is in the same part of the Pacific area as we’ are, will honour completely its obligations under the International Labour Organization decision, but this Government has not taken one step along the road.

Let us consider what is happening in the Commonwealth Public Service. In the case of the Postmaster-General’s Department, monitors working side by side under ons supervising traffic officer receive different rates of pay. The pay for a female performing the same work is £180 a year less than that for a male. In the case of supervisors in the same department, there is £180 sex differential from the lowest scale to the top scale. Clerical assistants in all departments suffer the same disability. In the Repatriation Department in particular, male and female employees can be seen working side by side under one supervisor, sitting at adjacent desks, yet there is a difference of £154 in the pay of the sexes. The Government allows this sort of thing to go on, whereas New Zealand will give equal pay for equal work from 1st April, 1963.

While the Parliament was in recess recently, advertisements for positions in the Commonwealth Public Service appeared in the Australian press. I have a sheaf of them here. When four lady senators approached the Prime Minister on this question, the right honorable gentleman said they had given him food for thought. He also made other statements with which I shall deal directly. I want to refer now to the numerous advertisements for positions in the Public Service that have appeared in the past ten days in the press. “i ne commonwealth Scientific and Indus trial Research Organization advertised for an agricultural chemist and, although the required qualifications for men and women are the same, there is a difference of £188 per annum in the salary. The applicants are required to have an agricultural or rural science diploma. The C.S.I.R.O. has also advertised for experimental officers. Exactly the same qualifications are required by men and women who apply for the jobs. They must have a university degree in science, but the salary for women is £188 less than that for men.

When one examines the cost of education at the universities in Melbourne and Sydney, one finds that, irrespective of whether the students are male or female, the cost is the same. The fees for an agricultural science course are £516 at the University of Melbourne and £326 at the University of Sydney. The fees for a three-year science course for both men and women are £416 in Melbourne and £351 in Sydney. For a four-year course, the fees are £508 in Melbourne and £415 in Sydney, and in each case they apply to both men and women.

I turn now to the salaries paid to juniors in the Commonwealth Public Service, starting at seventeen years. The salary for a female is £59 less than that for a male. They get annual increments, provided they pass the same examinations, until they reach the top of the grade, and at that stage the difference of £59 has grown to £188. When we see that sort of thing happening, it is no wonder that the Australian Council of Trade Unions no longer has any faith in the present Minister for Labour and National Service or in his competence to deal with this issue. It is no wonder, either, that the four lady senators from the Liberal side of the Parliament, conscience-stricken as they are, by-passed the Minister for Labour and National Service and went directly to the Prime Minister on 10th April last to plead the case of equal pay for equal work. It is no wonder, either, that the Prime Minister stated that those ladies had given him food for thought.

Having listened to those senators, the Prime Minister decided that he would receive a delegation from the A.C.T.U. himself to get first-hand information on this subject. The tragedy of the position is that the Prime Minister found himself so far removed from this national problem, on which a decision was reached eleven years ago, that he asked the A.C.T.U. to give him more information on the subject. The A.C.T.U. has met the wishes of the Prime Minister and he has been supplied with properly documented facts, correctly assembled and taken from I.L.O. or government documents, all of which are and have been available to the Minister for Labour and National Service and his department. Yet it remained for an outside organization to give the Prime Minister the facts.

The Treasurer has glibly paid lip service to the I.L.O. but, looking over the facts, one concludes that the only interest he had in the organization was the opportunity it afforded him to enjoy another trip overseas. He paid no attention at all to the principles espoused by the organization ia which he took a very high office.

Mr. Speaker, we do not want any more sidestepping of the issue by the present Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. McMahon). The Austalian people, by popular vote, have endorsed the policy that we on this side of the House espouse. There was no ambiguity about our policy. On the hustings, we said -

We believe that women should be paid equal pay with men for work of equal value.

We are pledged to that and we shall impose such a requirement at the first opportunity.

We expect the Prime Minister to come into the House now and say quite firmly when he intends to call a conference with the State Ministers in charge of labour matters to formulate plans to implement the principle of justice - the principle of equal pay for equal service. The Parliament is entitled to know, too, when the Prime Minister will act and reply to the Australian Council of Trade Unions. In simple terms, when will he let Australia again lift its head among the nations that count in the world? Our representatives ought to be able to go to the next conference of the International Labour Organization and say: “We have implemented the decision of 1951. No longer, in our own service, have we men and women working side by side at the same work, but with a substantial difference between the amounts in their fortnightly pay envelopes.” This is a scandal that no government should tolerate. We can see in the newspapers every day advertisements of positions in respect of which there is a difference of £188 a year between the salaries paid lo men and those paid to women. This Government is represented on the International Labour Organization, but the State governments are not. This Government is in a position, therefore, in which it must give a lead and set the pattern. It must call the conference that is demanded by the A.C.T.U. and by the Australian Labour Party.

I repeat that the people of Australia, by a vast majority, have voted for equal pay for equal service in this country. The Prime Minister has met a deputation from the A.C.T.U., and we do not want any more apologies from the Minister for Labour and National Service. The Prime Minister, having met that deputation, and having discussed this matter with the lady senators who belong to the Liberal Party of Australia, must answer the question that we ask, and he must answer it now.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

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

Mr. Speaker, it must be obvious, from what has just been said by the honorable member for Blaxland (Mr. E. James Harrison), who raised this matter for discussion on behalf of the Opposition, that the proposal is both capricious and ill-timed. Let me state precisely where the Government stands at present on this matter and where it has always stood. We have stated consistently that we are not opposed to the principle of equal pay for work of equal value. That remains the Government’s policy, Sir. But, as the honorable member for Blaxland said, with reference to Article 2 of the Convention of the International Labour Organization, we have always had the reservation that each member shall, by means appropriate to the methods in operation for determining rates of remuneration, promote and, insofar as it is consistent with such methods, ensure the application to all workers of the principle of equal remuneration for men and women workers for work of equal value. I emphasize that this Government has never been opposed to the principle of equal pay for work of equal value.

I said that this proposal for discussion was both capricious and ill-timed, and I shall prove that, Sir. Let me deal, first of all, with its capriciousness. I say definitely and precisely that Australia has honoured every one of its obligations to the International Labour Organization under both the Convention and the recommendation. We have done all that we were asked to do and all that we were expected to do. Many years ago, you could, if you wished, ratify a convention conditionally. In other words, you could attach conditions. However, for many years past, it has been the practice of the International Labour Organization for a member not to ratify any convention unless that member could ensure that the provisions of the convention would be universally applied to all jurisdictions throughout the country concerned. That means that before this Government can ratify the convention of that organization, we have to be certain that equal pay will apply in every State and in every industry. Every member of the House, I think, knows only too well that some State governments are not prepared to apply the provisions of equal pay. Consequently, we are not, and never have been, in a position in which we could say, in respect of a convention that we voted for, “This is a convention that can, in fact, be ratified “.

Even in New South Wales, which, by legislative action, has adopted the principle of equal pay, one of the judges of the Industrial Commission, in the 1959 judgment which decided the matter, stated that there was a marked contrast between the legislation of that State and Convention No. 100 of the International Labour Organization. There is the proof of the case with respect to the Convention itself. We could not ratify that Convention unless all the States were prepared to adopt its provisions.

There is a second principle which I believe is adhered to by the Australian Labour Party just as much as by this Liberal Government. That is that this Government and any other government which believes in the sovereignty of this country can apply the provisions of International Labour Organization conventions or, for that matter, of any other conventions, only subject to what are regarded as the essential interests and needs of this country. It is for the Government and not for the organization to decide what shall be done, and when and how a convention shall be applied.

I turn now to the recommendation itself. Recommendations before the International Labour Organization are statements of principle declaring where the Government stands. When we voted for this recommendation, we voted for the principle of equal pay for work of equal value - a principle that we believe in - subject to the reservation that I have mentioned. That reservation was read out by the honorable member for Blaxland, as I have said. What other obligations were there that we had to comply with, Sir? First, we had an obligation to report the decisions of the organization on this matter to the Parliament and then to report back to the organization what had transpired here. That was done in 1953 by my colleague, the present Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt), who was then Minister for Labour and National Service. So that obligation was carried out. We had an obligation also to confer with each of the States and to report back to the International Labour Organization the position in each State. We have done that. So our second obligation has been fulfilled. Thirdly, we have an obligation to report on any suggestions made by the organization about the way in which the recommendation or the Convention is being carried out. The last time a recommendation or suggestion was received was in 1956. We immediately complied with the recommendation received on that occasion.

Consequently, I can tell the House that our obligations accepted by signing the recommendation and all our other obligations have been fulfilled in both the letter and the spirit. We are left with no other obligation to fulfil. So, on this point, there is no substance in the arguments of the Opposition. The honorable member for Blaxland read out what he declared to be the substance of our obligations but, quite clearly, he did not understand what was the substance of our obligations. If he did understand it, he would not have made the statements that we heard from him.

I have said that the Opposition’s attitude is capricious, and so it is. The honorable member for Blaxland said that, a week or more ago, representatives of the Australian Council of Trade Unions met the Prime Minister. I would add that, also, representatives of the Australian Council of Salaried and Professional Associationsapparently, unknown to the honorable member - and leaders of various women’s organizations had consultations with the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) and myself. At that conference, we were asked to treat this matter in a non-political way - to treat it objectively and not to bring it into the political arena. Despite that, the Opposition, knowing that we have given certain assurances to the A.C.T.U. and the women’s organizations concerned, has capriciously proposed this matter for discussion by the House to-day. It has done this for two purposes - first, to indulge in a political stunt, and, secondly, to try to compromise the discussion that will take place in the Cabinet itself soon.

The proposal to discuss this matter is also ill-timed, Mr. Speaker. The honorable gentleman very rightly said that when the A.C.T.U. presented its case it said, “ We would like to present additional information to you, and we would like to present this information to the Cabinet before it considers the matter. It was only on last Saturday, 28th April, that a letter was received from the A.C.T.U. telling us that the information had been posted, and the manual I have in my hand, which contains the information, was placed on the Prime Minister’s table only yesterday. The proposal of this matter for discussion is ill-timed, because the A.C.T.U. was not anxious for us to consider the matter until it had presented full and factual information to the Cabinet, on which the Cabinet could come to a decision. I contend, therefore, that this move on the part of the Opposition is a stunt.

Before I sit down I wish to reply to some questions addressed to me about what has been said on previous occasions by my colleague, the Treasurer and former Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Harold Holt). I mention these statements because they have been bandied about for some time. A statement has been made that when the right honorable gentleman was president of the International Labour Conference he asked all member countries of the organization to carry out. the provisions of the convention on equal pay for men and women doing work of equal value. That statement is not correct. Nor is the statement correct that since that time the International Labour Organization has persistently asked this Government to carry out the provisions of the convention.

I leave the matter on that basis. We have stated where we stand on the matter of principle. We do not object to the principle of equal pay for work of equal value. We have given certain assurances to the women’s organizations of this country, the representatives of which came here and presented the women’s case to us. We have also given assurances to the Australian Council of Salaried and Professional Associations and to the A.C.T.U. We have told those organizations that we will give the matter the most careful and detailed consideration. Now that I have been acquainted with the case put by the A.C.T.U., a submission will be presented to the Cabinet, and when a decision has been made the Government will announce what it has decided.

I believe, therefore, that we are entitled to say, in answer to the case put by the Opposition, that this proposal is a capricious one, because we are now considering the matter and the A.C.T.U. has asked us not to bring it into the political arena. Secondly, the bodies that I have mentioned can rest assured that this matter will receive the most careful and detailed consideration of the Menzies Government.

Mr COSTA:
Banks

.- The Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. McMahon) is a genius at thinking out specious excuses for the Government’s failure to do its duty. It is clearly the responsibility of this Government to carry out the provisions of Article 2 of the recommendations of the International Labour Organization, which is in the following terms: -

Appropriate action should be taken to ensure the application of the principle of equal remuneration; to encourage the application of the principle to employees of State, provincial or local government departments or agencies where these have jurisdiction over rates of remuneration.

Appropriate action should be taken to ensure as rapidly as practicable-

We know how rapidly this Government has acted - the application of the principle, particularly as regards industries and undertakings operated under public ownership or control where appropriate work is executed under the terms of public contracts.

That is a recommendation to which this Government was a signatory, and which it has completely ignored. It seems to me that the Government has a set against women. It denies them justice in every field. An example of this is the way in which the Government has failed to recognize the rights of its own female employees in the Public Service. This is one field in which it has complete power. It does not have to confer with State governments about the treatment of its own employees. There are 165,000 persons employed in the Commonwealth Public Service, of whom 33,000 or 20 per cent., are females. The Government is denying justice to a great many of these female employees. It denies women their fair share in many sections of the national economy. What about the denial of the rights of mothers in regard to child endowment? The Government has done nothing about child endowment for twelve years. What about the wives of invalids, who get the paltry sum of £2 15s. a week? Does not this show discrimination against women who bear a very great responsibility? What about civilian widows, who are given a good deal less than war widows? These rates of social service benefits should be fixed on needs. Such benefits should not be considered as gifts.

Trace this Government’s treatment of women how and where you like, and you will find that it has treated them with callous indifference. This Government has been a signatory to declarations concerning the status of women, but these declarations are evidently considered as so unimportant that they can be ignored. I believe the principle of equal pay for equal work to be important, in four different ways. It is important to working women, because equal pay for equal work is a principle based on simple justice. It simply involves giving to women the remuneration to which they are entitled for the work that they do. It is important to working men, because the payment of equal pay for equal work would afford men greater wage and job security. It would discourage employers from hiring women for less money than would have to be paid to men, or from replacing men with women at lower rates of pay, as is sometimes done. It is important to industry, because the payment of equal pay for equal work would protect fair employers from the unfair competition of those who attempt to use women employees for the purpose of under-cutting men’s wages. Finally, it is important to housewives, because equal pay for equal work would mean more economic security for housewives and their children by protecting the wages of the male heads of families. These are very important matters, and the Government should do something about them, especially at a time when the use of automation is increasing. We are approaching the push-button era in industry, and women can push buttons as well as men can.

Equal pay for equal work means that the rate is based on the job, not on the sex of the worker. Historically women have received less pay than men simply because they have been women. This is completely unfair. Australian women are treated with less fairness in industrial and other matters than are the women of many other countries that this Government would regard as backward. The honorable member for Blaxland (Mr. E. James Harrison) gave a classic example of discrimination against women when he referred to a newspaper advertisement calling for applications for the position of librarian in the Commonwealth service, which stated that if the successful applicant was a male he would receive £188 a year more than a female would, despite the fact that all applicants, whether male or female, were required to have undergone the same training, to university level, to work the same hours and to do the same work. The Government may consider this a fair proposition, but it strikes me as representing less than justice.

The principle of equal pay for the sexes gained more adherents during the last war than at any other time in the nation’s history. Industries in which there was a large influx of women into jobs previously held by men were forced to recognize the justice of equal pay for the sexes. During that period the Labour Party made sure that women were treated justly and were given the same rates as those paid to men.

I appeal to the Government to set a good example. It can do this in respect of its own employees, and it can do it in the territories of the Commonwealth, in which it has sole jurisdiction. It can also do it in the defence services. It could issue instructions that female employees in the Public Service and in the Commonwealth territories should receive the same rates of pay as male employees doing similar work. This Government should set an example for the States that are not following the provisions of the International Labour Organization article that I have mentioned. New South Wales, which has a Labour government, is one State in which the principle of equal pay for equal work has been recognized. This Government has an obligation under the United Nations Charter in respect of the status of women, an obligation which it is ignoring. There is also the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which provides that the Government should not discriminate against women in the way it is doing. There is also the International Labour Organization Declaration, which this Government has not put into effect.

Mr ANTHONY:
Richmond

.- Having listened to the remarks of the honorable member for Blaxland (Mr. E. James Harrison) and the honorable member for Banks (Mr. Costa), I feel that they are trying to twist the situation insofar as our commitments to the International Labour Organization are concerned. It is quite true that at the 1951 convention Australia did abstain from voting on the recommendation which would request us to ratify Convention 100 of that organization; but we did, however, vote in support of Recommendation 90, which suggested that there be a movement towards equal pay for equal work over a period. The honorable member for Banks said that we had not lived up to the obligation that we undertook in voting for that recommendation. But when he read the recommendation he deliberately omitted one line of it, and that line is the whole essence of the recommendation. The honorable member read -

Appropriate action should be taken- but he left out the succeeding words - after consultation with employers’ and workers’ organizations concerned.

He then went on - to ensure as rapidly as practicable the application of the principle of equal remuneration . . .

Of course he left that phrase out, because it is the whole essence of the debate to-day. The workers’ organization in Australia is the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission or the industrial tribunal in each State and we, as a Government, believe that those are the bodies which ought to determine what should be the basic margin for female workers. Successive Commonwealth governments, both Labour and non-Labour, have followed the principle that the arbitration authorities should determine what the female margin should be.

Mr Reynolds:

– The New South Wales Labour Government does not rely on that.

Mr ANTHONY:

– Do not talk to me about the New South Wales Labour Government, because I will have something to say about it a little later. Honorable members opposite may say that the New South Wales Government has instituted equal pay for equal work but have they read what is stated in a publication issued by the Australian Council of Salaried and Professional Associations about equal pay in New South Wales? This publication points out that the New South Wales Government included the following provision in section 88d of the Industrial Arbitration (Female Rates Amendment) Act: -

This section shall not apply to and in respect of those provisions of any awards and industrial agreements which are applicable to persons engaged in work essentially or usually performed by females but upon which male employees may also be employed.

The publication comments on that provision as follows: -

This short paragraph makes the mandatory equal pay provisions of the Act completely inapplicable and useless so far as the great majority of women are concerned.

The publication says that as a result, by 1963 - the end of the transitional period of five years in which equal pay for women was to be achieved - only 4 per cent, or 5 per cent, of women in New South Wales would get equal pay for equal work. So do not talk to me about the New South Wales Government. If honorable members opposite think that there is a duty to be performed regarding International Labour Organization recommendations then they should get on to their political colleagues in New South Wales. Let Labour governments be honest about the provisions that they bring in respecting equal pay. But of course, these governments know that there are great complexities involved in applying the principle of equal pay for equal work, because fundamentally the Australian wage formula has been built on two components. The first is the basic wage component, which is based on the needs or responsibilities of the person receiving the wage. In the case of a male employee there is a margin to enable him to provide for his wife and family. This is borne out by all basic wage judgments. In 1949, Mr. Justice Foster said in the basic wage case verdict that the male basic wage was a social wage to enable a man to keep his wife and family. He further pointed out that if we had equality in the basic wage as between male and female this could mean a lowering of the male basic wage. That is one of the reasons why the Australian Council of Trade Unions has not been back to the court since 1949 over this matter. That organization knows that if there is to be equality of wages the important question is: How is the equality to be achieved? Is equality to result in a raising of the female rate or in a lowering of the male rate - or is there to be some intermediate level? If Labour Party interests feel that Australia is not living up to its obligations to the International Labour Organization let them bring a case before the arbitration authorities. That is the historical way of obtaining wage justice in this country.

The honorable member for Banks said that 38 countries had ratified the equal pay convention. I point out that of those 38 countries only one- India - is a British Commonwealth country. I think it is a mockery of the International Labour Organization when small countries like Tunisia, Albania and Yugoslavia and, of course, the countries of the Communist bloc, ratify something like this convention. Do they live up to the convention? That is the point. Australia is not going to ratify something which it knows it cannot live up to.

We have a problem in Australia in providing for equal pay for equal work because we have a federal system whereby a Commonwealth judicial body determines the wage rates for certain employees and State bodies have the right to decide wage rates of employees within State boundaries. Before Australia could implement a convention on equal pay there would have to be complete agreement between all the States and the Commonwealth. In addition, in order to implement the convention there would have to be appropriate legislation in every State. As stated in the publication issued by a council representing the whitecollar workers of Australia, from which I have already quoted, New South Wales is not living up to the obligations imposed by the International Labour Organization convention.

Mr Cope:

– What have you against women?

Mr ANTHONY:

– I have nothing against women, but I support the judgments of the Commonwealth conciliation and arbitration authorities who have said in relation to the basic wage that a male employee must be given a wage that will enable him to keep bis wife and family, but that in the matter of margins there should be equality. The Commonwealth applied that principle to its public servants in 1920, after the Public Service Board inquired into the matter. Of course, in the instance cited by the honorable member for Banks, there is a difference of £198 in the actual wage, but that is due to the difference in the base rate. Honorable members opposite will find that the great majority of women employed by the Commonwealth enjoy the same margins as men for work of equal value. The Commonwealth Government has a better record in that respect than has any State in Australia, so it has nothing to be ashamed of.

The phrase, “ Equal pay for equal work “, is ambiguous. The terms “ equal pay “ and “ equal work “ are difficult to define, and the more one delves into the whole matter the more one finds how difficult it is to define them. Equal pay might be brought about by reducing the male rate to the female rate. Is that what honorable members opposite mean? That is one way in which we could define it. Also, equal work-

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr WHITLAM:
Werriwa

.- In bringing forward this matter of great public importance for discussion the Opposition wishes to spur the Government into carry, ing out its international obligations. The honorable member for Richmond (Mr. Anthony) quoted, in a disparaging tone, some countries which have ratified the equal pay convention. But would he disparage countries like West Germany, France, Italy and Belgium, all of which have ratified the convention as well as promoting the recommendation? Would he disparage the industrial States in the United States of America and the provinces in Canada which have applied the principle of equal pay? Let me name those most highly industrialized States in the United States which already have equal pay. They are California, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

Mr Anthony:

– They have not ratified it.

Mr WHITLAM:

– But they have applied the principle.

Mr Anthony:

– You said they had ratified it.

Mr WHITLAM:

– It is true that the United States and Canada have not yet ratified the convention - nor has Australia - but well over half the population of the United States of America enjoys equal pay and all the most highly industrialized State3 in the federation have applied the principle of equal pay. They comprise the whole of the north east, the Great Lakes region and the west coast. In Canada, Ontario and British Columbia, the most highly industrialized of the provinces, are among the seven provinces which have legislated for equal pay. Two-thirds of Canada’s population enjoy the benefit of equal pay. Thus the most highly industrialized communities on both sides of the north Atlantic already have equal pay. In our pattern of employment we resemble them. Like all countries which are becoming industrialized to an increasing degree, we are employing an increasing percentage of women. We say it is a matter of human justice that they should be paid the same amount as men if they are doing the same job.

Mr. Speaker, we are constantly warned that we find it difficult to sell our manufactures overseas because of our standards. The implication is that our competitors have lower standards and are therefore able to undercut us. Therefore, it should be in our national interest to promote the raising and equalizing of standards throughout the world. If Japan, which is a member of the International Labour Organization, were to adopt this convention we would be in a more competitive position in the Indian Ocean and Pacific areas. So much for that particular argument by the honorable member for Richmond.

The honorable member for Richmond had earlier used the argument that the introduction of equal pay for equal work is a matter for arbitration and not for legislation. He said the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission was among the workers’ organizations mentioned in the convention and the recommendation. The commission is not so understood in the convention and the recommendation. The commission is appointed by this Parliament. It consists of officials. The commission is not represented at International Labour Conferences. It is not the commission’s job to volunteer to carry out International Labour Organization conventions or promote its recommendations. That is the job of the only government that is represented at those conferences, namely, the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia. The State governments are not represented at the conferences any more than is the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, the Industrial Commission of New South Wales or the other functionaries and officials to whom State parliaments delegate their powers and whom the Commonwealth government of the day appoints.

There are some industrial matters which have always been the subject of legislation in this country. The whole system of workers’ compensation has been introduced by legislation. The States have passed acts and the Territories have introduced ordinances and where interstate seamen are concerned this Parliament itself has passed an act. Again, long service leave is provided for, under State awards, by legislation. In respect of interstate and overseas trade, this Parliament has recently provided long service leave for waterside workers, although for motives of discipline. In the Conciliation and Arbitration Act there are several divisions of Part III. that deal with specific fields in which we can legislate directly - such as the Snowy Mountains area, Commonwealth projects, the maritime industry and the stevedoring industry. Above all there is the Public Service; and in the Public Service we can provide equal pay, not just equal margins, but equal pay - an equal basic wage and equal cost of living allowances and equal margins for men and women doing the same job. We can do that, just as the Federal Government in the United States of America does and as do the Federal Government of Canada, the United Kingdom Government and the Government of New Zealand. All these things are our obligations under the recommendation.

There is no doubt that all the workers’ organizations concerned agree to this principle. They have asked for it. But all they have asked the Government to do is to abandon its alibi that this is a matter for arbitration, as distinct from legislation, and get on with the job of carrying out through legislation the things to which it and it alone can be a party in these international labour conferences.

The recommendation is quite specific here. First, we are bound to ensure the application of the principle to all employees of central government departments or agencies. We have not done it. We can do it. Secondly, we should encourage the application of the principle to employees of State, provincial or local government departments or agencies. In the last eleven years we have conferred with the States on four occasions. Nine years ago Victoria and New South Wales said that they approved of the principle.

Mr Anthony:

– Victoria does not now.

Mr WHITLAM:

– Victoria has not said it no longer approves of the principle, but it has not yet applied it. The Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. McMahon) has told me, in answer to the annual questions that I put to him on this subject, that the position in Victoria and New South Wales remains the same as it was in 1953, that is, that those States agree to the ratification. So, too, does the position in South Australia and Western Australia, which refuse to agree, while Queensland and Tasmania have remained mute on the subject.

One State cannot get too much ahead of other States on such matters, because if one State introduces legislation which is more onerous to employers than that in neighbouring States it frightens investment and production and employment away to neighbouring States. In New South Wales the principle of equal pay has already been applied in the teaching service, which is the greatest employer of men and women doing the same job. The New South Wales Department of Education cannot get too far ahead of the other States in these matters because the State’s burden in respect of education - the highest burden of any State government is education - would become disproportionate to that of its neighbours. What encouragement has this Government given so that Victoria will stick to its undertaking of 1953, that Western Australia and South Australia will be persuaded to reverse their stand and that Queensland and Tasmania will be persuaded to get off the fence? If equal pay and other industrial standards applied evenly throughout Australia we would have a much more evenly developed continent. Some of the less developed States would not be penalized in their development, nor would they be condemned to have development on unjust and unequal terms. The recommendation obliges us to apply the principle in industries and undertakings operated under public ownership or control. We could do that, but we have not. It also obliges us to apply the principle, where appropriate, to work executed under the terms of public contracts. We could do that, but we have not.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr SNEDDEN:
Bruce

.- This urgency proposal by the Opposition is mischievous. The Opposition seeks to make political capital out of something which the parties principal do not wish to be considered on a political level. During the last week of the sittings of this Parliament before Easter a deputation composed of representatives of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the Australian Council of Salaried and Professional Associations and the high council of the public service unions came to see the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies). The members of the deputation asked the Prime Minister to tell them the Government’s attitude to this matter and they also asked him to convene a meeting of the State governments to discuss it. The Prime Minister told the deputation that he and his Ministers would consider the matter in Cabinet. At that point of time the deputation sought to give the additional information which has been referred to by the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. McMahon), and the Prime Minister indicated that he would be glad to receive it. So the parties principal departed.

With the members of the deputation awaiting an answer from the Prime Minister, the Opposition now seeks to bring the matter into the political arena, although the people who are vitally concerned in it want it to be left out of the political arena. The members of the Opposition seek to gain some political capital. Apparently they have the mistaken idea that there is a possibility of embarrassing the Government over this matter. The urgency proposal states that we should honour our obligations. In order to decide whether we have honoured our obligations, we must first find out what our obligations are. Surely the Opposition knows that the constitution of the International Labour Organization, the power of a sovereign state and the consequences of a federal type of constitution, such as we have, must be considered. In addition, we must consider the constitutional limitations placed on the Federal Government for the settlement of industrial disputes by arbitration. Because of all these things, we ought to put aside the question of ratification and look at the convention and recommendation of the International Labour Organization themselves.

On 6th June, 1951, the relevant convention was brought before the International Labour Organization and passed. On 29th June, 1951, the relevant recommendation was passed. In the committee stages, before the convention came into the plenary session, the Australian representatives had made it perfectly clear that the Australian Government supported the principle of equal pay for work of equal value but, because of the difficulties that were involved in ratification, they abstained from voting on the convention. When it came to the recommendation, they made it perfectly clear that the Australian Government supported the principle. Therefore, they gave an affirmative vote for the recommendation. It is worth remembering that into the recital of the recommendation the words of the convention itself were imported. Those words were -

Whereas this Convention provides that the application of the principle of equal remuneration for men and women workers for work of equal value shall be promoted or ensured by means appropriate to the methods in operation for determining rates of remuneration in the countries concerned;

The recommendation then states that these matters are subject to the provisions of Article 2 of the convention, which uses the words -

Each member shall by means appropriate to the methods in operation for determining rates of remuneration . . .

Then paragraph 2 of Article 2 states -

This principle may be applied by means of -

National laws or regulations

Legally established or recognized machinery for wage determination.

The legally recognized machinery for wage determination in Australia is arbitration, so we honour our obligations in Australia if the matter is determined by arbitration.

I think it is worth while examining the constitution of the International Labour Organization to determine the responsibility of member countries in relation to recommendations or conventions. Article 19, clause 7, of that constitution deals with the responsibilities of countries which are federal States. It lists those responsibilities. To paraphrase them, they require a country to notify its workers’ and employers’ organizations of the nature and content of recommendations or conventions. Nobody could suggest that any workers’ organization or employers’ organization in Australia is ignorant of the contents of this convention or of this recommendation, although it is true that many of the organizations have conflicting ideas as to the interpretation of the meaning of the two documents. In view of the fact that workers’ and employers’ organizations know of these documents it is necessary to examine the actions of the parties concerned in the past and at present.

The Australian Council of Trade Unions has sent many deputations to Ministers of the Government. There were deputations to the present Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt) when he was Minister for Labour and National Service. There have been deputations to the Minister for Defence (Mr. Townley), who was then Minister for Immigration, representing the Prime Minister. There have been deputations to the present Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. McMahon) and, recently, to the Prime Minister. The first of these deputations was as far back as 1953.

It is important to point out that no application in respect of this matter has been made to any arbitral authority, on a national wage basis, since 1949, when the matter of the female basic wage was considered by the Commonwealth Arbitration and Conciliation Commission, but only because an amendment of the legislation made it necessary to determine, as an initial point, what proportion the female basic wage should bear to the male basic wage. Since that date, the unions have not pursued the matter at all. That the A.C.T.U. has had opportunities to do so cannot be denied. That the A.C.T.U., in a periphery phase, has been seeking the application of the principle also cannot be denied. On 7th November, 1958,I received, in common with other candidates at the general election of that time, a circular letter. Although the letter bore only the typed signature of H. J. Souter, secretary of the A.C.T.U., I think it was issued with his authority. He said, in the final paragraph -

You are requested, therefore, to indicate whether you support the fulfilment of our International obligations by the immediate application of this important reform.

The A.C.T.U. has not been to an arbitration tribunal, federal or State, on this matter. There was a deputation to the Minister for Labour and National Service in

September, 1960. A report in the Melbourne “ Sun “ newspaper in relation to that deputation reads as follows -

The deputation had urged that the Government should adopt the principles of “ equal pay for the sexes in its employ for equal work “.

Referring to the Minister for Labour and National Service, the report said -

He told the deputation it was well known that the I.L.O. contemplated the use of the normal processes on wage determination in each country. There was nothing to prevent unions taking their claim for equal pay to the Commonwealth tribunal - yet the subject had not been raised by the unions in the courts for over ten years. Mr. McMahon said he was asked what the Commonwealth’s attitude would be if an equal pay claim was made to the Arbitration Commission. He replied that he could not tell precisely what the attitude would be but it could be expected that the Commonwealth would “intervene to present all relevant information to the commission “.

That was an invitation to the A.C.T.U. to take that course - an invitation which was rejected. Why has the A.C.T.U. not done anything?

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Motion (by Mr. McMahon) put -

That the business of the day be called on.

The House divided. (Mr. Speaker - Hon. Sir John McLeay.)

AYES: 60

NOES: 57

Majority . . . . 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 1753

COAL LOADING WORKS AGREEMENT (QUEENSLAND) BILL 1962

Message recommending appropriation reported.

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

Motion (by Mr. Harold Holt) proposed -

That it is expedient that an appropriation of revenue be made for the purposes of a bill for an act relating to an agreement between the Commonwealth and the State of Queensland with respect to certain Coal Loading Works.

Mr CREAN:
Melbourne Ports

.- Again I ask: Can the Treasurer give some indication of the size of the appropriation required?

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
Treasurer · Higgins · LP

– Yes. That is stated in , the bill. It is £200,000.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Resolution reported.

Standing Orders suspended; resolution adopted.

Ordered -

That Mr. Harold Holt and Mr. Townley 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:
HigginsTreasurer · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to obtain the approval of Parliament to an agreement between the Commonwealth and the State of Queensland providing for financial assistance to the State towards the cost of improved coal loading facilities at the port of Gladstone.

In November of last year, the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) announced that the Commonwealth had decided to provide financial assistance to help meet the cost of improvements to coal loading facilities at Gladstone, which have an important part to play in developing Australia’s coal export trade. Agreement has now been reached between the Commonwealth and the State on the conditions under which this assistance is to be provided, and the text of the agreement is set out in the schedule to the bill.

Gladstone is the port of shipment for coal from the large deposits in the Kianga and Moura coal-fields in central Queensland which are being developed to meet substantial export orders from Japan. The Kianga deposits have been traced continuously along the valley of the Dawson River from Baralaba in the north to the Cracow district in the south, a distance of some 85 miles. Open cuts have been established at Kianga, where soft coking coal is obtained, and at Moura, 13 miles to the north, for hard coking coal. Reserves available for opencutting are expected to be substantial, possibly of the order of 60,000,000 to 120,000,000 tons. For the field as a whole, inferred reserves could be of the order of 1,000,000,000 tons, and initial development t by open-cut methods might eventually be followed by large-scale underground mining.

The development of coal mining in the Lower Dawson Valley could make a most important contribution to the development of the central Queensland region. In the early stages at least, the expansion of coal mining in this area depends substantially upon the growth of the export trade through Gladstone. To permit the export trade to expand, the existing coal loading facilities at the port require enlarging and speeding up, so that large quantities of coal can be loaded quickly and economically. Harbour berths also need to be deepened to meet the needs of the larger bulk-loading vessels which are to be employed in the trade.

Accordingly, the Gladstone Harbour Board has developed plans for the improvement of the harbour and loading facilities. In the first place, the harbour is being dredged to a depth of 32 feet which will be adequate for carriers of up to 15,000 tons. This work is estimated to cost £50,000 and is being carried out by the Gladstone Harbour Board outside the arrangements for the provision of Commonwealth assistance.

The coal handling facilities at present consist of a 20,000-ton stockpile area and a conveyor loader with a capacity of 200 tons per hour. The loader has a fixed head which makes it necessary to warp vessels when changing from one hold to another. The Gladstone Harbour Board plans to instal a travelling gantry loader and conveyor which will enable vessels to be loaded in the one fixed berthing position, and the rate of loading is to be raised to at least 500 tons per hour. The areas for stockpiling coal awaiting shipment are also to be enlarged to provide two areas each with a capacity of 25,000 tons, one for soft and one for hard coking coals. These works are estimated to cost £405,000, of which the Commonwealth is to provide up to £200,000.

The Commonwealth’s decision to assist this project followed a request from the Queensland Government for financial assistance to ensure that these important works could be carried out as expeditiously as possible. The maintenance and development of ports is, of course, a matter that comes within the province of the States, and the Commonwealth has no intention of intruding into State rights and responsibilities in respect of port facilities. Nevertheless, in view of the prospect of substantial additional export earnings, the Commonwealth decided that the provision of special financial assistance was warranted to ensure early completion of the works.

As honorable members will recall, an agreement for the provision of Commonwealth financial assistance towards the cost of improving coal export facilities at certain New South Wales ports was approved by

Parliament last year. Good progress is now being made on the works designed to expand and safeguard our important coal export trade from New South Wales ports. The agreement with Queensland set out in the schedule to the bill now before the House is generally similar in purpose and design to the agreement with New South Wales.

The agreement is subject to the approval of this Parliament and the Parliament of Queensland, and to the receipt of a certain minimum level of orders for export of coal through Gladstone. I am happy to say that the operating company, Thiess Peabody Coal Proprietary Limited, has already received firm orders for the export of 3,400.000 tons of coal over seven years, this being substantially in excess of the minimum quantity specified in clause 2 of the agreement. These orders have been estimated to provide more than £14,000,000 in overseas income when finally executed.

Under clause 3 of the agreement the Commonwealth undertakes to provide to the State up to £200,000. The remaining £205,000 is to be found by the Gladstone Harbour Board. Up to the maximum of £200,000, Commonwealth assistance, in accordance with clause 4, is to be on a £1 for £1 basis, and of this amount £100,000 is to be a grant and £100,000 is to be a loan repayable over fifteen years. The provision of assistance partly by grant and partly by loan was also a feature of the arrangements with New South Wales in respect of coal loading facilities at ports in that State, which was designed to avoid the need for high loading charges to recoup the full amount of capital expenditure in the early stages of the development of the coal export trade.

The repayment arrangements for the amounts to be lent are contained in clause 6 of the agreement. They provide that repayments do not commence until December, 1963, by when the Queensland authorities expect the works to be substantially complete. Interest is to be paid on the repayable advances at the long-term bond rate applying when the advance is made.

The State has undertaken to ensure that the works are carried out in conformity with sound engineering and financial prac tices and as expeditiously as possible. The agreement also contains appropriate provisions relating to the provision of estimates, the supply of information, audit and the giving of notices, and the variation of the works described in the schedule to the agreement, if circumstances so require.

I should like to conclude by emphasizing that the assistance to be provided under the agreement with the Queensland Government is designed to foster an important export trade in its early formative years. It is expected that the improvement of these basic facilities will enable the trade to become established on a basis which will enable private enterprise to carry out its plans for the large-scale development of the coal export trade from central Queensland. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Luchetti) adjourned.

page 1755

SALES TAX ASSESSMENT BILL (No. 1) 1962

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HigginsTreasurer · LP

– by leave - I move -

That leave be given to bring in a bill for an act to amend the Sales Tax Assessment Act (No. 1) 1930-1953.

I inform the House that I will be seeking leave to introduce four other related bills. For convenience, the five bills will be circulated together.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HigginsTreasurer · LP

– by leave - I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to implement, for sales tax purposes, the Government’s previously announced decision to abolish the taxation clearance system for persons leaving Australia. The sales tax law at present contains taxation clearance requirements which are broadly comparable with the income tax provisions. A bill which will delete the income taxation clearance requirements has already been explained.

In my second-reading speech on the income tax measure I set out the considerations which led the Government to take this step. Briefly, it has been found that the clearance requirements impose unnecessary inconvenience on both travellers and carriers and, in the case of air travel, are in conflict with Australia’s obligations as a member of the International Civil Aviation Organization. The recent Commonwealth Committee on Taxation has also recommended the step which is now being taken.

Upon this bill coming into force it will no longer be necessary for any person chargeable with sales tax to obtain a clearance certificate before his departure from Australia. Carriers and travel agents will be relieved of their obligation to withhold travel tickets until a clearance certificate has been presented to them.

The pay-roll tax, wool tax, tobacco charges and stevedoring industry charge legislation contain taxation clearance provisions similar to those which apply in relation to income tax and sales tax and I will shortly seek leave to introduce measures which will repeal those provisions. I commend the bill to honorable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Crean) adjourned.

page 1756

PAY-ROLL TAX ASSESSMENT BILL 1962

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

That leave be given to bring in a bill for an act to amend the Pay-roll Tax Assessment Act 1941-1961.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
Treasurer · Higgins · LP

– by leave - I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

This bill has as its object the repeal of the taxation clearance provisions from the payroll tax law. The nature of comparable provisions in the income tax and sales tax laws and the reasons for the proposed repeal have been already stated and repetition is unnecessary. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Crean) adjourned.

page 1756

WOOL TAX ASSESSMENT BILL (No. 2) 1962

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

That leave be given to bring in a bill for an act to amend the Wool Tax Assessment Act 1936-1961, as amended by the Wool Tax Assessment Act 1962.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
Treasurer · Higgins · LP

– by leave - I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

This bill is a further measure in the series of bills necessary to remove the taxation clearance requirements from a number of Commonwealth taxing statutes. I commend it to honorable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Crean) adjourned.

page 1756

TOBACCO CHARGES ASSESSMENT BILL 1962

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

That leave be given to bring in a bill for an act to amend the Tobacco Charges Assessment Act 1955.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
Treasurer · Higgins · LP

– by leave - I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Provisions relating to the issue of clearances to persons about to leave Australia are contained in the tobacco charges legislation, and this bill, which I now commend to the House, will repeal those provisions.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Crean) adjourned.

page 1756

STEVEDORING INDUSTRY CHARGE ASSESSMENT BILL 1962

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

That leave be given to bring in a bill for an act to amend the Stevedoring Industry Charge Assessment Act 1947-1960.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
Treasurer · Higgins · LP

– by leave - I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The introduction of this bill completes the presentation of bills to abolish the system of taxation clearance certificates for persons departing from Australia. I commend it to honorable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Crean) adjourned.

page 1757

DAIRYING INDUSTRY BILL 1962

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

That leave be given to bring in a bill for an act to make provision for the payment of bounties on the production of butter, cheese and certain other butter fat products, and for other purposes.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr ADERMANN:
Minister for Primary Industry · Fisher · CP

– by leave - I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Since the Menzies Government came into office over twelve years ago, the Australian dairy industry has experienced a considerable degree of security and prosperity which can be attributed in no small measure to the successive stabilization plans administered by the Government. There is no question as to the marked progress the industry has made in the past decade. For example, butter production has increased in the meantime by over 15 per cent., while the total annual income of the industry has almost doubled. The Government’s policy of maintaining the butter and cheese subsidy arrangement has contributed materially to this satisfactory position.

I do not suggest, of course, that there is no room for improvement. Undoubtedly there is in some directions, but that is a relatively long-term project which will need to be tackled in consultation with the State governments. They are currently examining the ideas of the Dairy Industry Committee of Enquiry. The important thing, however, is to maintain a basically stable industry throughout and the dairy industry stabilization plan provides such a basis of stability. The current stabilization scheme, which is the third five years’ plan without a break, is due to terminate on 30th June next and it is the Government’s intention that a new arrangement of similar duration should operate from 1st July, 1962.

Although the scheme itself, which is in the nature of an agreement between the Commonwealth and State governments and the industry, is not spelt out in legislation it is still necessary to have legislation to provide for the payment of bounty during the currency of the new plan and to specify the procedure to be followed in disbursing the bounty to butter and cheese producers. That is therefore the purpose of this bill. On the matter of the bounty itself, I am pleased to announce that the Government has decided to allocate a sum of £13,500,000 as bounty for each year of the proposed five-year plan. This is an important departure from the previous policy and procedure whereby the amount of bounty to be allocated to butter and cheese producers was determined by the Government annually, and shortly in advance of each year of the then current stabilization plan.

The Government has arrived at the present decision in the belief that the industry is in need of this assurance because of the serious adverse developments that have occurred in the local and overseas markets in the past year or so. The industry is greatly concerned at the continuing decline in per capita consumption of butter here in Australia despite strong promotional measures taken by the industry in an endeavour to reverse the trend. Experts in market research who have investigated the reasons for this decline are convinced that the downward consumption trend has been due principally to a change in dietary habits and has not been caused by the butter price being too high.

In the overseas marketing field the negotiations that are proceeding between the British Government and the European Common Market countries could affect the future prospects of our export trade in dairy products. It is quite impossible, of course, to forecast at this stage what the outcome may be, but naturally the industry’s leaders have their worries about it. The acute over-supply of butter in world markets, necessitating the imposition by the British Government of quotas for imports into the United Kingdom market, is also causing the industry concern, particularly in view of the likelihood of surplus stocks of butter building up in this country without any firm prospects of its satisfactory disposal in normal commercial markets. In all the circumstances the Government believes it is essential that the industry be assisted by the Government to a reasonable extent, and considers that the most effective way of giving practical encouragement is to ensure that the level of the bounty will not be reduced during the next five years.

In deciding to allocate £13,500,000 a year to the dairy industry over the full five-year period of the new stabilization plan the Government has not accepted the recommendation of the Dairy Industry Committee of Enquiry that the bounty be gradually reduced to the point of termination after a period of ten years. It is important to remember in this connexion, however, that the market developments overseas were not evident and could not be foreseen by the committee when it conducted the inquiries on which its report was based.

Since the report of the committee of inquiry was tabled in Parliament, in November, 1960, it has been studied by State Ministers for Agriculture and discussed by them in the Australian Agricultural Council. As I mentioned earlier, the State governments are now examining the situation of the dairy industry in their respective States. The constitutional responsibility for land settlement and production rests with the States and any plan for rehabilitation of the Australian dairy industry as a whole would need to be implemented in accordance with a co-ordinated national plan. The Australian Agricultural Council is the appropriate forum for the development of such a plan.

In making its recommendations on rehabilitation, the committee suggested that the dairy subsidy be progressively reduced in proportion to the funds provided for rehabilitation over a period of ten years. The Government does not consider that it would help producers - in fact, we consider that it would have the opposite effect - if we were to take away from them something they were already receiving before any alternative form of assistance could be expected to have a practical effect. The importance of the dairy industry to the national economy must be recognized, I suggest, by any Australian Government, and we all are anxious to see the industry placed on a stable and economic basis.

As honorable members know, there are other issues of varying degrees of importance that have been raised by the committee of inquiry in its report. Some of them will require further consideration in conjunction with the States and the; industry, and others have been taken into account in negotiations in respect of the new stabilization plan. In accordance with the intention announced some twelve months or so ago, the Government has now successfully completed negotiations with the industry and the State governments for a new stabilization plan for the dairy industry to operate for the five-year period commencing on 1st July, 1962.

In addition to the provision of an annual subsidy of £13,500,000 in respect of butter and cheese the Government has decided to continue for the duration of the plan the principle of underwriting equalization values for butter and cheese at levels which will enable the Commonwealth Dairy Produce Equalization Committee Limited to determine and finance initial interim payments to factories each year at higher rates than would be practicable on purely conservative estimates of potential market returns for the year ahead. For the first year of the new stabilization plan, 1962-63, the. values will be underwritten at a level which will enable factories with average manufacturing costs to pay producers 40d. per lb. commercial butter basis, which is the same rate that has operated for the past four years. Thereafter the level will be reviewed before the commencement of each season. To the extent that the final subsidy and equalized sales returns in any year exceed the interim payments the producers receive the benefit by way of a final adjustment from the Commonwealth Dairy Produce Equalization Committee. The industry is most appreciative of this undertaking as it considers the underwriting provision to be of great assistance to the equalization committee.

During the term of the new plan, the industry will be free to determine domestic prices for butter and cheese. In previous plans this has been the responsibility of the Commonwealth Government by arrangement with the States, although for all practical purposes the actual homeconsumption price levels have been determined on the advice of the industry. Price control over butter and cheese is now inoperative in all States and the Commonwealth and State governments can see no reason why the industry should not assume this responsibility. This decision is in accordance also with a recommendation of the committee of inquiry and has been discussed with the industry’s leaders. However, the dairy industry has expressed the wish to establish a formula to measure movements in costs within the industry to assist it in its deliberations on domestic price levels, and the Government has agreed that the services of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics will be available to assist industry representatives who will comprise a cost-index committee.

Honorable members will note that the bill provides for butterfat products containing not less than 40 per cent, butterfat to be included in the definition of butter. This innovation is now necessary to meet new processes of manufacture within the industry. The butterfat products concerned have been manufactured in the past from butter on which bounty has been paid. However, a new process has been established which will produce certain butterfat products direct from milk or cream. These products would not have been eligible for bounty under the previous act. They will now be eligible for bounty on their butterfat content at the same butterfat rate as for butter within the £13,500,000 bounty.

Mr Pollard:

– Would a product of 40 per cent, butterfat and 40 per cent, margarine come under that definition?

Mr ADERMANN:

– It would not. No bounty is paid except on products produced from cow’s milk.

The legislation retains the provision contained in the 1952 and 1957 acts which stipulated that bounty could only be paid to factories which were members of an approved equalization body. The industry places considerable importance on this stipulation, as it is recognized that no stabilization plan would be possible if the equalization scheme, which is otherwise a voluntary arrangement, did not exist.

In conclusion, I would remind honorable members that the industry is contributing at the rate of approximately £250,000 per annum by way of levies on production of butter and cheese towards its own stability through its research and domestic promotion campaigns. In addition, it is using over £150,000 per year from its market realizations in the United Kingdom towards butter and cheese promotion on the British market.

During the negotiations on the new stabilization plan, the industry submitted a recommendation to the Government that assistance be provided on exports of processed milk products. The Government has taken a decision on this recommendation, which is reflected in a bill that I would wish to be considered by the House concurrently with the Dairying Industry Bill. I will also subsequently place before the House two other bills dealing with finance for the Australian Dairy Produce Board which, I feel, could be logically considered concurrently.

I commend the Dairying Industry Bill to honorable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Pollard) adjourned.

page 1759

PROCESSED MILK PRODUCTS BOUNTY BILL 1962

Message recommending appropriation reported.

In committee (Consideration of GovernorGeneral’s message):

Motion (by Mr. Adermann) agreed to-

That it is expedient that an appropriation of revenue be made for the purposes of a bill for an act to make provision for the payment of bounty on the export of certain processed milk products.

Resolution reported.

Standing Orders suspended; resolution adopted.

Ordered -

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

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

Second Reading

Mr ADERMANN:
Minister for Primary Industry · Fisher · CP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

In my second-reading speech on the Dairying Industry Bill 1962, I referred to the fact that consideration had been given by the Government to a recommendation by the dairy industry that some Commonwealth assistance should be afforded to exports of processed milk products if a serious decline in the volume of that trade was to be avoided.

It has been evident for some time that Australian exporters of processed milk products have been operating at a competitive disadvantage with overseas processors, who are frequently heavily subsidized in their own countries, and that as a consequence Australia is having great difficulty in holding her share of export markets even though some of our processors have continued to operate in export markets at a loss. The processors themselves largely attribute this situation to the price they have to pay to obtain their milk supplies from dairy-farmers. They must compete with butter and cheese factories and therefore pay the producers a price for milk comparable with the price the butter and cheese factories are in a position to pay.

The suppliers of milk to the butter and cheese factories not only receive the government bounty, but also benefit from the fact that the factories they supply receive the equalized return from domestic and export sales, which is, of course, above the export price by reason of the relatively high home-consumption butter price.

In the export markets the milk processors have to compete with countries which subsidize their exports. The main competitor, the Netherlands, heavily subsidizes processed milk exports.

Some manufacturers have informed me personally - and I have no reason to doubt their statements - that if some assistance is not given to processors in respect of their exports, they will either cease to produce for the export market or close down their factories altogether.

The Australian Dairy Industry Council, which represents the butter and cheese sector of the industry, is afraid that if these processors cease operations, there will undoubtedly be a substantial diversion of butterfat to butter factories, thus aggravating the serious butter over-supply problem. In fact, any decline in exports of processed milks, with a resultant decrease in production, will be reflected in the diversion of the equivalent quantities of butterfat to butter and cheese production.

The Government is sympathetic to the problems facing our milk processors in export markets, and bearing in mind the substantial export earnings of the industry, which total about £8,000,000 per annum, and the social problems which would arise in certain rural areas if the factories concerned should close down, the Government has decided to assist the industry. The purpose of this bill is to provide for the payment of a bounty on exports of processed milk products in 1962-63, and to give effect to the Government’s decision by appropriating a maximum amount of £350,000. It is intended that the rate of the bounty will be equivalent on a butterfat basis to the final butter bounty rate for that year.

I commend the bill to honorable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Pollard) adjourned.

page 1760

DAIRY PRODUCE EXPORT CHARGE BILL 1962

In Committee of Ways and Means:

Motion (by Mr. Adermann) agreed to-

That, on and after a date to be fixed by Proclamation, in lieu of the charges imposed by the Dairy Produce Export Charges Act 1924-1937 on dairy produce as defined by that Act, a charge be imposed, at rates in accordance with this resolution, on dairy produce as defined by this resolution exported from the Commonwealth.

That the rates of the charge, in relation to dairy produce exported from the Commonwealth before the first day of July, One thousand nine hundred and sixty-three, be -

in respect of butter - one fourth of a penny for each pound of butter exported;

in respect of cheese - one eighth of a penny for each pound of cheese exported;

in respect of ghee, butter fat or any butter fat product - five sixteenths of a penny for each pound of ghee, butter fat or butter fat product exported;

in respect of casein- one twenty-eighth of a penny for each pound of casein exported; and

in respect of dried skimmed milk - one fifty-sixth of a penny for each pound of dried skimmed milk exported.

That, subject to the next succeeding paragraph, the rates of the charge, in relation to dairy produce exported from the Commonwealth on or after the first day of July, One thousand nine hundred and sixty-three, be-

in respect of butter - one halfpenny for each pound of butter exported;

in respect of cheese - one fourth of a penny for each pound of cheese exported;

in respect of ghee, butter fat or any butter fat product - five eighths of a penny for each pound of ghee, butter fat or butter fat product exported;

in respect of casein - one eighth of a penny for each pound of casein exported; and

in respect of dried skimmed milk - one eighth of a penny for each pound ot dried skimmed milk exported.

That regulations made under the Act passed te give effect to this resolution may, from time to time, after report to the Minister by the Board, prescribe rates of the charge in respect of all or any of the classes of dairy produce specified in the last preceding paragraph in lieu of the rates specified in that paragraph in respect of those classes of dairy produce, but so that the rate of the charge prescribed by the regulations in respect of a class of dairy produce does not exceed the rate specified in that paragraph in respect of that class of dairy produce.

That moneys payable under the Act passed to give effect to this resolution in respect of any dairy produce be paid to an officer prescribed by regulations made under that Act on or before the entry of that dairy produce for export.

That the Minister may, from time to time, by notice published in the Gazette, after report to him by the Board, exempt any dairy produce from the charge imposed by the Act passed to give effect to this resolution.

That such an exemption may be subject to conditions specified in the notice of exemption. 8/ That such an exemption may be in respect of a period specified in the notice of exemption.

That the Minister may, by notice published in the Gazette, after report to him by the Board, cancel an exemption of any dairy produce from the charge imposed by the Act passed to give effect to this resolution, and that in that case that charge become payable in respect of that dairy produce from and including the date on which the notice is published in the Gazette or, if the notice so provides, from and including a later date specified in the notice.

That, for the purposes of this resolution- “ butter fat product “ mean goods consisting of butter fat and another substance or other substances, being goods the weight of the butter fat content of which is not less than forty per centum of the weight of the goods, but does not include butter, cheese or ghee; “ dairy produce “ mean butter, cheese, ghee, butter fat, butter fat products, casein and dried skimmed milk; “ ghee “ mean clarified fat of cow’s milk; “ the Board “ mean the Australian Dairy Produce Board constituted under the Dairy Produce Export Control Act 1924- 1958, as proposed to be amended by the Dairy Produce Export Control Bill 1962.

Resolution reported.

Standing Orders suspended; resolution adopted.

Ordered -

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

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

Second Reading

Mr ADERMANN:
Minister for Primary Industry · Fisher · CP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Since the establishment of the Commonwealth Dairy Produce Board, in 1924, the administration expenses of the board have been provided from charges imposed on butter and cheese exported from Australia. These charges were first imposed by the Dairy Produce Export Charges Act 1924 at a maximum of one-eighth of Id. per lb. on butter and one-sixteenth of Id. per lb. on cheese exported. The act provides that lower rates of charge may be prescribed by regulation after recommendation to the Minister by the board. Until 1952 rates lower than the maximum rates provided in the act were prescribed, but since that year the maximum rates have operated. However, notwithstanding levy collections at the maximum rates permitted the board’s administration expenses have been greater than its income, and the losses have had to be met from the board’s reserve finances, which are held in the Dairy Produce Fund.

The purpose of this bill is to increase the rates of export charge and to impose charges on some other dairy products which have recently been brought under the control of the Dairy Produce Board, in order to provide the board with sufficient finance to meet its increasing operating costs. The bill does not introduce any new principle. Since 1924, when Parliament accepted the principle of financing the board’s operations by means of small charges on exports of butter and cheese, this means of meeting board administration expenditure has been recognized as the most satisfactory and practical one. A similar principle applies with other export authorities established under Commonwealth legislation.

The provisions of the bill now before the House are therefore little different from those of the Dairy Produce Export Charges Act 1924-1937, which it replaces. In fact, the only differences of any significance between the two measures are changes in the rates of the export charge on butter and cheese and the application of a charge on other products of the industry which are now assuming some importance in the export field. To provide for these differences it would have been possible for the present Dairy Produce Export Charges Act to be amended; however, the necessary amendments would be lengthy and cumbersome. It is considered to be a more simple procedure to introduce a new bill, thereby spelling out the full provisions proposed, rather than risk causing unnecessary confusion in the minds of honorable members by their having to read lengthy amendments in conjunction with the existing act.

The proposed rates of charge and other provisions were recommended by the Australian Dairy Produce Board with the full support of the Australian Dairy Industry Council. The council is virtually the parliament of the dairying industry and comprises the Australian Dairy Farmers Federation, the Australian Dairy Produce Board and the Commonwealth Dairy Produce Equalization Committee.

When one considers the changes which have taken place in the functions of the board and in the costs of all items associated wilh its administration, including sales promotion activities and an active approach to new markets, the reasons for the industry’s representations for a significant increase in the board’s revenue can be readily appreciated. For many years the board was only a regulatory authority. In 1955 it became a trading authority as well to the United Kingdom market. Until relatively recently the board’s chairman operated on a part-time basis only. On the death of the late Sir Christopher Sheehy in 1960 Mr. E. G. Roberts was appointed chairman. The position was placed on a full-time basis, in line with some other Commonwealth marketing boards, and Mr. Roberts severed his former connexions, including the chairmanship of the Australian Dairy Farmers Federation, to concentrate on the vital task of marketing Australia’s surplus butter and cheese.

The board has re-organized its staffing set-up to provide for the employment of marketing specialists and has made provision for extensive promotional programmes to combat the expanding activities in this field of our main competitors in overseas markets. In addition, wage increases and mounting costs of such items as transport, office accommodation, equipment, printing, communications and other essential services are matters resulting in greater expenditure.

Overseas selling missions are now part and parcel of export promotion, and the Dairy Produce Board’s policy calls for increasing expenditure on this important phase of marketing.

Because of the increasing demands on board expenditure I consider that the case for raising the board’s revenue is clearly established. Possibly the fact that the maximum rates proposed are four times the current maximum rates may evoke some comment; however, I remind honorable members that charges at these maximum rates will be applied only if it becomes absolutely necessary. Furthermore, I think it is appropriate to mention that the maximum rates have operated since 1924, when a charge on export butter of one-eighth of a penny per lb. would probably have been as significant as the proposed rate of id per lb. would be to-day.

It is proposed that until 30th June, 1963, the operative rates of charge in respect of the butter fat products will be half the maximum rates provided in the bill. At the end of this period there will be a review of these rates which will take into account the board’s revenue and expenditure position at that time. With regard to the additional dairy products of some importance to which it is proposed that the export charges should apply, I think I should point out to honorable members that these products are integral and increasingly important parts of the industry. It is therefore equitable that they should be called upon to bear their fair share of the costs associated with their control and marketing, insofar as these costs are borne by the Dairy Produce Board.

I commend the bill to honorable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Pollard) adjourned.

page 1763

DAIRY PRODUCE EXPORT CONTROL BILL 1962

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

That leave be given to bring in a bill for an act to amend section Twenty-one of the Dairy Produce Export Control Act 1924-1958.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr ADERMANN:
Minister for Primary Industry · Fisher · CP

.- by leave- I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill, which is consequential upon the Dairy Produce Export Charge Bill 1962, is to amend the Dairy Produce Export Control Act 1924-1958 insofar, as it refers to the Dairy Produce Export Charges Act 1924-1937. Since it is proposed to repeal the Export Charges Act a consequential amendment to the Export Control Act is necessary. I commend the bill to members.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Pollard) adjourned.

page 1763

COMMONWEALTH ELECTORAL BILL 1962

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 12th April (vide page 1712), on motion by Mr. Freeth -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Mr LUCHETTI:
Macquarie

.- This bill, the purpose of which is to give the right to enroll and vote to aboriginal natives of Australia in the Northern Territory, Western Australia and Queensland, removes an injustice which has disturbed the consciences of many Australians. In the other States of Australia these basic democratic rights already exist. The salient features of this bill follow the unanimous findings of an all-party select committee of this House which inquired into voting rights for aborigines. This measure departs from the report of that committee in failing to maintain the compulsory provisions of the law in New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia. Here the Opposition comes down on the side of the committee, believing that there should be no retreat from the conditions at present obtaining in the States which had previously given the franchise to aboriginal voters.

The Government yielded to uniformity, although this means retrogression in some States. In the States to which I have referred, aboriginal voters will not now be subject to the compulsion which is the law for other Australians. Aboriginal witnesses before the committee which inquired into voting rights for aborigines were overwhelming in their insistence that they should be treated as equals. The testimony of many who came before the committee made it clear that equality, even with all its penalties, was to be the cardinal principle in respect of voting. In regard to these matters, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to refer to the conditions existing throughout Australia at the present time with respect to the voting rights of our original Australians. The need for this legislation is undoubted and the Opposition welcomes the measure as a step forward. We believe that by means of this legislation Australia will be able not only to take its rightful place, as it has in the past, as one of the most advanced countries in the world, but also to proclaim that there is no division in this country, in regard to literacy or colour, in the right of our people to enroll and vote.

It is important to have regard to the conditions that have applied in the past. Our nomadic aboriginal people, who were unaware of our democratic procedures, who were uninformed on matters of government and who had their own tribal ways and customs, had difficulty, in the lives they led, in fitting into our democratic way of life. Looking over the Australian picture we find a position that certainly caused some pangs of conscience throughout the land. In New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia, votes were given to the aboriginal natives, but in Queensland, Western Australia and the Northern Territory those basic rights were denied to them. We had a situation where a voter with full rights in South Australia, for instance, on moving over the border into Western Australia, would lose his right to record a vote in the election of those charged with the government of this country. A full-blood aboriginal in New South Wales, who had the right to vote would, if be moved into the Northern Territory, immediately forfeit that right.

Mr Hasluck:

– No, he would not.

Mr LUCHETTI:

– He would, if he were declared a ward of the State. As the Minister for Territories has interjected on that point I shall deal with some of the difficulties of a ward. It is not an easy matter for those examining aboriginal natives in the Northern Territory to take into consideration factors other than capacity of an aboriginal to understand the procedures of voting and his ability to record a vote at an election in the Northern Territory either for the Legislative Council or for our non-voting member for the Northern Territory in this Parliament. Before an aboriginal could be granted the right to enroll and vote in the Northern Territory he had to satisfy quite a number of considerations. These included his manner of living. What white person’s manner of living is taken into account in respect of his having the right to vote? Another consideration is an aboriginal’s inability without assistance adequately to manage his own affairs. In New South Wales and the rest of Australia white people are not called upon to demonstrate their capacity to run their own affairs without assistance before they become entitled to enrol and to vote. Yet these have been the governing conditions for aborigines in the Northern Territory up to the present time.

The aborigines’ standard of social habit and behaviour is another condition which now exists in the Northern Territory. His personal associations are another consideration. These, too, are taken into account before an aboriginal is entitled to a vote in the Northern Territory. There is quite a formidable array of requirements before an aboriginal in the Northern Territory is entitled to enroll and vote. Yet in New South Wales - the case which I brought before the Parliament - an aboriginal is not called upon to satisfy the electoral officers on those counts. The fact that he enrolls entitles him to vote and there is no rule to prevent him enrolling. But immediately he moves into the Northern Territory he is obliged to satisfy the requirements that I have outlined to the House.

The situation can be illustrated by the difficulties encountered by an aboriginal native leaving New South Wales and going into Queensland, where a full-blood aboriginal, even though he may have a university degree in social or political science or the degree of Master of Arts, is not entitled to vote.

To say that aborigines cannot rise to the height of taking degrees is, of course, quite false. They need only an opportunity to go forward. I know of a black child who was taken from Queensland following a massacre, brought to New South Wales, reared by a very good family named Grant and sent to the University of Sydney. Later he became a draftsman in a big industrial organization, the Commonwealth Small Arms Factory at Lithgow. That man served with distinction in the first Australian Imperial Force. He returned to this country and was accepted by his fellows. But had Douglas Grant remained in Queensland he would have been denied the right to enroll and record a vote had it not been for his service in the fighting forces. Because this legislation sets out to correct that position it is welcomed by this side of the House. We are not happy, however, that the Government has not seen fit to accept the full report of the Select Committee on the Voting Rights of Aboriginals.

We bring to the attention of the House the painstaking work of that committee. The committee was brought into being on 18th April, 1961, and its report was presented to the Parliament on 19th October, 1961. During the six months of the committee’s activities, 327 witnesses were heard, 142 of whom were descended from the original Australians. The committee travelled over 22,000 miles and met nomadic as well as advanced aborigines. Keen interest was displayed at the public hearings, and evidence of great value was given. The aborigines themselves expressed views which they dearly held. Some felt that they had the capacity to discuss this matter in detail. One witness wanted to speak to us on the development of the British race since the 5th century. Another one humbly said, “ I have not got a clue about it at all “. This shows that the people who came before the committee were not of any special category. They were aborigines from all walks of life. They included sophisticated and nomadic types. We had very great difficulty in obtaining evidence from some of them, but I am pleased to inform the House that their views did not follow a pattern. Nor did the views of our white witnesses follow a pattern. The church witnesses, for example, did not follow the leadership of any particular denomination. Each person expressed his own view. A member of one church expressed a view entirely different from that expressed by a bishop of his church. That sort of thing happened throughout the hearings. Consequently, the evidence was of very great value to the committee. The views expressed were frank and forthright.

I should like to express my thanks to all those who assisted the committee. I pay a special tribute to those public servants and others who willingly came forward to help the committee to the maximum possible extent. I should like it to be recorded that the committee is appreciative of the outstanding work rendered to it by the Serjeant-at-Arms, Mr. Browning, who was the secretary of the committee; by Mr. I. C. Cochran, Clerk of Papers; and by Mr. G. C. Pike, the transport officer, who was responsible for the detailed arrangement of our transport throughout Queensland, the Northern Territory and the north and south of Western Australia. This work was of very great value to the committee.

Members of the “ Hansard “ staff also rendered great service in taking verbatim records of proceedings, often under great difficulties and in unusual circumstances.

May I say something else about the committee and its work? To use a word not infrequently used by the chairman of the committee, the work was unique. Firstly, it was unique because the committee sat for six months, during which time it worked very hard indeed. It was a non-stop committee. It heard a great number of witnesses, but it was able to get its report to the Parliament within six months. However, the fact which really makes the work unique is that the report of the committee has been accepted by the Government as a basis for legislation. When one remembers the formidable array of committees which have been appointed from time to time by the Government to investigate various matters such as the Constitution, wool, sugar and taxation, and when one recalls the number of reports that have been accepted by the Government, the number that have been thrown out and the number that have been pigeonholed for all time, I think it must be regarded as a compliment to this committee that the House is now discussing legislation based on its report.

This bill will clear up a number of matters. It is pleasing to note that in future the right to vote will not depend on colour or literacy; all Australians will have an opportunity to enroll and to vote. But I should like to emphasize that it is necessary to ensure that facilities will be provided for aborigines throughout Australia to enroll and to vote. For some considerable time past it has been the law of this country that those who serve in the armed forces shall be entitled to enroll and to vote, but that right has not been made clear to the aborigines who possessed it. In places, we found that although the law made it clear that people of predominantly European blood who were entitled to enroll and to vote, the people concerned lacked information concerning their rights. We also found a reluctance in some places by State electoral officers to co-operate to the fullest extent with Commonwealth electoral officers. I think that a greater degree of liaison, understanding and co-operation should be in evidence in this respect. Facilities for enrolling and for voting should not be limited. Every opportunity should be provided for those who would like to enroll and to vote to do so. It should not be a question of any one setting standards and deciding what types of person should be entitled to vote and what types should not. On Bathurst Island a test was made of the capacity of the aborigines there to record a vote, after some information had been imparted to them. It was found that not one informal vote had been cast. This shows that when the aboriginal people are given an opportunity to do so, they can discharge their duties just as well as white people in this respect.

The question of education is important. Let me say in reply to the honorable gentleman who interjects that I am sure that, at federal elections, aborigines would vote for the honorable member for Macquarie, as undoubtedly they vote for the honorable member for the Northern Territory (Mr. Nelson), who has represented them so well in this place. The committee found that aborigines in the Northern Territory knew the name of their federal member. In a number of other places we discovered that the local inhabitants did not know the name of their member of Parliament. But I am pleased to be able to report to the House that they did know the honorable member for the Northern Territory (Mr. Nelson). I believe that it is essential that we take educational aid to these people who are being granted the right to vote for the first time. Visual education would be most important for them. Again, lecturers should be available to them to discuss with them matters relating to voting at elections. We should also open up the doors of our settlements and missions to representatives of political parties to enable them to discuss party platforms and policies with these people.

Mr Hasluck:

– Of course we should.

Mr LUCHETTI:

– I am glad to know we have the Minister’s assurance on that matter. At the moment I am emphasizing the need to do these things. For instance, films would be of very great value to them. If we provide these facilities I am satisfied that a new day will dawn for our primitive people. We know that voting itself will not solve all their problems; that it is only the beginning of our approach to them, but I am satisfied that once the aborigines have been granted the right to vote, a great deal of interest will be shown in them by political parties, who will cultivate them because they possess the right to vote. And, because they possess the right to vote, the aborigines will be able to obtain relief in many of their difficulties. Certainly they will be able to state their problems and, in stating them, they will make some impact on the minds of those in authority.

In addition to voting they are faced with another problem which affects all people in this country - the problem of what is to happen to the young person leaving school, whether it be a mission school or a government school. What sort of life are these people to lead? I do not propose to go into that question in detail, because that matter is not covered by the bill, but when they have the right to vote our black Australians will be able to express their point of view and seek a solution to this serious problem which affects them as much as it affects the white people.

The matter of duress, or pressure, was mentioned before the committee on many occasions. By “ pressure “ I mean the capacity of white people to induce the aborigines on a particular settlement to do just as the white man wants them to do. This is a serious matter which cannot be dismissed lightly, and I am glad to note that the proposed legislation provides penalties for that kind of thing. One pastoralist in Western Australia told him that he had some 60 aborigines working for him, and that if he liked he could induce them all to vote for the political party which he supported, and he was a man with strong political views. I mention that as a classic example of what can be done, but I have sufficient faith in the aboriginal people to believe that, in the long run, they, like the white people, will vote for the party that treats them best and that will give them the best return. Therefore, I am confident that in the long run this side of the House will have nothing to fear in that respect.

The committee found that the aborigines sought the right to vote as a badge or symbol of equality. They did not expect the right to vote to open up for them a new era of prosperity, or to effect some exceptional kind of transformation for their benefit. They looked upon the right to vote as a badge of equality, as something that would stamp them as being equal to the white people in the community. If granting the right to vote will help to satisfy our black Australians, or to strengthen them in any way, then this legislation will be well worth while.

I say in conclusion that, whilst the Opposition welcomes the bill, whilst we believe that a step forward is being taken, we also regret that the standards that were reached in the past in New South Wales, South Australia and Victoria are not being maintained. We are gaining uniformity for the whole of Australia, but at the same time the aborigines of some States will lose certain advantages which they have enjoyed hitherto.

I know that this is not an easy matter. Indeed, I am sure that the Minister for Territories appreciates that more than any one else. For instance, when we were at Papunya, one of the outposts of the Northern Territory, we found that certain nomadic aborigines had not been included in the list of wards. They were undeclared because they were not registered as wards, because their names had not been entered in the “ stud-book “, as it were, of the Northern Territory. But I can only hope that this sort of thing will be rectified in the future, and that we can look upon this legislation as something which signifies the beginning of a new era of enlightenment with respect to the original inhabitants of this country. I can only hope that we shall go forward, stage by stage, helping them to understand our way of life, not directing them, not controlling them, but integrating them into our way of life and into our society, we trying to understand them and they in their turn trying to understand us. I support the measure, and repeat that I am very pleased at having been associated with my colleagues on the committee.

Mr HASLUCK:
Minister for Territories · Curtin · LP

– At the outset, I should like to correct what might be a wrong impression left by the honorable member for Macquarie (Mr. Luchetti) when referring to what happens to an aboriginal from, say, New South Wales, who crosses the border into the Northern Territory. The point which the honorable member was making was a valid one; namely, that there is a great lack of uniformity with respect to the legal disabilities suffered by persons of aboriginal blood in various parts of Australia. For example, a part aboriginal in New South Wales may have all the legal disabilities of a full-blood aboriginal whereas a part aboriginal in the Northern Territory will be completely free of any legal disabilities. Part aborigines are not regarded as aborigines in the legal sense in the Northern Territory. But if there were in New South Wales a person of aboriginal race who was not under any legal disability, and he crossed the border into the Northern Territory, he would not come under official notice, nor would his legal status be affected in any way unless he came in need of special assistance. If, by his manner of life, he showed that he needed somebody to look after him-

Mr Luchetti:

– Or if he associated–

Mr HASLUCK:

– Not necessarily if he associated. If by his manner of life, he showed that he needed somebody to look after him, to afford him some sort of protection, then, by a legal process, he could be declared. But it would be possible, I suppose, for most of the aboriginal people of New South Wales who are not under legal disability, to go into the Northern Territory and remain completely free of any legal disability. If, on the other hand, we had in New South Wales a person of aboriginal race who was under some sort of legal disability, who was legally regarded as an aboriginal, and he crossed the border into the Northern Territory, then, for a period of three months only, he would come under the care of the Director of Welfare, who would be acting as a proxy, as it were, for the corresponding authority in New South Wales. At the end of three months, unless the Northern Territory Administration itself took some action to commit him to the care of the State, he would be free of all disability.

Mr Luchetti:

– How many aborigines have you in the Northern Territory?

Mr HASLUCK:

– The position in the Northern Territory is that there are some thousands of people of part aboriginal race who, under a Labour government, were regarded as aborigines and had no legal rights but who now have the full exercise of their rights.

Mr Luchetti:

– Now answer my question.

Mr HASLUCK:

– There are about 17,000 persons of full Wood, mostly those who until recently were living in the tribal state, who have been committed to the care of the State as wards. Of that class there have been subsequently, I think, about 89 or 90 who have been freed from any restriction by act of the Administration. Those 17,000 persons, who are declared wards of the State in the Northern Territory, are persons who are of the full blood with an odd exception here and there and who until very recently were living under fully tribal conditions.

I did not want to enter into a controversy on these matters, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The first remark I wanted to make was one of warm congratulation to the committee which investigated this problem, both for the way in which it carried out its investigation and for the report which it furnished. The chairman of the committee, the former honorable member for Capricornia, is no longer with us. The chances of political life have caused him to leave this Parliament, but I think there can be few honorable members who will have left behind them in this Parliament a monument of the kind that he has left in the work of the Pearce Committee. At this moment I would like - I am sure all honorable members would like to join me - to pay a tribute to our late colleague for the work that is enshrined in the Pearce Committee and, in his absence, congratulate him on his achievement. In singling out the chairman of the committee, I do not lessen in any way my admiration for the way in which members of the committee carried out their work.

If I may be permitted to say so, I would also frankly like to express my envy of the Minister for the Interior (Mr. Freeth). 1 think it is very seldom in this Parliament that one Minister envies another; each Minister has his own peculiar troubles. For the first time in my fairly long term as a Minister here, I do envy a colleague. There is no task I would more eagerly have performed than the task of bringing in this bill. In expressing frankly this envy, I congratulate my colleague on having been able to introduce the bill by virtue of the fact that he occupies the portfolio to which is entrusted matters relating to elections.

I can remember 25 years ago, as a very ardent young enthusiast and a member of a public body interested in aboriginal affairs, advocating the giving of the vote to all aborigines. I can also remember being laughed out of court. Even in the heart of the body that was composed wholly of what may be called the apostles of greater rights for aborigines, 25 years ago this was considered a rather ridiculous notion. Although I and one or two others advocated it then, we were told, “ Do not be ridiculous; giving the vote to aborigines is something that cannot be done “. The view I had then was that the great value of giving them the vote in the circumstances as they then existed would be that it would increase their political importance. Give a man a vote and many people will begin to pay a lot more attention to him. At that time 25 years ago very few people in Australia were paying much attention to the aborigine or bothering about his affairs.

Mr Thompson:

Dr. Duguid has been a great example of an advocate for greater rights for aborigines.

Mr HASLUCK:

– Yes. Dr. Duguid is an old friend of mine and an old associate in this sort of campaigning. He can, I think, look back over not merely 25 years but possibly 40 or 50 years of campaigning of a similar kind. The point to which I really bring myself is that in those 25 years there has been a great change. This is no longer a fantastic notion; this is something which the whole of this Parliament, I am sure, is ready to accept, which a committee has recommended unanimously and which, I am sure, the great body of the Australian public will endorse. It is something that at long last we have recognized should be done. A significant change has taken place both in us and in the aboriginal people themselves. They have advanced. They have gained greater recognition of their merit and have established themselves more definitely in Australian life. Twenty-five years ago they were the rejected and despised segment of our population. To-day they have attracted to themselves the goodwill and the sympathy of most of the Australian population.

There is another significant change which is exemplified in this bill, and that is the change in thinking about the legal question.

I would like in about two or three minutes just to refer to this, although it may seem to be mainly of academic interest. There is a tendency in talking about aborigines to say that we should give them citizenship, that we should give them rights, that we should grant them the right to vote. The view which at long last is recognized in the report of the committee - I think it is significant that it is at last fully recognized and widely acknowledged - is that they are of right British subjects. From the time of first settlement, they have b.een British subjects. What happened is not that some one was in a position to grant them rights, but for one reason and another, mostly reasons of protection, from time to time colonial legislatures and State legislatures have passed acts of Parliament which have reduced or restricted their rights as British subjects.

The path of reform is not to give them something that they did not previously have; the path of reform is to take away the disability that the various colonial and State parliaments have imposed upon them. What we are doing now is not to grant them the right to vote, but we are saying that in those places where their right to vote has been taken away from them, the right should be restored. I think it is significant that in this report, what I regard as the true analysis of the legal position of the aboriginal is clearly recognized.

Sitting suspended from 5.58 to 8 p.m.

Mr HASLUCK:

– Before the sitting was suspended, I was emphasizing that from the first days of settlement in Australia the aboriginal inhabitants had the status of British subjects, and that the diminution of that status came about by the passage of legislation by the various Australian parliaments, both in the colonial days and after responsible government was granted. This legislation was passed mainly for the purposes of protection, but the result was that this particular group of British subjects did not have the same opportunity to exercise their rights as British subjects as did other citizens. I also emphasized that the path of reform is not for us to attempt now to give them something of our goodwill, to which they are already entitled, but to remove the limitations which legislation has placed on the exercise of their rights.

In respect of the exercise of the right to vote, some States of Australia have already taken that path. In three States there is no limitation on the right of aborigines to vote, but in Western Australia, Queensland and the Northern Territory there is a limitation. As I have said, the Commonwealth has been in an unusual position because, from the founding of the Commonwealth, we have maintained the position that we should simply follow the lead of the States. If in one State, under the State electoral law relating to the more populous House, a person of aboriginal race was entitled to vote, we said that that person could vote at Commonwealth elections. If in another State a person was not entitled to vote under the State law, we followed the State lead and said that the person was not entitled to vote at Commonwealth elections. Now, under the bill before the House, we are very happily making up our own minds.

The legal and constitutional advice given to us is that there is no question about our power, as a Parliament, to do this. We are making up our own minds and making our own law in respect of the right of aborigines to vote in Commonwealth elections. The passage of this bill will mean that aborigines throughout Australia will have the right to enrol. Having enrolled, they will be able to vote at all Commonwealth elections. Because of the circumstance that some of the aborigines are still living in a tribal state, are still illiterate and, in the case of a few of them, are still unaware of the existence of such things as parliaments, we are not making enrolment compulsory. Enrolment will be voluntary, so that a person who does not choose to enroll or, through ignorance, does not enroll, will not incur a penalty for his omission. But when a person has enrolled, voting will be compulsory. As honorable members know, recognition is given in the bill to the special circumstances of some of the people of aboriginal race by providing penalties of a special kind for duress or undue influence over them in the matter of enrolment or the exercise of their right to vote. All of us here welcome this measure, and I am sure the great body of Australian people will also welcome it.

I should like to direct attention briefly to some of the consequences of what we propose under this bill. First, there is a recognition of a right that these people possess as British subjects. On that point I should like to quote paragraph 89 of the select committee’s report -

It is considered better that a right be granted before there is a full capacity to exercise it on the part of some individuals, than that others should suffer the frustration of being denied a right that they can clearly exercise.

Secondly, one more of the many legislative restrictions placed on aborigines is being removed. We can welcome this as another step in the general progress towards the exercise of full citizenship rights by this group of Australians. Thirdly, this may encourage the aboriginal people to recognize their position of equality with all other residents of Australia and also to recognize - I say this advisedly - the meaning of political power and political influence. The possession of a vote by any citizen of Australia is the possession of a means of influencing what happens in Australia. All of us, as members of Parliament who seek the goodwill of our constituents and as people who, of necessity, pay regard to the way in which people exercise their votes, must appreciate the point that when a group of people has a vote, they are in a position to direct attention themselves, to their own needs. They are in a position to ensure that their own needs will be, not merely appreciated, but represented forcibly. I would not like to suggest to any of my aboriginal friends - and I do count many aborigines as personal friends - that they should immediately lobby along racial lines; but I would suggest that those who now acquire a vote, by using it responsibly and wisely and by living up to their full political opportunities, can do a great deal to ensure that the needs of their own people are better recognized and are more constantly served by the Parliaments of Australia.

I also hope that one of the consequences of what we are doing will be to encourage Western Australia and Queensland to follow suit and to make amendments of their State electoral laws. I assure the House that, so far as the Northern Territory is concerned, the consequential ordinances have already been drafted, so that what is being done in this House will also be done in respect of territorial elections in the Northern Territory.

The great feature of this bill and its true meaning - indeed, its inspiring meaning - is that we are moving closer towards the ideal of one people that must be treasured by all of us. From the time we came to national stature in Australia, we have nursed the ideal that within the borders of Australia we should be one people. It has been our ideal that we should be not a nation with divisions of race or class, or a nation of different levels, but that we should be one people, with one destiny, working together to serve one national good. If we hold that ideal - and I am sure we all hold it - there should be no exceptions. Every resident of the Australian continent must share in that ideal with us. All of us have worked for that end in the social field. Our fathers have worked for this ideal of one people in one continent - as a united people.

Mr Thompson:

– What about the people who are not naturalized?

Mr HASLUCK:

– When they adopt Australian citizenship, they share with us. Until they do that they have their own personal rights and freedoms, which are protected by our laws just as are those of our citizens. The aboriginal residents of Australia are British subjects with us. They are Australian citizens. They do not have to go through a process of naturalization. They have the birthright of British citizenship the same as any one else born within this continent has.

I like to think that this bill represents another move towards the ideal of one people. I place strong emphasis on this because, at the present day, there are certain influences, not merely in the world at large but right in the heart of Australia, that are working against this Australian ideal. I say. advisedly, with a good deal of close knowledge of what is going on in this field, that the Communist Party of Australia has selected the topic of aborigines as one of the fields in which some of its most strenuous political endeavours are being made. Any one who is associated with any public body that devotes itself to aboriginal welfare will know that that is a fact. This is one of the targets of the Communists, and in trying to hit this target, they are developing this theme of race - not so as to obliterate racial considerations as being of no significance, but in order to magnify considerations of race and cotinue racial divisions.

Any one who goes to any of the places where our policy of assimilation is being attacked and criticized will find that the criticism comes from two quarters. There is one quarter which, I recognize, is respectable. I refer to the people such as anthropologists who have genuine doubts about whether assimilation, as the policy is advanced, is workable, and whether, on scientific grounds mainly, it is desirable. One can respect doubts of that sort, one can respect scepticism of that sort, because they are based on a genuine study of the problem.

One finds that the opposition to the policy of assimilation comes also from the Communists, who do not want one people in Australia. They want to perpetuate racial divisions and they do all they can to make the aboriginal think of himself, not as an Australian with fellow Australians, but as an aboriginal quite apart from all other Australians. I am sure that that is the truth that will be admitted by any one who works in association with bodies concerned with native welfare and comes up against the Communist activity within those bodies. You see all over Australia to-day this attempt to perpetuate the aborigines as a separate race, not because of concern for the aborigines as human beings, but because this is a nice juicy, divisive, controversial problem over which the Communists can cause a great deal of mischief.

There will be many difficulties in this policy of assimilation. There will be need for a great deal of patience and a great deal of forbearance. I would like to put before all honorable members the picture of an Australia in which we all are Australians, although perhaps Australians of different kinds. We have Australians who originally came from such barbaric places as Scotland. We have Australians who came from places such as Italy. We have Australians who came from many other countries. We have Australians who were born here. We have Australians of various sorts and sizes. We have Australians of various shades of colour. But they all are Australians, and there is no reason why they all cannot be Australians. I believe that the same is true of those Australians who, racially, are of aboriginal extraction. They can be as good Australians as are any other Australians here. I trust that no aboriginal will lose his pride in his ancestry and will want to deny the fact that his forefathers were among the original inhabitants of this land, but I hope that every aboriginal will learn to be proud of the fact that he is an Australian, and just as good an Australian as is any one else, and will not seek to find his satisfaction in racial separateness.

The key to this is not the expression of goodwill or the passage of legislation. It is a key that rests partly in the spirit of the aboriginal himself and, to a much larger extent, in the attitude of the rest of us Australians - whether we are ready to give the aborigines that acceptance and that respect that they ought to have and whether we are ready to extend to them that mateship that helps to unite us all as Australians. Though we come from many different national origins, though we are of very many different physical sorts and sizes and though we may have very many different hopes and ambitions, we all can be Australians.

I think that the lesson of this bill is that it takes one step further towards the ideal of one people in one continent. In that spirit, I commend the measure to the House and have much pleasure in supporting it.

Mr NELSON:
Northern Territory

Mr. Speaker, I, also, support the bill. As a member of the select committee which made the inquiry and brought down the recommendations which form the basis of this measure, I am particularly pleased to note the reception accorded the committee’s findings. The members of the committee found, after the inquiry got under way, that so definite was the expressed opinion of witnesses heard along the road that very little difficulty was experienced in arriving at a unanimous decision. Noting the reception of the select committee’s recommendations by the Australian public, the members of the committee feel that justice has been done in circumstances which had to take into account the need for a common rule to apply throughout Australia and which had to take into account also the different circumstances that applied in various places and areas.

This bill will remove many of the shocking anomalies which existed in the various State electoral laws, and I think it can be said that in no instance have we taken away a right already enjoyed under State legislation. Indeed, we have liberalized and extended the rights of all aborigines, wherever they may be in Australia. The possible exception is South Australia. We copied to a great degree the principles laid down in that State, but we found that although the principle of voting rights for aborigines was accepted, there was no drive to educate and bring the aboriginal people to a stage at which they could fully participate in the political life of that State.

I feel that the most difficult part of the inquiry related to the question of extending voing rights to nomadic and semi-nomadic aborigines such as are found in Western Australia, the Northern Territory and some isolated parts of Queensland. The problem was overcome, as I have already stated, by applying the South Australian system under which aborigines are given the right to enrol voluntarily and, once they are enrolled, are obliged to accept the full responsibility of voting thereafter. At the same time, we had to provide against exploitation by people who might seek to organize these people into different political camps while they were still ignorant of the issues involved. I think that no objection can be taken to the proper organizing, educating and instruction that these people must have along the way in order to enable them to exercise voting rights properly. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, such instruction should be given at the earliest possible time and in the most vigorous possible manner. Penalties are provided - and rightly so - for the exploitation of the aboriginal people, in their ignorance, for any purpose that does not strictly conform to the terms of the Commonwealth Electoral Act and to proper electoral practice.

I want to emphasize that the right extended to aborigines under the terms of this measure will, I think, do much to bring these people right into the Australian community. It will remove many of the stigmas which should have been removed years ago. 1 feel that if the more backward people are allowed to bide their time before accepting this right, and are not rushed into participating in affairs of which, at the present time, they have little or no knowledge, then the transformation can take place without friction, without hardship and to the overwhelm- ing benefit of the Australian aboriginal and the Australian community.

I find myself in a somewhat peculiar position as a result of my membership of the committee. Here am I, as the member for the Northern Territory, making recommendations concerning the rights of aborigines to vote, when I do not in fact have those rights myself. I wonder whether some legalminded person will challenge the validity of the committee’s investigations on the ground of my membership of it. I certainly could not make a recommendation in respect of the working of this Parliament as I made recommendations as a member of the committee. The effect of the legislation that is now before us will be that the only persons on the Australian continent who will be deprived of full citizenship rights and full voting rights will be those people residing in the Northern Territory, be they black or white. I feel that such a state of affairs is unjust and ludicrous, and I urge upon the Government the need to set up a committee, similar to the committee that has just been disbanded, to inquire into the voting rights of the people of the Northern Territory.

I join with other members of the committee who have already spoken on this matter, and who have canvassed the whole of the work performed by the committee, in thanking the various people who were connected with the committee’s work. The members of the “ Hansard “ staff and all the officers who assisted us performed excellent work. Without their help I feel that the committee’s work could not have been accomplished. I extend my sincere thanks to them, and I repeat that this legislation, despite its limitations - and they may be only slight - deserves the support of every member of the Parliament.

Mr CLEAVER:
Swan

.- I, too, support the bill before the House, and I want to make the comment that it is pleasing to note that on this occasion both Government and Opposition speakers are in general agreement. It is also interesting to put on record, as, no doubt, other speakers have done, that the report of the Select Committee on Voting Rights of Aborigines was unanimous. I direct particular attention, however, to the fact that the Government, in acting upon that excellent report, to which tribute has been rightly paid, saw fit to reject only one recommendation. That recommendation was designed to make enrolment compulsory for those of aboriginal descent in the States of Victoria and New South Wales. I support that decision of the Government. This bill introduces uniformity to replace the existing hotch-potch of legislation in the various States. To legislate for different procedures in two States from those in the other States would, in my opinion, be to break down the commonsense uniform provisions for voluntary enrolment. That voluntary enrolment is followed, of course, as a result of this legislation, by compulsory voting. But I make the point that we would be discarding the excellent uniform aspect of the legislation if we accepted that one recommendation that has been set aside.

This measure has been described as a small bill of very great significance. Some people would say that it is worthy of world headlines, but others caution moderation in the claims that we may wish to make in this House, because of continuing restrictions under some State laws. On the subject of the rights of aborigines there is often heard, of course, a good deal of emotional and misinformed comment. We have heard it for years, and we have heard it from a variety of sources.

I was very impressed indeed with the speech of my colleague, the Minister for Territories (Mr. Hasluck), in which reference was made to the Minister whose responsibility it has been to introduce this legislation. The Minister made some remarks about the importance of the legislation, and he spoke of how it tries to adjust some anomalies which have been rightly criticized by overseas critics. I think I can say that what we are doing at the present time by means of this legislation deserves to be included in the impressive list of Australian electoral achievements that have been made over the years. I think it would be of interest if I placed that list on record.

Australia was the first country in the world to introduce adult male suffrage. This it did in 1856. Then in 1894 ours was the first country in the British Commonwealth to give the vote to women. Then in 1915 we made voting compulsory, and I understand that Australia was the only country in the English-speaking world to introduce this reform. The changes to be made under this legislation represent the fourth of these achievements, and I believe that the exten sion of voting rights to all aborigines and Torres Straits Islanders is equal in importance to the other three reforms that I have already mentioned.

I may be permitted to spend a few moments in dealing with general criticism of our treatment of the aborigines. As I have said, this country has not been without its critics. It is, of course, incorrect to assume that aborigines in Australia represent a large problem or a single problem. As we know, the aborigines are a very small minority in the Australian community. They are scattered over the whole of the country, the density of the aboriginal population being greater, of course, in certain areas. They are not a single, cohesive group. In general terms it is estimated that the total number of aborigines and part-aborigines is 100,000. Of these, only a few, probably fewer than 2,000, lead what we would call a completely primitive life. The conditions under which aborigines live range from those primitive conditions of the few I have mentioned, through all graduations to the conditions of those, probably about 30,000, who are living to-day no differently from other members of the Australian community in general. But the problems are not only diverse with this minority. They are also not capable of easy or quick solution, as is the case with many other social problems that we have to deal with in this Parliament. We can say, however, that greater progress has been made recently, and is being made now, than was ever made before.

The essential aim of the Australian policy with regard to aborigines is equality of rights and privileges and opportunities as compared with the non-aboriginal people. If, as we must admit, discriminatory legislation exists, it is applied only to those who are considered, or have been considered, to be in need of special care and assistance, and it has been applied, I believe, quite honestly in the interests of the welfare of such people. The official policy of our country has been opposed to ill-treatment of these people. The reduction in their numbers between 1778 and recent times was, of course, due largely to infectious illnesses to which the aborigines, by reason of their long isolation, were usually vulnerable when they came in contact with Europeans and Asians. There resulted a decline in their numbers over a long period, but now, to our very great interest, our aboriginal population is increasing.

I want to bring to the debate the emphasis that our aborigines need the goodwill and the genuine help of the community. When we deal with voting rights - which we are conferring under this legislation - I think it is fundamental that all of us, as members of the Commonwealth Parliament, recognize that goodwill and help have so often not been experienced by many of these people. The former Native Welfare Commissioner of my own State, Western Australia - Mr. S. T. Middleton - recently set down some of his impressions of the transformation of native welfare in Western Australia since 1948. This is a relatively recent period to which his remarks apply. When Mr. Middleton took up his duties, having come down with very valuable experience behind him from the Territory of Papua and New Guinea, he was rightly appalled at the situation he found on government native settlements in Western Australia. He it was who was responsible for transferring those government settlements to church mission stations. There are now in Western Australia no government settlements for aborigines, and during the past thirteen years education facilities for native children have been revolutionized, while improved medical and housing arrangements have been made. Most of the restrictive sections of the existing Native Administration Act in that State have been remedied as a result of Mr. Middleton’s recommendations to the Western Australian Government, and he has expressed his disappointment that two of the restrictions have been retained contrary to his advice - namely, those dealing with liquor and cohabitation with non-natives. It is interesting to note that since 1948, under this type of inspired leadership, the weekly allowance for children in 29 native missions has risen from only 3s. to 42s. 6d. - the same amount that is granted to white children in private institutions.

It is with some personal experience of this transformation, to which I pay a tribute, that I speak, because for the past ten years it has been my privilege to be associated, as a member of an advisory council with a church mission caring for part-aboriginal young people about 100 miles north of the

City of Perth. I want to suggest that providing the kind of understanding and the kind of help necessary for these under-privileged people is not an easy task. There is, for example, the heart-breaking problem seen again and again of young native people who have been given a very good education in the institutions to which I have referred reverting within a few years to the life of the native reserves - even those who, with our support and our congratulations, have obtained their junior certificate, which is a university certificate of education. Many are the reasons that may be advanced for this, but I think that in general terms it must be accepted that the community of which we are a part has not been ready to assimilate these young people, even with their education and their achievements, which we have been so pleased to note. The resultant feeling of frustration and unwantedness has broken their spirit and, ambition being lost, they have returned to the life that they formerly knew on the native reserve. It was Mr. Middleton who, in setting down a summary of his experience, posed the question: What is the future of the natives in Western Australia? He expressed the following view: -

In the main, the full-bloods are not a problem to us or to themselves. They are a well-behaved, contented people, satisfied with their circumstances and environment, who work when they like and how they like and do not worry and fret over us, and do not expect us to worry and fret over them.

Democratic rights, such as the right to vote and citizenship rights, are of little significance and less concern to the average full-blood and it would be tragic to inflict many of the rights and privileges of citizenship on him.

I am sure that many of my colleagues, and many of those who have contributed to the debate, have read with interest what Professor A. P. Elkin, emeritus professor of anthropology, wrote some years ago in a booklet titled “ Aborigines and Citizenship “. One section of this booklet deals with aspects of citizenship, and I was particularly interested to note what Professor Elkin wrote on the subject of the franchise. He wrote -

Contrary to what many people think, all adult aborigines in New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia, whether full-blood or mixed-blood, have the right to enrol for, and vote in, both State and Federal elections. Moreover, whether they live on or off Government Aboriginal Stations, and whether they are or are not exempted from aboriginal Acts, has no bearing on this right. As would be expected, much lenience has been shown to those who have not bothered to enrol.

In Queensland, Western Australia, and the Northern Territory, part-aborigines who are living freely in the general community can vote, but if they are declared to be wards or “ natives “ and are subject to Departmental control, they cannot do so. Full-bloods can enrol if they have been exempted from Aboriginal Acts or Ordinances, or have had citizenship rights conferred on them. The procedure varies in different parts.

Professor Elkin then emphasized that aborigines are British subjects and Australians by birth. He wrote -

Citizenship is their right and the franchise should be theirs if they want it. Neither they nor any other Australian-born British subjects should be denied the vote unless they are excluded from the general community for some good reason. Of course, even though they had the franchise, thousands of full-bloods would not enrol and until a new generation grows up to adulthood, which has passed through our schools and come into association with our economic activities, they should not be compelled to enrol. But the right should be there all the time, and certainly should not be qualified by conditions which we do not demand from non-British immigrants seeking naturalization.

In the section dealing with the franchise this outstanding student of this particular problem said that it might seem pointless to make the franchise available to nomadic tribesmen whose knowledge of English, let alone of politics, is negligible. He pointed out that the number of such aborigines, however, would be decreasing yearly, and that in any case their non-use of a legal right would not cause any confusion. He added -

It does not do so in South Australia. On the other hand, for the Governments concerned to take this positive step would be of significant value symbolically and in the eyes of the world.

That brings me to one of the points that I mentioned earlier in my speech. There has been criticism overseas regarding what we have not done in this field. I submit that what Professor Elkin wrote some years ago represents a sound approach to the problem before us, and the select committee’s report and recommendation appear to confirm what the professor had to say.

Mr Luchetti:

– But he gave evidence, too.

Mr CLEAVER:

– I noticed that and I would have been surprised indeed had he not appeared before the select committee.

I now turn my attention to paragraphs 17 to 20 of the select committee’s report. I point out that this portion of the report, dealing with disenfranchised aborigines, endeavours to present reliable figures upon which to work. I think it is important that we should have these figures clearly in our minds, because of the misinformed and emotional comment which has so often been published, particularly in the newspapers of Australia. We have heard from many a public platform the kind of emotional comment which can so often be misleading.

The figures used in this section of the select committee’s report refer to full-blood aborigines, except for the Torres Strait islanders. The committee estimated that, of the total of 46,872, some 26,000 fullblood’ aborigines and Torres Strait islanders would be involved in this extension of the franchise. The committee also estimated that part-Europeans of substantially aboriginal descent who might seek voting rights would not exceed 4,000. It was on this basis that the committee considered that some 30,000 persons were disenfranchised at the present time.

There is an emphasis to be found in paragraph 21 of the report, which, to me, is of vital importance. Again I refer to overseas critics who have so often not been prepared to recognize the fact that no person is excluded from the Commonwealth franchise on the ground of race. The exclusion of some aborigines under Commonwealth legislation up to the present has been based, not upon race, but upon the non-inclusion of tribal and nomadic aborigines within the general community and the lack of relationship between their way of life and the life that we ourselves lead. But let us note that to-day they are being integrated into our community and the number of nomadic natives is significantly much lower than formerly.

So the committee presented to the Government in this report the recommendation that the right to vote at Commonwealth elections be accorded to all aboriginal and Torres Strait Island subjects of the Queen, of voting age, permanently residing within the limits of the Commonwealth. For the time being enrolment is to be voluntary, but, once aborigines are enrolled, compulsory voting will be enforced, as it applies to all other people on the rolls of the various divisions of the Commonwealth.

This is a vital piece of federal parliamentary initiative in this matter. I do not think we have to curtail our pleasure in respect of this progressive legislation. I do not think it is wise for us to say, “ Let us recognize that there is still existing restrictive legislation “. This is the federal initiative which State governments in many cases have been waiting for us to implement.

Federal voting rights having been extended to aborigines, I believe the stage will have been set for the various States which need to take action because of their vote-denying laws, which are still in existence, to put their own houses in order. In many quarters this decision of the Commonwealth Parliament has been awaited with interest. I am in the happy position to be able to say that in my own State the leaders of both the Government and the Opposition have indicated that they would support complementary legislation to follow that with which we are now dealing.

I mentioned earlier that other speakers had paid tribute to the excellence of the committee’s report. It is my pleasure, not as a member of that committee, but as one who followed its activities with a great deal of interest, to do likewise. I would further like to underline some specific recommendations of the committee covered by paragraphs 14, 15 and 16 of its report, because these were, in my assessment, additional to the terms of reference given to the select committee. In our genuine endeavours to help the aborigines of Australia. I believe we must take note of these additional recommendations by the select committee. I believe that it is most important that we not only extend voting rights to aborigines but also take appropriate steps to extend to them higher education and assist them towards social integration. This is particularly necessary during the difficult period between the school years through which the young people pass and their establishment in employment. The report of the committee is very specific on this aspect of education. The committee stated that the period between the ages of fourteen and 21 is a difficult one during which more needs to be done for the aboriginal youth, and suggests that every effort should be made by the Commonwealth Government to ensure that free secondary and technical education are readily available to all aboriginal children in all States of the Commonwealth, and that assistance is given towards social integration between schooling and employment.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that we ought to strive also to achieve a better standard of housing for aborigines, which again was emphasized by the select committee. Just recently we have noted that in the town of Narrogin, in Western Australia, particularly commendable steps have been taken. Whilst difficulties and problems have arisen as these people have been brought into better class housing, gradually they are becoming accustomed to these standards. This is the type of move that we must encourage. I believe, too, that farm and trade training schools should be brought into our thinking in relation to this higher education for aborigines. Only a few weeks ago I had the opportunity here to ask a question with reference to apprenticeship training, and pointed out that we are so desperately short, as so many of my honorable colleagues are aware, of trained tradesmen in Australia to-day, with our developing activities. In Western Australia I learned last week with considerable concern that we were some 1,700 trained tradesmen short of our present-day requirements. I believe that one positive way in which we can help these young people - and the young men in particular - of aboriginal descent, is to ensure that they are given apprenticeship training. I am firmly of the opinion that if they are qualified, as they will be, they will be much more readily assimilated into our community.

I wish to stress the desirability of the Commonwealth also accepting full responsibility for all people of the aboriginal race, thus achieving a much greater measure of uniformity in the field of welfare than exists to-day. This must be emphasized and noted and, in that connexion, I hope that the Government, of which we are a part, will in the near future see what can be done about taking over this problem from the States. Although the difficulties will be minimized by the legislation we are now adopting, much will remain to be done.

In conclusion, I make the point that these people are Australians - real Australians. They have been under many a disability. What we are doing, as members of this

Federal Parliament at this time, is to remove restrictions. We are extending to these people he right to vote as every other normal or naturalized Australian has the right to do. I believe we can proclaim to the world that we have every reason to be pleased that we have reached this decision and have passed this piece of legislation which can readily take its place, as I have indicated, with earlier decisions on Commonwealth electoral law.

Mr FULTON:
Leichhardt

.- Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take up much of the time of the House in supporting the bill. First of all, I would like to answer some of the criticisms made by the honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Howson) during his speech on this measure several weeks ago. What he thinks is immaterial to me, because his view is not shared by the electors of the area concerned. But the honorable member stated that I was not available when the select committee on the voting rights of aborigines came through my electorate. The chairman of the select committee knew that I would not be in attendance, because I had already seen him; and the date upon which he had arranged for the committee to be in Cairns did not suit my convenience because I had other commitments in my own electorate. 1 should like to remind the honorable member that my electorate of Leichhardt is bigger than the whole of Victoria. Therefore, I cannot sit idly by and wait for visitors to come to me at their convenience. I was amazed at the temerity of the honorable member when he said that a public servant administering the affairs of the natives on Thursday Island was a wicked man. He did not support that allegation with any statements of fact. I do not know how he came to that conclusion after having visited Thursday Island for only a few hours. I should like to remind the honorable member that there are more people on the other islands in the Torres Strait than there are on Thursday Island.

Mr Howson:

– That was not my only trip to Thursday Island.

Mr FULTON:

– Your previous trip must have been made a long time ago. You have not been there since I have been here. I do not think that, in so short a time, it is possible for any one to form such an opinion of a person who has spent many years among the islanders, has served under various governments, has been commended by those governments and has risen in status in the department. Being a public servant, he only carries out the policy of the government of the day. Therefore, I do not think that the criticism was warranted. Whether the honorable member’s allegations were true or not is another matter, but he did not give any facts to support them.

I interrupted the honorable member during his speech and said that these islanders were not aborigines, and the Minister for the Interior (Mr. Freeth) and the honorable member said that they were regarded as aborigines for the purposes of the act. These islanders should not be confused with aborigines. In any legislation dealing with the two groups of people, that fact must be taken into consideration. I believe, with the honorable member for Swan (Mr. Cleaver), that the average aboriginal is not concerned with voting. He is more concerned with other matters than with mere voting rights. However, if the aboriginal can be educated to use his voting rights I think that they will be a godsend to him in the long run. It will be of benefit for him to have a parliamentary member whom he can approach for support.

The islanders are a different proposition. They welcome a vote; they appreciate the chance that the Government has given them to vote. But I believe that we have put the cart before the horse in this instance. We propose to give the islanders a vote, but these people have not been educated to vote. In this respect, I believe that the adult education system could be used to advantage. I have spoken to adult education officers who have said that they are willing to go to Thursday Island and other islands controlled by the State Government and lecture the islanders on the Federal and State constitutions. Radio reception in this area is not very good. I have said before that the inhabitants should be allowed some rebate on their wireless licence-fees, because they can never hear the parliamentary broadcasts and seldom do they hear the news sessions. These islanders are willing to learn. I regard them as being in the same category as the Maoris of New Zealand. Physically and mentally they are the same. Given the opportunity to be educated, they would take their place in the Australian community as the Maoris have taken their place in New Zealand. I suggest that we would do a great service to these people if we could extend the adult education system to them in order to explain our method of government.

It is pleasing to know that many Torres Strait Islanders are on the electoral roll. Although the ballot paper for the Senate election last December was very complex, the percentage of informal votes cast in the Thursday Island group was no greater than on the mainland of Australia. The exact figures are not yet available but from figures that I have received I believe that informal voting was reduced considerably.

These are very proud people. I do not believe the State member who said that they want to come to the mainland to work. I do not think they do. I think that they want to stay in the islands, because they are very proud of their islands. If they have been forced to go to the mainland to work, it is only because, over the years, governments have allowed them to be exploited by Europeans or whites, who have taken away their rights. The pearling industry did nothing for Thursday Island or the other islands. Those in charge of the industry have taken as much as they can out of the islands but have put nothing back into them. Once they have taken the shell, they clear out and leave the natives to get on as best they can. Previously, the natives could get pearl shell for themselves and do something with it, but we allowed Europeans to exploit the shell beds and then walk out. This Government believes in private enterprise, as represented by Burns Philp Limited. This firm has had dealings in the islands for years, but has created no employment outside of its own trade. It has taken all that it could from the islands and has left nothing to the natives in return. Despite what the honorable member for Fawkner has said, I believe that the Torres Strait islands should be under the control of the Commonwealth Government, not a State government. Having inflicted ourselves on these people, we must do something for them. If private enterprise will not do anything for them, the Government should do something. If private enterprise will not do it, the Government should set up industries suein as canning factories or an industry to make ornaments from shells.

In support of the honorable member for Swan, I shall give an illustration to show that it is very difficult to absorb the aborigines into our way of living. A baby in arms was dropped into a fire during a corroboree on the outskirts of Cairns. The baby was badly scarred along his back. He was taken in and reared by a white family. I went to school with this lad. He turned out to be a very good footballer. He represented Cairns in the “ rep “ game and travelled with our team. I happened to be in the team with him. 1 watched this lad grow up in school. He lived in a white home with a family named Nicholls. Nicholls is dead now, but he would not mind my mentioning it. The lad went to a state school and became a very fine athlete, yet when he became 22 years of age he drifted back to the aborigines. He was still acceptable to the people with whom he had lived and to his mates. They would eat with him in refreshment rooms and travel with him. They were always willing to accept him, but he drifted back to the aborigines, although he had had no connexion with them over the years. He either had no relations among them, or did not know where they were. He drifted back, married an aboriginal girl, and was lost to his white friends, who still looked for him. When we see that kind of thing happening, it is very hard to know just how we can absorb them into the community. I believe that the Torres Strait Islanders will appreciate the vote that is to be given them under this bill, but I do not think that the aborigines will appreciate it quite as much. I should like to ask one question. If an aboriginal applies for the right to vote, will he be subject to the same penalty as the ordinary white person if he fails to vote from that time on?

Mr Freeth:

– Yes.

Mr FULTON:

– Then I am sure that if that fact is made known to them the aborigines will not register as voters. They are very peculiar people. They are very hard to understand. As the honorable member for Swan (Mr. Cleaver) has said, they do not take to our ways very readily. They have their own customs and beliefs. They will not admit that we are right all the time, and I do not think that we should set ourselves up as pious saints. After all, it has taken us many years to decide to give them the right to vote, and we cannot claim to be the pious saints we would have the natives believe we are. I am confident that if we make known to the aborigines the fact that they will be liable to the same penalties as the ordinary citizen if they fail to vote after having enrolled as voters, not many of them will enroll. The Torres Strait Islanders certainly will enroll and certainly will vote, because they are very keen to learn as much about Australia as they possibly can. As communications with the islands are difficult, I suggest that the Government could do a vast amount of good by helping the adult education authorities to send representatives to the islands to explain the Constitution of the Federal and the State Governments.

Mr LESLIE:
Moore

.- Like other speakers who have taken part in the debate on this bill, under which it is proposed to grant voting rights to aborigines under certain conditions, I commend the Select Committee on Voting Rights of Aborigines upon the work it has done. I also commend the Minister for the Interior (Mr. Freeth) for introducing the bill, which I support. But there are a few things which I think should be said in connexion with this problem of aborigines and their voting rights.

This bill is based on recommendation 77, which appears on page 8 of the report of the Select Committee on Voting Rights of Aborigines. That recommendation reads -

Your Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918-1961 be amended to provide -

That the right to vote at Commonwealth elections be accorded to all aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander subjects of the Queen, of voting age, permanently residing within the limits of the Commonwealth.

Frankly, I consider that recommendation of the committee to be quite redundant. In my opinion, the aborigines of this country are all subjects of the Queen, and therefore already have the right to vote. I will agree that, because of conditions which apply to their way of life, it may be necessary to organize the voting of the aborigines. By that I do not mean that this should be done by gerrymandering; I mean that their voting should be so arranged that they may exercise the right in certain ways and under certain conditions. But I start off by saying that I consider that the aborigines already have the right to vote. From there I go to another point.

Everybody who has spoken has commended this Parliament, commended the Government and commended Australia upon this tremendously forward step of giving the Australian aborigines a vote. Who are we trying to kid when we are patting ourselves on the back in this way? Who are we trying to kid? And what are we actually doing? Nothing at all! I say that giving the aboriginal a vote, a right which is inherently his, is adding nothing to either his material or spiritual welfare. The select committee was unfortunate in that its terms of reference were limited. In paragraph 27 of its report, the committee itself says -

The terms of reference of your Committee cover only the possession or extension of the franchise of the Parliament of the Commonwealth to people of the Australian aboriginal race

I would have liked to see a committee such as this inquiring into the whole question of the integration of the aborigines of Australia into the Commonwealth as a whole, and I am delighted to note that in its report the committee uses the word “ integration “ in preference to the word “ assimilation “. The constant use of the word “ assimilation “ by many people - I am satisfied they use it quite innocently - has a devastating effect. It is mischievous. Just what do people mean who use that word? How far do they propose that the process of assimilation should go? I have discussed this question of the assimilation or absorption of the native people into our own white race, if you like to call it that, and in doing so have spoken with educated natives who have asked: “ What do you mean by assimilation? How far are you going to go? Do I come to your front door? Do I come right inside your house? Do I come into your family? Where does assimilation end?” The use of the word “ assimilation “ gives rise to misunderstanding and is causing mischief. But if we tell these people that we want to integrate them, that we want to bring them in, that we want to make them part of the whole, that we want to bring them in to make this nation complete, to make this a nation of natives and of the whites who came here later to settle, I am satisfied that they will accept in a far better spirit our suggestion that we are endeavouring to assist them. I hope that all this poppycock talk of assimilation will end, because it does cause harm.

We hear much about the rights of citizenship. Just what citizenship lights do we propose to bestow on the aboriginal people anyway? Certainly we have citizenship rights in Western Australia. For instance, we have the right to go into a pub and booze. That is a right of citizenship. There are some other rights that go with it but, basically, that is one of the rights. To enjoy that right, the native has to make sure that he dissociates himself from his own family after that. He must not associate with the family again.

The rights of citizenship for these people should be based on the highest possible standards. What are those standards? I remind honorable members that there is an essential difference between our way of living and thinking and the way that the aborigines live and think. We must break down that difference. I have some knowledge of native people, not in Australia, but in Africa, and I know the essential differences in the thinking of the races there. The aborigines here, like some of the African natives, live under a system of community ownership. They possess nothing as individuals. One of the first things we have got to make the aboriginal understand when he comes into our home is that Dad’s shirt is Dad’s shirt, that it does not belong to the whole family. To the natives’ way of thinking, the shirt belongs to the whole family, and if he wants to go out on Sunday he is entitled to wear Dad’s shirt. The aboriginal does not take that shirt and wear it with the idea of robbing Dad. He is part of the family, and what is owned by the family belongs to him. He thinks, therefore, that he is entitled to use the shirt. We have got to change that kind of thinking, and we can bring about that change only by education. The aborigines do not understand our system of private ownership, which is fundamental to our way of thinking. Are we going to tell them that they must accept our system of private ownership? If we do, we will disregard many of the very good points of their own system of living. The aboriginal people have a very high moral standard. Indeed, we could well copy them in many respects and their standards could well be accepted as an example by some white people.

We speak about integration or assimilation. There is no segregation in the Western Australian education system. There are mission schools which are set up to educate natives, but we have no segregation in our State schools. This is good, but at the same time I am not against segregation, as I will show in a moment. We fail to realize that a native person has the same sensibilities as we have. I had occasion to take a Minister for Education in Western Australia on a visit to a State school during a sports meeting. The champion girl athlete and the champion boy athlete were natives. During a recess in the afternoon, it was noticeable that the two champions who had been applauded by all of the children at the school were standing apart with a few other natives. I should mention that eight or ten natives and some 70 or 80 white children attended the school.

The Minister asked why the native children were standing apart. I told him that he should speak to them himself and I took him across to them. I introduced the Minister. He said to the girl, whose name was Kathleen, “ Why do you not speak to the other children?” She said, “Sir, Mr. Leslie knows why “. I said, “ I do not want to tell the Minister; you tell him “. She said, “ Sir, we can be as easily insulted as a white person can “. They were in dread that some child, quite without malice, would say, “ You are only a damn nigger “. It is easily done, it happens every day, but it is hurtful. It is as hurtful to say that to a native as it is to use some other epithet to a white person.

I referred to segregation. I see no harm in segregation. Indeed, it is one way of overcoming a basic problem. One way to integrate the native people into the nation as a whole, with their system of living, is by segregation. Selected aborigines should be trained to be social workers, professional workers and technical workers amongst the natives. In this way, a pride of race can be created - not a pride of race as natives but a pride of race as Australians, regardless of colour. The aboriginal people know they can meet any comparison that we can make. Training aborigines to work among their own people would eventually lead to complete integration.

The honorable member for Leichhardt (Mr. Fulton) mentioned that the honorable member for Swan (Mr. Cleaver) had referred to the Housing scheme in Western Australia. We have an excellent housing scheme which is used to train the natives. They start by living on native reserves and selected aborigines are then given a better class house, not right in the town, where they are able to learn housekeeping and how to adopt standards of living similar to those of the whites. When they reach a satisfactory standard, they are given a house inside the town proper. That is so-called assimilation.

The local people in the country towns where the scheme has been adopted are wholeheartedly in favour of it. But a problem that must be met arises from the basic fact that aboriginal people have no pride of ownership; they have a community spirit. While the aboriginals who have been selected to live in these houses are not a nuisance to the rest of the community, other aborigines who come to live with them may be. With their community way of life, their own people crowd the house and roam the streets, feeling that they have a right to this way of life. This problem must be overcome, and I believe it can be overcome if we educate the natives in a system which provides for the selection of aborigines to train their own people.

It is a tragic fact that when whites have gone amongst the natives of every country, the habits of the whites have been adopted by the natives and the way of living of the whites has eventually brought misery and suffering to the natives. We should allow the natives to keep their own high moral code and we should try to give them the best of our own code. They will then raise themselves to a high standard of living, as they want to do. They want to adopt a high standard for their own sake and not because they want to compete with their neighbours. If we can inculcate such high standards into the way of life of the aborigines, we will have done something worth while. I support the bill because the aboriginal people are entitled to the right to vote, but here we are putting up a sham. We say we are providing a wonderful benefit for the natives in giving them the right to vote. It is a hollow gift. I prefer to say it is a hollow restoration of their own rights.

It is the duty of every member of this Parliament to become cognizant of the needs of the native people and individually and collectively to try to solve some of the problems facing these people. If we can solve some of these problems, we will be able to pat ourselves on the back and say to the rest of the world: “ This is what we have done. We have integrated these people into our race “. As the Minister for Territories (Mr. Hasluck) said, we are one people with one destiny. Although we may come from Victoria, New South Wales or another State, we are still one people. We can have our native people in native areas and still be one people. We should be proud to show others what our native people are doing just as we are proud to show others what people in Sydney, Melbourne and Perth are doing.

We must go much further than this bill goes. We should not merely give the aboriginal people the right to vote and hope that, if they use power politics, some one may take an interest in them and begin to understand their needs. The time to take an interest in their needs has long passed. We should not wait until they can exercise their right to vote and then make political capital out of them.

Mr COLLARD:
Kalgoorlie

.- The honorable member for Moore (Mr. Leslie) appeared to have a dollar each way on this subject. It was difficult to decide whether he was for or against the proposal. The appointment of the committee in April of last year to inquire into and report on the desirability of granting aboriginal natives of Australia the right to enrol and vote under the provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act, and the subsequent movements and hearings of the committee aroused considerable interest in Western Australia and caused considerable discussion. No doubt the same position obtained in other States, particularly in States which have a fairly large aboriginal population. I have no doubt that the passing of this bill to give all aborigines the right to enrol and vote if they so desire will meet with the approval of practically all those who interested themselves in this matter during the committee’s investigations and subsequently. I have a particular interest in the measure, not only because of my interest in the aboriginal people and the assistance I have given to those in my area, but also because approximately nine-tenths of the aboriginal population of Western Australia is domiciled in the electorate I have the honour to represent.

While this measure will confer on the aboriginal people a right that they previously did not have, it will not really give them any benefit or assistance. This simple measure will not bestow on them any favour. It will not improve their living or working conditions. It will not provide them with employment at satisfactory wage rates or give them better opportunities for education. In my opinion, these are the real things required. These are the things that should be given attention if we are honest in our attitude towards these people. However, I support and agree with the measure as representing one small step ‘n the right direction, and I hope it will lead in the near future to us doing something worth while for them. Personally I think the aborigines should have had this right years ago. I do not subscribe to the idea that there has suddenly been a tremendous improvement or change in the ability of the aboriginal people. There has been a gradual improvement, but I believe that these people could have been given the right to vote at elections several years ago.

As has been said by previous speakers, conditions concerning enrolment and voting are not uniform in all States. The position is that in the States where there are the smallest numbers of aborigines, the right to enrol and vote has existed for many years, whilst in the Northern Territory, Queensland and Western Australia, where by far the largest numbers of aborigines are domiciled, aborigines have no right to enrol except under special conditions or in the light of qualifications of the individual. For example, in Western Australia an aboriginal who has applied for and obtained citizen rights becomes eligible for enrolment in that State. However, quite a few aborigines in Western Australia, although they would welcome the right to vote and would undoubtedly qualify for and obtain citizen rights if they applied, are not prepared to apply. In some cases this is because they feel they are entitled to citizen rights because they were born in Australia. Others do not apply because they know that if they sought citizen rights, they could be embarassed or placed in an awkward position by members of their own families or other people in the district who did not have those rights. This legislation will give these people the right to enrol and vote without suffering the indignity of having to apply for citizen rights.

My experience of these people indicates that quite a large number will enroll and vote. I believe they will vote intelligently, too, because many of them know what they want and how to go about getting it. In many parts of Western Australia, particularly in the north and north-west, one sees adult aboriginal people working side by side with white people. All are accepted as belonging to the party, both on and off the job. Their ideas and arguments on all matters are treated with as much respect as are the ideas of the white people. I believe that all those who are so employed, particularly in the north and north-west, and to a lesser extent those in the goldfields areas as well as those in the agricultural areas, will accept this right. They will enroll immediately and exercize the right to vote at the next elections.

The census figures of June, 1961, give the full-blood aboriginal population of Australia as 36,031. That would not be an exact figure, because such a figure would be impossible to get. It does not include the nomadic aborigines. Of that 36,031, there are 32,316 in Queensland, Western Australia and the Northern Territory. Of these, only a very small percentage would bo entitled to enroll at present. When this legislation is passed, the right to enroll and vote will be available to all adult aboriginal people, instead of to about 12 per cent, of them as at present. In addition to the 36,031 full-blood aborigines, there are, according to the 1961 Year Book, at least 31,000 of less than full blood. All the adults of that group also will be entitled to enroll if they so desire. This gives a total of approximately 67,000.

If we take the estimate of the Director of Native Welfare in the Northern Territory and also accept the figures given in the 1961 Year Book as to the numbers in the several States, there could be 10,300 aborigines eligible to vote in Queensland, 9,000 in Western Australia and 9,500 in tho Northern Territory. All of these will not enroll, of course, particularly those of a fair age, but I would expect enrolment by a fairly high percentage of those between 21 and 40 years, and also by a large percentage of the younger people as they reach the age of 21.

In addition to the number of aborigines recorded in Western Australia, 1 estimate that there would be at least 2,000 more in the nomadic and tribal state. None of them would be capable of enrolling or voting. In fact, we would be lucky if we could locate many of them. A percentage of the others cannot read or write. They would have no interest in voting in any case. They could not and would not be able to vote, and they could not understand the responsibilities or obligations of compulsory enrolment or voting. Therefore, I believe the recommendation of the select committee, contained in paragraph 77 of the report, to make enrolment voluntary is very wise so far as Western Australia is concerned.

I also agree that it should be compulsory for an aboriginal to vote after he has been enrolled. A person who applies for enrolment voluntarily will do so with full knowledge of what it is all about. There would be nothing harsh about compulsory voting in such circumstances. Moreover, if the existing compulsory provision in New South Wales and Victoria has been satisfactory and has not caused any suffering or hardship to the aborigines or any major difficulties to those conducting the enrolments or the polling, it seems to me that it would be a backward step to delete that provision now and insert a non-compulsory provision in its place. It is evident that the existing provision has not caused any great trouble to any one. Undoubtedly, the select committee made a very careful survey of the provisions operating in those two States before bringing down the recommendation in paragraph 41 of the report, which states -

Your Committee recommends in respect of the existing law of the Commonwealth -

That, because the aboriginal people in New South Wales and Victoria have long been integrated into the Australian community, early administrative action be taken so that the compulsory provisions of the Commonwealth Electoral Act relating to enrolment and voting be applied to them.

I am quite prepared to abide by that recommendation, and naturally all members of the select committee in this House would support their own recommendations. The honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Howson) has said that this was a unanimous decision. The honorable member seemed suddenly to be very concerned whether the parliamentary representatives of the enrolled aborigines would pay them proper attention. He implied that if the aborigines were not properly attended to they would soon be in a position to change their representatives in this Parliament. Mr. Speaker, it is really touching that the honorable member has suddenly become so concerned about the welfare of the aboriginal people. I am sorry that he is not in the House at the present time. However, let me assure him that, for my part, I have interested myself in the welfare of the aboriginal people for many years and have not suddenly jumped into their corner just because they are now to be entitled to vote.

Mr Chaney:

– That is unfair. Who originated this idea?

Mr COLLARD:

– The honorable member may look at “ Hansard “ to see what was said. In my capacity as an official of the Australian Workers Union, I have many times conducted cases for aborigines in order to obtain for them proper wages, conditions, compensation and other things to which I considered they were justly entitled, even though at times, perhaps, they had no legal entitlement. So, Sir, unlike the honorable member for Fawkner, as I see the position, anyway, it will not be a new experience for me to do what I can to assist these people in any way that I can.

Incidentally, in the electorate of Kalgoorlie, there are some 12,000 or 13,000 aborigines. I have lived in that area practically the whole of my life. In my earlier years, I lived on the fringe of the desert where the aborigines were in a semi-wild state. So, perhaps, I can be excused for claiming that I know something about these people and their customs and way of living. I notice that, according to the statistics prepared as a result of the census, there are eight full-blood aborigines in the electorate represented by the honorable member for Fawkner. So, perhaps, he may be excused for being a little ignorant in this matter.

As I said earlier, Sir, this measure will do little to improve the conditions or the way of living of these people. We have heard about the need to educate them. I completely agree that education is needed, but I hasten to add that the job is nowhere near finished when we simply provide suitable education. In fact, if we give the aborigines suitable education and then discard them and leave them to fend for themselves, we shall in many instances have created a greater problem than they would have faced by remaining uneducated.

Education teaches them to read and write and to be clean in mind and body. It teaches them to add and subtract figures and all that sort of thing, as well as many other things which, in ordinary circumstances, would be of great benefit to them. But this is one of the big things, Sir: Education teaches the aborigines to believe - quite properly - that there is no real difference between them and other people, except for their colour, and they believe - again quite properly - that their colour should not be any bar to them in their future life. But when they leave school, they get a big shock. They go out quite enthusiastically to obtain employment, and then find that they are unable to do so. But they are educated enough to realize before very long that the reason why they cannot get work is largely that they are aborigines. Gradually, they become frustrated and embittered. They may then become a real problem around a town or drift back into the old ways of tribal life. If this happens, the years of schooling have been wasted. So it is not sufficient merely to educate the aborigines. We must also assist them to obtain suitable employment when their education is finished.

The number of aboriginal children now attending school is becoming quite large and is gradually but steadily increasing. These children, if fairly treated subsequently to leaving school, can be a very well worthwhile addition to our community. In Western Australia, for instance, in 1959, there were nearly 3,500 aboriginal children attending schools, either private or government. I believe that the most urgent problem that we have to face and solve in regard to these children is the problem of bringing our own people, and particularly employers, including governments, to a condition of thinking in which they will realize the value that educated aboriginal children can have for Australia.

We must realize that, until adequate employment at suitable levels of ability is provided, we will never solve the problems of the aboriginal children. Until we do arrive at such a condition of thinking, the work done in the various schools to educate these children to a suitable level will be wasted and destroyed. After all, the whole purpose of education is to bring a child, no matter whose child it is, to a stage at which it can take its place in the community as a useful citizen. No matter who the child is, if suitable employment is not obtained, the child will largely lose its place and its respect in the community, and will gradually drift into a pretty hopeless position.

At this point, I should like to refer to a report in the Western Australian “ Daily News” of the views of a bishop in the Northern Territory. The report, under the headline, “Bishop’s View”, with the dateline, “ Darwin, Thurs.”, states -

Unless Australian aborigines were given greater employment opportunities they would never be assimilated.

Roman Catholic Bishop of Darwin, Bishop J. P. 0’Loughlin said this today.

The Bishop said he agreed with a recent resolution passed at a conference of aboriginal advancement organizations in Adelaide that Federal and State Governments, chambers of commerce and other employer organisations should be urged to employ more natives.

He stressed the need for more aboriginal apprentices and cadets. “Unless more thought is given to this matter and definite action taken, we will never assimilate the aborigines,” he said.

There is a footnote, which reads -

Several fullblood aborigines here have jobs as wharf labourers, municipal workers and truck and bus drivers. But none are known to be employed as a shop assistant or a clerk.

I suggest, Sir, that there is no reason at all why aboriginal children of fair education and good appearance should not be employed as shop assistants or clerks. I think that employers are exhibiting unnecessary resistance to the employment of young aborigines in shops, perhaps because of the idea that they could lose custom. There is no doubt in my mind that all the people in the community who are really worthwhile citizens would just as soon accept wares from a young aboriginal who is well dressed, clean and reasonably well educated as they would from anybody else.

The Minister for Territories (Mr. Hasluck) referred to possible Communist activity among the aborigines. Here again, I believe, sufficient fields of suitable employment would destroy any chance that the Communists may have of causing trouble among the aboriginal people. There is no doubt that happy and contented people are one of the greatest obstacles to Communist infiltration. The Communists cannot infiltrate a community of happy and contented people who have no worries. If the aboriginal people are unable to find suitable employment and are unemployed, they naturally become discontented and unhappy and are open to any approach by people who promise them even a small improvement in their conditions. Housing, of course, is another necessity to which we should give close attention.

I conclude, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by saying that I heartily congratulate the Select Committee on Voting Rights of Aborigines on the work that it did and the report that it presented. I support the measure. But I repeat that it is unfortunate that we have not adopted the report as a whole and provided for compulsory enrolment in those States in which such provision is made at present.

Mr WILSON:
Sturt

.- Mr. Deputy Speaker, I rise with pride and enthusiasm to support this bill. The Government’s object is to build an Australian nation in which there is no discrimination between citizens on the ground of race, colour or religion. As the Minister for Territories (Mr. Hasluck) stated, the object of this bill is to fulfil the Government’s ideal of one people. We recognize that the aboriginal people, who, like ourselves, are Australian-born, are Australians just as we are. If this ideal is to be fulfilled, we must take steps to remove the legislation which discriminates against aborigines and has discriminated against them ever since federation in 1901. This Government can feel extremely proud of the steps it has taken to eradicate discrimination against the aboriginal people. I do not propose to enumerate all the steps that have been taken, but I remind the House that within the last few years this Government has enabled aboriginal natives for the first time to receive social service benefits. Previously aborigines had been denied benefits such as, for example, the age pension. This bill represents another attempt to eliminate discrimination against aborigines. I think we can detect in public thinking in this country to-day support for what I may describe as the emancipation of the aboriginal.

Since the war we have embarked upon a most ambitious immigration programme. We have brought to this country from overseas 1,700,000 people, and we have endeavoured to integrate them with our community. In the same way we should try to integrate our aboriginal people. We oppose segregation into communities. We try to provide the same facilities for all and to have, as the Minister says, one people. As previous speakers have observed, what we want to achieve is the integration of the aboriginal people with the rest of the community. They have something to offer, just as we have something to offer. I believe that with the bill before us, which removes the discrimination against them with relation to voting, we are making another step towards the integration of the aboriginal people with the rest of the community.

I speak on this bill with particular enthusiasm because just twelve months ago, when there was another Commonwealth Electoral Bill before this House, which perpetuated the discrimination against aboriginal natives, I said, as reported on page 1410 of “ Hansard “ of 3rd May, 1961-

I have consistently advocated, both in this Parliament and outside it, that the aboriginal native should have the same right to a vote as any other Australian-born citizen.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– When did you say that?

Mr WILSON:

– On 3rd May, 1961, in this House. I proceeded to say, as reported on page 1411 of “ Hansard “ -

I believe that aboriginal natives should have the same right to vote as any other Australian-born persons. At the same time I believe they should not be compelled to enroll.

I, for one, would hate to see Parliament provide that it shall be an offence for aboriginal natives in their tribal state to fail to enroll.

So, Sir, it is with extreme pleasure that I see here, just twelve months later, these two principles given effect to. First, the aboriginal native is to be given a vote in the same way as white Australians are given votes. Secondly, because of the peculiar difficulties of some aboriginal natives, they are not to be penalized if they fail to enroll. I think this represents the best of liberal principles. We realize that some of these people are extremely backward at the present time. We are doing everything possible to enable them to take their places in the Australian community, but we know that at present there are certain aboriginal natives who just do not know what a vote is. To impose penalties on them for failing to enroll would, in my opinion, and obviously in the opinion of the Government, be very unfair and unwise.

So, Sir, I say that I am delighted to see this piece of legislation providing for the aboriginal native the right to vote, but not penalizing him if he does not enroll. I believe, Sir, that this represents another step in the integration of the aborigines with the rest of the Australian community.

I would like to remind the House of the words of a hymn written by one of the authors of federation, Sir Robert Garran. It is a hymn that is frequently sung at naturalization ceremonies, and it is entitled “ Help Us to Build a Nation “. It includes the following lines: -

Keep us united ever, One people, serving God!

As Sir Robert Garran said, our efforts in Australia are to build one nation, and in that nation the oldest of our inhabitants, the aboriginal natives, must have the same rights as other citizens.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clauses 1 and 2 - by leave - taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 3.

Section forty-two of the Principal Act is amended by adding at the end thereof the following sub-section: - “(5) This section does not apply to a person who is an aboriginal native of Australia except to the extent that such a person may, if he so chooses, comply with sub-section (1.) of this section.”.

Mr BEAZLEY:
Fremantle

.- I move -

Omit proposed sub-section (5.), insert the following sub-section: - “ ‘ (5.) This section does not apply to an aboriginal native of Australia who is entitled to have his name placed on the Roll for a Subdivision of a Division of the State of Queensland, South Australia or Western Australia except to the extent that such a person may, if he so chooses, comply with sub-section (1.) of this section.’.”.

We should all be very clear as to what the present position is. A speaker in the debate a while ago said that Australia had pioneered in certain electoral matters, such as giving the franchise to adult males. Of course the truth about that is that the United Kingdom Parliament made the enactment in the basic constitutions of the States, and the United Kingdom Parliament originally gave to all British subjects, including aborigines, the vote. If they have not got the vote at the present time it is because certain States have taken it away from them. At this moment in New South Wales and Victoria, in theory at least, voting for aborigines is compulsory. In practice the Commonwealth and State electoral authorities have not insisted on this compulsory voting. It was the view of the committee - I did not actually express it, but it was certainly my view - that the native peoples of New South Wales and Victoria, especially of New South Wales, have lost because they were not compulsorily enrolled as the law envisaged they should be. We found that at Woodenbong, for instance, out of50 aborigines only two were enrolled. As a consequence, no candidates for either State or Federal elections had ever seen them. Their conditions were unseen and they had lost as a result. The Labour Opposition believes that we should continue to have a compulsory franchise for the aboriginal people of New South Wales and Victoria and the purpose of this amendment is to restore that which is in theory, at any rate, the existing law in those two States.

The first reason for the amendment is that the electoral law should not have any provision which appears to make a differentiation between electors solely on the ground of race in the law governing enrolment. It is true that in Australia only aborigines are nomadic and tribal. That is the reason why the committee recommended that there should not be compulsory enrolment in certain States. But they are not nomadic and tribal in New South Wales and Victoria. A provision for voluntary enrolment of aborigines was recommended by the committee as a device to cope with two situations - that some aborigines wanted the vote, and that to the nomadic and tribal aborigines compulsory enrolment would be an unjust burden. The committee felt that this provision should not apply in New South Wales and Victoria.

The second reason for the amendment is that aborigines in New South Wales and Victoria have suffered because they have not been enrolled. Candidates have passed their settlements by. It was Commonwealth law that they should be enrolled, but it was not enforced. As a consequence, their conditions have not been seen by candidates. Had they been seen they would have been remedied, or would at least have become a political issue. New South Wales and Victorian aborigines would have reached candidates and spoken to them. Just how important it was that they should reach members of Parliament was shown when they suddenly realized that they had members of Parliament with them, and were able to put their grievances to them. That also applied in the case of the people of the Torres Strait Islands who put their grievances to the committee.

The third reason for the amendment is that aborigines are easily bluffed out of their rights. In Darwin the committee had aboriginal witnesses before it who had ceased to be wards and who informed the committee that people had told them that they need not enroll, and that as a consequence they did not do so. Negroes in the United States southern areas have been discouraged from enrolling. One political party in Western Australian has clearly never wanted the natives of the Great Southern Area enrolled. Wherever compulsion exists this corrupt motive is checked. Compulsion should therefore be applied in the interests of the aborigines where no other injustice arises as a result of compulsion.

The fourth reason for the amendment is that compulsion in New South Wales and Victoria would be a clear indication that all aboriginal people are fully intended by the Parliament to be on the same footing as the rest of the community ultimately.

The fifth reason is that the House of Representatives franchise should express the national principle as perfectly as possible.

Quick and Garran forecast of the tendency of the House of Representatives franchise that-

Its operation and tendency will be in the direction of the unification and consolidation of the people of the Commonwealth into one integrated whole. In its constitution it represents “ the people of the Commonwealth “ as distinguished from “ the people of the States”. The natural bent and inclination of its policy will, therefore, be to regard its constituents as one united people; one in community of rights and interests; one in their title to the equal protection of the law; one in their claim to fair and beneficent treatment; one in destiny.

Wherever there are no overwhelming reasons why the electorate should not be treated as “ one united people “ the law should operate uniformly. It should operate uniformly in New South Wales and Victoria.

The sixth reason is that the more aboriginal people there are on the roll the more they will be considered - and they stand in need of consideration. This is a field in which the States may be jealous of their constitutional power, but they cannot point with any conviction or pride to the way in which the power has been exercised or is being exercised now. A compensating influence can be the influence of the aboriginal franchise on this Parliament. There is no convincing evidence that the States with large numbers of aborigines want them to have any influence at all in the State parliaments. Wherever possible, therefore, they should be given a maximum influence in this Parliament.

The seventh reason is that the Commonwealth law at present differentiates between people of mixed descent and people fully of aboriginal descent. People of mixed descent are thought to live in a manner which makes Parliament more relevant to them. If that is the reason why the electoral law should apply to them as to Australians of European and Asian descent then the same principle should apply to people of full aboriginal descent in New South Wales and Victoria, who are also fully part of the community.

The eighth reason is that aboriginal groups tend not to differentiate in New South Wales and Victoria between people of fully aboriginal descent and people of mixed descent. They accept people whose appearance is totally European as being aborigines. It will create confusion if compulsion applies to people of mixed descent but not to fullblood people. There is no good reason in New South Wales and Victoria why they should be made to feel different from others.

I realize that the Commonwealth is arguing for a uniformity of law throughout the Commonwealth; but for 60 years we have followed section 41 of the Constitution in such a way that the Commonwealth franchise has attached itself to the State franchise, and where the States enfranchise the aborigines or, rather, where they did not interfere with the fact that the United Kingdom originally enfranchised the aborigines, the Commonwealth franchise followed. If we could, over those years, follow a principle that was one of differentiation without any real principle on the part of this Parliament being involved, we can now make a principle - that is, that we are not drawing the line of race in the franchise but that the aborigines in New South Wales and Victoria, having no tribal and nomadic people, no people to whom Parliament is irrelevant, can be treated on the same footing as the rest of the community. That is the purpose of this amendment.

Mr FREETH:
Minister for the Interior [9.57]. - The honorable member for Fremantle (Mr. Beazley · Forest · LP

has moved an amendment which is supported by the Labour Party and which the Government cannot accept although it recognizes that many valid reasons were given by the honorable member, in a moderate way, for support of the amendment. However, I find that there is some inconsistency in the arguments that he used. One great argument used against the refusal to give aborigines all over Australia the right to vote was the accident of geography - the accident that a native of New South Wales had a perfect right to vote and that a native in Queensland or the Northern Territory did not have the right to vote. This meant that merely by taking a few steps, across a border a native could become either enfranchised or disfranchised. Here the Opposition seeks to ignore the same argument which has been used so often in regard to voting rights for aborigines. It advocates, in effect, that we retain the accident of geography whereby a native, by taking a few steps across a border, becomes compelled to enrol and to vote rather than having simply the right voluntarily to enrol and then to vote. I cannot see that this is a good argument as to why the franchise should be given to all natives throughout Australia. I find it difficult to see why at this stage the Opposition seeks to perpetuate this accident of geography.

The main achievement of this legislation will be the conferring on aboriginal natives of the right to enrol and vote, and while I accept some of the arguments which the honorable member for Fremantle put forward regarding the desirability of not having any discrimination on the grounds of race, I find it difficult to see that, as well as conferring a right throughout Australia, we should impose compulsion on some natives and not on others, merely because of the places in which they have to live. Not only would this be a conferring of compulsion but it envisages a change in the existing practice under the laws of the States which the honorable member proposed to use as discriminatory States. In other words, while enrolment and voting have in theory been compulsory in New South Wales and Victoria, they have never been enforced. We are concerned mainly with removing a restriction on the rights of certain people elsewhere in Australia. Is this a time when we should embark upon the enforcement of an obligation on the aborigines of New South Wales and Victoria? That is the question. It is true that the select committee reported that, in its view, the existing practice should be changed and that not only should the law remain as it is in New South Wales and Victoria but that the existing practice should be changed and that natives should be compelled to enrol and vote.

That is the fundamental question with which this chamber is concerned at this time. That is why the Government considers that this idea of all natives throughout Australia feeling that they have been given a new right should be the one with which we are primarily concerned. It may well be that in New South Wales, Victoria and the other States, in the not too far distant future, no distinction whatever will be drawn. But while a distinction is drawn, surely it is desirable to have some degree of uniformity! Why is there not a case made out for compelling natives in South Australia to vote where, as I understand it, enrolment is not compulsory? But the natives have been used to having a vote in that State and if the arguments put forward are followed for New South Wales and Victoria I feel that South Australia should not be left in a separate compartment as distinct from Queensland, New South Wales and Western Australia, where the situation has been somewhat different.

I was impressed by the fact that the honorable member for Fremantle said that because natives were not in fact enrolled in New South Wales and Victoria political candidates passed them by and did not seek their votes. Surely that shows a woeful lack of enterprise on the part of the candidates rather than constituting an argument in favour of forcing the natives to enroll! Surely any one who had the interests of these people at heart would seek them out, even on the sordid ground of getting a few votes in his favour and in support of his own policy.

Mr Luchetti:

– They did not know you in your electorate.

Mr FREETH:

– That may be so; but here is a situation where the candidates in States where natives have the right to vote could have gone to them and said “ We stand in support of this, that or the other thing, which will react in your favour “. Surely the candidates could have said to the aborigines, “Why do you not enroll, because that will help you, if you vote for me “! Is that not the way in which natives could be made to interest themselves in their democratic rights?

We have heard a lot, from members of both sides of the chamber, about the importance of educating natives about the value of the vote. I do not believe you will arouse anything but resentment in conferring on aborigines the right to vote, if a native later finds himself liable to a fine of up to £2 for not enrolling and voting. But under the provisions of this measure the aborigines will feel that they have had conferred on them something of value.

While compulsion with regard to both enrolment and voting has become a part of our democratic system in Australia, in most parts of the world to-day the compulsory element is not the great democratic right that is sought. It is the right to enroll and vote which is of great importance. I emphasize again, when I say that the Government cannot at this stage accept the Opposition’s amendment, the fundamental question before us. Side issues should not be dragged in to distort the fact that here is a great national move forward to confer on people who have not had this right something which we believe is of real value to them. It is something which we hope they will use and which will achieve for them things which they have not had before.

Mr LUCHETTI:
Macquarie

.- The amendment moved by the honorable member for Fremantle (Mr. Beazley) is along the lines of a recommendation of the select committee appointed by this Parliament to investigate this matter. The fact that the committee’s report was unanimous should influence the mind’s of members of the Government in dealing with this question. The Minister for the Interior (Mr. Freeth) said that compulsion should not be used. If he would take the time to go through the tomes of evidence tendered to the committee by aborigines he would find that they insisted on the right to enroll and the right to vote, with the full penalties attached for failure to do so. When they were asked specifically whether the penalties for failure to enroll and vote should go with the right they said without exception, or with rare exceptions: “We feel we should be treated the same as the white people. If we are given the right to enroll and vote and if we fail to observe those privileges we deserve to suffer the same penalty as white people would.”

Mr Howson:

– I think that was so in the Northern Territory and in Western Australia, but not so much so in New South Wales and Victoria.

Mr LUCHETTI:

– It was the general theme of the evidence taken in the areas where the problem was most acute. We are not dealing specifically with the advanced areas. That is why I rose to support the honorable member for Fremantle. No situation exists in New South Wales from which we should retreat. Compulsion is the element in the law in New South Wales and Victoria-

Mr Freeth:

– But it is not enforced.

Mr LUCHETTI:

– Why should we retreat from the position existing there? If it is good enough to have that law - whether it is being fully enforced is another matter - why should we retreat from this situation? By doing so we create a division and a new situation in New South Wales and Victoria. Having regard to all of these facts I think we ought to try to preserve the law where white people and black people are treated as electors and not as white people and black people or as different types of people. They are electors of the Commonwealth of Australia. The views of Quick and Garran have been quoted. Toby Barton spoke of “ one people; one flag, one destiny “. But in New South Wales we shall divide the white people from the black. We say to the white people, “You will be subject to all the rigours of the law for failing to enroll or to vote “, and to the black people we say, “That will not apply to you, in spite of the fact that it has been the law in the past “.

Mr Fox:

– You want to treat the black people in two States separately.

Mr LUCHETTI:

– There is the report of the select committee, and this has been the situation in the past. I think that honorable members ought to have regard to the necessity for going forward and not backward. If we adopt the attitude proposed by the Minister for the Interior we will go backwards in respect of the position in New South Wales and Victoria. I suggest that if we are to consider this question from the standpoint of the desirability of achieving uniformity throughout Australia, having regard to the evidence tendered to the committee in Queensland, to the effect that 95 per cent, of the aboriginal people below Cooktown are literate and capable of understanding these matters, there is a better argument for the application of the element of compulsion to the whole of Australia. . The committee was also told that 60 per cent, of the aborigines north of Cooktown were literate. Taking into consideration also the fact that the aboriginal people played a most important part in the management of their own affairs at Cherbourg, Palm Island and elsewhere, I submit that these factors ought to be heeded. For the time being at least let us preserve what we have in New South Wales and Victoria and try step by step and stage by stage, with sound education, to bring the aborigines in the rest of Australia into line with those in the advanced States.

Mr BEAZLEY:
Fremantle

.- The Minister for the Interior (Mr. Freeth) is right in suggesting that a geographic differentiation between New South Wales and Victoria and the rest of the Commonwealth is not entirely satisfactory. If a franchise is devised which does differentiate the position of two races in a community there will always be some unsatisfactory features. The Minister has mentioned South Australia. The Government of that State does not tell only the aborigines that enrolment is voluntary but that, after enrolment, voting is compulsory. It says that to everybody. It is not compulsory for Europeans to enroll in South Australia. Therefore, South Australia has a uniform franchise. It is true that the Commonwealth franchise, riding across the top of the State franchise, is different.

The problem in South Australia is that in the north of the State there are nomadic aborigines. That is why the committee did not recommend - since it was recommending for a Commonwealth franchise - that South Australia should be included with New South Wales and Victoria. Of course, if you were to enact the South Australian law throughout the Commonwealth and say to the whole community, European and aboriginal, “It is not compulsory to enroll, but if you do enroll voting is compulsory “, you would have a uniform system for aborigines and Europeans. Those are the only circumstances in which no one would be able to say that there was differentiation. But that is not what we are pressing for. Differentiation is being proposed, anyway, and we prefer a geographic differentiation. In general, it is true to say that in New South Wales and Victoria there are no nomadic, primitive and tribal aborigines. One reason for exempting aborigines from the compulsion that applies to the rest of the community is that some of them are nomadic, tribal and primitive. To apply compulsion to them would be unjust. It would also be absurd to chase tribal aborigines through the bush with ballot boxes. This problem does not exist in New South Wales and Victoria.

The Minister for the Interior has said truly that, in the past, members of the Labour Party and Government supporters have deplored the fact that aborigines who travel from Western Australia into New South Wales and Victoria receive the vote, but if they go back to Western Australia they are taken off the Commonwealth roll. If they go from Queensland to those two States they gain the right to vote, but if they go back to Queensland they lose it.

However, there are not many aborigines who move interstate. The unsatisfactory position exists, not when they move from Queensland or Western Australia into New South Wales or Victoria, but when they move in the reverse direction.

By and large, the aboriginal people who have moved interstate have been those to whom compulsion could justifiably have been applied. Frankly, the people whose cases I have noted in Western Australia are people training for the Church of Christ Ministry at the Glen Iris Bible College in Victoria. In Western Australia, for reasons of pride, they will not apply to be citizens and to get one of those little citizens’ rights certificates which our aboriginal witnesses called “ dog licences “. They would not apply for citizenship in Western Australia because they regarded it as their birthright. They got their birthright in Victoria, but lost it when they went back to Western Australia. The others to whom I have referred were aboriginal black-trackers, brought by the Victorian police from Queensland. I do not think that any problems would arise from compulsion being applied to those people.

The other people whom we saw who had moved interstate included some from Cherbourg in Queensland who had moved to Woodenbong in the north of New South Wales. It happens that the tribal area of the tribe concerned straddles the State frontiers. The food and housing conditions at the Queensland Government settlement at Cherbourg were very good. At Woodenbong, the aborigines were left entirely to their own devices by the Government of New South Wales. Their housing conditions were inferior, their employment was doubtful and, as far as I could see, the old practice of taking up land was continuing on the assumption that they did not exist. In view of the fact that the conditions at Cherbourg had been quite good, I asked them why they had come to Woodenbong. The answer was, “ I would rather have freedom than good conditions “. That was how they felt about being compelled to stay on government settlements in Queensland. The political maturity of these people is such that I believe that compulsion could apply to them. .

This is not a great issue. The Opposition does not intend to oppose the bill if the Government does not accept the proposed amendment, but we will regret it if the Government does not accept the amendment. We think it is vitally important to ensure, as far as possible, that differentiation in the franchise will not be racial but will rest on the practical grounds that some aborigines are primitive and nomadic and could not justly be compelled to enroll and to vote. This problem does not exist, as I have said, in New South Wales and Victoria. One could also say that it does not exist in Tasmania, but that is not a very practicable question to discuss at this time. If we differentiate, not on racial grounds but on the social ground of difficulties arising from tribal organization, I think we will have a simpler franchise.

I should like to exonerate the Minister from my colleague’s charge that he is not known by the aborigines. Some of the aborigines in his electorate spoke to me about him. They spoke of him with great respect in relation to matters on which he had given them legal assistance, appeared for them in courts and assisted them in other ways.

Question put -

That the sub-section proposed to be omitted (Mr. Beazley’s amendment) stand part of the clause.

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr. P. E. Lucock.)

AYES: 59

NOES: 56

Majority . . 3

Remainder of bill - by leave - taken as a whole, and agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

AYES

NOES

Third Reading

Motion (by Mr. Freeth) - by leave - proposed -

That the bill be now read a third time.

Mr WHITLAM:
Werriwa

.- As the result of the bill which the House is about to pass unanimously, it will be permissible for aborigines to enroll for federal elections in every State of the Commonwealth. At this stage, I wish to ask the Minister for the Interior (Mr. Freeth) what consequences will flow in the distribution of electorates which is about to take place. I quote paragraph 87 of the report of the Select Committee on Voting Rights of Aborigines. It reads -

Your Committee draws attention to the evidence of the Chief Electoral Officer for the Commonwealth concerning the counting of aborigines for determining the quota for electorates, which reads as follows: - “They would not be counted for the purposes of Section 127.”

That is, of the Constitution - “They would be counted to determine the quota for electoral purposes. They are two different things, as I see it. One is counting the population of the Commonwealth and the other is determining the numbers to be elected under the Representation Act.”

We know that, as a result of Section 127 of the Constitution there will be a reduction in the number of federal divisions in Western Australia from nine to eight and in Queensland from eighteen to seventeen. If the unanimous recommendations of the Constitutional Review Committee had been put to the people and adopted, the present number of divisions would be retained in each of those States.

I wish to direct attention to the consequences of the permissible enrolment of aborigines. One can only speculate how many aborigines will enroll by the time of the next elections, but we do know with fair precision at this stage how many aborigines can enroll when this bill is passed. It so happens that the greatest number of eligible aborigines will be in the largest electorates in Australia. The largest electorate in Australia is Kalgoorlie, which has an area of 899,000 square miles, and the next largest electorate is Kennedy in Queensland, which has an area of 283,600 square miles. Kalgoorlie has the smallest enrolment in Western Australia. According to figures which the Chief Electoral Officer gave to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Calwell) the enrolment in Kalgoorlie as at 23rd February last was 34,055. According to figures which the Commonwealth Statistician gave me a month later, it appears that the greatest number of aborigines in any electorate, as far as they can be ascertained, were in Kalgoorlie, the number being 7,559.

Mr Howson:

– Are those 7,559 all adults?

Mr WHITLAM:

– The Commonwealth Statistician was not able to give the number of adults and the number of children. At that stage he was able to analyse the census figures only as far as giving the total population.

It is clear that if all the adult full-blood aborigines in Kalgoorlie were to enroll, Kalgoorlie’s electoral population would increase considerably, and therefore it would not be so likely that the area of the electorate would have to be enlarged; it would be quite likely that the number in the electorate, including the eligible aborigines, would be within the permissible margin.

The electorate of Kennedy has the smallest electoral population in Queensland, the enrolment being 39,019. But in that electorate, there is the second greatest number of aborigines of all ages - 2,004. There again, if the adult aborigines were to enroll, Kennedy would no longer have the smallest enrolment in Queensland. It is, therefore, not likely that its area would have to be increased in the distribution because the quota would not be deviated from by more than the permissible margin. A distribution is taking place at the moment, and I ask the Minister whether, in making that distribution, it will be assumed that all eligible aborigines will, in fact, enroll. If it is not so assumed, what proportion of eligible aborigines is it assumed will enroll?

Mr FREETH:
Minister for the Interior · Forrest · LP

– in reply - Electoral distribution is, of course, only vaguely relevant to the bill. However, I can answer the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Whitlam) very quickly. The re-distribution of electorates is in the hands of a re-distribution commission. When there is a movement of population from one electorate to another, the commissioners must take the trend into account. In other words, they have to take into account the probable changes in enrolment in the electorate, and I imagine that they must take into consideration some calculation of the likely enrolment of aboriginal voters - not the 7,000 mentioned by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, but the adult people likely to vote in an electorate.

Using his own kind of argument, I point out that while there is a potential enrolment of a certain number of aborigines in an electorate, the commissioners must also take into account the possible movement in or out of that electorate. This is a factor which obviously will be taken into consideration by the commissioners. But I cannot commit them to make any specific allowance, because that is a matter for them. I would be criticized by the Opposition as well as by my colleagues if I tried to influence the commissioners in their decision on this matter.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 1793

AUSTRALIAN UNIVERSITIES COMMISSION BILL 1962

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 5th April (vide page 1364), on motion by Mr. Menzies -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Mr BEAZLEY:
Fremantle

.- The measure before the House, which increases the number of members of the Australian Universities Commission by two, was introduced by the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) in a brief speech. The Opposition supports the bill and, therefore, there is no occasion for any long speech on the subject.

The Australian Universities Commission was conceived by the Murray committee, which recommended its creation, to be analagous to the University Grants Committee of the United Kingdom. The Murray committee’s report at paragraph 381 recommended a body of eight members, seven part-time and one full-time. Instead, there was set up a body of five members, four part-time and one full-time. The Murray committee’s report suggested that of the eight members, five should be associated with universities. Of the seven parttime members, five would, therefore, have had direct and continuous experience within the Australian universities. In the event, the Government appointed only two out of four part-time members associated with the universities.

The tasks of the commission are immense. If it is to serve the nation most effectively, it must become a body not so much handling the urgent financial problems of the universities and making recommendations on them as determining what proportion of the nation’s resources it can recommend should be allotted to the universities. It needs to be a larger body than it is, but it is regrettable that we have no clear indication that the Government intends to use the enlargement as a means to bring the composition of the commission nearer to the original recommendations of the Murray committee. By 1966, we will have 95,000 students in Australian universities. This year, we have some 60,000. We have three times, proportionately, the student population of the United Kingdom. With five times our population, the United Kingdom has much less than twice our student population. This factor of crowding imposes difficult decisions on the commission.

The other factor which requires that the pressure of work be lifted by an enlargement of the commission is that, unlike its British counterpart, it has to deal with seven governments, not one. In addition to its enlargement as a body, the commission needs to be accepted more seriously by the Treasury than it is and able to get from the Treasury indications of longerterm thinking than acceptance or rejection of short-term and hand-to-mouth recommendations about the immediate needs of universities. With these hopes in mind, the Opposition supports the bill.

Mr REYNOLDS:
Barton

– Without wishing to prolong the debate, I should like to mention one thought that occurred to me as I read a report of the proceedings of the Royal Australian Chemical Institute. Dr. A. P. Rowe, ViceChancellor of the University of Adelaide, contributed an article in which he put forward his views on the Australian Universities Grants Committee as it was then proposed. This was in 1957. He mentioned that the proposed body, which subsequently became the Australian Universities Commission, was to be modelled to some extent on the British University Grants Committee. He pointed out that whilst the committee had been very successful in Great Britain, the idea had not been accepted in the United States of America, South Africa or Canada.

Dr. Rowe analysed the reason for this, especially as it applied to the United States. The committee in Great Britain was dealing with a rather homogeneous type of university. In the United States, on the other hand, universities grew up in almost multitudinous numbers. They had various foundations and drew on many types of support. At this early stage in the life of our Universities Commission, I am prompted to ask whether this body that was set up with the prime purpose of co-ordinating university development in Australia will tend to become a body that enforces a type of uniformity on Australian university life. I think this would be rather regrettable.

The function of the Universities Commission is to effect economies in the us: of our available resources. I refer to resources not only of money, which is possibly the least important, but also the more important resources of first-class teaching staff and first-class buildings, laboratory equipment and so on. It may be well for us in the not too distant future to seek some sort of evaluation of the work of the commission. I hesitate to say who should undertake this evaluation, but some sort of evaluation should be made in terms of the trend the commission is promoting. It has been said time and time again that in the Australian educational scene generally there is too much emphasis on uniformity - on co-ordination, as it has been called. There is a lack of variety in the Australian educational scene. We have rather relied on universities in their independent and autonomous state in the past to relieve some of the boredom of uniformity. I get a little querulous at this stage because this commission was set up ostensibly to achieve co-ordination - a very desirable thing, particularly in relation to resources. However, I wonder whether it will overdo its job and achieve the kind of uniformity that the Americans and many other people overseas are not too happy about.

In the evaluation that must come we should ask ourselves whether the triennium - the three years - that has been set as the standard in Australia is the optimum period. The British University Grants Committee - to cite that organization once more - has adopted over a considerable number of years a five-year period. That suggests to me that it is worth looking at. No doubt the Murray committee did look at this matter and had some regard for the different political scene in Australia, where we have three-year parliaments as against the five-year parliaments in Great Britain, but this matter might be well worth evaluating. Is three years the desirable or the optimum period for the making of allocations and reviewing what has been done with the1 allocations of finance?

We know that the Universities Commission was not established merely to dole out money. It was established to offer guidance and advice, to be some sort of consultant and adviser, and to act as a gobetween linking governments and various universities. The Universities Commission was set up to formulate a national university policy for Australia, but as yet I have not seen any tremendous progress in that direction. Has the commission made any determination yet about the distribution of universities in Australia? If co-ordination is the key feature, one aspect is the locations of specialized faculties that do not cater for vast numbers of students but nevertheless are very important in the Australian scene. One of the tasks of the Universities Commission is to see that these institutions are not duplicated in a wasteful manner in the universities in each of the States. Its task is to enable the universities to specialize and attract students from all parts of the nation instead of from within the borders of a certain State. Residential quarters must be established to facilitate the bringing together of post-graduate students, particularly into universities specializing in the more rarefied faculties. I am not too sure that this kind of integration or coordination, with its attendant specialization, has taken place.

So far, we have not had a clear enough enunciation of an overall policy so far as decentralization of university life is concerned. A good many people in Australia are a little concerned about the overcrowding of our longer established universities. We have the feeling that the numbers of students in universities such as those in Sydney and Melbourne are far too great. There are people who would be much happier to see the establishment of university colleges in the bigger country towns. Of course, that could be carried to excess, so that one had small university colleges with little intercommunication between faculties.

I hope that in the not-distant future there will be a much broader evaluation of the Universities Commission. I admit that it is early in the piece as yet, but there are questions that need determining, not only in relation to the membership of the commission but also as to the period of time for which it makes allocations. Is the three-year period the optimum period? Is one fulltime member, as recommended by the Murray committee, desirable, or would we be better off if we had more full-time members and used supplementary committees? I raise these matters now, and I hope that a more far-reaching evaluation is not far off.

Mr MENZIES:
Prime Minister · Kooyong · LP

– in reply - I rise simply to make two observations, having regard to what has fallen from the honorable member for Barton (Mr. Reynolds). Like him, I have no passion for uniformity in these matters. I think nothing would be more disastrous than to allow the university structure in Australia to fall into a state of what I might call classical uniformity, as if we were still constantly building on a nineteenthcentury model. It is for that very reason we have set up, through the

Universities Commission a committee, presided over by the chairman of the commission, to investigate tertiary education as a whole, in order to see whether we cannot get a variety of types of tertiary training institutions - technological, classical or scientific, whatever they may be. I am hoping very much that in that way we will achieve something which will avoid what I quite agree would be the evils of uniformity in these things.

The second point that the honorable member mentioned, and about which I would like to say a few words, is whether the Universities Commission, in making grants, should make them on a three-year basis, as it does now, or on a five-year basis. This matter had a great deal of consideration by the Murray committee and has been considered since then. I am perfectly certain that it is much better for the universities to have a three-year rather than a five-year provision. The fact is that the university population in Australia is rising rapidly. The demands for university training are increasing so greatly that it would pass the wit of any commission to say that we could write the future for a period of five years. Three years, I think, is long enough. We will find very frequently that the facts have outstripped the recommendations, even on that footing. I would say to the honorable member: Let us be content with the three-year basis, because I think that will allow us to be much more flexible in serving the needs of the universities than a five-year period.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

Bill - by leave - read a third time.

House adjourned at 10.48 p.m.

page 1795

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated: -

Nuclear Tests

Mr Ward:
EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

d asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Has his attention been drawn to declarations by a number of Australian and American nuclear scientists that Australia is threatened with a “ dusting” of radio-active fallout from the atmospheric nuclear tests proposed to be conducted by the United States of America in the Pacific area later this year?
  2. Has Australia been threatened with fallout from the Russian tests which have already been carried out, and are future tests now in contemplation by the Russians also a danger?
  3. Does the Government accept these threats as a possibility?
  4. If so, what would be the effect of the fallout on the Australian community, and what steps have been taken or are to be taken, by the Government to meet this threat?
  5. Was the Government aware of this danger when it approved of tests being carried out at Christmas Island?
Mr Menzies:
LP

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

  1. There would seem to be no cause for anxiety. On 2nd March, 1962, President Kennedy said - “These tests are to be conducted under conditions which restrict the radioactive fallout to an absolute minimum, far less than the contamination created by last year’s Soviet series. By paying careful atention to the location, wind and weather conditions, and by holding these tests over the open sea, we intend to rule out any problem of fallout in the immediate area of testing. Moreover, we will hold the increase in radiation in the northern hemisphere, where nearly all such fallout will occur, to a very low level.”
  2. No fallout over Australia from the Russian tests of September-November, 1961, has been detected by measurements carried out by the Atomic Weapons Tests Safety Committee in its Australiawide network of monitoring stations. I have no knowledge of future tests contemplated by the Soviet Union.
  3. I do not know what may be the effects of future tests by the Soviet Union. 4 and 5. At the request of the Government, the National Radiation Advisory Committee recently examined the possible risks to the Australian population associated with fallout here from the proposed series of nuclear weapon tests at Christmas Island. The committee’s biological assessment of the resulting levels of radioactivity from all previous tests, even the most pessimistic assumptions, has shown that the hazards to the population have been negligible. In view of President Kennedy’s assurances regarding fallout from the proposed test series in the Pacific Ocean, the committee believes that the levels of fallout over Australia from these tests would be much lower than from earlier tests and, consequently, of even less significance.

Disarmament

Mr Cairns:
YARRA, VICTORIA

s asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Is he able to say whether the United States Government has set up an Arms Control and Disarmament Agency and instituted a Research Programme on Economic Adjustments to Disarmament?
  2. If so, when was this done, and when did he become aware of it?
  3. Are similar developments necessary in Australia?
  4. If not, why are they necessary in the United States but not in Australia?
Mr Menzies:
LP

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

  1. The United States Government has established an Arms Control and Disarmament Agency with four primary functions: -

    1. The conduct, support and co-ordination of research for arms control and disarmament policy formulation;
    2. The preparation for and management of

United States participation in international negotiations in the arms control and disarmament field;

  1. The dissemination and co-ordination of public information concerning arms control and disarmament and
  2. The preparation for, operation of, or, as appropriate, direction of United States participation in such control systems as may become part of United States arms control and disarmament activities.

    1. The United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency was established on 26th September, 1961. We had been aware of proposals to this end since June, 1961.
    2. Similar developments are not at present viewed as- necessary in Australia. Disarmament affairs are given close and careful consideration by the Department of External Affairs in consultation with other Departments and organizations as appropriate. The Government maintains close liaison on disarmament matters with the United States and British Governments.
    3. The United States accepts and sustains a major responsibility for maintaining the security of the free world and because of this would be greatly involved in any general disarmament measures. In view of the size of its forces, the extent of its industrial involvement in defence production and the demands upon its political leadership, the United States has understandably established this Agency to give constant attention to disarmament matters.

Universities: Student Quotas

Mr Bryant:
WILLS, VICTORIA

t asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Which Australian universities apply student quotas and in which faculties do they operate?
  2. What have been the quotas, when were they first applied, and how many applicants have been rejected because of them at each university during each of the last ten years?
Mr Menzies:
LP

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

In 1962 a limit was placed on the number of students accepted in certain faculties in seven Australian universities, as shown in the accompanying table compiled from information supplied by the universities concerned-. In established universities, the quotas are determined by the facilities available in various years of courses. The number admitted to Monash University is governed by the rate at which new facilities can be brought into operation and new staff recruited.

The number of applicants rejected because of the imposition of quotas is difficult to assess. When providing the figures given, several universities pointed out that many students abandon thenintention of going to the University after submitting their application, without informing tha university concerned.

Universities: Statistics

Mr Whitlam:

m asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Are the States accustomed to provide university statistics about the end of October?
  2. Will he ask them to provide the statistics at least two months earlier so that in the debate on the estimates for his department, honorable members may discuss university requirements on the basis of the current year’s statistics?
Mr Menzies:
LP

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

  1. Universities supply statistics direct to the Commonwealth Statistician, and the information is published as an official paper called “ University Statistics “. Up to the present, those statistics relating to staff and students have been prepared on a calendar year basis and provided by 31st January of the year following and those relating to finance have been provided, on a calendar year basis also, by 3 1st May of the year following.

In 1960 and 1961, a review of university statistics was made at the request of the ViceChancellors’ Committee by representatives of Universities, Australian Universities Commission, Commonwealth Bureau of Census and Statistics and the Commonwealth Office of Education.

The committee recommended that staff and student statistics should refer to the situation as at 31st July and be made available to the Commonwealth Statistician no later than the end of August of the year under review. It was also recommended that finance statistics should continue to refer to calendar years and it was noted that because of the time required to finalize accounts these would not become available to the Statistician until about May of the following year.

Statistics showing numbers of Commonwealth scholars, both new applications for the current year and continuations from previous years, in various categories are provided by the States to the Commonwealth Scholarship Board showing the position as at 30th September each year. The Board expects to receive these statistics before 12th October.

  1. Provided the. universities supply satisfactory returns in accordance with the agreed timetable it would be possible to have the broad totals for staff and student statistics for 1962 published about the end of September, 1962. The Commonwealth Statistician has advised that it would not be practicable to publish any of these particulars before then. The university finance statistics for the calendar year 1961 should be available from the Statistician by the end of July, 1962.

With regard to statistics relating to the Commonwealth Scholarship Scheme, the Commonwealth Scholarships Board is consulting the six State Education Departments with a view to obtaining an earlier return, if practicable, for this and future years.

Security Service

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

n asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that just prior to the last federal election a member of the Liberal and Country League, employed by the security service in Adelaide, was given permission by the security service to disclose publicly to a South Australian newspaper information concerning certain operations of the security service?
  2. In view of his own persistent refusal to disclose to the Parliament any information concerning the operations of the security service, what was the reason for the decision of the security service to authorize this particular operator to make the revelations she did about the methods used by the security service in carrying out its work?
Mr Menzies:
LP

– The answer to the honorable member’s first question is “ No “, and this disposes also of the second question, which necessarily assumes the answer “Yes” to the first. Whether Mrs. Roy Neill, to whom the honorable member evidently refers, is a member of the Liberal and Country League, I do not know. But I do know that, though she worked as an agent of the Australian Security Intelligence Organization for some years, she retired from this work upwards of three years ago, and made her own decisions as to the publication, and the contents of the articles mentioned by the honorable member. I would add only that I think Mrs. Neill did Australia a good service by publishing the articles, which revealed nothing that should not have been disclosed about the security service but which did give a first-hand account of some of the conspiratorial activities of the Communist Party of Australia. In particular, Mrs. Neill’s articles, based as they were on her own practical experience, awakened many people for the first time to the unscrupulous way in which well-meaning citizens have been exploited by means of innocent-looking Communist “ front “ organizations that in fact do nothing but promote Communist policy.

Overseas Investments in Australia.

Mr Calwell:

l asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Will he consider appointing a select committee of this House to inquire into -

the flow of overseas capital, in the form of investment, into Australia since 1949;

the types of industries in which this capital has been invested;

the place of these industries in the overall development of the economy;

the amounts of dividend paid and payable upon these investments;

the manner in which these dividends are remitted abroad;

the manner in which undistributed profits are re-invested;

the rates of taxation on these dividends;

the effect which overseas investments and payment of dividends to investors has, and will have, on the balance of payments, and the Australian economy generally;

the means by which other countries regulate foreign investment; and

the means by which Australia may best ensure that control over her economy and her national assets remains in Australian hands?

Mr Menzies:
LP

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

The Government does not intend appointing a select committee to inquire into the points raised by the honorable the Leader of the Opposition.

The broad question of overseas investment in Australia naturally receives, and will continue to receive, the Government’s close attention. The Government is neither suspicious of, nor hostile towards, overseas investment as such. Unlike the Opposition, the Government, generally speaking, welcomes overseas investment particularly when it is of a kind likely to help in the balanced development of Australian resources and brings with it skills and “ know-how “ needed for the successful fulfilment of the project in which the investment is made. It is quite evident that overseas investment has had a part in the expansion of productive facilities in this country and to that extent has strengthened the Australian economy. As to the future, any attempts at prediction would necessarily be speculative, but nothing in the present situation suggests that on balance, adverse effects are to be expected.

With regard to some of the specific points that the honorable the Leader of the Opposition wants investigated I might add that whether businesses in Australia are owned and controlled by nonresidents or not they remain subject to the laws of this country. Thus, there is no question of control of the economy and the national assets passing out of Australian hands in that sense. The Government, of course, maintains close and continuous examination of the extent to which we should make use of our powers of control. We take the view that, in general, it will be in the longer-term interests of overseas investors themselves if they take Australian shareholders into partnership with them in business that they established in Australia.

A great deal of statistical information is available to the public on the subject. The publications of the Commonwealth Statistician, “ Annual Bulletin of Oversea Investment: Australia 1959-60 New Series No. 5 “ and “ The Australian Balance of Payments 1959-60, 1960-61, First half 1961-62”, are especially relevant. They contain, in particular, estimates in respect of each year since 1947-48 of private overseas investment in companies in Australia showing both the type of company in which the capital is invested, the form investment takes and, since 1956-57 (but not for 1960-61, estimates for the year not being available yet), the industry group in which the capital is invested, investment income payable overseas, income remitted overseas and undistributed profits. The range and accuracy of the statistics available has been improved considerably over recent years and the Statisician is constantly seeking to effect further improvements.

On the international front relevant information is also available. The International Monetary Fund reviews annually in its report on exchange restrictions the restrictions applicable to the inward and outward flow of capital in each of the member countries of the fund. In addition, in pursuance of a resolution by the Economic and Social Council, the United Nations reports annually on the promotion of the international flow of private capital and the measures taken by governments affecting that flow. Both of these reports are available to the general public.

Finally, of course, taxation rates are also available. The rates of income tax payable on income, including dividends, derived by non-residents of Australia who are engaged in business through a permanent establishment in Australia are, subject to minor variations, the same as those payable by a resident of Australia. Where a non-resident is not so engaged and is not specifically exempt from tax, dividend withholding tax is, in the generality of cases, payable at the rate of 6s. in the fi, or where the dividends are derived by residents of those countries with which Australia has concluded double tax agreements (United Kingdom, United States of America, Canada and New Zealand), the rate is limited to 3s. in the £1. A non-resident may elect to be taxed on the ordinary assessment basis and if the tax payable on the dividend income is less than the withholding tax, the difference may be refunded to the non-resident

Ministerial Travelling Allowances

Mr Ward:

d asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. What is the total sum which has been received by each Minister in each of the last three years in respect of travelling allowance?
  2. Are Ministers obliged to produce receipts to the taxation authorities when claiming expenditure of these sums as a deduction for taxation purposes?
Mr Menzies:
LP

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

  1. Expenditure on travelling allowances for all Ministers and the Leader of and Deputy Leader of the Opposition is shown in the Estimates for the Prime Minister’s Department under the item “ Travelling Allowances - Ministers and Leader and Deputy Leader of he Opposition”. Expenditure under this item during each of the least three years was- 1958-59 £27,783, 1959-60 £36,992, 1960-61 £34,465. The rates of travelling allowance payable to the Prime Minister, Ministers and the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Opposition are as recommended in 1959 by the Committee of Inquiry into the Salaries and Allowances of Members of the Commonwealth Parliament.
  2. The affairs of all taxpayers including members of Parliament and Ministers of the Crown are confidential as between the Commissioner of Taxation and the taxpayers concerned. All payments made are subject to the taxation laws of the country.

South-East Asia Treaty Organization

Mr Ward:

d asked the Minister for External Affairs, upon notice -

  1. Is a signatory nation to the South-East Asia Treaty Organization Agreement obliged to consult other member nations, wherever practicable, before action is taken by its armed forces within the territory of any other country within the defined area?
  2. Has the United States of America declared its intention to act alone in Thailand if, in its opinion, this becomes necessary?
  3. If so, was this matter discussed by the Governments of the United States, Australia and other Seato nations?
  4. If such discussions did take place, was the Australian Government given any information which would justify a belief that there would not be time for consultation before the intervention of the armed forces of any of the Seato nations?
Sir Garfield Barwick:
LP

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

  1. No. Under Article 4(1) of the Treaty each Party agrees that in the event of aggression by means of armed attack in the Treaty Area against any of the Parties or against any State or Territory which the Parties by unanimous agreement may designate it will act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional processes. This Article does not impose an obligation to consult other member nations. However, such consultation would almost certainly have already taken place under Articles 4 (2) or in the Council established under Article 5 or during the regular and frequent consultations between representatives of members governments in Bangkok.
  2. The United States Secretary of State, Mr. Dean Rusk, in his joint statement with the Foreign Minister of Thailand on 6th March “ assured the Foreign Minister that in the event of such aggression, the United States intends to give full effect to its obligations under the Treaty to act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional process. The Secretary of State reaffirmed that this obligation of the United States does not depend upon the prior agreement of all other parties to the Treaty, since this Treaty obligation is individual as well as collective.” (See my reply to the honorable member for Corangamite on 14th March). That was a reaffirmation that no one Party to the Treaty can veto action by the others.
  3. See answer to 2.
  4. See answer to 2.

Search for Oil

Mr Wentworth:
MACKELLAR, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

  1. Have officers of the Department of National Development obtained copies of all oil leases and permits to prospect and explore for oil at present current in the States and Territories of Australia?
  2. Could copies of these leases and permits, together with an explanatory map and any other comments or schedules thought desirable by the Minister, be laid on the table of the Library for the information of honorable members?
Mr Bury:
Minister Assisting the Treasurer · WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The Minister for National Development has supplied the following information: -

  1. If the honorable member means copies of the formal documents by which tenements are granted the answer is “ No “ in respect of the States and “ Yes “ in respect of the Territories. The department does have details of the area and date of expiry of the current term of each tenement, supplied by the States and Territories.
  2. The formal documents are confidential but copies of the tenement map and schedule, prepared by the Bureau of Mineral Resources from information supplied by the States and Territories, are available on the table of the Library.
Mr Luchetti:

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

  1. What amount has been spent on the search for flow oil in Australia during the last ten years?
  2. What was the total amount spent by the Commonwealth Government and of this what amounts were spent in connexion with (a) Commonwealth exploration and search, (b) the payment of government subsidy, (c) technical assistance, and (d) administrative expenditure?
  3. What amount was spent by private enterprise?
  4. How much was paid by way of subsidy or other payments to each company and for what activity were the payments made?
  5. How much was spent in each State or Territory?
Mr Bury:
LP

– The Minister for National Development has supplied the following answers: -

  1. £71,142,000 (period 1952-61 inclusive). This total contains - an estimate of company expend.diture during the earlier part of the period for which exact figures are not available.
  1. £63,436,000. This total contains an estimate of company expenditure during the earlier part of the period for which exact figures are not available.
  2. See attached statement.

Oil

Mr Cairns:

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

  1. What quantity of oil is known to exist below ground in Australia?
  2. Where is this oil located?
  3. What are the names of the companies which own or control this oil?
Mr BURY:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The Minister for National Development has supplied the following answers: -

  1. Insufficient drilling has been done for any estimate of the oil reserves in Australia to be made.
  2. Oil has been discovered in one well at Rough Range, in Western Australia, and in one well at Cabawin and two at Moonie, in Queensland.
  3. The Rough Range area of Western Austrafia is held by West Australian Petroleum Proprietary Limited and the Queensland area ls held by Aus tralian Oil and Gas Corporation in association with Union Oil Development Corporation, a subsidiary of Union Oil Company of California and Kern County Land Company, also of California.

Nuclear Weapons. *

Mr Cairns:

s asked the Minister for External Affairs, upon notice -

  1. Can he say to how many nations the Acting Secretary-General of the United Nations sent his letter of 2nd January, 1962, seeking their views as to the conditions under which they might be willing to enter into specific undertakings to refrain from manufacturing or otherwise acquiring nuclear weapons?
  2. How many nations have replied to this letter -

    1. declining to state conditions;
    2. stating conditions; or
    3. agreeing to refrain from manufacturing or otherwise acquiring nuclear weapons?
Sir Garfield Barwick:
LP

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

  1. The Secretary-General’s letter was addressed to all members of the United Nations, that is, 104 nations.
  2. Forty-four replies to the Acting SecretaryGeneral’s letter from United Nations members have been published. These replies do not all fall readily into the categories mentioned in the honorable member’s question. So far as it is possible to assign them to those categories, the following is the situation: -

    1. Sixteen countries declined or omitted to slate conditions. These countries were - Australia, Canada, Republic of China, France, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Netherlands, New Zealand, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines and Turkey.

Note.- The British and United States Governments, as nuclear powers, wrote confirming their view that the restrictions envisaged could only be accepted if they formed part of measures for general and complete disarmament, which would adequately safeguard the security of the states concerned.

  1. Thirteen countries stated conditions under which they would be prepared to enter into specific undertakings to refrain from manufacturing or otherwise acquiring nuclear weapons. These countries were - Burma, Chile, Congo (Leopoldville), Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Italy, Japan, Nigeria, Norway, Poland, Rumania, Sweden and Yugoslavia.

Many of the provisos stated, however, were such as to preclude the acceptance of comprehensive undertakings in the present world situation.

  1. Ten countries indicated that they agreed to refrain from manufacturing or otherwise acquiring nuclear weapons. These countries were - Afghanistan, Albania, Austria, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Cyprus, Finland, India, Panama and Sierra Leone.

Tanganyika agreed to refrain from manufacturing nuclear weapons but would not give an undertaking to refrain from otherwise acquiring them.

The Ukranian S.S.R. indicated its approval for the Swedish proposal. It is not clear from its reply whether it is in fact ready to enter into an agreement as suggested.

The U.S.S.R., as a nuclear power, indicated its approval of the Swedish proposal.

The full texts of replies can be found in United Nations Document DC/201/ Add. 2.

Mr Cairns:

asked the Minister for External Affairs, upon notice -

  1. Was his letter to the Acting Secretary-General of the United Nations concerning conditions under which Australia might refrain from manufacturing or otherwise acquiring nuclear weapons undated?
  2. If not, why were copies of this letter which were circulated by him to honorable members undated?
  3. What was the date on which this letter was written?
  4. When did he make public the contents of the letter?
Sir Garfield Barwick:
LP

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

  1. No.
  2. The copies circulated to honorable members were reproduced from an undated file copy of the letter.
  3. The letter was dated 15th March, 1962.
  4. 5th April, 1962, in the House of Representatives in Canberra. This was in advance of its circulation to the delegations of all member governments of the United Nations on 6th April in New York. The Australian letter, together with the replies from 43 other governments, had previously been transmitted to the Chairman of the Disarmament Commission by the Acting Secretary-General under cover of a letter dated 2nd April.

Employment Statistics

Mr Haylen:

n asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice -

  1. How many boys and girls left school at the end of the school year 1961?
  2. How many of these children found employment?
  3. How many are still looking for jobs?
  4. Will he arrange for his department to furnish a break-down of these figures to indicate what happened to those who left school with the leaving certificate and those who left after the intermediate?
  5. What was the (a) job range and (b) job opportunity in both cases?
  6. How many went to dead-end jobs?
  7. How many are drawing unemployment benefits?
  8. Has his attention been drawn to a report by the unions that about 38,000 youths are still looking for work?
  9. If so, what action has he taken to call a conference of employers, unions, vocational guidance experts and economists to devise the best and speediest methods of finding adequate and suitable jobs for young people?
  10. Can he say how many children who intended to leave school last year have now returned to school because they could not find jobs?
Mr McMahon:
LP

– As a precise answer to the first question is not possible, the same must necessarily be said of the remainder of the questions. The Commonwealth Employment Service is able to provide information only in respect of school leavers who seek its assistance. Even as to these it does not keep such detailed statistics as would enable answers to be given to many of the questions. To the extent to which the Commonwealth Employment Service were required to keep detailed statistics over and above those of vital importance to policy formulation, its real job of finding work for those seeking its aid would necessarily be prejudiced, that is, without a considerable increase in staff.

I have during the recess sent to the honorable member a copy of a statement made by me reviewing what has happened in regard to the 1961 school leavers.

In relation to the eighth of the honorable member’s questions I would add that neither I, nor my department, have any reason for thinking that 38,000 youths were looking for work when the question was asked. As at 2nd March the total number of males under 21 registered for employment with the Commonwealth Employment Service was 17,932.

Mr Webb:
STIRLING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

b asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice -

  1. How many school leavers under the age of sixteen years were registered for employment at the end of February, 1962?
  2. How many migrants in migrant centres were awaiting employment at the end of February, 1962?
Mr McMahon:
LP

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

  1. At 2nd March, 1962, there were 17,282 school leavers registered for employment with the Commonwealth Employment Service. By 30th March the number stood at 11,625. In this context, school leavers mean persons under 21 years of age who, at the date of registering for employment, had not ceased full-time education for more than three months. My department does not have figures which would indicate how many of these were under the age of sixteen years.
  2. At 1st March, 1962, there were 48 migrants in migrant accommodation centres awaiting initial placement in employment. At the end of March the number was 38.
Mr Reynolds:

s asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice -

  1. What is the current distribution of the Australian work force in terms of major industry groups?
  2. What percentage of the total work force is located in each of these groups?
Mr McMahon:
LP

– The latest available official figures showing the distribution of the Australian work force between major industry groups relate to 30th June, 1954. These are shown below: -

It is expected that official figures, showing the distribution as at the date of the last population census, in June, 1961, will become available later this year

Mr Beaton:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA

n asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice - j 1. Were the Albury City Council and the Hol brook Shire Council recently refused information by the District Employment Office concerning the number of registered unemployed in their districts?

  1. If so, why was this information withheld from these local authorities?
Mr McMahon:
LP

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

These two councils did seek, from the District Employment Office at Albury, certain statistical information. The requests followed a circular letter to all councils from the New South Wales Department of Public Works seeking information about the extent of male unemployment in each council area. Following consultations between my department and the State department the conclusion was reached that the information sought by the latter department could be provided more quickly and with less expenditure of staff effort, if it were provided direct to the New South Wales department. This was done.

Gross National Product

Mr Reynolds:

s asked the Treasurer, upon notice -

What percentage of the gross national product was constituted by investment in (a) public works, (b) private investment and (c) stocks for each of the last five years for which data is available?

Mr Harold Holt:
LP

– The information requested is shown in the following table: -

Commonwealth Railways: Payment of Compensation

Mr J R Fraser:
ALP

ser asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice -

  1. Has the limit of damages or compensation which can be recovered from the Commonwealth Railways Commissioner remained, since 1917, at £2,000 in the case of personal injury resulting in death or permanent disablement and at £1,000 in the case of personal injury resulting in temporary disablement?
  2. Is such a low limit for damages or compensation set in respect of any other railway system in Australia?
  3. Has a review and revision of the Commonwealth Railways Act been taking place since July, 1961, or earlier; if so, what progress has been made?
  4. Does he recognize that £2,000 in 1917 had much greater value than the same amount in 1962?
  5. Will he take action urgently to amend section 81 of the Commonwealth Railways Act so that a person suffering personal injury on the Commonwealth line between Queanbeyan and Canberra (at present limited to a maximum of £2,000) will have the same opportunity to recover reasonable damages as would a person injured on the New South Wales line between Queanbeyan and Cooma on which no legislative limit for damages or compensation is set?
Mr Opperman:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. No.
  3. A review of the Commonwealth Railways Act is at present under consideration. Draft provisions for inclusion in the new act are currently being examined by the departments concerned.
  4. Yes.
  5. The” amendment of section 81 of the existing act is being examined along with other possible amendments.

Standardization of Rail Gauges

Mr Webb:

b asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice -

  1. Have any negotiations taken place with the Western Australian Government regarding the standardization of the railway lines between (a) Perth and Albany, (b) Perth and Geraldton and (c) Perth’ and Bunbury?
  2. If so, what is the result of those negotiations?
  3. If negotiations have not taken place, will he arrange for them to be initiated?
Mr Opperman:
LP

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

  1. No.
  2. See answer to 1. above.
  3. The Commonwealth Government’s policy on rail standardization is that where it can be shown that a project would- provide tangible benefits commensurate with costs, the Government will give sympathetic consideration to .specially assisting the State concerned to carry out the work. ‘ Such consideration would necessarily take into account priorities among all works of a developmental nature. The prime responsibility for development of railway facilities within the States rests with the State Government who may if they see fit approach the Commonwealth Government for financial assistance in undertaking important works.
Mr Whitlam:

m asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice -

  1. Mas he acted on the suggestions put to him by the honorable member for Farrer on 16th March, 1960, that the standard gauge railway be extended from Melbourne to Geelong so that Geelong’s machinery, fertilizer and other products as well as Melbourne’s products should have direct access to the Riverina and all points north?
  2. Has the Commonwealth offered financial assistance to the States for railways to decentralize industry and commerce in provincial centres like Geelong and Rockhampton as well as to centralize them in State capitals?
Mr Opperman:
LP

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

  1. The Commonwealth Government’s policy on rail standardization is that where it can be shown that a project would provide tangible benefits commensurate with costs, the Government will give sympathetic consideration to specially assisting the State concerned to carry out the work. Such consideration would necessarily take into account priorities among all works of a developmental nature. The extension of standard gauge service to Geelong is a matter for decision by the Victorian Government which has the prime responsibility for the development of railway facilities within the State. No approach has been made to the Commonwealth Government for financial assistance towards the standardization of the line from Melbourne to Geelong.
  2. The Commonwealth has current agreements with each of the mainland States containing undertakings to provide financial assistance for the improvement of railway facilities on particular routes. In each case the works being carried out will enable improved railway services to be provided to rural centres on the routes. 1 Mr. Webb asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice -
  3. Does an agreement between the Commonwealth and the South Australian Government provide for the construction of a standard gauge line between Broken Hill and Port Pirie?
  4. When the standard gauge link between Kalgoorlie and Kwinana is completed, will the line between Broken Hill and Port Pirie be the only link preventing a standard gauge connexion between all the mainland States of Australia?
  5. If so, what are the terms of the agreement made with South Australia, and when is it likely to be implemented?
Mr Opperman:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes, but no direct link on standard gauge will exist between Victoria and South Australia or between Adelaide and Port Pirie.
  3. The terms of the agreement with South Australia are set out in the Railway Standardization (South Australia) Agreement Act No. 83 of 1949. The time at which any of the standardization works included in the agreement shall be commenced is to be determined by agreement between the parties.

Royal Australian Navy

Mr Hansen:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

n asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Navy, upon notice -

  1. Are six minesweepers of the Ton class for the Royal Australian Navy due to arrive in Australia at the end of this year?
  2. Will certain modifications be necessary to make the minesweepers suitable for Australian conditions?
  3. Have contracts been let to carry out these modifications; if so, to what shipyards?
  4. If not, will the Minister seek tenders from Australian shipyards?
Mr Freeth:
LP

– The Minister for the Navy has supplied the following answers to the honorable member’s questions: -

  1. Yes.
  2. No. All necessary modifications will have been completed in the United Kingdom.
  3. Not applicable. See reply to question 2.
  4. Not applicable. See reply to question 2.
Mr Ward:

d asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Navy, upon notice -

  1. What expenditure has been incurred in each of the last five years on the repair and maintenance of units of the Royal Australian Navy serving outside Australian waters?
  2. Could any of this work have been undertaken in Australia; if so, what percentage?
Mr Freeth:
LP

– The Minister for the Navy has supplied the following information: -

  1. Expenditure was restricted to the repair of urgent defects occurring in ships employed in the strategic reserve. The repairs could not be deferred until the ships returned to Australia and therefore none of the work could have been undertaken in Australia.

Housing : Finance

Mr Hayden:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

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

  1. What percentage of the advances made to each State under the (a) Loan (Housing) Act 1961 and (b) Loan (Housing) Act 1962 did the Minister (i) specify or (ii) agree wilh the appropriate Minister for the State should be set aside for dwellings for serving members of the Forces?
  2. How many serving members of the Forces (a) were waiting for married quarters at the (i) 31st December, 1960, and (ii) 31st December, 1961, and (b) received married quarters during 1961?
Mr Bury:
LP

– The Minister for National Development has supplied the following answers: -

  1. Loan moneys raised under the Loan (Housing) Act 1961 and the Loan (Housing) Act 1962 are being advanced to the States during the financial year 1961-62 under the authority of the Housing Agreement Act 1961. The amounts which the Minister has specified under the Housing Agreement should be set aside for dwellings for serving members of the Forces, in each State, represent the following percentages of the amounts made available to each State from the moneys raised under the respective Loan (Housing) Acts.

In each of New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland, the amount so specified is the maximum which the Minister could specify under the Agreement. The above amounts exclude supplementary advances for Service housing made by the Commonwealth to the States under the Housing Agreement of amounts matching those set aside by the States, and also exclude a special advance of £50,000 for housing made to Queensland from Defence Funds according to an agreement between the Minister and the Minister for Housing in Queensland in April, 1962. As part of the latter agreement, however, the Minister for Housing agreed to provide an additional £25,000 for Service housing, which will come from the total housing funds of the State. In effect, this additional provision by the State will be from funds advanced to the State under the Housing Agreement, amounting to an additional 0.60 per cent, of the amounts raised under both Acts. 2. (a) (i) 4,366, (ii) 4,510. (b) 4,071.

Customs and Excise Duties

Mr Ward:

d asked the’ Minister representing the Minister for Customs and Excise, upon notice - .

What was the amount of Customs and Excise Revenue received on petrol, aviation turbine fuel and diesel fuel in each of the six monthly periods ended on 31st December, I960, 30th June, 1961, and 31st December, 1961?

Mr Fairhall:
Minister for Supply · PATERSON, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The Minister for Customs and Excise has furnished the following answer to the honorable member’s question: -

Imports

Mr Ward:

d asked the Minister representing the Minister for Customs and Excise, upon notice -

  1. What was the value of goods admitted under by-law at concessional rates of duty during the years 1959-60 and 1960-61?
  2. Of this amount what percentage of the goods was admitted free of duty in each year?
Mr Fairhall:
LP

– The Minister for Customs and Excise has furnished the following answer to the honorable member’s question: -

  1. Value of goods admitted under by-law at concessional rates of duty- 1959-60, £388,611,000; 1960-61, £444,794,000.
  2. Of these amounts the percentages of goods admitted free were- 1959-60, 75 per cent.; 1960-61, 67 per cent.

Waterfront Employment

Mr O’Brien:
PETRIE, QUEENSLAND

n asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice -

  1. How many waterside workers currently working and included in the main register of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority are 65 years of age and over?
  2. How many waterside workers during the period 26th June, 1961, to 31st January, 1962, availed themselves of long service leave payments by transferring to Part B of. the authority’s register on attaining the age of 65 years?
  3. What was the number of waterside workers of 65 years of age and over who, at 31st March, 1962, were classified to work in ships’ holds?
  4. How many waterside workers of 65 years of age and over left the industry of their own accord during the period 26th June, 1960, to 31st March, 1961?
  5. How many waterside workers of 65 years of age and over left the industry of their own accord during the period 26th June, 1961, to 31st March, 1962?
  6. How many waterside workers left the industry of their own accord during the period 1st May, 1961, to 25th June, 1961, and how many of these men received pro rata long service leave payments?
  7. How many waterside workers have broken continuous registration owing to voluntary deregistration for periods in excess of two months because of (a) overseas travel, (b) domestic reasons, and (c) imprisonment?
  8. How many waterside workers have a total of non-qualifying service for long service leave due to compensation in excess of (a) 245 days, (b) 490 days, (c) 735 days, (d) 980 days and (1) 1,125 days?
  9. How many waterside workers have been paid long service leave up to 31st March, 1962?
  10. What is the total amount paid for long service leave payments up to 31st March, 1962?
Mr McMahon:
LP

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

  1. 207, of whom 192 were men aged between 65 and 70 years at 6th June, 1961, and who were paid in lieu of long service leave under section 45e (3) (c) (if) of the act.
  2. 66 men left the industry of their own accord during the period concerned and sixteen of these received payment for long service leave.
  3. Of approximately 4,000 assessments of qualifying service completed to date, the following have broken continuity of registration for the reasons mentioned: - (a) Nil, (b) 15, (c) 1.
  4. It is assumed that (a) refers to not less than 245 days and not more than 489 days, (b) to not less than 490 days and not more 734 days, &c. The following figures relate to the assessments completed to date:- (a) 174; (b) 70; (c) 26; (d) 20; (e) 41.
  5. 1,497.
  6. £347,969 14s. lOd.

United Nations Status of Women Commission

Mr Beaton:

n asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice -

  1. Was Australia represented at the recent meeting of the United Nations Status of Women Commission?
  2. Did the commission demand effective national and international action to end wage discrimination against women and call for the implementation of the equal pay principle by all governments?
  3. If so, how did Australia vote on this matter?
Mr McMahon:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The Commission adopted a resolution requesting the Economic and Social Council to adopt the following resolution: - “ The Economic and Social Council.

Having examined the report of the Commission on the Status of Women on its sixteenth session, sharing its opinion that the legal and factual in-, equality between men and women in questions concerning wages and salaries, still existing in many countries, constitutes a serious obstacle to the achievement of real equality of men and women in the economic field, and that effective measures on national and international levels should be taken to remove this discrimination against women

Emphasizing in this connexion particularly the responsibilities of Governments for the removal of discrimination against women in the question of wages and salaries and for the consistent application of the principle of equal pay for equal work,

  1. Calls upon:

    1. Governments of Member States which have not yet ratified or otherwise implemented the principles of Convention No. 100 of the International Labour Organization relating to equal pay for equal work to do so, as appropriate under the Constitution of the I.L.O. and also to implement the provisions of I.L.O. Recommendation No. 90 and, by the adoption of the relevant legislative and practical measures in all economic fields, to apply and promote consistently the principle of equal pay for equal work;
    1. The International Labour Organization to continue to follow the introduction of the principle of equal pay for equal work on a world scale and to bear this principle always in mind in considering working and social questions on an international level;
    2. Express the hope that national and international women’s organizations in consultative status with the Economic and Social Council may continue to advocate consistently in their activities the principle of equal economic working conditions for men and women and demand the legislative and practical application of the principle of equal pay for equal work;
    3. Requests the Secretary-General to submit, in co-operation with the International Labour Office, a report to the eighteenth session of the Commission on the Status of Women on both the progress achieved in the field of equal pay for equal work, and obstacles existing so far in this field.”

    4. In company with other countries including the United Kingdom, Australia voted against the resolution.

Civil Defence

Mr Ward:

d asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice -

  1. What action has been taken by the Government since the termination of World War II. to provide protection for the civil population against any direct attack in any future war in which Australia may become involved?
  2. What amount of Commonwealth finance has been made available to the States in each year for this purpose?
  3. What has been the financial provision in each year for civil defence in Commonwealth Territories?
  4. Upon what projects has the money provided by the Commonwealth been expended?
Mr Freeth:
LP

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows: - 1, 2, 3 and 4. Since World War II., there has been no threat of direct attack against Australia. In these circumstances a substantial diversion of our national resources to a civil defence programme has not been warranted. Initially, the Government approved the appointment of a Director of Civil Defence and set up a civil defence committee to advise the Minister. Thereafter, a civil defence school was established where students from all States and the Commonwealth territories were trained at Commonwealth expense, including fares and travelling expenses. For this purpose approximately £110,000 has been made available each financial year since 1956. In October, 1961, it was decided to extend Commonwealth assistance to the States by providing civil defence equipment to a total amount of £160,000 this financial year, and to provide £8,000 for the printing of civil defence publications for the use of the States. These sums have already been committed. It was also decided to establish civil defence services in the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory. Fourteen thousand pounds has been provided for civil defence training, equipment and other expenses in these territories. A civil defence programme on similar lines for 1962-63 is now being prepared.

Oil.

Mr Menzies:
LP

s. - On 7th March, in reply to the honorable member for Wills (Mr. Bryant), I undertook to have a statement prepared setting out what is done by the Queensland and Commonwealth Governments, respectively, in relation to overseas investment in the search for and ownership of oil in Australia.

Apart from the Commonwealth petroleum search subsidy legislation and the laws of the Territories, all Australian legislation relating to the exploration for and the development of petroleum is State law. Except in the case of the Territories, the Commonwealth has no power over the granting of petroleum tenements or in respect of company arrangements regarding such tenements.

Any oil produced in Australia is the property of the operator after the payment of the relevant royalty required by the appropriate State or Territory legislation. If an overseas company finds oil in commercial quantities and pays the required royalty it has the same right to that oil as any Australian company operating in the same circumstances. Provided the requirements of the various petroleum acts and regulations are satisfied, the conditions of development of tenements are the same for all companies irrespective of their nationality.

The development of the Australian petroleum industry is still in the early stages and there may be a need for revision of the law and administration as discoveries of oil increase. The Queensland Government already is proposing to revise its legislation, and the Commonwealth is watching developments closely.

Indeed, I have written to the State Premiers suggesting a conference between the .Minister for National Development, the Minister for Territories and the State Ministers for Mines on particular aspects of Australian legislation relating to oil search and also generally on the programme of oil search in this country.

Tobacco

Mr Ward:

d asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice -

  1. What percentage of Australian tobacco leaf offered for sale at the auctions conducted so far in the current season has remained unsold?
  2. How many tons remained unsold at the termination of last season’s auction sales?
  3. What becomes of the unsold proportion of each year’s tobacco leaf production?
  4. Are tobacco manufacturers operating in this country compelled to use a stipulated quantity of Australian leaf?
  5. If so, what are the details?
Mr Adermann:
CP

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

  1. 9.6 per cent.
  2. 2,735 short tons.
  3. Unsold leaf from a particular year’s production is, if considered saleable by the grower, usually re-offered for sale in following years. If regarded as unsaleable by (he grower, it is normally destroyed. 4 and 5. The use of stipulated quantities of Australian tobacco leaf by local manufacturers is not compulsory. The Customs Tariff, however, provides an incentive for Australian leaf to be absorbed by a system of concessional duties on imported leaf provided certain conditions are met. These conditions are, firstly, that, in effect, a manufacturer must hold satisfactory minimum stocks of Australian leaf and, secondly, that the prescribed proportions of that leaf are incorporated in the manufactured products. The concession in Customs duty amount to1s. 5d per pound in the case of leaf for cigarette manufacture and1s. 6d. per pound for tobacco manufacture. The prescribed proportions of Australian leaf are as follows: -

Primary Production

Mr Ward:

d asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice -

  1. How many individual farms were there in Australia in 1938-39, 1949-50 and 1960-61?
  2. What was the total acreage in production and how many persons were employed in farm production during each of these years?
Mr Adermann:
CP

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

  1. The numbers of individual rural holdings in Australia in the years mentioned were -

These figures exclude Northern Territory, for which relevant statistics are not available for years before 1955-56. In 1960-61 there were 275 rural holdings in Northern Territory. The 1960-61 figure of 251,767 rural holdings is not strictly comparable with the earlier figures. In 1955-56 a revision of the statistical collection in New South Wales resulted in the addition of 4,784 rural holdings not previously included. 2. (a) Separate figures are not available for the total acreage in production. However, the total area of rural holdings and the area in crops in the three years were (in acres) -

These figures again exclude Northern Territory. In 1960-61 the total area of rural holdings in

Northern Territory was 161,099,000 acres, of which only 2,000 acres were under crops. Because of the 1955-56 revision of the statistical collection in New South Wales, the 1960-61 figures are not strictly comparable with those for the earlier years. The 4,784 holdings added in 1955-56 totalled 3,131,000 acres, of which 142,000 acres were under crops.

  1. The numbers of males permanently engaged in rural occupations at the date of the annual Agricultural and Pastoral census were -

1958 is the latest year for which figures have been published. The above figures are totals of the six States only. There were 699 males permanently engaged on rural holdings in the Northern Territory in 1958. The corresponding figure for the Australian Capital Territory was 302. Numbers of females permanently engaged in rural occupations have fluctuated around 40,000 to 50,000, but havenot been included in the above figures since a large proportion are employed only part-time. Temporary employment has been about 90,000 to 100,000 (males and females) over the last decade. Figures are not available for pre-war years

Mr Ward:

d asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice -

  1. What number of (a) sheep and (b) cattle were there in Australia in 1938-39, 1949-50 and 1960-61?
  2. What was the (a) total area of land utilized for grazing purposes and (b) number of persons employed in these industries during each of these years?
Mr Adermann:
CP

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

  1. Numbers of sheep and cattle in Australia in the years mentioned were -

These represent numbers at a particular date in the year, a date which has varied from State to State, but is now 31st March in ail cases except Northern Territory. 2. (a) Separate figures are not available for the area used for grazing purposes only in Australia. The Commonwealth Statistician classifies rural land according to use, namely crop land, fallow land, sown pasture, and balance of holdings which is defined as “ used for grazing, lying idle, etc.”. The area of land in this class (grazing and idle) in the three years was -

These figures exclude Northern Territory, for which the statistics are not available for years before 1955-56. In 1960-61 the area of rural land used for grazing or lying idle in Northern Territory was 161,097,000 acres. The 1960-61 figure is not strictly comparable with the earlier figures. In 1955-56 revision of the statistical collection in New South Wales resulted in the addition of 2,784,000 acres of grazing or idle land not previously included.

  1. The number of males engaged principally in pastoral pursuits in 1939 was approximately 100,000 according to data derived from the annual agricultural and pastoral returns. The numbers of males reported engaged in grazing at the census date in 1947 and 1954 were 89,000 and 115,000 respectively. Figures are not available for other years.

Civil Aviation

Mr Whitlam:

m asked the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice -

  1. Which aerodromes have been equipped with night landing facilities during the last five years?
  2. Which of these aerodromes are at present used on scheduled night services?
  3. Were any other of these aerodromes formerly used on scheduled night services and, if so, between what dates and by what operator?
Mr Townley:
LP

– The Minister for Civil Aviation has supplied the following information: -

.

1957- Cooma, New South Wales. 1958- Griffith, Parkes and Cowra, New South Wales. 1959- Inverell, New South Wales; Mount Isa, Queensland; Avalon, Victoria. 1960- Coonamble and Walgett, New South Wales; Meekatharra, Western Australia. 1961 - Coolangatta, Queensland; Bathurst, Narrandera, Gunnedah and Quirindi, New South Wales; Mount Gambier, South Australia; Albany, Western Australia.

  1. Cooma, Parkes, Cowra, Inverell, Mount Isa, Meekatharra, Coolangatta, Bathurst, Narrandera, Gunnedah, Quirindi and Albany, while Mount Gambier is on a late afternoon service making night landing facilities desirable in winter months.
  2. Griffith - used on night services by Butler Air Transport or Airlines of New South Wales from June, 1959 to 19th June, 1961. Coonamble and Walgett - used on night services by Airlines of New South Wales from March, 1960 to 19th June, 1961.
Mr Ward:

d asked the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice -

  1. What has been the Commonwealth expenditure in each of the last ten years in providing aerodromes and navigational aids connected with air transport services?
  2. What has been the cost of running the Department of Civil Aviation in each of these years?
  3. When were companies engaged in air operations first charged for the services provided by the Commonwealth?
  4. What charges were originally imposed, and in what respect have they since been varied?
  5. What has been the total amount received from these charges in each year since they were imposed?
  6. Have airline companies paid these charges regularly as they became due?
  7. If not, what companies have failed to pay promptly, and what action has been taken to recover the amount owing?
  8. Are all airline operators now up to date with their payments?
  9. Is it the intention of the Government to increase these charges?
  10. If so, what are the details of any existing proposal?
Mr Townley:
LP

– The Minister for Civil Aviation has supplied the following information: -

  1. Including depreciation, interest, superannuation liabality and so on, so as to arrive at commercial cost figures, the administrative, operating and maintenance costs of the department have been -
  2. Air navigation charges were levied with effect from August, 1947.
  3. The unit fee based on the authorized maximum all-up weight of the aircraft was originally ls. 3d. per 1,000 lb. or part thereof for aircraft up to 20,000 lb., and ls. 9d. per 1,000 lb. or part thereof for aircraft in excess of 20,000 lb. Pursuant to the Civil Aviation Agreement Act 1952 and the Air Navigation (Charges) Act 1952 the unit fee was reduced to 5d. and 7d. per 1,000 lb. respectively for the period from August, 1947, to 30th June, 1952. As from 1st July, 1952, the unit fee was 3)d. and 5id. per 1,000 lb. respectively, but the route ratings were doubled to give greater flexibility in rating. As from 1st January, 1958, the unit fee was increased by 10 per cent. (Air Navigation (Charges) Act 1957) and with effect from 3rd November, 1960, the following amended scale of unit fees has been applicable (Air Navigation (Charges) Act I960):
  1. There have been some delays in payment but generally accounts are settled in accordance with normal business practice.
  2. A.N.A. Pty. Ltd. challenged the validity of the original charges and did not pay accounts pending settlement of the dispute. Following the revision of the scale of charges in 1952 all amounts due were paid. Buller Air Transport Limited experienced financial difficulties in 1957 (prior to the Ansett take-over) and fell behind in payments. Agreement was reached with the company to reduce these arrears progressively and the indebtedness was eliminated by 1960. Currently, East-West Airlines Limited has been tardy in its payment of Air Navigation Charges and normal accounts followup action is being taken.
  3. Yes, apart from East-West Airlines Limited.
  4. Air navigation charges are reviewed, in common with other revenue sources, when preparing the Commonwealth Budget each year. The Government will examine the scale of charges at the appropriate time, in accordance with its policy to move progressively towards full recovery of attributable costs.
  5. As the time is not yet appropriate, the annual review has not yet been made.

Development of Queensland

Mr O’Brien:

n asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Will he indicate where and in what fields the Government’s future plans for Queensland are to be implemented, particularly in respect of any long-term programme in that State?
  2. How much of this programme has been announced since 9th December, 1961?
Mr Menzies:
LP

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

  1. The division of constitutional responsibility means that planning for Queensland and the implementing of such plans are essentially matters for the Government of that State and not for the Commonwealth except where the Commonwealth has a specific responsibility under the Constitution, for example in the matter of defence.

The Commonwealth has, of course, announced its support for a number of special development projects on which the State sought Commonwealth assistance. These projects include -

  1. Rehabilitation of the Mount Isa railway, where the Commonwealth is making a repayable grant of two-thirds of the cost, within a limit of £20,000,000 repayment to be spread over twenty years from the completion of the work.
  2. The construction or improvement of beef roads which have been selected by the State and towards which the Commonwealth has agreed to contribute up to £5,000,000.
  3. The improvement of port facilities at

Gladstone for coal loading, where the Commonwealth is contributing £200,000, of which £100,000 is in the form of a repayable grant. In addition the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization will establish a Regional Pastures Laboratory at Townsville and an associated Field Research Station at a total estimated capital cost of £292,000.

  1. All these projects with the exception of the C.S.I.R.O. Regional Pastures Laboratory were announced before 9th December, 1961.

Canberra-Tumut Road.

Mr Menzies:
LP

s. - On 8th March the honorable member for Hume (Mr. Fuller) asked in a question without notice when the Government proposes to give effect to the recommendations of the Joint Parliamentay Committee on the Australian Capital Territory relating to the construction of a safe all-weather road between Canberra and Tumut.

As the honorable member will recall the committee’s proposals envisaged the construction of a low-standard gravel road to provide initial access between Tumut and Canberra via Brindabella. It was accepted by the committee that the section between Tumut and the Australian Capital Territory border might cost some £200,000. A further additional amount of perhaps something of the same order would, I understand, also be required to improve the Australian Capital Territory section of the road.

I am advised that a road of higher standard than that envisaged by the committee would probably be necessary to meet likely inter-district traffic requirements. The cost of this could be considerably more than the estimate which the committee had accepted and might reach £1,000,000.

The Commonwealth is aware that a road link between Tumut and Canberra could yield benefits both for the Australian Capital Territory and the Tumut area. However, the fact that the greater part of the road would be in New South Wales means that the New South Wales Government must be a party principal in any action to examine the proposal in detail and in any decision as to construction of this or some alternative route.

Service Pensions

Mr L R Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES

son asked the Minister for Repatriation, upon notice -

What is the estimated cost of implementing each of the recommendations of the 1962 pensions plan of the Returned Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen’s Imperial League of Australia? The recommendations are as follows: -

That the general rate pension and dependants’ allowances be increased as follows: -

One hundred per cent, pension from £5 15s. to £6 10s.

Wife’s allowance from £1 15s. 6d. to £3.

Children’s allowance from 13s. 9d. to £1.

That the war widows’ pension and domestic orphans’ allowances be increased as follows: -

War widows’ pension from £5 15s. to £6 10s.

Domestic allowance from £3 2s. 6d. to £4.

Children’s allowance from £1 19s. and £1 7s. 6d. to £2.

Double orphans’ allowance from £3 lis. 6d. to £4.

That the service pension and dependants’ allowances be increased as follows: -

Service pension from £5 5s. to £5 10s.

Wife’s allowance from £2 7s. 6d. to £2 15s.

All children - allowance from 15s. and 2s. 6d. to 15s.

That the special rate pension for a totally and permanently incapacitated ex-serviceman be increased from £13 5s. to £13 15s.

That all returned servicemen of World War I. and previous wars be granted free repatriation hospital and medical benefits.

That the funeral grant be increased from £25 to £50.

That the widowed mothers’ pension be increased from £2 5s. to £4.

Mr Swartz:
LP

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

The estimated annual costs of implementing the recommendations of the 1962 Pensions Plan of the Returned Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen’s Imperial League of Australia are set out below: -

(i) £2,815,000, (ii) £5,006,000, (iii)

£1,274,000.

(i) £1,386,000, (ii) £1,514,000, (iii) £109,000, (iv) £3,200.

(i) £4*0,000; (ii) £215,000; (iii) £53,000.

£590,000.

Sufficient information, including the sur viving number of ex-servicemen, is not available to enable a detailed estimate of the cost of this proposal to be prepared but on the best assessment possible it is likely that it would be in excess of £1.5 m.

£145,000.

£255,000.

Overseas Ownership of Business Undertakings in Australia.

Mr Beaton:

n asked the Treasurer, upon notice -

What was the estimated value of business undertakings in Australia at 30th June, 1961, owned by interests having their origin in (a) the United Kingdom, (b) the United States of America and (c) all other foreign countries?

Mr Harold Holt:
LP

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

There are no comprehensive statistics which measure the value of business undertakings in Australia owned by oversea interests. However, the Survey of Oversea Investment conducted by the Commonwealth Statistician has measured the annual inflow of private oversea investment in companies in Australia since 1947.

Particulars are available as to the level of paid-up value of shares, debentures, Stc., held by oversea individuals and companies, inter-company accounts owing by Australian subsidiaries to oversea parent or associate companies, and the book value of net assets in Australia of branches of oversea companies.

The sum of these components at 30th June, 1960 (the latest date for which details are available) amounted to £766,200,000 for the United Kingdom, £176,200,000 for the United States and Canada combined, and £136,900,000 for other countries. Details cannot be shown separately for the United States and Canada because of the confidential nature of the amounts involved.

It should be noted that the total given above makes no allowance for the equity of overseas investors in the reserves of Australian subsidiary companies, or the difference between paid-up value and market value of oversea holdings in Australian companies other than subsidiaries

Overseas Loans

Mr Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA

s asked the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. What overseas loans have been raised by the Government since 1st January, 1950, and from what countries were they obtained?
  2. What was the (a) value in Australian currency, (b) rate of interest, (c) term and (d) purpose of each loan?
Mr Harold Holt:
LP

– The information requested by the honorable member is given in the following table: -

Australian Overseas Debt

Mr Jones:

s asked the Treasurer upon notice -

What was the overseas debt of (a) the Commonwealth Government and (b) the State Governments on (i) 1st January, 1950, and (ii) 1st January, 1962?

Mr Harold Holt:
LP

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

Securities on issue overseas on behalf of the Commonwealth and of the State Governments (“oversea debt “) were as follows in 1950 and 1962:

Taxation

Mr Ward:

d asked the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. Does the Government intend to give legislative effect to all of the recommendations of the Commonwealth Committee on Taxation, the report of which was presented to the Parliament on 17th August, 1961?
  2. If not, which of the recommendations has the Government accepted, and when is it expected that the implementing legislation will be introduced?
Mr Harold Holt:
LP

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

At the present time, I am considering reports by officials of my department on each of the recommendations of the committee. In due course, Cabinet will be acquainted with my views on these subjects and, no doubt, decisions will then be made regarding the necessity for any amending legislation. At this stage it is not practicable to indicate a time-table for any legislation that may be required.

Mr Griffiths:
SHORTLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

s asked the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. Are lump sum payments to litigants in common law compensation cases and in the case of third party insurance awards not taxable?
  2. If so, why in the case of some other common law actions for compensation, where the litigant receives weekly payments while waiting for the case to be heard and these payments are subsequently deducted by the court from the lump sum payable at the conclusion of the case, should these payments be treated as weekly compensation for taxation purposes and taxed accordingly?
  3. Which section of the taxation law provides for this discrimination?
Mr Harold Holt:
LP

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

  1. Income tax is not payable on lump sum amounts of a capital nature paid as compensation.
  2. If the weekly payments are of an income nature they are subject to tax. In the event, however, that they are instalments of capital no tax is levied. I am advised by the Commissioner of Taxation that each of these cases requires consideration in the light of its own facts.
  3. See answer to 2.

Commonwealth Loans

Mr Daly:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES

y asked the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that the Commonwealth Loan which closed on the 22nd February, 1962, was not advertised in any religious newspaper?
  2. If the loan was advertised in any religious newspapers, what were the (a) names of the papers and (b) amounts spent?
Mr Harold Holt:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. See answer to question 1.
Mr Griffiths:

s asked the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. Was he recently authorized to borrow £60,000,000 for defence purposes?
  2. From what sources and in what amounts will this loan be raised?
  3. What is the term of the loan, and what rate of interest will be payable?
  4. What profit is expected to be made on the loan?
Mr Harold Holt:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Treasury-bills will be discounted with the Reserve Bank of Australia to the extent necessary to finance the Commonwealth cash deficit for the year - that is, the excess of all Commonwealth payments over receipts from all other sources.
  3. Treasury-bills will be of three months’ currency and will have a yield of 1 per cent, per annum.
  4. No question of profit to the Commonwealth Government arises.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 1 May 1962, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1962/19620501_reps_24_hor35/>.