House of Representatives
29 October 1963

24th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 24th Parliament
  3. 1963

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

page 2369

ABORIGINES

Petition

Mr. COURTNAY presented a petition from certain citizens of the Commonwealth praying that the Government remove section 127, and the words discriminating against aborigines in section 51, of the Commonwealth Constitution, by the holding of a referendum at an early date.

Petition received.

page 2369

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE

Mr GRAY:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

– I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In reply to a question asked by the honorable member for Wills, the right honorable gentleman stated yesterday that the TSR-2 plane “ is as much still on the drawing board as the TFX”. In view of the fact that almost every newspaper in Australia has since published a photograph of the TSR-2, and as the British Broadcasting Corporation news last night stated that this aircraft would fly early next year, will the Prime Minister now inform the House whether he made his statement without having all the facts available? Did he attempt deliberately to mislead the House? Has the press fabricated the published evidence or has the British aircraft industry performed a miracle by getting the TSR-2 from the drawing board to the assembly stage in less than 24 hours?

Sir ROBERT MENZIES:
Prime Minister · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · LP

– I am indebted to the honorable member for this question. I think that he may know that there are various stages in the production of an aircraft. I do not profess to speak as an expert. There is the drawing-board stage.

Mr Curtin:

– That is not the last stage.

Sir ROBERT MENZIES:

– No. I am rather more expert than the honorable member for Kingsford-Smith. He is completely inexpert.

Mr Curtin:

-But-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honorable member for Kingsford-Smith will be silent.

Sir ROBERT MENZIES:

– He knows everything about this and that. An aircraft is designed. It then goes on to the drawing board and then through a phase that is known as the mock-up stage, when a model of it is prepared and examined from an aerodynamic point of view. Then a prototype is ultimately built, and the prototype flies next year and it is tested.

Mr Reynolds:

– Will it fly next year?

Sir ROBERT MENZIES:

– I would not know. I am directing myself to my friend who asked the question. The prototype flies and then it is tested, and ultimately the aircraft goes into production. I am interested to find this new-found zeal for the TSR-2 on the part of the Opposition. I am bound to say that this aircraft is as yet not at the stage when a prototype could fly. Neither is the TFX. So there we are.

Mr Bryant:

– The TFX is certainly not at the flight stage.

Sir ROBERT MENZIES:

– The first sign, you know, is to talk to oneself.

Mr Bryant:

– One may as well do that as talk to you.

Sir ROBERT MENZIES:

– Yes, you may, because, when you talk to yourself, you have a more receptive audience.

Mr Cairns:

– One obtains more information, too.

Sir ROBERT MENZIES:

– I am enjoying this. If the election campaign has begun all I can say is that I like it. But if I may direct myself to the questioner, who has put a perfectly acceptable question on this matter, it is quite true that each of these types of plane was, in a sense, on the drawing board, the first mock-up, approaching in each case the first prototype that would be tested. At one stage it was estimated that the TSR-2 would be in the preliminary flying stage. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition said we could get it in 1965. Of course, we could not. What he meant was - and I thought that being a flying man himself he would have understood this - that in 1965 a prototype would fly and come out here perhaps to be tested. But at that time it was thought that the TSR-2 would reach the stage of being available for squadron service a little earlier than the TFX, and this was one of the factors that our expert advisers had to take into account.

As a result of the mission of my colleague, the Minister for Defence, it now becomes quite clear that the TFX, under its new name, will be available at least as early as the TSR-2 and, I repeat, on terms of purchase which, if I could discuss them with my honorable friend privately as a businessman, he would admit we could not reject because the truth is that, in financial terms, they are very advantageous to our country. I hope I shall be forgiven if I say that I still have some regard for the interests of the Australian taxpayer.

page 2370

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE

Mr ERWIN:
BALLAARAT, VICTORIA

– 1 ask the Minister for Air whether his attention has been directed to a statement made yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition in which he said -

We as a Labour Party will give this country a proper reconnaissance strike bomber and a proper lighter force as soon as we get into power.

Does the Minister believe this statement? If not, why not?

Mr FAIRBAIRN:
Minister for Air · FARRER, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I saw the report of the statement made by the Leader of the Opposition. Quite frankly, I have no knowledge of what he means when he says the Labour Party would provide a proper fighter force for this country. As the honorable member knows, and as all honorable members know, we have at the present moment a Hercules in France picking up the first of the very latest and incomparably the world’s best fighter and, within four or six weeks, we hope to have the first Mirage assembled in Australia flying here. From that time onwards these fighters will continue to roll off the production line.

If the statement of the Leader of the Opposition means anything, I suppose it must mean the Labour Party would provide some other fighter for the Royal Australian Air Force, which would mean that it would cancel this production. If, on the other hand, it means nothing, as I suspect, the Labour Party will continue to produce aircraft as we have produced them, with the utmost expedition.

As to his statement that Labour would provide modern strike reconnaissance aircraft for the R.A.A.F., again 1 am at a loss to understand whether he meant that his Government would provide the TSR-2 instead of the TFX. If he meant that, then all I can say is that he has been sadly misled because the experts of the R.A.A.F. who evaluated these aircraft and gave the Government the result of their evaluation have said that in almost every aspect the TFX is superior to the TSR-2. They have said that it would have superior speed and superior range, that it would carry a heavier bomb load, that it would have better electronic counter measures, that it would be belter fitted for reconnaissance, that it could take off from a shorter runway and that it would be delivered about the same date and would be incomparably cheaper.

The only other thing that I can think that the Leader of the Opposition may be meaning is that the Labour Party would give the Air Force an interim bomber earlier than would the present Government. If this is so, I point out to him that there are only three supersonic bombers operational in the world to-day. One of these is the B-58 Hustler, which is not still in production. It would be quite impossible for Australia to obtain this aircraft, because the Strategic Air Command of the United States Air Force requires every Hustler that it has. The other two supersonic aircraft are the RA5C Vigilante and the F-4C Phantom. The team sent abroad to evaluate these aircraft told us that if we ordered the Vigilante to-day we could have one squadron operational by December, 1966, and that if we ordered the Phantom, we could have one squadron operational by May, 1966. We know that, as a result of the very favorable terms negotiated in Washington by my colleague, the Minister for Defence, we can obtain the TFX in 1967. Therefore, the Leader of the Opposition would probably be prepared to spend some £60,000,000 to £90,000,000 on obtaining an aircraft’ that would become obsolescent in nine months. The Leader of the Opposition said last week during the debate on the estimates for the Defence departments that he would take the advice of his technical advisers. If he did (his, he would find that he had exactly the same policy as this Government has.

page 2371

QUESTION

NATIONAL ECONOMY

Mr CALWELL:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

– Mr. Speaker, to bring the Government out of the clouds and down to earth, I ask the Treasurer whether Sir Ian Potter was correctly reported as having said yesterday, or some time recently, that the Government will have to impose a policy of credit restriction if Australia is not to have an economic collapse some time next year.

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
Treasurer · HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

– I understand that Sir Ian Potter is at present overseas. The honorable gentleman is, I gather, referring to an article that appeared in the first instance under Sir Ian’s name in a supplement to the “ Sydney Morning Herald “ of yesterday.

Mr Calwell:

– And the “ Financial Review “ of to-day.

Mr HAROLD HOLT:

– It is also in the “ Financial Review “, which is a subsidiary of the “ Sydney Morning Herald “. I had not read the article until this morning, when a group of pressmen asked me whether I had seen it and and invited me to comment on it. I took the opportunity then to read the article. I have made no general comment on it so far, because frankly I anticipated that the honorable gentleman or one of his supporters would look for a chance to put a question on it to mc here at this time. I knew that the honorable gentleman would seek to compress into a short compass what Sir Ian set out in a quite lengthy and thoughtful article, and present it in terms which would be quite mischievous in their implication and which, indeed, could be damaging if not clearly stated by the honorable gentleman or by those supporting him. lt is no mystery that the Reserve Bank of Australia has a statutory obligation to keep in touch with the trading banks of this country. It is required quarterly to indicate to the trading banks the future economic situation as it sees it. The Reserve Bank has an obligation to maintain a general supervision over the extent of liquidity in the economic system, or the absence of liquidity. Sir Ian in his article, as I interpret it, was pointing out what I think any student of the economic scene would readily recognize, which is that Australia at present has a very high degree of liquidity and that the degree of liquidity is liable to increase as our overseas reserves mount in the months ahead. Honorable gentlemen opposite have been asserting that our reserves will run down. In point of fact, they have been mounting very steadily and have reflected the success of the Government’s export policy. The board of the Reserve Bank is to meet to-morrow and I would expect that as the result of that meeting there will be a further review of the current state of liquidity and no doubt the bank will take such action as it feels is appropriate in accordance with its statutory responsibility in these matters.

page 2371

QUESTION

EXPORTS

Mr REYNOLDS:

– I direct a question to the Minister for Trade. What success has attended the Government’s export drive in the last year or two? Is it a fact that Australia’s export earnings for the years 1961-62 and 1962-63 have been virtually static? To what extent has our drive for increased exports been offset by the free flow of £85,000,000 worth of motor cars and motor car parts into Australia during the past year, which was double the amount of the previous year?

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

– By any standards, very great success has attended the drive, which is made not merely by the Government but also by private industry, to increase exports from Australia. I immediately pay a tribute to private industry for its part. It is true that at any time, under our system of selling wool, it is normal to make a full clearance of this commodity. As every one knows, there are indications at the present time that we shall make a full clearance of wool, and at a very much better price, which is a reflection of the success of the promotional activity engaged in by the wool industry and government.

It is well known that we have cleared the whole of our very big wheat crop - we have made a complete sate - and that the price is rather firmer than it was. It is well known, too, that we are selling the whole of our meat surplus, most of it to the United States of America, at magnificently good prices, thereby earning from North America an income of between £70,000,000 and £80,000,000 a year from sales of beef. In the disposal of dairy products we have entered into new markets’, and in respect of sales in the United Kingdom we have, by a series of negotiations which were, in part, initiated six or seven years ago and which have been continuously proceeding, got a basis in accordance with which the United Kingdom regulates the imports of butter for the purpose of sustaining a better price, to the advantage of Australia. The price for Australian butter has been 100s. per cwt. higher than it was a couple of years ago or a little more than a couple of years ago.

The Australian sugar crop has been completely disposed of, and the price has not been obtained only by the accident of events in Cuba and seasons, but is attributable to an important extent to negotiations with the United Kingdom, Japan and other countries. This great crop, so important to Queensland and the north, has been fully sold, at higher prices than we have ever dreamed of getting before. At the present time, the industry is contemplating the possibility of expanding the acreage of sugar to be planted, partly as the result of activities by this Government and partly through fortuitous circumstances, but largely as the result of the drive by the industry itself to sell its product. This is the pattern running right through the marketing of our great export products. Honorable members opposite are interjecting, but I remind them that this question was asked by one of their number. Now the Opposition is sorry that he asked that question, which will be answered.

I turn to manufacturing industry. Markets overseas for our manufactured goods are the most difficult arenas for them to enter. Exports of steel from Australia fluctuate due to circumstances which are well known, and the same applies to exports of residual and refined oils. But excluding steel and oil, I point out that in the last year exports of manufactured goods from Australia increased by 23 per cent. I do not think there are many other countries in a position to say that their exports of manufactured goods have increased in one year by 23 per cent. The Labour Party asks what success has attended the Government’s export drive. The partnership which the Government has established with industry has had magnificent success in agricultural, pastoral, mining and manufacturing fields.

page 2372

QUESTION

WATERFRONT EMPLOYMENT

Mr HAWORTH:
ISAACS, VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister for Labour and National Service a question about industrial relations on the waterfront. What is the present position with regard to industrial committees? When may we expect them to be formed?

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

– I think the House will know that since the conferences between representatives of the trade unions and the waterfront employers were completed there has been a period of unprecedented peace on the waterfront, including the Sydney waterfront. So I am entitled to say that the conferences were successful The Government has done all that it has been asked to do such as, for example, suspending the operation of section 52a of the Stevedoring Industry Act. ft is now up to the waterfront employers, the trade unions and the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority to form the industrial committees. During the last few days the Waterside Workers’ Federation, the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority and the employers have met and decided the constitution of the industrial committees. Now a decision has been taken to form the committees themselves. I am hopeful that within the course of the next week or two we will find that the committees have been formed and arc in operation. When this happens I think we will have a new look on the waterfront. The employers and the employees will be sitting around the table discussing their problems, to the benefit, I hope, of the waterfront employees and the industry in general.

page 2372

QUESTION

MALAYSIA

Mr JEFF BATE:
MACARTHUR, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; IND from Oct. 1972

– I direct a question to the Prime Minister. The right honorable gentleman will remember that last week the Leader of the Opposition asked him whether he remembered a statement that he made in 1956. On a much closer field, does the Prime Minister recall the Leader of the Opposition stating in his policy speech in 1961 that Labour would withdraw ‘ .istralian troops from Malaya? Further, does the right honorable gent!:man recall the statement issued by the Leader of the Opposition to the “Sydney Morning Herald” on 12th March this year that Labour under no, circumstances would support any commitment on defence to Malaya or Malaysia?

Can the Prime Minister advise the House whether, in view of recent statements by the Leader of the Opposition, we have an appropriate officer available to explain to our allies the rapid policy switches from time to time by the Leader of the Opposition so that they may not be misunderstood to Australia’s disadvantage?

Sir ROBERT MENZIES:
LP

– I understand entirely what my young colleague has in mind. I have been here long enough - I know that honorable members opposite ,vill say “ too long “; I rely on them to do sd - to have acquired a certain amount of charity in these matters. I realize, as do all honorable members, that the Leader of the Opposition cannot be held to account for what he said on policy prior to the meeting of the outside executive. After all, the outside executive of the Labour Party - the faceless men - failed by the narrowest of margins to warn the Americans off the North West Cape project. Of course, the executive meets from time to time and vh’:n it does my good friend the Leader of the Opposition must bow his head. Therefore, if he said something in 1956 and something different in 1958 all I want to say is that in my infinite charity and compassion I understand his problem.

page 2373

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE

Mr MAKIN:
BONYTHON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I address my question to the Prime Minister. Did Britain make a package deal offer to Australia which included an offer to the Royal Australian Air Force of two manned squadrons of V-bombers as a stop-gap measure pending delivery of the TSR-2? If so, on what terms did Britain offer the V-bomber to Australia?

Sir ROBERT MENZIES:
LP

– It might be helpful if this question were answered by my colleague, the Minister for Defence, who is now on his way back to Australia. The last proposal of which I became aware relating to the V-bombers was not that we should have a squadron or two of V- bombers in the Royal Australian Air Force, but that the squadrons should be posted here under Royal Air Force command. That, as the honorable member will see, is somewhat different from a proposal that the V-bombers should be,’ manned by members of the Royal

Australian Air Force. However, I do not want to make a point about that. As I said in my initial announcement, we have been offered the B-47E bombers, if necessary. I am amazed that any one found it surprising that I said yesterday that if necessary meant if necessary. This will be a matter for decision by experts in the R.A.A.F. What I want to tell my old friend the honorable member for Bonython - who, of course, is not unfamiliar with these international problems - is that the dominating factors on this occasion, the delivery times being relatively equal, were the terms on which would could obtain new aircraft and whether we could, if necessary, for a year or two, in the intervening period, supplement the Canberra, which is by no means dead.

I assure the honorable member that when all the details can emerge - I hope that they will emerge very quickly, but at present I am not able to say any more than I have said - it will be completely clear that the deal made with the United States of America is probably the most favorable deal ever made by Australia with another country for something that is vital to Australia’s defence. It is a very great mistake for any one to think that this involves being pro-British or anti-British. As I have said before, I am British to the boot heels. I will not be told that I am hostile to what is done in Great Britain. But, like my honorable friend opposite, I have always esteemed my prime duty to be to my own country and to the safety of my own country. On that principle we have acted.

page 2373

QUESTION

REPATRIATION

Mr LESLIE:
MOORE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I preface my question tothe Minister for Repatriation by stating that I know that he is aware of the present intense world-wide interest in improving artificial aids for physically handicapped people. I understand that recently a revolutionary artificial arm, known as the Heidelberg arm, has been developed overseas and has been used successfully to assist persons requiring artificial arms. The factories conducted by the Repatriation Department are the largest producers in Australia of these artificial aids. Will the Minister state whether the Repatriation

Department is aware of this newtechnique and whether it proposes to introduce it in Australia?

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

– It is a fact that an external powered artificial arm has been developed in the United Kingdom, where manufacture has commenced in a small way. As the honorable member knows. Dr. Klein of thecentral development unit of the repatriation artificial limb appliance centres recently went overseas to investigate a number of matters, including that to which the honorable member has referred. Resulting from his investigation, he ordered a prototype to be sent to Australia. It arrived a few weeks ago. At present it is under test in our centre in Melbourne. Similar types of external powered artificial limbs are being developed in West Germany and some other countries at present.We Wc have placed orders for prototypes of all of them. As soon as they becomeavailable they will be sent to Australia andwe will have an opportunity to evaluate their application to use here. I can assure the honorable member for Moore and the House that the Repatriation Department’s artificial limb and appliance centres throughout Australia will do their best to keep abreast of all of these modern developments.

page 2374

QUESTION

DEFENCE

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I ask the Prime Minister whether he remembers a speech made in this Parliament by the honorable member for La Trobe on 25th October, 1962, in which the honorable member said -

Havewe comparative superiority of equipment? Havewe comparative superiority in man-power or equipment? The answerto both questions must be no. We have no heavy guns, no guided missiles. Our Navy is not strong enough, our Air Force is not strong enough, and the numbers of our servicemen arc most emphatically loo few.

If the right honorable gentleman remembers that statement - or whether he remembers it Or not - will he now state whether he considers that thehonorable member for La Trobe is a competent person to express a view on defence?

Sir ROBERT MENZIES:
KOOYONG, VICTORIA · UAP; LP from 1944

– This question is a rather mixed grill. MayI start at the end and say that I have the greatest possible regard for the honorable member for La Trobe who, I have no doubt whatever, will continue to be the honorable member for La Trobefor as long as he desires. Nothing can prove the stateof mind of members of the Opposition, rattled as they are-

Mr.Calwell.- Ha, ha!

Sir ROBERT MENZIES:
LP

– Oh. yes. You would not deny that, would you? You have been howling like mad for an election for weeks and weeks, and now you have got one. Therefore you are rattled. I understand that and I sympathize with you. But here is the ultimate proof: For some strange and mysterious reason, this question reminds me of an election speech. Honorable members opposite are interjecting. Since they have asked for it, they can have it.

The honorable member forHindmarsh says that the honorable member for l a Trobe said so-and-so and so-and-so.Ido not recall it, but no doubt he said those things. One of the beauties of being on my side of the Parliament is that every man can say what he thinks about this and this; butwhen the Government decidesto do something it makes the decision on its own judgment and not by the orders of people unelected and outside the Parliament. It is a very great advantage to the Opposition to have - and I compliment it on this - a number of people on the Government side who, speaking their minds, have said A, 13 or C. We never have that advantage on our side of the House, because no honorable member opposite dares to say what he thinks about any matter unless he goes to his masters outside andsays,”Whatisit that I am allowed to say?: Yes,weare a collection of individual!; on this side of the House. We represent a cross-section of the Australian people.We are quite accustomed to offering our own opinions in party meetings. Honorable members opposite do not like this.

Mr Cairns:

– What about Wentworth?

Sir ROBERT MENZIES:
KOOYONG, VICTORIA · UAP; LP from 1944

– You can quote anybody you like All 1 want to tell you is that when 1, as the head of the Government, stand up to say whatthe policy of this Government is I do not have to go and bow and scrape to anybody else. And in due course I shall tell the people of Australia what our policy is. I can understand the passion being displayed by honorable members opposite.

Mr Griffiths:

– What about Billy Wentworth?

Sir ROBERT MENZIES:

– What about you, if it comes to that?

Mr L R Johnson:

– Why did you stand over Bill Wentworth the other night?

Sir ROBERT MENZIES:

– Did 1? It seems a rather unnatural posture for me. I understand the feelings of honorable members opposite. I share with them their glee, and all I can say is. if I remember the words of the song correctly: Enjoy yourselves, it’s later than you think.

page 2375

QUESTION

REPATRIATION

Mr DRURY:
RYAN, QUEENSLAND

– I address a question to the Minister for Repatriation. In view of the increasing needs of ex-servicemen for in-patient treatment, referred to in the annual report of the Repatriation Commission, what steps are being taken to meet these needs, particularly in Queensland?

Mr SWARTZ:
LP

– As I have stated in the House previously, there will be a continuing demand for expanded repatriation medical services until about 197S at the earliest, and possibly until 1980. With this in mind e are now working on a programme of expansion of all our hospital and medical facilities in all States. Our works programme for Queensland this year, which includes some additional operating theatres at the Repatriation General Hospital at Greenslopes, will involve the expenditure of about *£190,000. Recently we completed the renovation of the Rosemount auxiliary hospital for medical rehabilitation work at a cost of approximately £54,000. Altogether our total programme for expansion this year, so far as works and maintenance are concerned,, will involve nearly £1,500,000. We will continue our programme of expansion, of course, during the period of the next Parliament.

page 2375

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE

Mr JONES:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Air. Assuming that Australia found it necessary to accept immediately the United States offer of the B-47E as a stop-gap bomber, is it a fact that Darwin is the only airport in Australia with a runway long enough to accommodate this aircraft? If not, what are the other Australian airports capable at present of accommodating the B-47E? Is it not a fact that most Australian airports, including defence airports, would require major extensions before the B-47E could land on or take off from them?

Mr FAIRBAIRN:
LP

– lt is correct thaI Darwin is the only airport in Australia at present from which the B-47E could operate with maximum all-up weight of 200,000 lb.; in other words, carrying 20,000 lb. of bombs. But we would not expect to operate this aircraft with maximum all-up weight, so it could operate from any one of a number of aerodromes here, such as Townsville, Pearce, Edinburgh and Richmond. In the Far East we could operate from Tengah. From Butterworth we would have to operate the B-47E bombers with a reduced load. We could operate from Clark Field at Manila, from Guam, or from any of a great number of other aerodromes. However, there is undoubtedly a problem. This aircraft has been designed to take off from long runways, built to take heavy loads, because it has the enormous range of well over 4,000 miles. There are two ways in which the length of take-off can be reduced. One is by using water injection, which gives a greater power and a very much faster take-off. The other is by using rocket-assisted take-off - or JATO. The Royal Australian Air Force is aware of the problem associated wilh take-off and feels that it is one we can easily cope with.

page 2375

QUESTION

EMPLOYMENT

Mr WILSON:
STURT, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Labour and National Service. Bearing in mind that 98.6 per cent, of the work force in South Australia is now in full employment and that shortages of labour are developing within certain industries, can the Minister give an indication of the likely employment trends for 1963-64 for school leavers and the large number of migrants coming to South Australia?

Mr MCMAHON:
LP

– I think all honorable members will agree that the employment situation in Australia to-day is very favorable and that it is comparatively easy for any person who wants a job to get one quickly. As to the future, if you look at what are called the indicators, which show the prospects - such as the favorable position of our balance of trade as just mentioned by my colleague the Minister for Trade, the direct increase in Government expenditure on goods and services as set out in the Budget, the very favorable positions of the building and construction industry and the vehicle-building industry and latterly the improvement in private capital investment - you must come to the conclusion that the prospects are very bright indeed. Based on these and other indicators, and looking at the economy generally, it seems likely that we will have a most prosperous year in 1964. So I think it follows automatically that the prospects in that year for the employment’ of young people and of migrants will be even better than they are to-day. As I said when I commenced my reply, the employment position now is favorable, but we expect it to be much better next year.

page 2376

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE

Mr EINFELD:
PHILLIP, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. In the House yesterday and again on a number of occasions to-day the Prime Minister said that the B-47E interim replacements for the Royal Australian Air Force are available if Australia requires them. In the event of a sudden deterioration of relations in our area, how long would it take for the Royal Australian Air Force to secure these bombers and to have them fully operational? Does the Prime Minister agree with the aviation experts who have stated that it costs more than £2,300 for a fully loaded B-47E bomber to leave a runway?

Sir ROBERT MENZIES:
LP

– Do not ask me to give an opinion on how much it costs to make a B-47E leave a runway. My colleague, the Minister for Air - who, after all, is somewhat of an expert in these matters - has said something about the performance of these aircraft. They would be available on short call if we needed them. I am indebted to the honorable member for recalling to my mind that one of the reasons for having the interim provision is exactly the reason that he mentions. If some emergency arose we would be able to recruit our strike reconnaissance force very quickly by making use of these aircraft. I may say that, in any event, for the next three or four years B-47E bombers will be in use by the United States Air Force in this part of the Pacific.

page 2376

QUESTION

NEW STATE

Mr DRUMMOND:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Prime Minister: Is it a fact that on 29th August last he and the Deputy Prime Minister met the leaders of a delegation from the New England new-State movement. Did the delegation leaders tell the Prime Minister that they had explored1 without success for many years every constitutional method of achieving what is provided for in Chapter VI. of the Constitution? Is it a fact that the leaders of the movement requested, in relation to the petition to Her Majesty the Queen, that the unanimous recommendation of the all-party Constitutional Review Committee be placed before the people for their decision, and that the Prime Minister, in his reply, stated that he would give the greatest consideration to the matter and advise the leaders of the movement of the decision as soon as practicable? I now ask the right honorable gentleman whether he has found it possible to come to a. conclusion on that matter. Will he, as a curtainraiser to his policy speech for the election, inform the House whether he is prepared to include in his policy speech specific reference to the need for this referendum and his intention to hold such a referendum?

Sir ROBERT MENZIES:
LP

– It is quite true that I received a deputation with which the honorable member was associated. I have great respect for his almost life-long interest in this problem. The deputation put certain views before me. I am not at present in a position to state any decision by the Government, but I assure the honorable member that the matters put to me are well under consideration.

page 2376

GRIEVANCES OF YIRRKALA ABORIGINES, ARNHEM LAND RESERVE

Report of Select Committee

Mr DEAN:
Robertson

– Mr. Speaker, I present the following paper: -

Report from the Select Committee on grievance of Yirrkala aborigines, Arnhem Hand Reserve, together wilh the Minutes of Proceedings of the Committee and Minutes of Evidence.

Ordered to be printed.

Mr DEAN:

– by leave- On 12th September last, the honorable member for Fremantle (Mr. Beazley) moved that a select committee be appointed to inquire into the grievances of certain aboriginal people of Yirrkala relating to the excision of land from the aboriginal reserve in Arnhem Land, which were contained in their petition presented and read to the House on 28th August, 1963. The committee met in Canberra, at Darwin and at Yirrkala. Twentyfive witnesses were called, eleven of whom were aborigines.

The committee’s report includes its findings on the matters related in the petition and, because of the nature of evidence given, recommendations for the Government’s consideration. I believe that the former can be studied best with the whole report, but I wish to inform the House of some of the recommendations. These are as follows: -

That the excised portion of Cove Peninsula be declared a protected area in order that people other than Aborigines shall be prevented from hunting there.

That early action be taken to carry out a complete survey and early development of water resources.

That the Yirrkala people be consulted as early as possible on the location of their sacred places.

That a proclamation be made to prevent unauthorised persons entering the Mission area.

That homes for European and Aboriginal Australians be developed simultaneously.

That some building lots within the town site bc reserved for Aborigines.

That compensation for loss of traditional occupancy be made by way of -

land grant, . .

capital grant. . . .

monetary compensation . . . That, when the town develops, social service benefits be paid directly to the people of Yirrkala.

The committee quotes an extract from the evidence of the Reverend A. F. Ellemor, secretary, Methodist Overseas Missions, Methodist Overseas Mission of Victoria, and formerly superintendent of the Yirrkala Mission. The extract reads -

First, it seems to me that a deposit of bauxite such as we have here is a national asset, lt is bound to be developed in some form by somebody, and we have to accept that as a basic fact. I believe that this bauxite development - because it is in this area-presents us with a challenge to the” whole policy of assimilation. 1’ . believe that challenge must be accepted by everybody con cerned - the Government through its Welfare Branch, our Mission as such, the mining company - and the Aborigines themselves - must share in grappling with (his challenge. 1 further believe that the place to grapple with this problem of assimilation is here.

He was referring to Yirrkala - 1 myself would be quite opposed to the movement of this Mission. I think that would be backing away from a challenge. I do not think’ we can talk about assimilation in words and then dodge it in deeds. 1 know that problems will arise. There will be costs to be faced and possibly losses by the aboriginal people. There will be adjustments to be made and some suffering to be borne. But this should all be faced here, and we should not draw away from the challenge.

As a result, the committee states that it accepts the challenge and, accordingly, recommends to the Government the formation of a standing committee of the House of Representatives to examine from time to time the conditions of the Yirrkala people, believing that the standing committee should be empowered to visit these people, as did the select committee, and to inquire into matters affecting their welfare.

It will be noticed, Sir, that, in this part of the report, the committee suggests a period of ten years for the continuance of the standing committee. In mentioning this period, the select committee believes it is important for the House to realize that this is a situation in which a large group of proud people, in a protected environment, may have a modern town sited on their tribal lands within a few miles of their present living area. The Reverend Ellemor said -

There will be adjustments to be made and some suffering to be borne. But … we should not draw away from the challenge.

The challenge will be a challenge to this Parliament in the eyes of the world. It is our duty to ensure that these people shall be caused no undue suffering and that, in any necessary adjustment that takes place, they shall not be hurt because they retain some of their historic culture.

page 2377

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ACCOMMODATION

Report of Select Committee

Mr BURY:
Wentworth

- Mr. Speaker, I present the following paper: -

Report from the Select Committee on House of Representatives accommodation, together wilh the Minutes of Proceedings of the committee.

Copies of the report are still being assembled and will be available to members and the press within the hour.

Ordered to be printed.

Motion (by Mr. Downer) agreed to -

That the consideration of the report be made an Order of the Day for the next sitting.

page 2378

HOUR OF MEETING

Motion (by Mr. Downer) agreed to -

That the House, at its rising, adjourn until tomorrow at 10.30 a.m.

page 2378

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE

The following bills were returned from the Senate: -

Without amendment -

Income Tax and Social Services Contribution

Assessment Bill (No. 2) 1963. Income Tax (International Agreements) Bill 1963. Estate Duty Assessment Bill 1963. Gift Duty Assessment Bill 1963.

Without requests -

Income Tax and Social Services Contribution Bill 1963.

page 2378

STEAM POWER STATION, DARWIN

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

– I move-

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1913-1960, it is expedient that the following proposed work should be carried out without having been referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works: - Steam power station, Darwin - Proposed extension of generating capacity.

Due to the rapid growth of electrical load in Darwin, early action to increase the generating capacity of the steam power station at Stokes Hill has become necessary. When the proposed design of the existing station was examined in 1957 by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, it was then expected that the initial installation consisting of two 74 megawatt turbo-alternators would be adequate until 1971, at which time a third generating set, probably of 15 megawatt capacity, would be required. However, the load growth in Darwin, even excluding the 3 megawatt load which is expected to occur in mid-1966 due to the operation of the Postal Department’s transmitter, approved by Cabinet in August this year, makes it necessary to commission this additional 15 megawatt set early in 1967. To meet the transmitter load, the set should be commissioned by mid-1966. Planning has advanced sufficiently for an immediate hearing by the parliamentary committee, but, due to the impending election, hearing will be delayed.

The whole of the project, including the proposed extension of the power station, mentioning specifically a third set of 15 megawatt capacity, but without an estimate for the extension was placed before the parliamentary committee in 1957. Because of the urgency of the project and because no new technical or economic factors have arisen which would alter the plans originally submitted to the committee, I am asking for Parliamentary approval to allow the work to proceed without further reference to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works.

Mr DEAN:
Robertson

.- As chairman of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I support the motion proposed by the Minister for the Interior (Mr. Freeth). I direct the attention of the House to the report of the committee’s earlier examination to which the Minister has referred, and in particular to paragraphs 8 and 37 of the report. As chairman of the committee, I inform the House that we agree with the proposal.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2378

DEFENCE (VISITING FORCES) BILL 1963

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 24th October (vide page 2264), on motion by Sir Garfield Barwick -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Mr WHITLAM:
Werriwa

.- This bill replaces an act of 1939 which bore a similar name. It is similar to the United Kingdom Visiting Forces Act of 1952. During the war, there was emergency legislation, National Security (Allied Forces) Regulations of 1951, touching on the same subject, In each case, in this country and overseas, my party has initiated or supported such legislation. We do so again on this occasion. The present bill is naturally more complex than the earlier legislation.

Sir Garfield Barwick:

– And better.

Mr WHITLAM:

– And better. I believe that there are a very great number of matters in which, as the Attorney-General (Sir Garfield Barwick) pointed out in his careful second-reading speech, Australia has profited from her own early experience and the experience of the United Kingdom.

My own party considered this question at its special federal conference in Canberra last March, where the immediate matter under consideration was the arrangement concerning the United States naval communication station at North West Cape. Again, at its regular biennial conference in Perth last July, it announced the same policy, but with general application. This legislation meets all the requirements that wc think should be ensured by Australian legislation.

It would be interesting to know to what extent similar arrangements have been made for Australian forces in other countries. Australian forces are at present not only in Malaysia, but also in Thailand and Viet Nam and perhaps India. I am not aware of any agreements or legislation covering their rights or their duties, their privileges or their liabilities while so stationed in the latter countries. Even if, as is sometimes asserted, it is not possible to make agreements with a non-aligned country with respect to such installations as the Butterworth air base, which is the principal Royal Australian Air Force base in the world, and the Army installations at Malacca or Penang, it has at least been possible to make them concerning the rights and duties of our own personnel in Malaysia. It is quite conceivable that Australian forces will be again part of United Nations police forces. Australia has not participated in the United Nations expeditions in the Gaza strip or in Lebanon or in the Congo. Wc did, however, participate quite prominently in the operations in Korea. If such police actions take place in the future, it is to be hoped that Australian forces will be welcomed as participants in them. It is quite likely, therefore, that this type of legislation will become more widespread and will be developed more on a world pattern. The Opposition supports the bill.

Mr KILLEN:
Moreton

.- I never cease to be amazed in this place, but the short speech that has just fallen from the lips of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Whitlam) leaves me in a state of utter astonishment. Speaking on behalf of the Opposition, he has said that the Opposition supports this measure. It is perfectly true that this bill finds its fount head in the need completely to revise the law relating to members of the armed forces not only in the United Kingdom but in other Commonwealth countries. The bill also finds impetus in the fact that our law relating to the armed forces of other countries is most inadequate.

Conceding both those points, the singular fact remains that the catalyst, as it were, for the introduction of this measure lies in the establishment of the United States Naval Communication Station at North West Cape. Indeed, when referring to the question of the criminal jurisdiction of Australia in relation to the visiting forces of other countries, the Attorney-General (Sir Garfield Barwick) said this during the course of his second-reading speech -

The mailer has recently become more urgent because of two agreements with the United States of America which honorable members will recall. I refer to the United States Naval Communication Station Agreement - the “North West Cape Agreement “ - and the agreement to be read wilh it known as the Agreement Covering the Status of United States Forces in Australia.

We have what must emerge as one of the strange features of this Parliament. We have the Opposition flatly denying the North West Cape agreement and on this occasion supporting a measure that bears directly upon the agreement. What the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and his party are in fact suggesting is that not only should the horse bc hobbled but both wheels an the sulky should also be removed. The honorable gentleman would then contend that we would have a thoroughly mobile piece of transport. The attitude of the honorable gentleman is not good enough. He referred to the federal conference of his party. I would have thought that he would have kept quiet about this. It seemed to me to bc an ill-chosen reference, if for no other reason than it recalls to all of us, and even to any casual student of politics,- the singularly undignified sight of the honorable gentleman snooping around amongst the vines and plants at a hotel in Canberra, waiting to receive his orders from the faceless 36.

Mr Benson:

– Do you receive any orders?

Mr KILLEN:

– No, I do not.

Mr Daly:

– You could do with a few.

Mr KILLEN:

– Possibly. I took a few orders before I came here. I am not complaining about that at all. My regret is that some honorable gentlemen opposite have had no opportunity to take orders.

Here we have what passes for an Opposition saying that it is prepared to support this measure, but it completely failed to give any indication of support for the North West Cape agreement when it was before the Parliament. Having said that, I would like to say this of the attitude of Opposition members: They have argued that they would re-negotiate the agreement between Australia and the United States. If they are going to re-negotiate an agreement between Australia and the United States concerning the North West Cape, what will they do with the legislation that is proposed to cover visiting servicemen from the United States who come to work and to live, however temporarily, in this country? Does the honorable gentleman say that the Opposition is satisfied with the Defence (Visiting Forces) Bill but is dissatisfied with the North West Cape agreement? If so, that is an interesting circumstance - and one that I would have hoped the Deputy Leader of the Opposition would have made some attempt, however feeble, to explain.

As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition apparently has not received his instructions on this matter, possibly I am at liberty to refer to the remarks of Mr. F. E. Chamberlain, who is one of the 36 and one of the tyrants who run the Australian Labour Party. Mi. Chamberlain, among other things, is the editor of the newspaper called the “Western Sun”. This is what he had to say in a recent issue -

The Trades and Labor Council lias acted correctly by reacting strongly against an announcement that applicants for work at the American radio facility at North-West Cape would be required to pass “ security screening “, whatever that may be. .

Mr Whitlam:

– On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr KILLEN:

– I knew you would not take this.

Mr Whitlam:

– I do not know why the honorable gentleman is challenging me to make comments on this. Of course, he knows quite well that, having spoken in the second-reading debate, I cannot speak again. However, nothing he is about to embark on now has any relevance to the bill. Interesting as it may be, and even if we had limitless time to discuss this matter, it has nothing to do with the bill.

Mr Killen:

– On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I submit that what the honorable gentleman has put to you is an utter assumption. He has no evidence at all to support his suggestion. I am in the process of developing my argument and the honorable gentleman, simply because he is sensitive on this issue, h’as sought to silence me.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I think the honorable member for Moreton is aware that if he departs from the subject-matter before the Chair and concentrates the whole of his remarks on the question of the North West Cape communication station, he will be out of order.

Mr KILLEN:

– Sir, I am indebted to you for supporting the point of view that I hold. If I am given an opportunity, without interruption by the honorable gentleman, I will put my case on this point. I am about to refer specifically-

Mr Whitlam:

– Sir, it is not to be taken that I am interrupting if I take a point of order which you uphold. The honorable gentleman has made no reference to visiting forces or in fact to any persons covered by this bill. He started to quote conditions of employment for Australians. They are not covered by the bill and they are not covered by the Minister’s second-reading speech. Therefore, this is irrelevant to this secondreading debate.

Mr Wentworth:

– I wish to speak to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. It seemed to me that the honorable member for Moreton was very correctly drawing attention to the discrepancies between the speech of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and his previous attitude. Since the honorable member’s remarks were, I think, properly directed to what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition had previously said in this debate and since they were very pertinent to the, real motives of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in taking the conflicting lines he has taken on this subject, 1 submit that the honorable member is patently in order.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I point out that, if the honorable member for Moreton insists upon devoting his remarks to a subjectmatter that is not before the Chair, he will be out of order.

Mr KILLEN:

– If 1 may continue, I am about to refer to the position of people who may be working immediately under the control of United States forces stationed at the North West Cape. . I refer to the judgment given by Marshall C.J. in “ Schooner Exchange v. M’Faddon “, which is pertinent to the point that I am about to make.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I am not aware of the judgment to which the honorable member is referring.

Mr KILLEN:

– I am about to continue

Mr SPEAKER:

– If the honorable member attempts to avoid the direction of the Chair by quoting from something that is obscure, or if he tries to canvass the ruling or ignore it, he will resume his seat.

Mr KILLEN:

– With very great respect, Sir, I am not doing that. I refer to this obiter dicta-

Mr Whitlam:

– Mr. Speaker, quite apart from any question of what Chief Justice Marshall has said, the honorable gentleman has referred to classes of persons about whom the Chief Justice has given a decision. But no such persons are referred to in the bill. One need go no further than the first page of the bill to see that that is so. The prolixity of the honorable gentleman, diverting though it is, is irrelevant. I submit that you should rule that he is out of order.

Mr Wentworth:

– On the point of order-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no substance in the point of order. I call the honorable member for Moreton.

Mr KILLEN:

– In his second-reading speech, the Attorney-General (Sir Garfield Barwick) said -

Except to meet the special case of the United Stales of America, there has been no legislative recognition given by British or Australian law-

I hope this is of some relevance - in recent limes to the exclusive jurisdiction of visiting force authorities over their own personnel. The British act of 1933, to which 1 first referred, gave backing to the jurisdiction of the service courts of visiting British Commonwealth forces, but did not give them exclusive jurisdiction. On the contrary, there was concurrent jurisdiction, and the jurisdiction of British courts was not ousted.

The Attorney-General then went, on to describe the scheme of operation of this measure. It is on that that I would point out the relevance of this statement. In stating that all exemptions from territorial jurisdiction must be derived from the consent of the sovereign of the territory, Chief Justice Marshall is dealing with jurisdiction over the force of a visiting sovereign moving into another sovereign’s state - precisely the circumstances that we have here in Australia. It is, I say with very great respect, precisely the point upon which I have been endeavouring to put an argument, during which I have been exposed to what I could respectfully submit to you was a bewildering display of intemperate behaviour on the part of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. The Chief Justice continued -

In reference to the-

Mr Whitlam:

– I rise to a point of order. I believe that relevance and order will be maintained, Mr. Speaker, if you give a ruling on the point I have taken. The honorable gentleman said that various persons are being exempted from the law of a country by the will of the sovereign of that country. But the persons about whom the honorable gentleman has announced his intention of orating are not such persons. They are not being exempted from the law of Australia in any respect and the particular Australian law which we are trying to enact does not deal with them. And, Sir, the Attorney-General, in his second-reading speech, did not refer to such persons, either. So I submit that on no basis of relevance can the honorable gentleman be allowed to continue. I am sorry to be so intemperate in putting this point - as he would put it.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The, honorable member , for Moreton may continue.

Mr Whitlam:

– Are you going to rule on the point I have taken, Mr, Speaker?

Mr SPEAKER:

– I will hear the honorable member for Moreton.

Mr KILLEN:

– If I may, I will prevail on the honorable gentleman to try-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I ask the honorable member to resume his seat.

Mr KILLEN:

– Sir!

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honorable member will resume his seat. The question is, “That the bill be now read a second time “.

Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Is it the wish of the House to proceed to the third reading stage forthwith?

Honorable Members. - No.

Mr Killen:

– Mr. Speaker, in speaking

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honorable member was instructed to resume his seat.

Mr Killen:

– I submit, Sir, with very great respect, that you are not at liberty to silence me in this Parliament.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honorable member is out of order.

Mr Wentworth:

– Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order-

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member is out of orc er

Mr Wentworth:

– I move -

That the honorable member for Moreton be now heard.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member is out of order.

In committee:

The bill.

Mr WHITLAM:
Werriwa

.- The Opposition supports this bill. It is in accordance with the attitude that the Labour Party took when in opposition in 1939 and when the prototype was launched, and in 1941 when the .Labour Party was in government.

It is also in accord with the attitude that the British Labour Party took when cognate legislation - not quite so refined, I say to the Attorney-General (Sir Garfield Barwick) - was enacted by the United Kingdom Parliament in 1952. More recently, I recall, it is in accord with the attitude of the Labour Party as twice enunciated this year. Last March, when the Labour Party initiated a debate in this country - the first such debate which had taken place on the proposed North West Cape naval communication station - the special conference of the party decided as follows: -

A defence radio communications centre capable of communicating with submarines operated by an ally in Australia would not be inconsistent with Labour policy if - (1) Australian sovereignty were maintained. (2) Australian citizens engaged at the station were subject to Australian law.

Then follow four other conditions which do not concern the subject matter of this bill and which have already been debated during the present session. In July last-

Mr Turnbull:

– I rise to a point of order. I submit that the remarks of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition are completely out of order. When a bill is considered in committee as a whole honorable members have to refer to certain clauses, and one cannot make a second-reading speech.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock:
LYNE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– When a bill is considered as a whole the committee is, in fact, discussing the bill as a whole and clauses are not taken seriatim. Therefore, anything relevant to the bill as a whole can be discussed in committee.

Mr Turnbull:

– My point is that an honrable member may not make a secondreading speech at such a time.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The Deputy Leader of the Opposition may continue.

Mr WHITLAM:

– At its biennial federal conference in Perth last July the Australian Labour Party declared that the safeguards adopted by the special conference - which I have just read - should be adopted as a general principle, that is, first, that Australian sovereignty is maintained, and, secondly, that Australian citizens engaged at the station are -subject to Australian law. I may say that I had some part in framing those statements. The bill, which the committee is now considering, maintains Australian sovereignty. It also ensures that Australian citizens engaged at allied stations are subject to Australian law. In fact, it goes much further.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I point out to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that this bill deals merely with visiting forces and not with Australians under the control of an outside group or organization. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition may refer briefly to particular circumstances relating to something within the scope of the bill but not to Australians employed on this work.

Mr WHITLAM:

– The bill certainly goes further than my party’s requirements. There are a great number of members of visiting forces who, under this bill will, in fact, be subject to Australian law. Australian sovereignty will, in fact, be maintained in all cases except where, I am sure, any sovereign State would exempt visiting forces from its laws but exempt them, as the bill does, only where they are subject to relevant and cognate laws of the sending country. The Opposition supports the bill.

Mr KILLEN:
Moreton

.- The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Whitlam) has referred to the special conference of the Australian Labour Party and I should like to say something about that and its relationship to this measure. The honorable gentleman will recall that at about 2 o’clock in the morning when that special conference was meeting, he and his leader waited outside, in most undignified circumstances, to get their orders as to what their attitude should be.

Mr CHAIRMAN:

– I point out to the honorable member for Moreton that, while the Deputy Leader of the Opposition referred to the special conference of the Australian Labour Party, he referred to it in relation to the sovereignty of Australia, and made his point to the effect that this bill related to visiting forces under the jurisdiction of Australian law. The internal and domestic affairs of that conference are of no concern at the moment to this committee and have nothing to do with the bill.

Mr Wentworth:

– I rise to order! I understood that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Whitlam) was endeavouring to explain to the committee his real motives for supporting the bill. He was endeavouring to explain how his action was in conformity with what had been prescribed by a Labour conference. Since the honorable gentleman has given the reasons why he wanted to vote in a certain way and why his party was voting in a certain way, surely the honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Killen) will be in order in examining the circumstances which led up to the formulation of the reasons which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has put forward as justifying his vote in this committee now on this bill.

The CHAIRMAN:

– There is no substance in the point of order raised by the honorable member for Mackellar. The matters referred to by the honorable member for Mackellar have no relation to the bill before the committee.

Mr KILLEN:

– I was interested further in the remarks of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition concerning the maintenance of the sovereignty of this country. This is a very interesting point and it is very pertinent to the measure now before the committee. In his judgment in Wright v. Cantrell a former Chief Justice of New South Wales stated -

From this it would follow that if a member of a friendly foreign force, stationed in a capital city for the performance of military duties on lines of communication, chose, for his greater comfort during hours of relaxation, to provide himself with a flat and a housekeeper to look after it, if he failed to pay rent, wages or butcher’s bills, or if in the course of an evening stroll he assaulted a citizen whom he conceived to have insulted him, the injured parties would have no redress in the civil courts. The landlord could take no proceedings to eject him from the premises, the housekeeper could not sue for her wages, nor the butcher for his bill, nor would any action lie in tort. Since civilians have no recourse to courts martial, presumably they would have no legal redress whatever; although they might of course endeavour to convince some superior officer of the justice of their claims, in the hope that he might bring his influence to bear on the culprit. We have not been referred to any decided case which lends support to such a proposition.

Many people are concerned that the coming to Australia of visiting armed forces will mean in effect a disturbance in the area where the armed forces are to bc found of the day to day existence - the social activity of the area - in accordance with the proposition spelled out in the citation that 1 have just given to the committee. The measure introduced by the AttorneyGeneral (Sir Garfield Barwick), which the committee is now considering in detail, preserves the right of Australian citizens to see that their rights are maintained. But let me move from what I may describe for the sake of convenience as domestic or social sovereignty - community sovereignty; the narrow, pinched concept of sovereignty - to the broader concept of national sovereignty. I would like to direct the committee’s attention to the fact that there are in Australia to-day people who are dedicated against visiting forces coming to this country in any shape or form. I submit to the committee that those people have an insidious ambition to see this country’s sovereignty completely destroyed. If we were not considering the proposition of maintaining our national sovereignty wc would not be considering for a moment allowing visiting forces to come into this country. It is precisely because our foremost consideration is the maintenance of Australia’s sovereignty that this measure and those which impinge upon it have been brought into existence. It was in relation to these measures that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said, during the course of his committee address, that the Opposition went to the federal conference for instructions.

Having said that, may I quote the remarks of a person who was referring to the activities of those who were opposed to the maintaining of sovereignty in Australia and whose activities were directed towards encouraging all forms of hostility against visiting forces in this country? I refer the committee to the following excerpt from a publication: -

One outstanding lesson of the whole affair to date is a warning to many who have too readily lent their aid to communist-inspired political slogans. Their socialist sympathies are played upon with the argument that anything and everything done in the supposed interests of Soviet Russia is justifiable, even though the defences of Australia may be imperilled. This is a dangerous doctrine, and every trade unionist and citizen, whatever-‘, his political views may be, will repudiate it. ; . . .’ .

Those who permit this false doctrine to capture their minds may proceed from step to step until, to their own dismay, they find themselves engaged in courses operating against the safety of their native land and therefore seditious in character and intent. I assert that any political group or party becomes a menace to the safety of Australia whenever it allows its desire to forward the interests of Russia or any other foreign country to induce it to take steps interfering with the conduct of undertakings which are vital to Australian defence security.

Those are precisely the circumstances with which the bill deals. The bill is aimed at protecting and maintaining this country’s sovereignty. The person whose words I have just read to the committee was none other than the former right honorable member for Barton and former Leader of the Opposition, who was at the time Deputy Prime Minister of Australia. He said that in 1947 when he introduced into this Parliament the Approved Defence Projects Protection Bill.

Here is the contest to-day: Some people are intent on destroying this country - overthrowing its institutions and completely submerging its sovereignty beneath that of a wider sovereignty. This bill aims to improve our defences against that appalling prospect. I repeat what I said earlier: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has placed’ himself in an intolerable position. On the one hand he has given what I thought was a most ungenerous display of approval for this measure. But on the other hand, concerning other measures which vitally affect Australia’s defences, he and his leader waited in a shamefaced sulking way outside a hotel in Canberra. So I say ,to the honorable gentleman that as far as, 1- am concerned, and without any sense of malevolence, I think he is Australia’s most accomplished practising humbug.

Mr Whitlam:

– Mr. Chairman, I believe that that term is unparliamentary, even in the mouth of the honorable member for Moreton, and he should be requested to withdraw it.

Mr KILLEN:

– I will withdraw the term if the honorable gentleman’s sensitivity is upset.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! I suggest that the honorable member for Moreton withdraw the term unreservedly.

Mr KILLEN:

– I withdraw it

Mr Wentworth:

– Withdraw the expression “ most accomplished “.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! I regret that owing to the interjection I did not hear the honorable member for Moreton withdraw the term. Did the honorable member withdraw it?

Mr KILLEN:

– . Yes, I withdrew it. Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

Bill (on motion by Sir Garfield Barwick) - by leave - read a third time.

page 2385

RAW COTTON BOUNTY BILL 1963

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 24th October (vide page 2270), on motion by Mr. Adermann -

Thai the bill be now read a second time.

Mr POLLARD:
Lalor

– The measure now before the House seeks to extend for five years assistance to the Australian cotton-growing industry. As on previous occasions, the Opposition will support the continuation of this assistance. Speaking from memory, I think Australia’s imports of cotton amount to about £5,000,000 a year, and anything that can be done to assist the growing of cotton in those parts of Australia where it can be grown profitably should receive the support of this Parliament. The assistance to be accorded the industry is not to exceed £2,000,000 a year.

The industry in Australia is relatively old but it has never prospered to the extent that it should have prospered. Until very recent years the industry has been confined in the main to Queensland. A variety of governments have attempted from time to time to assist the industry, without any very great measure of success. I remember that the Chifley Government, towards the end of the war or just after the war, introduced legislation for this purpose, and wrote off a substantial sum of money that was owed on a ginnery which had been constructed near Rockhampton. From time to time the present Government has made bounty payments to the industry.

The point that puzzles me is contained in the following section of the Minister’s second-reading speech: -

Under current legislation, the Cotton Bounty Act 1951-1958, growers of cotton in Australia are guaranteed an average price of 14 pence a lb. seed cotton until 31st December, 1963.

That statement conveys to me that, in the event of the market price of cotton not reaching 14d. per lb., the deficiency will be made up by a bounty payment. Later in the second-reading speech the Minister stated that it is proposed to make a bounty payment of 16.125d., not on seed cotton but on raw cotton of a certain grade. Apparently the basis on which the bounty payment is to be made has been changed. Under the earlier legislation, cotton-growers were guaranteed an average price ranging from 9d. to 14d. per lb. on seed cotton, if the market prices did not reach those levels. Am I correct in that assumption?

Mr Adermann:

– That is right.

Mr POLLARD:

– Under the new proposal, the bounty rate will be assessed *mi a different basis. It will be paid at the rate of 16.125d. per lb. on raw colton, according to quality. Is that correct?

Mr Adermann:

– That is right.

Mr POLLARD:

– What I would like to know, and what I think the Parliament and the growers are entitled to know, is: What will be the value of the bounty under the proposed new system, compared with its value under the old system?

Mr Adermann:

– The proposal is for about the equivalent of the present payment. The conversion rate from seed to raw cotton is 35 per cent.

Mr POLLARD:

– In effect, the value of the assistance proposed in this bill is equivalent to the assistance covered by the present act?

Mr Adermann:

– It includes the assistance that we have been given in freights. There is a freight component in this. An average has been taken of the freights that we have paid over recent years, and that has been included in the proposal.

Mr POLLARD:

– Does that mean that this new proposal is a little more generous than the old. arrangement? It appears to mc to be a little less generous.

Mr Adermann:

– It is neither more nor less, lt is about equal.

Mr POLLARD:

– That clarifies something which should be clarified. If you read the bill and were uninformed, as I was until the Minister explained the situation, it appeared that the proposal was to lift the rate of bounty from 14d. per lb. to 16.l25d. per lb. I think that the change in the method of giving assistance is a good one. Under the old system the question of quality did not arise. Under the proposed system, if you grow a better quality cotton, which is all-important, you will receive a higher payment than you would for raw cotton of a lesser quality. Is that correct?

Mr Adermann:

– That is right.

Mr POLLARD:

– lt is gratifying to glean from the Minister’s second-reading speech that this proposal is not unassociated with the fact that cotton growing in Australia has tended to increase. The Bureau of Agricultural Economics, that excellent institution established by the Chifley Labour Government, has conducted an economic survey into the prospects of the industry in Australia, a survey which no doubt included an examination of the industry’s history and its potential for the future. That most important semi-government instrumentality, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, has also conducted a survey into those problems with which it is specially equipped to deal.

The two surveys indicated, first, that the future of cotton growing would be based on large-scale irrigated production in reasonably compact areas with suitable soils and climate. It is imperative for anybody who intends to grow cotton to follow that recommendation. I confess that this is not a subject about which I know a great deal. In the past it has been depressing to read of people attempting to grow cotton in the vicinity of Rockhampton and other places without irrigation, and not receiving the rewards that they were entitled to receive for the labour that they supplied and the capital that they invested. As a result of the research work of the C.S.I. R.O. and the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, it is now quite clear that it is almost imperative to use irrigated land for cotton growing.

It is also imperative that the ginneries, which process the cotton to the stage at which it can be conveyed to the manufacturers, be located in areas adjacent to the areas in which the cotton is grown. The tendency for the growing of cotton in Australia to increase has meant that in the last year or two the industry has been established in the Murray Valley, far removed from the former cotton-growing areas near Rockhampton. The industry has been moving out to the Menindee lakes area, and cotton is being grown in the Ord River area. Unless the ginneries are located alongside the areas in which the cotton is grown, cotton growing is absolutely uneconomic. Recently I read in the press that cotton was being transported by rail from Echuca to Melbourne and then to Rockhampton, to be put through the process which is known as ginning. Another recommendation, made as a result of the work of the C.S.I. R.O. and the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, is that adequate transport facilities and adequate research facilities should bc available.

Mr Adermann:

– May I amplify what I said to you earlier by way of interjection? I said that the assistance to the growers would be neither more nor less under this legislation than under the previous legislation. That would be the position on recent values, but if world prices decreased the assistance could be a little less and if world prices improved the growers would benefit. I would like that to be clear.

Mr POLLARD:

– Yes, that is all right. I do not see that exception can be taken to anything in the bill. I note that one requirement is that ginneries be registered, and another provision is that officers of the Department of Primary Industry will have access to the ginneries in order to check books, accounts and so forth. 1 hope that, as a result of previous measures and previous assistance rendered to this industry, the assistance provided in this bill will have the desired effect of increasing Australia’s production of cotton until eventually it is equivalent to the requirements of Australian secondary industries.

I have not had time to give this measure the study that I would have liked to give it. That is unfortunate. It is not my fault; it is the fault of this Government. One of the remarkable features of recent weeks has been that the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Menzies) has gone into a huddle or retired to a secluded spot and determined to have an election; and now at the last minute we have a rush of bills and nobody has sufficient time to give to them the consideration that should be given to them.

I support this measure. My friend and colleague, the honorable member for St. George (Mr. Clay), who has studied this subject very thoroughly, who knows a good deal about it and who has an extensive knowledge of the processing of cotton in Australia, will be able to make some very valuable remarks on the measure. It is noteworthy that over a long period of years Australian governments of every political complexion have found it necessary to assist, generally by way of bounty, the establishment of primary industries. It is also notworthy that, although initially the bounty payments have proved fairly expensive to the taxpayers, ultimately they have become unnecessary. In most cases, once the industry has passed through its teething stages, it has become an important exporter of raw materials to overseas markets.

Mr TURNBULL:
Mallee

.- It is pleasing to hear the honorable member for Lalor (Mr. Pollard) supporting this bill which I believe will assist the cotton-growing industry. The main point raised by the honorable member was explained fairly well by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr. Adermann) in his second-reading speech. The Minister said -

Finally, as the calculation of the basic rate of bounty automatically implies, an average freight and ginning cost component is included in the bounty payment and, therefore, individual freight and ginning costs will be met by each grower.

I take it that that means that individual freight and ginning costs will be paid by each grower, instead of being paid by the Government on behalf of the grower. The Minister continued -

This will have two desirable effects; namely, to encourage the erection of ginneries in or about areas of production and encourage the utmost efficiency in the operation of the ginneries themselves.

I was pleased to hear the honorable member for Lalor mention that the cotton-growing industry was being established along the Murray River. In the Murray valley, and in part of New South Wales adjacent to the Murray River but not exactly in the Murray valley, there is much land suitable for cotton growing. But, as the honorable member said, the land must have adequate water. More water is becoming available in that area through the planning of the Government and the building of water storages. The Government should do as much as possible to speed up the establishment of the cotton-growing industry.

Any irrigation scheme is only as good as the amount of water that is available in a drought year. We may have an irrigation scheme, but if the flow of water fades away in a drought vear our crops will die. People in authority have said that if the flow of the Murray River falls in a drought year to 20 per cent, of the normal flow, the flow will be built up to normal by water from Lake Eucumbene and the water will be maintained at a level at which irrigators can use it satisfactorily. The building of the great Chowilla dam will assist this area, too. The water from the Menindee lakes, which will be made available under a bill that has been introduced in this House, will also be of great advantage. The bill now before the House is a pleasing one. The Country Party supports it. I am glad that the Labour Party supports it, too. Therefore, we can say that the whole House is in agreement.

Mr CLAY:
St. George

.- I take pleasure in telling the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr. Adermann) that in this bill he has produced something which merits the unanimous approval of the Opposition. The fibre to which the bill refers - cotton - is the most used of all the textile fibres used in the world. In fact, its usage represents 70 per cent, of the world’s total usage of textile fibres. I do not maintain for a moment that the importance of cotton to Australia can be compared with the importance of wool to Australia; but it is a very necessary fibre to Australia.

The bill will extend the assistance provided by way of bounty to cotton-growers for a further five years. It makes some important changes. The cotton-growing industry is a very old one in terms of Australian industries. It had its origin at the time of the American Civil War, when American cotton was unprocurable. It was thought at the time that it would be opportune to grow cotton in Australia, and that the industry would flourish. Indeed, it did flourish for a few years, but only until production was resumed in the United States. Immediately that happened the industry in Australia languished and it has been in a depressed state almost ever since.

As the honorable member for Lalor (Mr. Pollard) has said, Queensland has been the principal cotton-producing State until recently. But times have changed, new methods have been adopted, and it would seem that the industry is to enter a new phase, and upon a much better foundation. Certain changes will be made as a result of this bill. The bounty will be paid on raw cotton instead of on seed cotton, as has been the case in the past. I think this is a most desirable change. Certainly the rate of bounty may appear to have increased, but this may not necessarily be so, or the increase may not be as great as it may appear at first glance. The rate has been increased from 14d. per lb. to 16.125d. per lb., but the latter rate is on raw cotton, after all the extraneous material has been removed from the seed cotton. I think this alteration makes very good sense. It is a wonder that this practice was not adopted in the first place, but better late than never, and I am pleased to see the change made even now.

There will be one other change to which I should refer. There will be a base rate of 16. 125d. per lb. for the grade known as “ middling one-inch white “ raw cotton. The one-inch refers to the length of the staple. I understand that the Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Henty) will be empowered to determine a rate for other grades above the grade known as “ strict good ordinary “. There are about half a dozen grades altogether, by the way. I believe that this will provide an incentive to growers to produce a better quality cotton than they have done in the past.

I realize that difficulties face growers trying to grow cotton on land that is not irrigated. They have to rely upon a rainfall which, although adequate in terms of total number of inches a year, very rarely comes at the right time of the year. As a consequence, crops may be seriously and adversely affected, and the best results cannot be obtained. I understand that it is intended that cotton-growing in the future shall be concentrated in irrigated areas, where farmers will be independent of natural rainfall and can feel sure that after the cotton is planted ample supplies of water can be obtained at the right time, so that they can produce a reliable and consistent cotton crop.

It is important to note that each year we import about 50,000,000 lb. of raw cotton, and we require about 60,000,000 lb. to satisfy our internal needs. At the moment we are growing a little more than one-twentieth of the quantity that we require in Australia. This situation should bc greatly improved as a result of the assistance given by this bill. The old bounty rate of 14d. per lb. for seed cotton was found to stimulate the production of lowgrade cotton. There was no incentive to d better. Again I suggest that the situation will be improved as a result of this bill.

It is timely to remember, however, that at all times the growers of cotton in Australia have had an assurance that, by a process of indirect compulsion, the Australian mills would buy their product, and that the price paid would be that which was being paid at the time for similar grades at the weekly sales at Liverpool, England. Never at any time, for quite a long time, have Australian growers been in any doubt as to whether their cotton would bc purchased. The Australian mills have honoured their undertaking. They have done so because if, having taken up all the available Australian cotton, they wished to purchase cotton from abroad, they knew they would be allowed to purchase such cotton duty free. However, they could never be sure of the quality or quantity of the Australian crop, and I must say that much time has been lost in our mills in setting up machines and testing a large number of mixes in order to obtain an end product of constant quality. It is very important in the textile industry that the yarn produced, whether of wool or cotton or anything else, should be of consistent quality, and we have never been sure of the quality or quantity of Australian cotton. This has imposed a very severe strain upon our mills in their efforts to produce an end pi .. ‘ :t of constant and consistent quality.

If this bill achieves the results that we think it deserves to achieve; cotton growing

In Australia will greatly increase, and the amount of cotton in each grade will increase correspondingly. As this comes about, the difficulties of Australian spinners should diminish. We believe that we will have greater unformity of grade and staple length by expanding the production of cotton in our irrigated areas, and again, when this happens, the difficulties of our spinners in the mills will diminish.

I think I should make some reference to the Ord River project, because the Bureau of Agricultural Economics refers in its report to the possibilities of planting as much as 20,000 acres of cotton in the Ord River district. It speaks of the possibility of a yield of 2,000 lb. of raw cotton to each acre. I understand, from a conversation I had last night with my friend the honorable member for Wakefield (Mr. Kelly), that in the vicinity of the Ord River there is already growing a species of wild cotton, subject to a number of pests and bacterial infestations, and it is believed - it is also my belief - that it would be wise for anybody contemplating spending any large amount of money in growing cotton in the Ord River district to consider seriously the risks involved. They will face not only great transport difficulties in getting their cotton to a market but they may also face other difficulties far greater than they imagine. I have in mind the failure of the ricegrowing experiment in the Northern Territory, which resulted from insufficient consideration of the difficulties that might crop up. I would hate to think that the cotton growing industry in Australia would run into the same kind of troubles in the Ord River district. That is why I suggest that very serious consideration be given to all possibilities by anyone contemplating the investment of money in cotton-growing in the Ord River district.

I wish to refer to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, which has been of great assistance to almost every primary industry in Australia. It has provided great help for the cotton industry, on the manufacturing side and on the growing side. I hope that the growers receiving the benefit of this bounty will, in turn, co-operate with and help the C.S.T.R.O. If they do so, better and better varieties of cotton may be evolved, suited to the varying, climatic conditions .of this country.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, Mr. Speaker, this bill merits the approval of the Opposition, and we have no hesitation whatsoever in joining with the Minister in commending it to the House.

Mr HANSEN:
Wide Bay

.- As a member of the Australian Labour Party, I would like to support this measure, which provides for the payment of a bounty to an industry which has suffered many ups and downs. Honorable members have mentioned that the cotton industry started in Australia at the time of the American Civil War. Through difficulies in respect of labour and costs, it languished. During the last war many farmers in the Wide Bay area and further south planted cotton as a supplementary crop. At the end of the war, cotton planting began to diminish and now cotton is grown mainly around the Upper Burne t and in the Dawson Valley area, in the electorate of the Postmaster-General (Mr. Davidson).

As has been said, assistance can be ,’iven to the industry by irrigation. Lack of irrigation has made the future of the industry very hazy. Mr. Frank McCauley, chairman of the Cotton Marketing Board, has commented on the lack of provision of irrigation in the cotton-growing areas in the Dawson Valley and Upper Burnett areas. Irrigation has been provided in the northern areas of New South Wales - around Wee Waa - and the industry there is starting to flourish. Experienced growers from the United States of America have taken up large tracts of land and are producing cotton. Ginneries are operating and apparently more are to be provided. The assistance which the bounty will give will be appreciated by the industry, but I feel that far greater assistance could be given by the provision of irrigation. By this means the industry could be helped to provide far more cotton for Australia’s needs.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

Motion (by Mr. Adermann) proposed - That the bill be now read a third time.

Mr POLLARD:
Lalor

.- It may bc that I am a little dense, but I would like the Minister to confirm that the bounty will be paid on every 1 -lb. of cotton produced. I understand that the bounty payments will vary according to quality, but the bounty is not calculated to raise the net total return to a certain figure, as I understand it. Is this correct?

Mr ADERMANN:
Minister for Primary Industry · Fisher · CP

[4.39J. - in reply - J certainly confirm that the bounty to be paid is 16.1 25d. on every lb. of grade middling one inch white raw cotton.

Mr Pollard:

– That is in addition to the market price the grower receives?

Mr ADERMANN:

– It is in addition. Taking into consideration the normal realizations on the Australian market, and bearing in mind that we make an allowance for freight, based on the average freight payments we have made in earlier years, it seems that we need to pay a bounty of 1 6.1 25d. to get the equivalent of this year’s realization on seed cotton. The growers’ returns may vary as prices on the world markets vary, but the proposal now is for a bounty of 16.125d. on each t-lb. of grade middling one inch white raw cotton. A grower of better quality cotton will receive a higher bounty than 16.125d. per lb. A grower whose cotton is of lesser quality will receive slightly less. The basic calculation of the bounty is on middling one inch white raw cotton.

Mr Pollard:

– Do you say that the bounty can vary as world prices vary?

Mr ADERMANN:

– The bounty will not vary. The realizations to the growers might vary.

Mr Pollard:

– I understand.

Mr ADERMANN:

– I hope it is now clear. An allowance for freight has been made in fixing the bounty at 16.125d. per lb., and each grower must pay his own freight charges. Previously we paid a guaranteed price up to 14d. per lb., plus freight. Now freight has been taken into consideration in calculating the bounty.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 2390

OVERSEAS TELECOMMUNICATIONS BILL 1963

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 28th October (vide page 2313), on motion by Mr. Davidson -

That the bill be now read a second lime.

Mr BEAZLEY:
Fremantle

.- The Opposition supports this measure. From our analysis it seems to us to be purely a machinery measure which makes three essential changes, all of which we agree are necessary. The first change is that it empowers the Government to set up radio and cable facilities in Nauru. Secondly, it enables the Government to set up similar facilities abroad with the agreement of any government of another country. In the fourth schedule, it modernizes the list of member states of the Commonwealth of Nations which are parties to the agreement. We do not feel that there is any need to delay the passage of the measure.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

Bill (on motion by Mr. Davidson) read a third time.

page 2390

SUPERANNUATION BILL 1963

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 24th October (vide page 2256), on motion by Mr. Harold Holt-

That the bill be now read a second time.

Mr. SPEAKER (Hon. Sir John McLeay) Is it the wish of the House that the suggestion of the Treasurer be agreed to? There being no objection, that course will be followed.

Mr CREAN:
Melbourne Ports

.- I wish to concentrate mainly on the Superannuation Bill 1963, although passing reference may be made in the debate on that measure to the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Bill 1963. Had there been more time and had other issues not been more significant, I would have devoted more time to the second measure.

One or two matters relating to the Superannuation Bill are worthy of comment. This measure is the second of its kind. The Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt), in his secondreading speech, stated -

In 1961 the Government decided to increase the Consolidated Revenue component of each earlier pension to what it would have been had the pension been determined under the scale of units contained in (he Superannuation Act 1954 applied to salaries in force prior to the marginal increases in salaries in 1954.

As 1 understood thai, its purport was that the retirement pensions of certain public servants who had retired prior to 1954, when marginal adjustments in salaries were made, had not purchasing power consonant wilh the status that those public servants had in the hierarchy of government and, therefore, the Government considered that it was just thai some kind of adjustment be made. The amending measure of 1961 made those adjustments. However, it is still felt that the adjustments did not go far enough, and the Government says - . . nil hough the earlier adjustments had relieved the hardship of those who had retired many years ago, it still left them to meet to-day’s living costs on a pension related to the conditions oi 1954.

It is now proposed that a further adjustment be made to relate retirement pensions to salaries in force in .1959. 1 suppose that the reasons for this kind of thing are twofold. First, perhaps, margins of salaries in the upper part of the Public Service have been higher than in the lower part. Secondly, from 1951 to 196.1, inflation raged to such an extent throughout Australia as to halve the value of money. Intense inflation certainly wreaks havoc in fields such as superannuation, where contributions are determined on an actuarial basis and the sum that finally is paid in superannuation has no relation to contemporary living costs. The benefits are related only to the contributions actually made and the yield in current circumstances on the investment of those sums together with the sums added by the Government as its component of the contributions.

We in the Australian Labour Party believe that the Government of this country in the next year or two, whatever may be its political colour, will have to consider seriously this matter of superannuation, because many of the concepts that may have been valid when superanuation schemes were begun no longer hold. The general level of social service pensions has risen, and there is not quite the same purpose in Commonwealth superannuation as there was initially. The second feature is that because of the impact of inflation more and more of the benefit that is paid to the public servant does not come from his own contribution. It comes from the Government, which makes good the deficiency. The Treasurer pointed out that the Commonwealth now provides five-sevenths of the pension. Only two-sevenths comes from the contributions made by the individual contributors.

Another feature of superannuation that is worthy of note is the investment policy adopted in relation to superannuation funds. One of the ironies about government superannuation funds - this applies to some degree also to our own Parliamentary Retiring Allowances Fund - is that these funds find it much better to invest, not in the Commonwealth’s own securities, but in what are caller’ semi-government securities, the yield of which is one-half of 1 per cent, greater. However, some people who have to take into account the impact of income tax find it more prudent to invest in Commonwealth securities because of the rebate that is given for tax purposes. Superannuation funds, not being subject to income tax, have no need to consider the rebate. They arc concerned more with the’ yield, and the one-half of 1 per cent, more that they can get on investments in semi-government securities is of some significance to them. lt has been suggested that the trustees of the Commonwealth Superannuation Fund should be permitted to invest in other than government and semi-government securities - that they should be permitted to invest in what are called the equities and debentures of private corporations. Certainly, safeguards are being provided. I think it is suggested that such an investment be made only after a second opinion has substantiated the soundness of it. I believe that, in view of what happened to Reid Murray Holdings Limited, in which, I understand, one State superannuation fund had invested, this requirement would probably be prudent. Again, that is a matter for contemplation in the future with respect to these funds.

In many ways, in the final analysis, about the only thing that is now of much economic significance to superannuation funds is what happens to these large amounts of savings in terms of investment. Even moderate inflation - let us say, at the rate of 2 per cent, per annum. - will wreak havoc with actuarial calculations over a period of 30 or 40 years during which a person may contribute to a superannuation fund. Tha £1 that he contributed when he started may have a very much different purchasing power 40 years later. I do not know whether, in the final analysis, the trustees of superannuation funds can do much about this kind of problem, but, the more one investigates the anatomy of superannuation funds or national insurance funds such as exist in some parts of the world, the more one comes up against this proposition that it is virtually impossible to calculate satisfactorily what one’s drawings out of a superannuation fund 10, 20 or 30 years ahead will be worth. You cannot relate the subsequent purchasing power to the value that the actuary may have put on the fund when the initial contribution was determined.

Those are the kinds of things that I think must be considered in the future. The bill now before us will do justice to some unfortunate people in the community. At present, there are about 19,000 people who are receiving benefits from the Superannuation Fund by way of pension and, I think, more than 100,000 contributors who look to draw benefits from it at some time. Some of the 19,000 who are at present receiving retirement pensions received adjustments on previous occasions and some will benefit from adjustments to be made under the terms of this bill. However, I believe that there will still be some who feel that even this measure does not provide for them or that, even though it perhaps makes some provision for them, it does not do enough. As I said earlier, it was my colleague, the honorable member for Parkes (Mr. Haylen) who moved the adjournment of the debate on the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Bill. Although the same arguments apply to some extent in that case, the bill deals with another fund that has its own problems, and I shall leave it to him to discuss that measure.

We offer no hindrance to the passage of this bill, but we do suggest that matters such as superannuation, the means test and so on, which present very difficult problems in this modern community, should be looked at systematically in the next year or so irrespective of who happens to have the responsibility of adjudicating upon them and introducing legislation with respect to them.

Mr COSTA:
Banks

.- The first Superannuation Bill was introduced into this Parliament on 9th September, 1922. When outlining the scheme, the. then AttorneyGeneral, Mr. Groom, said -

The object of the scheme submitted is to provide payments for those who have given a life long service to the State, so that when they reach the age limit for retirement they will not find themselves in a position of pecuniary embarrassment. Moreover, should they, during their term of service, become permanently Incapacitated, they will not be altogether without means of support, neither will their widows or dependants, should death overtake the bread winners, be penniless.

I think the point we should be considering is whether the original intention of the scheme is being implemented under present conditions. I do not know whether the scheme fully meets present-day needs. I do know that many of the benefits provided under the scheme have been destroyed by inflation, for which this Government is almost entirely responsible, although, of course, certain other economic factors do enter into the problem.

This scheme has proved to be actuarily sound right from, its inception. In his last quinquennial report, issued in 1959, Mr. Caffin, the Commonwealth Actuary, spoke favorably of all aspects of the scheme. The next quinquennial report will not be published until 1964, but I am confident that when it is before us it will disclose that the fund is in even more sound position than it is to-day. The Auditor-General has stated in his annual report that this is a sound scheme. When 1 last discussed it, the balance standing to the credit of the fund was £56,000,000. According to the Auditor-General’s report, it now stands at £102,000,000, which is irrefutable evidence of the soundness of the scheme. In addition, the number of contributors to the scheme has increased considerably. For instance, whereas in 1 954 the number of contributors was 78,000, by 30th June, 1958, it had increased to 91,914. By 30lh June, 1962, it had increased to 106*567. The figures published in the last quinquennial report, in the Auditor-General’s last annual report and in the last report of the Superannuation Board ail indicate that this fund is in a very sound position and there is every indication that it will continue to progress.

The amendments proposed in the bill seek to increase pensions to all superannuated officers who retired before December, 1959, and who did not participate in the marginal increases granted at that time, lt will be remembered that payments are based on a notional salary, and it is estimated that the cost of the proposed increases to the Consolidated Revenue Fund will be £1,080,000 a year. I note from the annual report that at the present time there are 20,000 pensioners participating in the scheme. If we divide that number into the estimated cost, the proposed increase will average £54 a year, or approximately £1 a week. The widows of deceased officers and pensioners are also to share in this increased benefit. Their share will be five-eighths of the amount their husbands would have received had they been alive. These payments will all be based on the notional salary of the particular participant. The average pension now being paid is £16 a week. The widow who draws five-eighths of what her deceased husband had been receiving would be getting an average of £10 a week. That is not a great deal of money in terms of present values, when we consider the length of time for which contributions have been made to the scheme by her husband. In fact, she does not receive much more than the civilian widow with children, who receives £9 odd, oi mi :h more than other widows who r: c: ve pensions for which no contributions have been made to any scheme on their behalf. I am not saying that these other widows get too much.

Mr Peters:

– They do not get enough.

Ms COSTA:
BANKS, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I agree with the honorable member for Scullin, who is always fighting on the side of those who are in need of assistance, lt is not enough.

The Public Service unions, the contributors themselves and the retired superannuation officers have frequently suggested that the benefits under the act should be increased. They all argue that the value of the unit should be increased by 2s. 6d.t from 1 7s. 6d. to 20s. I think all honorable members know that as long ago as 1957 an agreement to that effect was reached between the Public Service Board and the Joint Council of Public Service Unions, but thi Government has never implemented the agreement. Since the Government has adopted the present method of adjusting the pension on the basis of a notional salary no one has completely understood the scheme.

As the Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt) has said, this is a very technical bill and we have not had time to study it.

There could be a doubt as to whether the best way of improving the pension of superannuated persons is to arrive at a notional salary or to increase the value of the unit by 2s. 6d., raising it from 17s. 6d. to £1. I have calculated that there would be about 20,000 retired officers receiving superannuation. An increase all round of 2s. 6d. in the value of the units they hold would cost about £3,000,000. This would give every one a benefit and would, in addition, encourage those who are at present contributing to the fund. Only recently, the New South Wales Government increased the value of the superannuation unit in that State from 17s. 6d. to £1, and this has also been done in Victoria and South Australia. The value of the unit in some private schemes has been increased. I think we should be certain that the method adopted in the bill is the best way of giving the greatest benefit to superannuated persons. Some thought should be given to increasing the value of the unit. The unit has lost a lot of value. The original unit was worth 10s. and it is now worth 17s. 6d. That is an increase of 75 per cent., but the basic wage, since the time that the unit was 10s., has increased by about 360 per cent. Inflation has almost destroyed the scheme.

The average number of units for which members contribute is 17.90 or roughly eighteen units. This gives a pension of £15 10s. a week. Taking into consideration the Government’s contribution to superannuation payments, the average retired public servant under this scheme saves the Government about £8 10s. a week in social services. If he did not contribute to anything at all, he would receive £10 10s. a week for himself and his wife, but because he does contribute to this scheme, he receives £15 10s. a week.

Mr Cope:

– That is a good point.

Mr COSTA:

– At least it is a point worth arguing. In effect, on the basis I have given, the Government saves almost £9,000,000 because of the operation of this scheme. The Government should keep this point in mind when deciding upon improvements in the payments to members of the scheme, and it should be more generous. Other public moneys are saved, too. Those who receive a pension from a superannuation fund deprive themselves, in many States, of concessions in the payment of fares on government transport. In some States, pensioners are relieved of the burden of municipal rates, but superannuated persons are required to pay rates. In addition, they pay for hospital and medical attention, just as others do. We discussed this matter when dealing with the National Health Bill. Single age or invalid pensioners with an income of £2 a week or more, or married pensioner couples with an income of £4 a week or more, are not included in the pensioner medical scheme. I believe that I should press the point that people who contribute to a retirement fund deprive themselves of many benefits that are received by pensioners. Commonwealth public servants not only contribute to the superannuation fund from which they receive a pension but they also pay the same rate of income tax as other individuals do. In effect, they pay twice. They pay their contributions to the fund and they pay Income tax.

I notice that an amendment to the scheme will probably cost public servants a little more money. The method of determining the number of units that a Commonwealth public servant must take has been altered. Previously, a contributor was required to take an additional unit for every additional £65 of salary until his salary reached £1,950, after which the steps become £130. Officers above a certain salary level will be required to increase the number of units for which they contribute, and this will increase the cost to them. For instance, an officer in receipt of a salary of £2,470 previously contributed for 33 units and now will be required to contribute for 37 units. An officer in receipt of a salary of £2,990 previously contributed for 37 units and now will be required to contribute for 45 units. Such officers will have to pay an additional amount to the fund.

Another alteration to the scheme provides that when an officer is within eight years of retirement and is paying 10 per cent, of his salary in contributions, he may, if he wishes, defer payment of further contributions. The number of reserve units has been increased. I am entirely in favour of this, because I believe that every young man in the Commonwealth Public Service who has the ambition to progress by promotion should contribute to reserve units whilst he is young and his contributions are lower. This is also a good means of saving money. The reserve units account has a balance of £1,200,000, and those who contribute for reserve units are paid interest at the rate of £3 15s. per cent, on their contribution. The board invests these contributions and on an average receives £5 4s. 4d. per cent, on the investment. In this way, extra money is earned for the fund.

The Superannuation Board is being given wider power to invest funds. The board will now be able to increase its investments in mortgages and debentures. The board invests its funds wisely. I have a list of the investments it has made. Its principal investment is in Commonwealth Government securities, in which it has invested £25,000,000, and in loans to electricity authorities, in which it has invested £22,000,000. The board has invested £91,000,000 in gilt edged securities. It will now have an opportunity to increase its investments. However, contributors and the public service unions have advocated th:it the board should make funds available to the officers in the scheme who wish to borrow for the purpose of building a home. The fund is earning £5 4s. 4d. per cent, on its investments and I know that many public servants would like to be able to borrow money as cheaply as this. In my view, this is not a low rdte of interest, but it is lower than the rates charged by other lenders. If public servants have to borrow on second mortgage, they may be asked to pay a flat rate of interest of 10 per cent. I think public servants should bc able to borrow from their own funds in order to get this cheaper money. I do not think any investment is more gilt-edged than a loan to a Commonwealth public servant who is in a permanent job. The Superannuation Board should look into this question, because the unions have been asking for this for a long time. This is another way of providing money to enable officers to build their own homes, which is a very important thing.

Before concluding I should like to direct ;thc attention of the House to the last balance-sheet of the superannuation fund, in order to indicate how healthy the fund is. looking at the pensions paid from the fund to retired officers I notice, In the last report of the Auditor-General, that the total is £9,900,000. To counterbalance that, contributions from officers amounted to £9,000,000-odd and interest on investments to £5,000,000. So the outgoings are being more than matched by contributions. Payments by employees are not the only money which comes into the fund because the Government as the employer, has to make its contribution to the fund. Paying a share into a superannuation fund is not peculiar to the Government, because private industry does the same thing.

Another interesting thing is that the interest on investments now amounts to £4,906,000 per annum. This figure continues to increase year after year. All in all, the amount of money coming into the fund is £22,343,000 a year and the total expenditure is £1 1,000,000. There is nearly twice as much money coming in than there is going out. That is a very sound position fc/ the fund to be in and that is why I say the Government could easily be more generous in fixing the pension rate.

This fund keeps on progressing. At 30th June, 1963 the balance in hand was almost £103,000,000.

Mr Curtin:

– How much does that earn in a year?

Mr COSTA:

– As I have said, it is earning £5,000,000 a year, according to the Auditor-General’s latest report and I venture to say that when we see the AuditorGeneral’s next report the figure will be £5,500,000. I point to this fact in order to indicate that the fund is in a very healthy state and that the Government could easily be more generous in fixing the pension rate. Seeing that there is a conflict of opinion between the contributors and the unions, and the Superannuation Board on the question of what it does, I think the scheme should be examined by a parliamentary committee in order to find out what the board is doing with the funds, and whether the position could be improved by increasing the value of the unit. After an inquiry we should be in a position to decide the best way to give the benefit.

I believe that a widow’s share of fiveeighths of an officer’s “superannuation could be improved, just as it has been improved by private industry and by State governments in similar schemes. We want to know whether what is being done to-day represents what was in the minds of the architects of the original scheme. It gives me great pleasure to support the bill, because of the improvements which are included in it.

Mr WILSON:
Sturt

.- I wholeheartedly support the bill, as it increases pensions to superannuated officers who really need the increase. Superannuation encourages saving and provides a means whereby people can provide for their md age, and retirement. Being contributory, superannuation is free of the means test and we do not have arising those embarrassing matters which operate in relation to a non-contributory scheme. The only occasion on which the means test indirectly comes into superannuation is when an officer applies for a social service pension in addition to superannuation. In that case his superannuation is taken into account as income. I think an investigation should be made into whether it is right and proper that the full amount of a person’s savings, which he is drawing out by means of superannuation, should be taken into account under the social services means test. 1 do not propose to amplify that now as 1 have dealt with the subject before. I do rot think it is appropriate for me to deal with it this afternoon.

Superannuation helps the Government just as much as it helps the contributor. As the honorable member for Banks (Mr. Costa) pointed out, £9,000,000 comes into the Superannuation Fund each year in contributions as well as the £5,000,000 that comes into the fund as the result of interest on the reserve balance. This money which comes in is available to the Government and in the past has been lent to it by the Superannuation Fund. At present there is £103,000,000 in the capital fund of the Commonwealth Officers Superannuation Fund. Almost the whole of this amount has been made available to the Government throw-5 investment in Commonwealth loans.

Schemes of this nature - superannuation and retirement benefit funds - provide available money for the Government because the bulk of it, either by law of by choice, is invested in Commonwealth securities. I notice that, under this bill, the trustees are given discretion to invest portion of the funds in other than Commonwealth securities. That is a very wise amendment so long as a sufficient check is imposed to see that the trustees act wisely Superannuation helps not only the Government or the taxpayers but also the contributors, because they eventually get back not only their own contributions and interest on them but, in addition, the government subsidy. Retirement pensions range from 70 per cent, of the terminal salary for the lower-paid worker down to 50 per cent, for the higher-paid worker, and the government subsidy ranges from 50 per cent, for the lower-paid worker down to 25 per cent, for the higher-paid worker. The bill provides certain adjustments to the Government’s contribution, which the Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt) mentioned in his second-reading speech.

I say without fear of contradiction that every encouragement should be given to superannuation schemes and savings schemes of this nature, because everybody benefits from them. The taxpayer benefits because there is a readily available volume of accumulated savings which may be lent to the Government for developmental purposes. The taxpayer also benefits because contributors who join these funds and thereby provide for their old, age do not upon retire-, ment seek a social services pension, or at least do not seek the full pension. So the country, the taxpayer and the Government benefit in two ways. Contributors to the fund benefit because when they receive their superannuation they receive not only the money that they have saved but also the contribution provided by the Government.

The £103,000,000 held in reserve by the fund has done a great deal towards filling Commonwealth loans from time to time. On other occasions 1 have said that I thick an examination should be made of the superannuation scheme to see whether it is based on the right method I have suggested that in view of the fact that the fund has reserves amounting to £103,000,000 consideration should be given to basing the scheme on what is known as the assessment method rather than the insurance method. The principle underlying the assessment method is that sufficient contributions are received in each year of operation to meet anticipated payments in each year of operation, whereas under the insurance method you fix your contributions on the basis that the time may arrive when the fund will go into liquidation and there will still be unfulfilled commitments to meet. That latter situation could not occur with the Commonwealth Superannuation Fund. Whether we like it or not, governments go on for ever and civil servants will go on for ever. Therefore I suggest there is no need to continue to build up the reserves of the fund by about £1 1,000,000 a year. The fund will continue to increase by that amount so long as the present method of calculating contributions and benefits is used.

I do not propose to press this matter further at this stage but I ask the Treasurer at the appropriate time to look into this fund and similar funds to see whether it would not be wise to change over from the insurance method to the assessment method, particularly in view of the fact that such enormous reserves are held by the fund.

I congratulate the Treasurer on bringing down this bill, which not only increases the amount of pension paid to the people who need it but also provides greater flexibility in the investment of the fund and greater contributions by the Government in respect of certain classes of civil servants. I feel sure that all honorable members will wholeheartedly support the bill, i

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
Treasurer · Higgins · LP

– in reply - I shall reply very briefly. It will not be necessary for me lo go over some of the ground that I have covered in earlier statements in the House because those statements are recorded in “ Hansard “. The interesting point raised by the honorable member for Sturt (Mr. Wilson) as to the basis of the fund is certainly worthy of appropriate comment. I have no doubt that this matter has been given a good deal of study. Frankly, I see some problems in a scheme where the body of beneficiaries has increased enormously. There could be a heavier load on one generation of contributors or public servants than on another. However, just as the honorable member did not pursue the matter in great detail at this stage, I will merely state that I shall see that some study is given to it and at the appropriate time give to the honorable member a full answer.

The honorable member for Banks (Mr. Costa) raised some matters which would require comment by way of reply, but I refer him to the statement that I made in the House on 14th August, 1962, which is reported in “ Hansard “ of that date, at page 338. I was replying to a question asked by the honorable member for Barton (Mr. Reynolds) and in the course of a fairly detailed reply 1 dealt with the matter of the 20s. unit. 1 do not want to re-state all that I said on that occasion, but in view of the repeated statement by the honorable member for Banks that he was und.:r the impression that some agreement had been reached about increasing the value of the unit from 17s. 6d. to fi, I think I should set the record straight. On 23rd October, 1963, the honorable member asked me a question without notice. He asked, in part -

  1. . will he see that the agreement between the Public Service Board and the Commonwealth Public Service unions to increase the value of the unit from 17s. 6d. to £1, as was promised in 1957, and as the State*: have done already, is put into effect?

I replied casting doubt on the possibility of such a promise having been made, but I pursued the matter with officers of my department, who in turn took it up wi:h the Public Service Board. The board was advised that for the purposes of a further reply to the honorable member it was proposed to advise me to deny ‘that there’’ was any agreement, as we understood the facts, between the Public Service Board and the Commonwealth Public Service unions to increase the value of the unit from 17s. 6d. to £1, and again to explain that the representative of the Public Service Board on the Superannuation Sub-committee of the Joint Council, who was present when this matter was discussed, dissented from the majority decision of the sub-committee to pursue the recommendation for the £1 unit. As I have said, officers of my department sought advice from the Public Service Board and the advice I have received is as follows: -

The Public Service Board has advised thai it cannot enter into any agreement with Association representatives or make any promises relating to matters such as Superannuation which are not within its jurisdiction; that (he Board had no power to make any agreement of the sort attributed to it and did not make any such agreement.

I am sure that the honorable member for Banks, who obviously has been under some misunderstanding on this matter, will accept that statement as an authoritative statement of fact.

In the course of ray statement to the House on 14th August, 1962, to which I have already referred, I gave some details regarding the fund. Frequent references are made in this place to the size of the fund and from them proceeds the comment that benefits could be considerably greater than they are. I think most honorable members are aware that the fund is investigated actuarially every five years. From that investigation a report emerges, which may be studied and adopted. Although the number of beneficiaries receiving superannuation from the fund at present is relatively small in relation to the number of contributors to the fund, the day must come, of course, when the number of contributors will increase very much beyond the present figure. So although the fund has very large reserves - no one would suggest that it is not in a sound and healthy position - it has been actually designed to give the benefits prescribed for the very large number of public servants now embraced in the scheme. I conclude by thanking the House, including the honorable member for Milbourne Ports (Mr. Crean) who was spokesman for the Opposition, for the prompt consider, lion it has given to this legislation, which I am sure has been welcomed by all sections of’the Parliament.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

Bill (on motion by Mr. Harold Holt) read a third time.

page 2398

DEFENCE FORCES RETIREMENT BENEFITS BILL 1963

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 28th October (vide page 2364), on motion by Mr. Harold Holt-

That the bill be now read a second time.

Mr HAYLEN:
Parkes

.- This bill truly is parallel to the Superannuation Bill, which has just passed this House. As the Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt) stated in his second-reading speech, the principles of the defence forces retirement benefits scheme have paralleled those of the Superannuation Act, modified by the special needs of the services, in particular the earlier retiring ages. That is good as far as it goes. The Minister, on the Government side of the House, and I, on the Opposition side of the House, have been in juxtaposition on three separate occasions in regard to this legislation. It is not proving quite as easy to implement as is the Superannuation Act, because it is not so mature. Anomalies continue to arise and changes have to be made to level them out, for the reasons made clear by the Treasurer and the honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Crean).

The Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act, following a report from the committee that inquired into the scheme, has had three or four visits to the table of the House for amendments and surgical operations. We on this side of the House are not quite satisfied with it yet, although we will pass this bill, as we do all measures designed to benefit members of the forces, with our usual alacrity. But even in what are quaintly called the dying hours of the Parliament we must look at the measure to see that justice is done. We are not making any major- changes, in the. legislation, .’but it appears that the more we tinker with it the more we create anomalies. Many anomalies exist. The earlier retiring ages of servicemen, the. new benefits to be given and the heavy increase in contributions in some quarters, to which the Treasurer referred in his second-reading speech, all cause difficulties. When our turn comes to resume the reins of government, which appears to be very soon, we shall have a good look at this legislation again to see whether we can mould it closer to what is desired by both sides of the House.

If I recollect correctly, when certain amendments and alterations were made in 1962 the Minister stated that there would be no more tinkering with the legislation, that it would operate automatically, that adjustments would be made where necessary and that we would have a permanent piece of legislation to cover members of the services. That has not proved to be the case. Anomalies have crept in. The question of half-pay for senior officers, the benefits payable to dependants of soldiers and many other problems have to be considered and rectified. In fairness to the Minister let me say that he has stated that this legislation eventually will have to be looked at actuarily to see where we were going. I think 1964 was the date set down for this review, which would be designed to balance the legislation in such a way that anomalies would not arise. Anomalies are regrettable but usually they can be corrected easily. I think that the officers behind the legislation have tried very hard to do something worth while with it.

The honorable member for Wills (Mr. Bryant) has been deputed to make some short references during his debate - we do not want to delay the passage of the bill - to anomalies in regard to pensions and the question of eligibility. He will keep that brief but I should like to take my remarks a little wider than that and refer to the way in which the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act is administered. The honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Devine), who has not yet made his maiden speech and is fated not to sing his first fine song in this Parliament because it will be dissolved very soon - he will be heard of later - has drawn to my attention, as a member of the Labour Party’s executive, certain facts relating to pensions paid to widows of servicemen. The Minister should be told of them. Without mentioning names I shall refer to the case of a widow who lives in the electorate of the honorable member for East Sydney and later to an officer who does not live in my electorate but whose case I have represented to the Treasurer. Because of the legislation the Treasurer was unable to help me. The anomalies which I shall now mention should be corrected. The honorable member for East Sydney told me about a serviceman who was killed in an accident in April,1955. His wife was seriously injured in the same accident. She was granted a pension by the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Board for twelve months. It was her only means of support. When she recovered from the effects of the accident she was advised to take a position to keep herself going. She took a job at the central ammunition depot at Mangalore, Victoria, and notified the board accordingly. She asked that her pension cheque be forwarded to the address at which she was then living. In 1958 she transferred to Moorebank, New South Wales, and again sent a letter to the board notifying her change of address and requesting that her pension cheques be sent to the Base Ordinance Depot, Military Post Office, Liverpool. In May, 1963, she was transferred to the Command Pay Post, Victoria Barracks, and shortly after that she again notified the board of her change of address. In all cases the board sent her pension cheque without comment to the specified address.

One morning, out of the blue and to her dismay, she received a letter to the effect that her pension had been cancelled, that she would not receive any more cheques and that she had been overpaid £806 19s. When she inquired about this she was told that her pension bad been cancelled because, being a Commonwealth employee, she could not receive two payments from the Commonwealth. She had been employed by the Commonwealth for eight years and for eight years the cheques had been sent without comment. They were used partly to meet her living expenses and, because she was still ill, to meet medical and hospital expenses. It came as a terrific blow to her to know that after eight years she was not entitled to the pension and that she was required to repay £806 19s. There is something wrong on the administrative side. First, she was not informed for eight years that she was not eligible for the pension, and secondly, there should be some flexibility in the act or in the way in which the act is administered so that some mercy can be shown to a widow whose only crime is that her husband has been killed during his Army service and that she, being the vulnerable and remaining partner of the marriage, has been paid, and in good faith has accepted, a pension from the Commonwealth while being an employee of the Commonwealth.

The screaming anomaly in this instance, which must be corrected some time somehow, is that if she worked for a private company she would still be eligible for the pension. Cases of this kind crop up. Surely we must do something about them. This is a particularly bad case, and the honorable member for East Sydney has asked me to bring it to the Minister’s attention with a view to something being done for this widow. I do not wish to delay the House any longer than I can help, because we approve of the bill in essence. However, these anomalies certainly should be discussed.

The other case is a most tragic one and concerns a young member of the forces. He was a brilliant officer at Duntroon, not only in the military field. He gained high passes, but he also was a heavyweight boxer and a sportsman of note. When he was engaged in exercises in Tasmania a premature explosion occurred and he was injured most desperately and savagely. He was a very handsome young fellow. Now he wears a hook on one arm and he has very severe and grievous bodily injuries. One of his eyes was blown out. He is a tragic wreck of a fine young man. He took his accident as a soldier would - as just one of those things, the luck of the draw. He did not moan or groan about it. He accepted his pension and, despite his obvious injuries, including the tragic loss of an eye, he determined to go to work.

This is the anomaly: As he has increased his energies and provided for himself and his family by working in a decent job, hispension has been decreased. He works for Australian Consolidated Industries Limited. The firm has been very good to him. He is a senior clerk. As his status and ability have been noted, his salary has been increased; but as he works to create for himself the freedom that he wants he does himself out of his pension. The Army was unlucky for him. He sustained his very tragic injuries in the Army. Many honorable members on both sides of the House know the man to whom I am referring. He does not live in my electorate, but I am very touched by his circumstances. I would embarrass bini terribly if I mentioned his name. I go no further on the point of identification. I merely say that he was a very fine young soldier in the making and he met with a tragic accident. Having decided that is that, he wants to pull himself up by the boot-strap in civilian life. His story is like the tragic story of the snail, which climbs up three inches at night and falls back three inches in the morning. He is getting no place.

Surely, in regard to the human aspect of all the legislation that comes before this Parliament there must be some way to overcome the rigid application of an act which says that as a person’s income increases his pension must decrease. There is a scale of compensation for injuries. This man has suffered injuries and has received compensation and a pension. But when he tries to do something for himself bis pension is affected. It would be very good for recruiting if it were made known that something had been done about his case because of the courage that he has shown in civilian life. Such matters should be considered. I have mentioned these two cases because they raise human problems affecting the pension scheme. Superannuation, rehabilitation and other similar schemes that we have must be lit with an understanding of the cases outside the ordinary ambit of the relevant act. If we do not have some flexibility, it becomes a rigid payments business, and gets into the sloth into which repatriation has got over the years - not through any fault of the administration or of successive Ministers for Repatriation.

When a fellow is looking to his future and deciding whether to enter the services, he takes a close look at the pay and conditions and he takes a closer look at the pension rates and compensation for injuries. His wife may hear or be told- and soldiers will talk to each other - that the provisions made are good or bad. Cases such as those to which I have referred are bad for recruiting. They are also bad for a proper understanding of this measure which basically is not a bad measure at all and is a big improvement on past measures. Because another honorable member is to speak before the dinner suspension, in conclusion I say that we have no objection to this measure. We will allow it to be pas:ed without amendment and without very much further discussion. I should like the Treasurer to remember the two anomalous cases to which I have referred. The Chair has been kind enough to allow me to refer to them. Although such references may be a little outside the ambit of the bill, they are concerned very much with the humanitarian aspect of it.

Mr STOKES:
Maribyrnong

.- Before addressing myself to the bill before the House, I wish to refer to certain military personnel who, because their retirements were pending, were not included in the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act, but were included in the Superannuation Act in a special schedule. That schedule is referred to in sections 27 and 28 of the Superannuation Act. I refer to that schedule because it covers such personnel or their widows and I want to say how grateful to the Government they will be when they realize the very generous way in which their pensions have been dealt with.

These people, because they were at the beginning of the new scheme, were more affected than any of the people who came into the scheme afterwards but retired prior to 1959. It would not be proper for me to mention any of them by name. The proportionate increases differ according to the pension and salary rates. In the main the increases under the Superannuation Bill which was before this chamber earlier are of the order of 50 per cent. That is a very generous increase under the circumstances. Some of the increases are a little less than 50 per cent, and some are a little more; but the bulk of them represent an increase of 50 per cent., and this within two years, since the increases under the Superannuation Act were passed in 1961. I pay tribute to the Government, the Treasurer (Mr.

Harold Holt) and his officers for the fact that those personnel have been dealt with so well.

Part III. of the bill now before us refers to pension increases. Under the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits (Pension Increases) Bill 1961, the pensions of existing pensioners or retirees were adjusted upwards by the addition of their entitlement to a proportion of the Commonwealth supplement at the 1954 unit level. The maximum unit level was increased to 26 units in 1947 and to 36 units in 1954. Honorable members will see that the maximum benefit of a proportion of the Commonwealth supplement was then twelve additional units. That was applied to people who had retired prior to 1954. There were proportionate adjustments, depending upon whether the retiring member had taken out his full entitlement of units or a proportion thereof, or had made some other election in regard to a lump sum payment. That was the position after the passing of the amending bill in 1961. Speaking in the second-reading debate on that bill, I mentioned several points which I should like to quote now. As reported in “Hansard”, of 19th October, 1961, I said -

The Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt) in his secondreading speech on tin’s bill concluded with a statement to which I attach a great deal of importance. He said -

. it represents the most equitable method of adjustment-

This is the point I wish to emphasize - and should form a basis for any future considerations.

This is proof that the Government docs not propose to stand still. It shows that as and ]when it is financially capable, it will give effect to such increases as constant vigilance and circumstances may direct.

In this connexion, I wish to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the next existing increase phase is that of 14lh December, 1959. Inherent in any adoption of this standard is an increase in the maximum number of units from 36 to 54 - that is, eighteen units - or almost double those covered by the present scheme. I suppose it is quite evident to all honorable members that the total implementation of this basis would cost more than double the present amount and could only be achieved in the long term. However, t believe there is something that could be done in the near future, as an interim measure, to redress an anomaly that has been occasioned by the enforced earlier retirement of many members of the permanent defence forces, following a change in Government policy in 1948.

I thought in 196.1 that it was a long-term measure. This Government has brought in the present bill, which gives effect to the maximum unit level of 54 units, within two years of the 1961 measure. I think the Government is to be warmly commended on having the courage to go ahead and do this, irrespective entirely of the question whether the people who have retired require the increases.

Mr Haylen:

– I see they are putting colonels on half pay.

Mr STOKES:

– The retirees- I know the honorable member for Parkes (Mr. Haylen) does not like the term - under both the measures will now receive the benefit of the proportion of the Commonwealth supplement at the 1959 unit level, which, as I have said, is a maximum of 54 units. These increases will reflect this addition of a further 18 units and will be on a similar basis to the 1961 provision; that is, people who did not take out the maximum number of units in accordance with their salaries will receive a proportion of the increases over the maximum at the time of their retirement, and the rate of five-eighths of the entitlement will apply to widows as it applied before. It is rather unfortunate that this measure, by reason of the reduction in retirement ages to which my honorable friend has referred, has resulted in legislation which has been pretty complicated, which has been amended, as he said, many times, is being amended again, and now represents a measure with a good deal of complexity. This complexity has made it very difficult for a person to work out the formula, and for people to work out exactly what increases they will receive. I have had the benefit of getting from the board some idea of just what will happen when this bill receives the royal assent and the increases are payable. The information is of great interest not only to members of this House but also to all the people who are waiting to know what their share of the cake will be.

Sitting suspended from 5.58 to 8.0 p.m.

Mr STOKES:

– Before the suspension of the sitting I was reminding honorable members of some of the generous actions of this Government in relation to the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act. I said - it is worth repeating - that most of the military personnel who are covered by a special schedule to the Superannuation Act because their retirements were pending at the time of the passing of the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act 1948 will receive increases of approximately SO per cent, of the increased pensions which were granted to them in 1961.

Due to the complexity of the act, it is a little difficult to calculate exactly what pension increases will be granted to people who retired prior to 1959. However, I have obtained from the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Board a table showing the increases. With the concurrence of honorable members, I incorporate the table in “ Hansard “.

The bill provides, first, for restoration of the proportion between the age 60 pensions and the salaries recommended by the Allison committee and adopted in 1959. Secondly, it incorporates a formula covering subsequent pay increases so that the proportion of pension to salary will be automatically adjusted from time to time. Many people will be saved a lot of work by the formula prepared by the Treasury and the Parliamentary Draftsman. Thirdly, the bill states the proportion pensions are to bear to salaries at time of retirement. Most people who retire after contributing at the age 60 rate receive pensions equivalent to 70 per cent, of their base salaries, but senior officers who continue beyond 60 years have their pensions tapered OR sharply. They go down from 70 per cent, of the base, salary to 40.9 per cent, in the case of the most senior officers. Honorable members will agree (hat this is a pretty sharp drop. The bill provides that those who formerly received 40.9 per cent, of their base salary will now receive 50 per cent. Therefore, senior officers will retire on a pension at least equal to 50 per cent, of their base salaries.

In his second-reading speech the Treasurer said that the rates of contribution will be subject to actuarial investigation as at 30th June, 1964. The remarks of the honorable member for Sturt (Mr. Wilson’ about the use of the assessment method are worthy of consideration by the Government in this respect. After all, the principle that the Government has applied in relation to the National Welfare Fund could well bc applied to those government superannuation funds which arc at present based on what is known as the insurance method.

Several other provisions of the bill protect the interests of serving members of the forces. I understand that one provision is similar to a provision in the Superannuation Act, relating to the right of certain personnel, within eight years of retiring, to defer until retirement or defer altogether contributions for a portion or all of increased pension entitlements.

The bill also establishes ari advance contributions account. This is a particularly good feature. Similar provision is made ‘i the Commonwealth Superannuation Fund. Service personnel who see that senior positions are to become vacant may, by prepayments, contribute towards the increased payments which will be applicable up.<n promotion. Quite a few senior officers approaching the end of their service careers have had to borrow, on the security of their homes, large sums of money in order to make the contributions necessary to obtain their maximum pensions on retirement.

A number of similarities exist between the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act and the Superannuation Act. The Superannuation Act has been proved. It has been operating for many years. The Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act was brought in because of the reduction in retirement ages in the services, and the problems associated with that factor. It has been operating only for fifteen years. A number of amendments have been made, some of them within the last eight years. In spile of the amendments, the legislation still has a degree of inadequacy. I appreciate that it is impossible for a government to keep fully abreast of such a complex act unless machinery is created to sift out the wheat from the chaff in relation to the problems of which we hear. The board does an excellent job, but it is restricted to the administration of the act as it stands.

There is no pensioner representation on the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Board as it is constituted. Serving members of the forces are represented, but there is a big disparity between the interests of serving members and former members who arc now pensioners. Serving members have not as much awareness as have retired members of the difficulties of some of their former colleagues in civil life owing to some of the anomalies that occur. ‘ So I suggest that provision for some pensioner representation on the board bc considered.

A great problem occurs from time to time because deterioration of health prevents a retired member from earning money to supplement the original pension. The Government is taking care of that difficulty in this measure. Another problem is the lack of provision for medical treatment of disabilities sustained in service. A man may have thought that he would serve on to 65, but, if his service career is cut short at 47, he will receive no free medical treatment if his health deteriorates after the age of 47 owing to a condition sustained on service, whereas, had he continued to serve after 47 he would have received the normal free medical attention of a serving member up to the age of 65.

One of the real bones of contention was mentioned by the honorable member for Parkes, This is the loss of pension if a retired member is re-employed by the Commonwealth. Many members of. the forces, on retirement, are more fitted in the normal course to employment in a Public Service job of some sort than to entry into the hurly-burly of commerce or anything of that nature. The Public Service is a sort of natural avenue in which they may seek employment, but the prospect of reduction of pension and, in some cases, loss, presents quite a barrier to employment in the Public Service.

I know of two men who were both senior officers, one in the Royal Air Force and one in the Royal Australian Air Force. Both are at present working in a Commonwealth department. One, on retirement from the Royal Air Force in England, received a substantial lump sum for which he had made no contributions. He is receiving full pay in his Commonwealth position and, because he is not contributing to any superannuation fund other than the Commonwealth Superannuation Fund, he is eligible to contribute to that fund and will be entitled to a substantial pension. His opposite number from the Royal Australian Air Force, on the other hand, cannot be a contributor to two pension funds, so he is not eligible to contribute to the Commonwealth Superannuation Fund, and he is losing some £500 a year of service pension because he is working for the Commonwealth. These two men had had the same length of service and had held the same rank in different services. Odd cases like this that crop up point to the need for an overhaul of the principal act.

Again, some other ranks who have served for the prescribed period of twenty years are debarred from pensions under the existing act. There is, too, the inability of widows of pensioners to bring hardship cases before higher authority, in the absence of a review board. The Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Board has not power to hear hardship cases.

These, shortly, are some of the anomalies that arc still present. I again remind the Treasurer of submissions made to him earlier this year that steps be taken immediately to establish a committee of review, on which retired members of the forces would be represented, with terms of reference sufficient to enable it to make a complete overhaul of the current legislation.

Although the Government has gone a certain way in assisting pensioners by increasing pensions, I believe that sufficient anomalies still exist to warrant a full investigation by a committee of review so that the Treasury and the board itself may be assisted in the better administration of the act.

I want to comment particularly on the proposal to increase the powers of the board with respect to the investment of funds. Sec’ ion 16 of the principal act states -

The assets of the Fund shall, so far as practicable, be invested by the Board -

in securities of the Commonwealth;

in loans to local governing bodies in Aus tralia; or

in any other manner for the time being allowed by any Act or State Act for the investment of trust funds in Australia.

That section particularly limited the investing powers of the board. Proposed new section 16 of the principal act, in clause 6 of the bill, will give the board very wide powers, in addition to those that I have already mentioned, to invest in various securities, including loans secured by mortgages and, on certain conditions, in debentures issued in Australia by companies incorporated in Australia and in general will allow the board to extend its portfolio of investments over a much wider field. As the Treasurer remarked in his secondreading speech, this should increase the interest return on the assets of the fund.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is an excellent one in many respects. It represents a good step forward. 1 have endeavoured to show that the increases proposed are generous, and I believe that all concerned will be very happy about them. I have spoken to the Treasurer about the date of payment of the increased rates. The increases provided for in this bill, like those provided for in the Superannuation Bill 1963, will be paid as from the first pay-day after the royal assent is given. The Treasurer assures me that every effort is being made to see that this will be fairly soon, and that the first pension cheque at the new rates should be in the hands of those concerned no later than 21st November. This is a good gesture, because it will cost the Government a little more money.

I can do nothing else but say, “Thank you”, to the Government for what it is doing, particularly for those former members of the forces who retired prior to 1959. I. hope that what is being done will go a long way towards satisfying retired members of the forces and bringing about much better administration of the act.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

.- Mr. Speaker, the Government is treating pretty poorly both the Parliament and the 42,000 contributors to the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Fund by bringing before the Parliament at this late stage a most complicated bill affecting the livelihood and future employment, as well as the security in retirement, of serving and retired servicemen throughout Australia. The Government has not even paid us the respect of presenting us with a memorandum to explain in detail this long and complicated bill of 63 clauses, covering 43 pages. Scant respect has been shown for the Parliament or the contributors to the fund. I register my emphatic protest at the manner in which this measure has been brought before us. It is symbolic of this Government’s whole approach to anything associated with ordinary human sensitivity.

This is the sort of thing that occurred last time the act was amended. We were given no opportunity adequately to discuss the amending measure. I recall that wc were given the bill, I think one evening; and told that we had to put it through the following day and that if we delayed its passage the cheques based on the increased rates would not be in the hands of the pensioners of the fund soon enough, and so on. I hope that every serviceman and retired serviceman in Australia is conscious of the way in which their affairs are being handled by this Government.

Mr Harold Holt:

– They are conscious of the fact that this bill will double some pensions, and that is what counts for them.

Mr BRYANT:

– The Treasurer says that some pensions will be doubled, but has he ironed out all the anomalies in the act? Did he listen to what the honorable member for Maribyrnong - (Mr. Stokes) said about particular-

Mr Buchanan:

– Yes.

Mr BRYANT:

– Well, he will not (have time to make use of any of the facts that he might have learnt; but he could have at least paid us the courtesy of giving a full and detailed explanation of what this bill means to every category of serviceman involved in it. I lodge my protest on behalf of myself and my colleagues, the members of this Parliament, as well as the members of the services who might try to fight their way through the provisions of this bill. This is a disgraceful way to treat a major piece of social legislation.

After all, what is the reason for this bill? It represents nothing more than a part of the Government’s constant flurried attempt to catch up with its own self-inflicted inflationary wounds Whether this bill will do that, I cannot tell. Nor can I tell whether it will iron out certain anomalies of which I have three or four examples here on my desk. If it will do so, I shall be pleased if the Treasurer will tell me so. That is my first complaint.

My second complaint is about the miserly way in which the whole programme is approached by this Government and by its financial advisers in this matter. The honorable member for Maribyrnong (Mr Stokes) mentioned the position of the pe i.sioner who works for the Commonwealth, and who has to surrender some, if not all of his pension. Why should that principle prevail? This kind of thing was resolved during the war. I recall that at that time there was a shortage of teachers in the Victorian teaching service. Teachers who had retired on superannuation were recalled. The Government wanted them back in the teaching service. Many of those who went back to the service lost their superannuation. The Government did not propose to pay both superannuation and salary which they earned as teachers. But, after a while, it was decided that this was a miserly way to treat people who were performing a national duty and the earlier decision was reversed. The superannuation fund in Victoria did not collapse because of this action, nor did the people themselves go on a wild spending spree. The whole- question was approached in a rational commonsense way. Why cannot we do that here?

The cause for most of the complaints that I get from servicemen is, I think, the approach made to this question. There is no doubt in my mind that there are large numbers of servicemen who are concerned at the way in which the act is so miserably interpreted and administered. As an instance, let us consider what might appear to be a minor matter. Clause 11 of the bill reads -

After section forty-one of the Principal Act the following section is inserted: - “4m. - Where the amount of pension per annum ascertained under section thirty-eight, section thirty-nine or section forty-one of this Act includes an amount of shillings, of pence or of shillings and pence-

if that last mentioned amount is less than Ten shillings - the amount of pension shall bc deemed to be reduced by that last-mentioned amount; . . .

What does that mean? It means that if the sum is under 10s., it shall bc computed as being the whole number less than that. It is only a small sum, but it is a typical example of the attitude with which this problem is approached. If it represents only a small sum to the individual, then it is a much more insignificant sum to the Government itself. I advise honorable members to read this clause to see just how complicated is ohe provision which determines the increase in pensions. Let them see just how this is to be interpreted in order to arrive at what the recipients are to be paid.

Now let us examine the fund itself. The honorable member for Maribyrnong says that the proposed increases are tremendously generous. Is not that as it ought to be? The servicemen of this country are in a particularly difficult position. We impose upon them the duty to serve, or ask them to serve for a period of time. They go back into civilian life at an early agc and many of them are dissatisfied with the conditions under which they have served. Many of them are very unhappy about these things. The honorable member for Maribyrnong, who has returned to civilian life, will, I think, agree with us when we say that it is time the whole structure of the fund was reviewed. I think I can say for the party on this side that we will review the whole structure of defence forces retirement benefits. I think I can give that guarantee on behalf of the party on this side of the House.

Any one who cares to read “ Hansard “ for May, 1948, will find that the Honorable John Dedman introduced the scheme in the first instance for the purpose of overcoming some of the disabilities that were being created by a new Army and a new approach to the defence system of Australia. We are talking about something that concerns 42,000 Australian servicemen and about a fund from which increased benefits are to be paid. I ask honorable members to mark the fact that the honorable member for Maribyrnong was pleased that some pensions would be increased by £150 or £200. He thought this was a magnificent gesture, but when we peruse the annual reports of the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Board for 1959-60, 1960-61 and 1961-62 we find that in 1959-60 the credit in the fund stood at £13,800,000, that in the next year it had increased to £16,700,000 and that by 1961-62 it had increased to £19,100,000. A fund which increases by £3,000,000 a year can afford generous concessions. This money is being contributed by perhaps 40,000 men. If we divide the £3,000,000 by 40,000 we find that, the servicemen are paying an average of about £75 a year each. Taking them from the lowliest private to the highest-paid generals, air-marshals and so on, the average contribution by each is £75 a year or about 30s. a week. Some are paying £5 and £6 a week. I think the Treasurer mentioned that some are paying very dearly indeed for the last few units of pension before going into retirement. Here we are dealing with one of the superannuation funds of Australia which is associated with a very important part of the national welfare - the security of our servicemen - and there must be something wrong with the Army when it has announced that it will no longer allow its officers to resign their commissions. We on this side of the House say that there are sufficient resources in the fund to permit of a complete re-evaluation of the whole system of payments. I hope that the bill will iron out some of the anomalies of which I complain.I do not know; I have not the time, nor have I the know-how to wander through its complicated provisions. I advise honorable members to examine the complicated formula set out in clause 7 which is expressed as follows: -

That is certainly a very complicated formula. It may contain the answer to some of the questions that I want to pose tothe Treasurer. There are several problems associated with the services in Australia. When speaking of the Army, we have to remember that there are those who served in the Australian Imperial Services, those who served in the Interim Army, those who served in the Regular Army Special Reserve and those who served in the Australian Regular Army. We also have men who were serving in the ranks and who gained their commissions during the war. The latter are deemed to have started anew in the service. Their previous service was not counted. I should like to know from the Treasurer whether he has taken into consideration the position of those people whose previous service is not considered when computing their total service. In other words, I say that all service ought to be taken into account for pension purposes even though people may not have filled in the right forms on certain occasions. Here is a complaint I have from a serviceman who is serving as a captain. He says -

I enlisted in 1940 and have served continuously to the present date. Although I was not accepted in the Australian Regular Army until 1954-

By 1954, he had fourteen years’ service, including five or six years’ service inthe Australian Imperial Forces. This gives some idea of how the regulations are interpreted. I emphasize, too, that this was his position only a few months ago -

I submit thatI am being unfairly treated and am suffering a gross injustice as I am due to retire in 1968 and can only accumulate fourteen and a half years’ service for pension (fifteen years required Tor minimum) after 28 years continuous service.

Has that anomaly beenironed out? Perhaps the Treasurer can tell me. Perhaps he can show me where I can find a provision in the bill that irons it out. The letter continues -

As a result of this anomaly I will suffer undue hardship as I can only accrue £4,000 (approx.) gratuity upon retirement of which 1 contributed £1,500 (approx.) myself . . .

He also said - and this is one of the anomalies that I suggest has been created by the constant changes in and complexities of the act -

As a comparison, an officer who elected to be discharged in1945 and re-enlisted prior to 1952 when the Act permitted this privilege was able to buy back allwar-time service for pension purposes.

To my knowledge, there are dozens of cases of people who arc not having their full service taken into account when computing the pension to be paid. This is one anomaly that should be corrected.

Another case concerns an officer who ended up as a squadron leader. He started in the ranks and was commissioned, and because he was commissioned his service was regarded as having been terminated as at the date when he was commissioned, and as having started only from the date of his commission. Here is what the Treasurer said to me only a few months ago -

Mis decision to accept a commission was a voluntary action on his part, as was his subse- quent decision not to accept an extension of that commission.

In this case, because the man’s service was interrupted by his accepting a commission, which surely it was his duty to accept if he was qualified to accept it, he did not qualify for a pension. We believe that that kind of anomally ought not to be tolerated. 1 mention it to in the hope that the Treasurer will say what he intends to do about it. I come now to the question of retrospectivity. The honorable member forMaribyrnong mentioned that some of these anomalies had been ironed out. I have a letter from a man who was a squadron leader. He writes -

I joined the R.A.A.F. in 1927 and was appointed to a permanent commission just prior to the War with a retiring age of 60 . . .

In 1948 my retiring age was arbitrarily reduced to 49 and despite the fact thatI held a permanent commission I was offered as an alternative a retiring age of 55 if I reverted to the rank of Warrant Officer; this alternative I refused.

At this time, he was within two years of the new retiring age. His letter continues -

My present position is that I am retired on a pension some two thirds of the basic wage compared with that of a member of the Public Service holding a comparative position whose pension would be more than three times mine.

Since my retirement there have been changes in the D.F.R.B. Act resulting in increasedbenefits for present serving members, but none of these benefits have been granted to me or other members who were forced to retire during the early years of the D.F.R.B. Act.

Has that anomaly been ironed out? Will that man receive the kind of justice that we would like him to receive? A person who has been retired for ten years is now facing a future in which inflation is eroding the value of his pension. We must remember that he would have retired from the services at an early age. I have another letter here, which reads as follows: -

We are a group of Ex-servicemen who retired from the services under the above Act, when the conditions of the pension were far from being sufficient to meet the ordinary needs of a selfrespecting person.

I personally retired atthe age of 51. in 1952, and because I was one of the fortunate ones in maintaining good health,I have been able to supplement this pension by working . . . 1 was a member of the R.A.A.F. for 27 years, and was at the service of my country during all contingencies of peace and war.

Since my retirement there has been a substantial increase both in pay and retirement benefit for all the services;

Something should be done to ensure that people who retire on pensions arc able to live in decent comfort, if they must depend solely on the pension. If the act has been amended to provide for this, I. would be pleased to hear about it and to know where this amendment can be found.

I have dealt with these three points - continuity of service, retrospectivity of entitlement and retrospectivity of increase in the value of pensions. I believe that, when considering these matters, the Treasury has an unsympathetic approach. Recently, I came acrossthe case of a man who was serving, I think, as a warrant officer in a special category. He was doing the work of a captain and receiving a higher duties allowance. However, he could not meet the physical requirements needed for admission to the retirement benefits fund and he was not given his promotion. He has proved that he is competent to do the work of a captain and he has served in this capacity. But the Treasury’s desire to protect a fund that has £19,000,000 in it and is rising at the rate of £3,000,000 a year prevents him from being promoted.

There is a chance that he may become ill and bc compelled to retire, or he may rite and his widow receive a pension. Apparently, the fund could not afford this. I believe that this is a miserable attitude and a poor approach, especially in the case I have mentioned, because this man was serving before the war, served continuously during the war and has been continuously in the service of his country for some 25 or 30 years.

These are some of the problems associated with the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act. I am afraid that some of the anomalies have not yet been ironed out. They will be ironed out only if a complete review of the whole system is made. I agree with the honorable member for Sturt that in dealing with some of these matters we should forget about the actuaries. The problems facing this fund are different from the problems that face the Commonwealth Superannuation Fund, which is designed to meet the needs of people working inside the Commonwealth Public Service. The way in which this fund is administered has a bearing on the problems of recruitment into the services. I hope that if the anomalies I have mentioned have been ironed out, the Treasurer will stand up here and say so. If they have not been ironed out, they should have been. We have been refused the opportunity in this Parliament to move the appropriate amendments. The introduction of the bill into the House at. this late stage shows the cavalier way in which servicemen are treated.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Leave granted ft.r third reading to be moved forthwith.

Bill (on motion by Mr. Harold Holt) read a third time.

page 2408

CANNED FRUITS EXPORT MARKETING BILL 1963

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

Second Reading

Mr McEWEN:
Minister for Trade · Murray · CP

.- I moveThat the bill be now read a second time.

This bill is one of four which the Government is introducing at the request of the Australian deciduous fruit canning industry, both growers and canners. It is designed to enable the industry to extend its export marketing operations to meet present day competitive conditions. The bill provides first, that the composition of the Australian Canned Fruit’s Board will be enlarged and the powers of the reconstituted board will be extended. The bill provides for the collection of a levy on production of canned, deciduous fruit sold on the domestic market. The funds collected by the levy will be administered by the Australian Canned Fruits Board to allow it to assist in the marketing of canned fruit.

The canned fri ut industry is one of Australia’s great export industries. Production of canned deciduous fruit has been and is increasing at a rapid rate in various parts of Australia. Traditionally, exports have been confined mainly to the United Kingdom. The increased supplies now available for export demand that exports must be stepped up to other countries in the face of increasing competition from other overseas competitors.

The board will be permitted to purchase and sell canned deciduous fruits under certain conditions. Provision is also made in the legislation to permit the board - where it desires to finance the purchase of canned deciduous fruits - to obtain advances from the Reserve Bank under guarantee from the’ Government.

The present act has been in force since- 1926, and has been amended from time to time. It is now out of line with current drafting practice. In view of the extensive amendments necessary to the existing legislation, it has been decided to repeal the act in its entirety and to introduce new legislation. The only new features in the proposed legislation arc those to which I have already referred.

The Australian Canned Fruits Board was first set up in 1926, at a time when the canned fruits industry was in its infancy in the export field, and when the industry was limited in size, though none the less important to the Australian economy at that time. Production of canned deciduous fruits in the 1927 canning season totalled the equivalent of some 965,000 cartons, whereas production in the season just concluded totalled 7,280,000 cartons. Exports for the year ended 30th June, J 927, were valued at £224,487, whereas exports for the period ended 30th June, 1963, were in excess of £8,600,000.

Over 60 per cent, of canned deciduous fruit production is now exported. The growth and stability of the industry depends largely on its performance in the export field, lt is essential that the industry be in a position to apply modern commercial and promotional practices to enable it to face increasing competition overseas which is resulting from increasing production, particularly in South Africa and the United Slates. The export sales of canned deciduous fruits provide a valuable contribution to our export income. The industry is of major importance in the development of the irrigation areas of New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia. Deciduous fruit is, in fact, canned in all States of the Commonwealth, but the three Slates mentioned arc the leading producers in the field.

It is proposed that the membership of the board should be enlarged. The existing legislation provides that the board shall comprise one member to represent cooperative canner interests, one member to represent the interests of proprietary canners, one member to represent the growers of deciduous canning fruit, together with one member to represent the interests of canners of pineapple products and with a member also to represent the Commonwealth Government. The new legislation proposes to increase the membership of cooperative canners, proprietary canners and growers of deciduous canning fruit, in each case, from one to three members. As in the present legislation, one member will represent canneries engaged in the production of canned pineapple and one member will represent the Commonwealth Government. A new feature of the proposed legislation provides for the chairman of the board to be elected by the board instead of being appointed by the Minister as at present. A further provision enables the board, should it feel that special skills and or knowledge are required, and in this case subject to approval by the Minister, to appoint a chairman from other than board members. In this case the chairman shall bc an additional member of the board.

Turning now to the functions and powers of the Australian Canned Fruits Board, I mention that the accompanying legislation to which I referred earlier provides that a levy will be imposed upon all domestic sales of canned deciduous fruits. The board is authorized to use the funds collected from the industry to assist in marketing deciduous canned fruits in export markets. The need for promotional activity overseas is, I think, obvious to every one these days.

There is also power for the board to borrow. Provision exists in the proposed bill for the board to obtain advances under government guarantee from the Reserve Bank of Australia to finance the purchase of canned deciduous fruits offered by canners to the board. In practice, it is not expected that the board will purchase fruit as one of its normal functions. However, the board may need this power to meet any special or unusual circumstances which may arise. The provision to borrow from the Reserve Bank has been included to enable the board to meet any unexpected but temporary demands upon its financial resources. Provision has been made for the allocation from the funds of the levy for special publicity and promotional activity in export markets. The Commonwealth Government is already supplementing the board’s promotional expenditure in the United Kingdom. It is prepared to consider granting similar support to the board’s promotional activities in other markets.

The proposals leading to the reconstitution of the present Australian Canned Fruits Board, the extension of the powers of the board, and the proposals relating to the export development plan, were submitted to the Government after the fullest investigation and consultation between all sections of the industry. It was sponsored by the Australian Canning Fruit-growers Association. This is the central organization of growers of canning apricots, peaches and pears, which represents about 90 per cent, of the members of the industry in the three main producing States of Victoria, South Australia and New South Wales. These growers produce 95 per cent, of these fruits for canning, in the whole of Australia. In addition the scheme is supported by the substantial majority of the members of the central organization of fruit canners - the Australian Canners Association. It is also supported by some deciduous fruit canners of substance who are not members of the Australian Canners Association.-

It is now a well established practice for primary industries engaged in exports to request the imposition of a levy to provide funds to assist their industries. Already this has been done with apples and pears, dried vine fruit, winegrapes, wool, beef, butter and cheese and honey. I emphasize that the proposals advanced by the industry have the majority support of the industry, both growers and canners. Their action in formulating these proposals is regarded by the Government as an excellent example of action by an important primary industry in an endeavour to meet the problems confronting the industry. The Government has been glad to respond to this commendable move on the part of the deciduous canning fruit-growing industry and the bill I am now presenting is for the purpose of giving legislative expression to the industry’s own scheme. It is necessary for this legislation to operate before the commencement of the new canning season. I commend the bill to honorable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Pollard) adjourned.

page 2410

CANNED FRUITS EXPORT CHARGES BILL 1963

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

Second Reading

Mr McEWEN:
Minister for Trade · Murray · CP

– I move -

That the bill bc now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to amend the Canned Fruits Export Charges Act 1926- 1952. The amendments are necessary to record correctly the title of the legislation under which control is exercised in the export of canned fruit. Honorable members will observe in the measure I have previously introduced that it is proposed to repeal the Canned Fruits Export Control Act 1926-1959 and replace it with the Canned Fruits Export Marketing Act 1963. I commend the bill to honorable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Pollard) adjourned.

page 2410

TARIFF PROPOSALS 1963

Excise Tariff Proposals No. 3

Mr FAIRHALL:
Minister for Supply · Paterson · LP

.- 1 move- [Excise Tariff Proposals No. 3.]

That the Schedule to the Excise Tariff 1921-1963 be amended as set out in the Schedule to these Proposals and that on and after the thirtieth day of October, One thousand nine hundred and sixty-three, Duties of Excise bc collected in pursuance of the Excise Tariff 1921-1963 as so amended. {: .page-start } page 2410 {:#debate-28} ### THE SCHEDULE By adding at the end of the Prefatory Notes the following Prefatory Notes: - " ' Canned fruit ' means fruit preserved by sterilization and enclosed (with or without syrup, water or other liquid) in an air-tight container, not being goods known as ' fruit pulp ', ' solid pack ' or ' pie pack ' " A reference to the pack in relation to canned fruit shall be read as a reference lo the weight oi the contents of the container in which the fruit is enclosed". The proposal which I have just tabled relates to proposed amendments to the Excise Tariff 1921-1963 in respect of canned fruit. Details of these amendments are now being distributed to honorable members. The purpose of this proposal is to impose an excise duty at the rates specified in the schedule on canned peaches, pears and apricots, and certain mixtures thereof, for the purpose of financing an export development scheme for the canned fruit industry. The provision in the schedule of separate rates for the varying groupings of sizes of packs takes into account norma! industry practices as regards the sizes of containers and weights of fruit content used in the canning of peaches, pears, apricots and mixtures thereof. I commend the proposal to honorable members. Debate (on motion by **Mr. Pollard)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 2411 {:#debate-29} ### EXCISE TARIFF BILL (No. 2) 1963 Bill presented by **Mr. Fairhall,** and rend a first time. {:#subdebate-29-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-29-0-s0 .speaker-KEN} ##### Mr FAIRHALL:
Minister for Supply · Paterson · LP .- I move- >That the bill be now read a second lime. The bill now before honorable members will formally amend the Excise Tariff Act in accordance wilh Excise Tariff Proposal No. 3 which 1 tabled earlier. 1 commend the bill to honorable members. Debate (on motion by **Mr. Pollard)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 2411 {:#debate-30} ### CANNED FRUIT EXCISE BILL 1963 Bill presented by **Mr. Fairhall,** and read a first time. {:#subdebate-30-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-30-0-s0 .speaker-KEN} ##### Mr FAIRHALL:
Minister for Supply · Paterson · LP .8.51].-I move - That the bill be now read a second time. This bill is complementary to the bill lo amend the Excise Tariff Act which was introduced earlier tonight. The bill will provide the machinery arrangements to enable the Department of Customs and Excise to collect an excise duty on canned fruit and to exercise the forms of control deemed necessary to ensure that all duty duc is received. Honorable members will note from clause 5 that, for ease of drafting, some of the provisions of the Excise Act 1901-1963 which empower departmental officers to exercise the normal controls over excisable goods and premises licensed under excise law have been incorporated into this bill. In framing the administrative legislation, due account has been taken of the purpose of the scheme as previously outlined and of the production and marketing procedures existing in the industry. The bill provides for canners to remove fruit from canneries, under a continuing approval of a Collector of Customs and without payment of the duty at the time of removal, to other approved storage points for subsequent sale on the home market or for exportation. This arrangement takes note of the marketing methods of the industry in respect of agents who operate, for instance, in capital cities on behalf of canners. In terms of the scheme previously outlined, the bill provides also that the duty is payable only in respect of canned fruit entered for home consumption, that is, delivered for use on the home market. Canned fruit which is exported is exempted from the duty. It is proposed also that canners and those persons operating approved storage points will submit to Collectors of Customs returns covering monthly operations, the returns being compiled from the normal business records kept by the canner or agent concerned. Two other important provisions of the bill will permit refunding the duty paid on canned fruit which becomes unfit for human consumption within twelve months after delivery for home consumption and repayment of the duty to a person who subsequently exports canned fruit upon which the duty has been paid. I commend the bill to honorable members. Debate (on motion by **Mr. Pollard)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 2412 {:#debate-31} ### NORFOLK ISLAND BILL 1963 Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time. {:#subdebate-31-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-31-0-s0 .speaker-ZL6} ##### Mr HASLUCK:
Minister for Territories · Curtin · LP -- I move - >That the bill be now read a second time. The main purpose of this bill is to give effect to changes in the powers of the Norfolk Island Council that have been requested by the council. In 1957, at the request of the residents of Norfolk Island, this Parliament amended the Norfolk Island Act in order to make it possible for a council elected on adult franchise to undertake certain functions similar to those performed by local governing bodies in Australia. The Norfolk Island Act 1957 provided that there should be a Norfolk Island Council, with a general power to advise the Administrator on any matter affecting the peace, order and good government of the Territory and, in addition, with power to exercise a wide range of functions set out in the second schedule of the act, power to levy rates and impose charges, power to make by-laws and power to carry on a business undertaking. The Norfolk Island Council as envisaged in the act was to be constituted by ordinance of the Territory and was to replace the previously existing Advisory Council which had functions only of advising the Administrator. The 1957 act was designed to give the people of the Territory a more active part in the conduct of their own affairs. At the time the bill was passed through this Parliament the Government believed it met the wishes of the island people. After the passing of the act, however, it became apparent that there was a reluctance to assume the responsibilities which the act would have placed on the council. Differences of opinion were expressed by island people. On a visit to the Territory in May, 1959, I discussed these matters with members of the Advisory Council and at a public meeting of residents I informed the Norfolk Islanders that they were not compelled to accept local government, although the Government hoped that they would make use of the opportunity offered by the Norfolk Island Act, which had been passed at their request. Following this visit the Advisory Council adopted a resolution stating that it wished to see a draft of the proposed Norfolk Island Council Ordinance, under which the new order would be established, and finally, in 1960, the council adopted a resolution approving a draft of this ordinance. The ordinance was made on 7th April, 1960, and on this date the Norfolk Island Act, 1957, also came into operation. Subsequently discussions were held to reach agreement on the financial arrangements to be made and the functions to be transferred to the council. The first elections for the Norfolk Island Council were held in July, 1960. The form of government of the island was a major issue at the elections. Since then the council has declared its opposition to the constitutional changes envisaged by the 1957 act, and a subsequent election has confirmed in office those who took this view. The council has not exercised its power to carry, out any of the functions of local government. Instead, the request has been made for fuller consultation in the Administration of the Territory and particularly for consultation on the raising and expenditure of revenues in the Territory. During the past two years the Administrator of the Territory, Major-General Wordsworth, who will be remembered with respect and esteem as a former senator, and J have had discussions with the council on a number of occasions in order to reach arrangements for the government of the Territory which would meet the wishes of the people as expressed by the council. These discussions resulted earlier this year in agreement on the proposals which are now being incorporated in the bill before Parliament and on consequential proposals to which effect can be given subsequently by ordinances of the Territory. At a meeting of the council on 18th June, 1963, the following resolution was adopted: - >That Council records its appreciation of the recent visit by the Minister for Territories and his efforts to establish a satisfactory form of government for Norfolk Island. Council trusts that Commonwealth Parliament will see fit la approve Council's recommended amendments to the Norfolk Islands Act 19s7. Council is convinced that the proposals represent the wish of the people of Norfolk Island and will result in an economic smooth-running administration. This bill contains the amendments recommended by the council. The principal amendments proposed by the bill arc contained in clauses 7 and 8. It is proposed to omit certain provisions of section II of the principal act relating to the powers and functions- of the council, and to provide that the council shall be constituted as by ordinance and shall have such powers and functions as are conferred on it by this act. Clause 8 repeats the present provision in sub-section 11 (5) of the act which gives the council the power to advise the Administrator on any matter affecting the peace, order and good government of the Territory. At the request of the council provision is made, in sub-clauses (3) and (4), that where the Administrator disagrees with the advice tendered to him by the council he shall, except in cases where he considers urgent action is required, suspend action in relation to that matter and notify the Minister of the advice tendered and of his reasons for disagreeing with that advice. Sub-clause (5) requires the Administrator, where he has received the directions of the Minister, to act in accordance with those directions. Section' 16 -of the act provides for the Minister to refer a copy of every proposed ordinance to the council for its consideration. Clause 9 inserts a new section to provide for a copy of all proposed regulations to bc forwarded also to the council. The provisions of the clause for the council to make representations on proposed regulations, consideration by the Minister of these representations, and the making of regulations on the grounds of urgency without first referring a copy of the proposed regulations to the council are identical with the present provisions in section 16 in relation to ordinances. Clause 13 amends section 26 of the Act to provide that only the Minister may make grants on other dispositions of Crown land in the Territory. Those arc the arrangements for which the people of Norfolk Island have asked and I submit to the House that wc should respect and give effect to their wishes. It may seem to some honorable members that the wishes of the people of Norfolk Island run counter to the general tendency in the world to-day for what is termed liberation and self-government. The people of Norfolk Island have preferred a large measure of consultation and reliance on the Government and on the Parliament rather than accept the responsibility, in a large measure, for raising their own revenues and administering their own affairs. While we are giving effect to the wishes of the people of Norfolk Island the opportunity is also being taken to make other minor amendments to the act. Clause 10 of the bill amends the provisions of section 17 relating to resolutions of either House of the Parliament disallowing an ordinance, to bring them into conformity with the recent amendment made to section 48 of the Acts Interpretation Act. The present act provides that the Supreme Court of the Territory shall consist of u single judge. Clauses 11 and 12 contain provisions whereby the Governor-General may appoint as judges of the supreme court persons who are judges of a federal court. That would make it possible for judges to act more or less on a roster when taking duty on the Norfolk Island Supreme Court rather than have one judge always performing that duty. A judge shall be remunerated with the salary that he receives as a judge of the other court and shall be paid such travelling expenses as the Governor-General determines. Judges will have seniority as judges of the supreme court according to the dates of their commissions and provisions have been inserted so that the appointment of the present judge should not be disturbed. This amendment will facilitate the work of the court by enabling the judges to act in turn on the supreme court bench. Clause 14 repeals section 31 of the a;t which applies certain provisions of the Crimes Act to proceedings in the supreme court, and which have been redundant since the last amendment of the Crimes Act by this Parliament. In order that there will be a person available on the island to carry out the duties of the Administrator if the Administrator is absent or otherwise unable to act and an acting administrator has not been appointed, provision is made in clause 5 for the appointment of a deputy administrator. Under the present provisions of the act, if it is desired to appoint as acting administrator an officer of the Administration of Norfolk Island it is necessary to bring that officer to Australia to take the oath of office and this results in transport difficulties and delays in appointment. Clause 6 provides that the oath of office may be taken before a person appointed by the Governor-General for this purpose. In addition to the changes proposed by this bill it is also intended that the Norfolk Island Council Ordinance will be amended to provide that the, council will be constituted by the Administrator and eight members elected for a two-year term. The Administrator is not now a member of the council. It is proposed that he become a member. At present the council is comprised of eight elected members, of whom four retire each year. As the council does not wish to carry out any executive actions, the provision incorporating the council will be deleted. Provision will be made for a president of committees of the council elected from the elected councillors with the . duties- of presiding over committees other than committees of the whole council. Various other amendments dealing with qualifications of electors and the machinery of elections will also be made. In a new Public Moneys Ordinance the council will be given the opportunity to tender advice before the preparation of the annual estimates for the Territory and upon variations to the estimates unless special circumstances make this impracticable. To meet the request of the council it is proposed to provide by ordinance for the holding of referendums in the Territory. The provisions contained in these three ordinances will not be submitted to this Parliament but they are part of the general arrangements which the council has requested and I mention them to inform honorable members. In conclusion I would again emphasize that these changes are being made at the express wish of the Norfolk Island Council which has assured me that it is voicing the wishes of the people. While the council will thus no longer have power to carry out functions of a local government nature, the people, through the expansion of the advisory powers of the council, will have a fuller opportunity to express their views on all matters affecting the government of *.he Territory. I commend the bill to the House. (Leave granted for the debate to continue.) {: #subdebate-31-0-s1 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM:
Werriwa .- The Opposition accepts this bill- As the Minister for Territories **(Mr. Hasluck)** has said, at first glance it would appear that the bill is retrogressive in that some Australian citizens are abdicating their responsibilities and submitting themselves to laws made by a body in which they arc not represented or by a Minister responsible to a body in which they, are not represented. A couple of months ago I took the opportunity to visit Norfolk Island in the knowledge that such legislation was pending. The councillors to whom I spoke were of the opinion that the residents of the i-'and desired this legislation. Such residents as I met were all of that opinion. The Administrator certainly was of that opinion. I should like to testify to the respect and esteem in which Major-General Wordsworth, a former senator, is held by the people whom he rules. His experience in command and administration stand this country and. that island in very good stead. As far as I could tell, the basic objection to the present local government system - which was introduced by an act passed six years ago and proclaimed three years ago. but which the council has refused to operate - is that 1,000 people cannot afford a twotier system of government. There seems to be some opinion - I would not assess how strong it is - that the residents of Norfolk Island should have a vote for this Parliament; that they should be in the same position as the residents of Lord Howe Island, which lies between them and New South Wales and somewhat closer to them. The opinion depends on some nice calculation whether the benefits of social services would outweigh the burdens of taxation. {: .speaker-ZL6} ##### Mr Hasluck: -- And tariffs. {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- And tariffs. On this island there is a considerable number of British subjects, mainly New Zealanders, who are not Australian citizens and do not want to be Australian citizens. It is a fascinating island in its history and topography. It now seems to have come the full circle of government. It has been a colony of New South Wales, a colony of Van Dicmen's .Land, a separate Crown colony and, since 1913, a Commonwealth territory, first with an executive council, then an advisory council, then a local government council and now again an advisory council. From my observations of the situation there and my conversations with the residents there, I have no doubt that this bill - whatever imperfections we might think are in it - docs accord with the wishes of the inhabitants. The Labour Parly accepts the bill. {: #subdebate-31-0-s2 .speaker-JF7} ##### Mr BEAZLEY:
Fremantle .- While supporting the bill, I think we should take this opportunity to express disappointment that a group of people should not wish to govern themselves, and also surprise that the descendants of the " Bounty " mutineers should not want to govern themselves. I hope that in the near future there will be a change of view on this matter and that they will want to accept responsibility. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. {:#subdebate-31-1} #### Third Reading Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by **Mr. Hasluck)** read a third time. {: .page-start } page 2415 {:#debate-32} ### AIR ACCIDENTS (COMMONWEALTH LIABILITY) BILL 1963 Message received from the Senate intimating that the Senate had agreed to the amendment made by the House of Representatives to amendment No. 1 made by the Senate in this bill. {: .page-start } page 2415 {:#debate-33} ### BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE The following bills were returned from the Senate, without amendment: - >States Grants (Universities) Bill (No. 2) 1963. States Grants (Special Assistance) Bill 1963. {: .page-start } page 2415 {:#debate-34} ### BROADCASTING AND TELEVISION BILL 1963 {:#subdebate-34-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed from 24th October (vide page 22S9), on motion by **Mr. Davidson** - >That the bill be now read a second time. {: #subdebate-34-0-s0 .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr CALWELL:
Leader of the Opposition · Melbourne -- **Mr. Speaker,** this is a very simple bill, but the Opposition has some doubts about it. As the PostmasterGeneral **(Mr. Davidson)** explained, the purpose of the bill is to amend the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942-1962 to provide for the granting of licences by the Minister for the establishment and operation of television translator stations to serve small concentrations of population which are at present without a satisfactory television service. That is a very laudable idea. The Opposition does not object to that. If I may say so parenthetically, I know something about the story of broadcasting because, with the honorable member for Kennedy **(Mr. Riordan),** I was a member of the committee which brought down the first report on broadcasting. That committee was presided over by the late **Senator Gibson.** The report was the basis of the present act. Every recommendation in the report was adopted in the act of 1942. There have been alterations ever since that year. We now have television as well as broadcasting. Honorable members on both sides of the House, including my colleagues, the honorable members for Macquarie **(Mr. Luchetti),** Shortland **(Mr. Griffiths),** Braddon **(Mr. Davies),** and Wide Bay **(Mr. Hansen)** have expressed doubts about whether the present system is adequate to serve the needs of all the people, of all the electors of Australia. They have expressed doubts and they have asked questions about the system. They have pointed out that the Government ought to plan quickly for the extension of the present system so that all parts of Australia can have the benefit of this new development whichwe call television. There are people who think that television can be a great service to humanity; there are others who think that it is not such a blessing after all. The Postmaster-General, in his secondreading speech, argued that, on completion of the present plan which the Government has in view, 91 per cent. of the population of the Commonwealth will have television services available to them; but there will still be 900,000 people without a satisfactory service. He said that there are difficult technical and economic problems involved in providing services to the widely distributed population in outlying areas. In a country as rugged as Australia is in part, that is quite understandable. It is very necessary that we should have some device which will enable those of our fellow Australians who at present cannot have the benefit of this new invention to have it. According to the Minister's speech, and according to the bill which he has introduced, a translator - we are now dealing with the installation of a television translator system - receives transmissions from a parent television station and re-transmits the programmes on a different channel to be received by normal television receivers. No programmes are originated. I think that fact is appreciated. Still, we have our doubts about what will happen if the Minister succeeds in altering the section of the act which he desires to have altered, namely section 92A(l.)(b). The Minister said - >A television station is defined in the act as a station for the transmission by means of wireless telegraphy of television programmes intended for reception by the general public. Translator stations are covered by this definition and their establishment and operation are consequently subject to the licensing provisions of the act. In other words, a translator station can only be licensed in accordance with the procedures prescribed by the act, including the invitation of applications by the Minister and the granting of licences after the holding of public inquiries by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board. That provision was in the original act, and we believe that it should remain in the act. The Minister went on to say - >In addition, section 92 of the act provides that a person shall not be in a position to exercise control of more than two licences in respect of commercial television stations. There are people in Australia who think that that provision is being abused by the subterfuges which are being resorted to. The Minister himself has been placed in an almost impossible position because some interested people have resorted to legal devices. That is not in the best interests of television. Indeed, the whole purpose of the act in recent times has been subverted or perverted because the Minister has been presented with a fait accompli. His approval has been sought and he certainly has no opportunity to refuse it, as the act now stands. We thought that under this or some other legislation introduced during this sessional period he would have put the position right, but all that he is dealing with in this legislation is the matter of translators. {: .speaker-KCA} ##### Mr Davidson: -- That is right. {: .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr CALWELL: -- We think he should have gone further. He said in his speech - >It follows, therefore, that the licensee of any existing station could not be authorized to establish more than one translator station. Of course, in cases where control of more than one station is involved, the operation of even one translator would not be possible. Even if the translator station were owned by a person other than a licensee, control of the translator station would still be exercised by that licensee by virtue of the provisions of section 92A(l.)(b) of that act, inasmuch as he would, of necessity, control the provision of the programmes transmitted by the translator station. We think that the provisions of the act should remain as they are, and in the committee stage I propose to move the following amendment: - >At the end of the proposed section 105b add the following sub-section: - " ' (5) An application for a licence for a television translator station shall be referred by the Minister to the board. The board shall give notice of receipt of the application in such newspapers and by such other means as the board thinks fit and shall give notice in writing of such application to all licensees of commercial television stations operating within a radius of 200 miles from the site of the proposed television translator station and to such other persons as the board thinks fit. If notice of objection to the granting of the application is lodged with the board by a person interested within fourteen days after the giving of such notices the board shall hold an inquiry in accordance with the provisions of Division 3 of Part II. of this act. The board shall not recommend that the application be granted if the board is of opinion that the television translator station would operate so as to prevent or to be likely to prevent the establishment of a commercial television station in or about the area to which the application relates or to be unfair to the licensee of any other commercial television station." In other words, we want the present provisions to remain and to apply to the grant of translator licences. There must be an inquiry before a translator licence is granted, just as there is before a television licence is granted. We say, also, that there should be an inquiry if the grant of a translator licence is likely to affect adversely the activities of any other commercial station within 200 miles of the proposed location of the translator station, or if the translator station will be located within a reasonable distance of any point at which a new commercial television station might be established in the future. If the amendment is not accepted, what may happen, of course, is that some existing licensee may, by obtaining a translator licence, eliminate for all time the possibility of a locally owned television station being established. {: .speaker-KCA} ##### Mr Davidson: -- That, of course, is not correct. {: .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr CALWELL: -- Well, members of the Opposition have fears about that. The honorable member for Braddon **(Mr. Davies),** who wishes to see a commercial television station established at Burnie in Tasmania, has doubts about this matter, and he will explain his point of view on it later. {: .speaker-KCA} ##### Mr Davidson: -- He has already explained it to me. {: .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr CALWELL: -- And I hope he has convinced the Postmaster-General. {: .speaker-KCA} ##### Mr Davidson: -- I think I may have convinced him. {: .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr CALWELL: -- Well, I hope the PostmasterGeneral will have second thoughts, because I do not think the honorable member for Braddon is quite convinced. In any case, what is wrong with public inquiries into these matters? Even a public inquiry did not prevent the grant of a television licence in Melbourne quite recently to Ansett interests, and there was nobody in Australia, other than the Ansett interests, who was very happy about those Ansett interests obtaining the third commercial television licence in Melbourne. We think the amending legislation introduced by the Postmaster-General leaves a loophole for the grant of translator station' licences to the detriment of licensees of existing television stations. There is no doubt that people in country areas are entitled to programmes as good as those shown in capital cities. There is no reason in the world why translator licences should not be granted, so that people in country areas can get programmes as good as any shown in capital cities. But we are very fearful, because the Government has some great and powerful friends in the television industry, and we do not want the Government to help them to build monopolies in this field more powerful than those existing at present. I questioned the Minister quite recently about a contract entered into by his departmental head, the Director-General of Posts and Telegraphs, with the people who run Stations TCN in Sydney and GTV in Melbourne, for the exclusive use of the coaxial cable between Sydney and Melbourne, for a period of some years, for ten or twelve hours every day, from about 12 mid-day until 10 p.m., so that no other stations could possibly use that cable. {: #subdebate-34-0-s1 .speaker-KIH} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:
LYNE, NEW SOUTH WALES -- Order! I suggest that the Leader of the Opposition is getting a bit wide of the bill. {: .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr CALWELL: -- I appreciate that fact, **Mr. Deputy** Speaker; I am. But we are approaching election time, you know, and this is a good time in which to tell a few home truths. However, I shall not stray again. We think that a licensee of a commercial television station could be met with a fait accompli in that the board may have recommended to the Minister that a licence for a television translator station be granted, and the Minister may have granted such licence. This might have the effect of taking away some of the actual or potential audience of some other television station, the licensee of which has been completely unaware of the possibility of a licence being granted for a translator station on the fringe of his own station's viewing area. {: .speaker-KCA} ##### Mr Davidson: -- That is quite impossible. {: .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr CALWELL: -- The Minister says that is quite impossible. Let him tell us later how he arrives at the Conclusion that it is quite impossible. It seems to be fairly obvious to those who have been viewing television that this is quite possible. We think that this difficulty that a licensee could face arises because the amending legislation, as it stands, does not provide for any notice to bc given to television stations which might be affected by an application for the licence of a television translator station; nor does it provide for an inquiry to bc held by the board, or that the board shall hear any objection or representation which might be taken Or made with regard to the granting of the licence for a television translator station. It appears to me that this amending legislation should follow the policy of the Government, which could be translated from a reading of the principal act which provides in various sections that inquiries into applications will be held. The amendment that I shall propose is a simple and logical one which could prevent injustices being done to commercial television stations as well as to viewers, and 1 ask the Minister to accept it. It is rather a strange role for me, pleading for commercial television station owners, but I do stand for justice to these people when the Government proposes to do an injustice to some of them, or when it proposes to load its friends with some benefits to which they are not entitled. There is nothing wrong with our proposal and I hope the Postmaster-General, who has decided to retire from politics, will elect to go out on a high note, that he will do the right thing, because when we come into power in a few weeks' time we do not want to have to undo all this legislation. In one sense it will not matter, perhaps, if the legislation is passed in this form, because when Labour comes to power after the election wc will be able to re-cast the legislation in acceptable form. It should not bc left to a Minister to make decisions on matters such as that to which I have referred with out first having arranged for a public inquiry. The public should know what is going on all the time in all government departments. With this in mind I shall propose the amendment that I have foreshadowed. {: #subdebate-34-0-s2 .speaker-JWV} ##### Mr CHANEY:
Perth .- M r. Deputy Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition **Mr. Calwell** admitted, after having" been called to order by you, that he was making an electioneering speech. The honorable member for Kalgoorlie **(Mr. Collard is somewhere in his** vast electorate, and I am not certain Whether he would consider that to be a correct statement. I am sure that he is one of those who would welcome the bill introduced by the Postmaster-General **(Mr. Davidson)** to amend the Broadcasting and Television Act. I do not think that the Postmaster-General will finish his parliamentary career on the high note of acceptance of an amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition. He will probably go out of office saying a very definite " No ". A case exists for the immediate implementation of the measure. I cannot agree with the proposal of the Opposition that these matters should be referred to public inquiries such as those held for the licensing of television stations. The method of granting television licences created discontent in Western Australia because the hearings of applications were always held in Melbourne. Anybody in Western Australia who wished to apply for a licence, had to incur great travelling expenses and bear the cost of employing counsel to appear in Melbourne. The Postmaster-General has given adequate reasons why the hearings were held in Melbourne. If the establishment of translator stations were to be the subject of similar public inquiries, they would probably be held in Melbourne, and Western Australia might bc denied translator stations. In Western Australia there is a vast area which cannot be covered by the normal operations of commercial television stations. In his second-reading speech the Minister said - >The development of television stations in the Commonwealth has proceeded, up to the present, on the basis of the -use of stations of high power in selected locations. Upon completion of I he stations now planned approximately 91 per cent, of the population of the Commonwealth will have services available to them. I- am sure that honorable members on both sides of the House will compliment the Postmaster-General upon the way in which he has handled the establishment of television in Australia since he has held office. It is true, as he said, that 91 per cent, of the population will have television services available to them soon, but .these people have many other services available to them. About 91 per cent, of the people of Australia have available to them about 99 per cent, of all possible amenities, but the remaining small percentage of the population have almost no amenities. In parts of my electorate no schools are available for the children. The place of ordinary schools is taken by schools of the air. Parts of my electorate are not reached by radio stations. I welcome any move by the Government to assist the establishment of translator stations which will bring television to areas which have no other amenities. Arguments which apply to Tasmania do riot necessarily apply to Western Australia. **Senator Branson** has approached the PostmasterGeneral time and again to see whether television services to Western Australia could be extended. I am on technical ground here and I might bc completely wrong, but I do not think it is quite sound to bring into this argument the question of a station 200 miles away. Television transmission is such that over a distance of 200 miles the signals could be completely blanketed. In Western Australia commercial television stations are established only in the highly populated metropolitan area. By the establishment of television translator stations, people outside that area will have a chance to see television programmes. A lot of criticism has been voiced in this House of the standards of Australian television programmes. The difference between seeing a television programme and not seeing it is moving from your chair and turning a switch. Honorable members have said that night after night all you get is murder, mayhem and similar topics. Obviously they have become goggle-eyed from staring at the box. Any one with an ounce of selectivity can have a good night's entertainment by choosing programmes carefully. It is true that some programmes are hardly fit for human viewing, but I do not suppose that anybody has his arm twisted behind his back to force him to watch them. It is a matter of self-control and self-discipline whether you accept or reject unsuitable programmes. As you are looking at me, **Mr. Deputy Speaker,** I had better relate my remarks to the bill. I do this very simply by saying that the programmes seen in the metropolitan area will be transmitted by the translator stations. The bill has a lot to commend it. I hope that it will not be long before commercial stations will bc given the right to move quickly ahead so that the people of outback Australia will be able to enjoy television as much as the people of the metropolitan area. {: #subdebate-34-0-s3 .speaker-KCB} ##### Mr DAVIES:
Braddon .- I rise to support the amendment foreshadowed by the Leader of the Opposition in regard to the licensing of television translator stations. By an interjection, the Postmaster-General **(Mr. Davidson)** referred to a discussion I had with him earlier to-day. As I understood the interjection, the Minister said that he thought he had satisfied me. I came away from the interview not quite satisfied, and that is why I have risen to speak now. I do not think that any of the matters that we discussed should enter this debate, but I wish to put the record straight so far as it concerns my electorate and the Australian Labour Party in relation to the licensing of translator stations. I will endeavour to be reasonably brief. The Leader of the Opposition has proposed that applications for licences for television translator stations be referred by the Minister to the Australian Broadcasting Control Board. All commercial television stations operating within a radius of 200 miles of the proposed translator station, and other interested persons, would then be notified by the board. If an objection is lodged within fourteen days, it is proposed that an inquiry be held under the provisions of the Broadcasting and Television Act. I am particularly interested in the latter part of the proposed amendment. I refer to the proposal that the board shall not recommend the approval of an application if it is of the opinion that it would operate so as to prevent or would be likely to prevent the establishment of a commercial television station in or about ti. area to which the ap;"-. tion relates. Let me make it quite *clear* that the Opposition is in favour of the establishment of translator stations, or of some kind of booster or relay stations. Since the inception of television in Australia I have been making representations along these lines so that the benefits of tele is,or may be extended to people in isolated areas. I refer particularly to isolated parts of my own electorate, such as King Island, halfway between Tasmania and the mainland of Victoria, where at present reception is very poor. We went to a lot of trouble and expense to obtain detailed information from the Columbia Broadcasting Sys!em of New York in the hope of improving the service available on King Island. We sent to New York particulars of the height of high points of land, contours, distances and a lot of other information, and we obtained a very detailed set of plans showing how a satisfactory relay signal from the mainland of Victoria could bc received on the island. As honorable members can imagine, these inquiries cost a tremendous amount of effort, time and money. All the information was submitted to the Postmaster-General's Department, but the only reply was that it would be put away and looked at some time in the future when a later s'age of television development applicable to the area was being considered. That is one of the reasons why we condemn the Government this evening. The area to which I refer has never been included in any of the stages of television development that have been announced so far. I should like to mention also the position on the West Coast of Tasmania. I know perfectly well that no commercial television station can be established there because the population is not large enough to support such a station. Because of the topography of the area, relays are the answer, and the sooner we get them, the better. In respect of this area, again, we have made numerous representations to the Postmaster-General for some sort of relay or booster station - call it what you like. " Translator " is the new name that is used. {: .speaker-KDA} ##### Mr Duthie: -- The Minister remembers our representations. {: .speaker-KCB} ##### Mr DAVIES: -- I should think he would. The Queenstown Municipal Council and other interested organizations have complained that the people on the West Coast pay f5 a year for a television viewer's licence and are able to receive programmes for only 20 per cent, or 30 per cent, of the time for which the transmitting station is operating. Each time we have made representations, the Minister has replied to the effect that if the local people can afford to pay several hundred pounds for a television receiver they can afford to pay the £5 licence-fee. But that is not the point. These people are entitled to receive television programmes. As the Leader of the Opposition has said, if they do not get a television service from this Government, they will get it after 30th November from a government sympathetic to them. The position in respect of the West Coast of Tasmania intrigues me greatly, **Mr. Deputy Speaker.** Over the last three or four years, the Minister has told me repeatedly that there have been no plans for the extension of television services to this area by translators or any other means. In a letter written as recently of 9th October, he told me that the was unable to give any indication of how a television signal would be transmitted to the area. He went on to say that there were many problems and special difficulties in this connexion, and that considerable investigation would be necessary. Three weeks after that letter was written, there is thrown into this House, in the closing stages of the present Parliament, a measure that represents an attempt to extend television *to* the West Coast by means of translators. Like the Leader of the Opposition, I strongly suspect the reasons behind this measure, not so much in relation to Tasmania as in relation to television development on the mainland of Australia in view of what we know of it. People on the West Coast of Tasmania are in favour of a television service provided by any means, including translators. We know, as the honorable member for Wilmot **(Mr. Duthie)** has just mentioned, that there can never be a television station there. Nevertheless, the local people are entitled to a television service. I particularly support the second part of the amendment foreshadowed by the Leader of the Opposition. My electorate takes in the west coast of Tasmania, King Island, which I have already mentioned, and also the larger towns of Burnie, Devonport, Wynyard, Penguin, Ulverstone and Smithton. Including the fringe areas, there is a population of some 80,000 to 100,000 people who are seeking a television service. We fully expected to be included in either stage 3 or stage 4 of the television development programme. However, we were not; so we look forward to being included in any further stage of television development to be announced by the Minister. We claim that we should have been included in the last stage announced, when a commercial station for Launceston was approved. Why should we on the north-west coast have had to wait until station TNT-9 at Launceston is completed? Burnie or Devonport, on the north-west coast, would be the logical centre for a television station to serve the whole of the area, with relay stations to serve the west-coast. But we were required to sit back and wait until the Launceston station was finished. We were told that when that station was operating, applications would be called for a licence on the north-west coast. We arc entitled to a station of our own. The area of which I speak takes in about one-third of the population of Tasmania. The position in that State is different from the position in mainland States. There are three more or less distinct areas in Tasmania. There is a large concentration of population in the south about Hobart, and there is a distinctly separate population area in the north about Launceston. Then there is the north-west coast area, which I represent. The areas in the north and the south have been given television stations, but, up to date, the Government has refused to let us have one on the north-west coast. We want our television station to give us programmes with local content. I should no; like to say that the area of which I speak is peculiar, but it has a separate identity more or less distinct from that of the area represented by my honorable friend from Wilmot. We do not want the north-west coast area to be a satellite of Launceston. V/e can thrash that city at Australian Rules football at any time, as we have done in years gone by in all friendliness. This year, a team from Burnie went to Launceston and showed the Launceston people how to play football. We can hold our own with Launceston in anything, **Mr. Deputy Speaker.** No area is advancing industrially with greater rapidity than is the north-west coast. Local people made their own plan; and were ready to provide a television service for the area. A company was formed and was ready to sumbit an application for a commercial television licence. The Government stands condemned for not including this area in any of the stages of television development proceeded with up to date. The Minister now intends to licence translator stations on the recommendation of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board. We on the north-west coast of Tasmania know perfectly well that the Launceston station, TNT-9, will rush in and install translators on the north-west coast. That will tie us to one station and will be most undesirable for the people of the area. As I have said, a company has already been formed on the north-west coast to provide a television service and it should have the right to object to the issue of a licence to any translator station. Honorable members can readily imagine what will happen if provision for such objections is not included in the bill. Translators may be sited at points A, B and C, surrounding an area with a population of reasonable size that would be able to support a commercial station. But any commercial station likely to be established would be hamstrung before it started and its development would be restricted. The enthusiasm of people who would be likely to promote such a station would be damped down if the area were surrounded by translator stations tied to one station situated some distance away. A company formed to establish a projected station should have the right to object to the siting of translators in the area. The Government has no right to do what it intends to do by means of this bill. That is why the Opposition has foreshadowed the amendment. The company on the north-west coast '.hat I have mentioned has registered its objection to this measure in a telegram in which it states that it is deeply interested in the establishment of a television station on the north-west coast of Tasmania. I propose to read the objections stated in the telegram, as follows: - >While we appreciate need for translator stations in certain areas and in fact realise that such could bc of value in serving West Coast in conjunction wilh north western station we feel that where application for translator station may cut- across establishment of future television station in an area there should not be automatic approval of translator station by Minister but that any approval should be subject to public inquiry and/or object lion by parties which may be affected. If Minister were, also required under legislation to make public announcement in press of his intention to approve translator station in particular area this would give parties interested warning and permit them to lodge objection. The essence of the Labour Party's criticism of the legislation is that approval should not be granted for a translator in any case where such a service will prejudice the establishment of a separate station at a later date. If a translator service were approved in those circumstances, it could prevent people in areas such as the one to which I am referring from ever having a television station of their own. They would be tied to the service from one station only, as is the case in the area about which I am most concerned at the moment. If this area had its own television station, it would have greater coverage to viewers, it would provide more employment in the district and it would offer more opportunities for talented people residing in the area. The present population, together with the predicted development of the area warrant the granting of its own television station. The present population of the area is about onethird of that of the whole State and its population growth has been greater than that of any other district. This Government has treated the northwest coast of Tasmania very poorly. As I said earlier, we could have been included in stages 3 and 4 of the Government's programme. There is at least one company in the area ready to submit an application for a licence to establish a commercial television station which would serve the needs of the people of the north-west coast, but it would appear that it is to be given no opportunity to do so. Instead, the influence of the monopoly at Launceston is to be extended right along the coast, with the result that we are to be forced to bc content with viewing only the programmes coming from Launceston. What I am saying about the people at Launceston might seem to bc a bit harsh. They certainly have done a good job in setting up a station, but the people of my district want to be given the opportunity to prove that we, too, could do a good job. We could work in conjunction with the Launceston station. We could swap programmes with it and so give the viewers of both stations a greater variety of programmes. I thought that the Government's policy was that local interests should be granted licences to establish television stations. Brit if approval is to be granted for the se' ting up of translators in districts which have reasonably large populations, this policy cannot bc carried to fruition because the translators will enable programmes to be televised from stations great distances away. We are i wholeheartedly in agreement wilh translators in isolated areas such as King Island, the west coast of Tasmania and the far north-west of Tasmania. The people in those places are entitled to a service, and it is the Government's duty to give it to them. It should have been given to them long ago. In view of the fact that wc are being asked to pass this bill to-night, I cannot understand why the Minister said only three weeks ago that it would take some considerable time to consider this problem. Of course, when the Government likes, and especially when there is an election looming, it can act very quickly indeed in an attempt to save itself. We of the Opposition assure the people that if the present Government will not provide them with a service then the government which will be in office after 30th November next will do so. I conclude by emphasizing the need for boosters, repeater stations, or translators, whatever you like to call them, in isolated areas, but we do argue that no approval should be granted for the establishment of a translator station in those instances where such approval would prevent or be likely to prevent the eventual establishment of a commercial television station. I sincerely hope that no approval will bc granted for translators in and around the areas of concentrated population on the north-west coast of Tasmania because we want our own independent station, and wc have people ready to apply for a licence whenever this Government chooses to call for applications. {: #subdebate-34-0-s4 .speaker-QS4} ##### Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP : - The honorable member for Braddon **(Mr. Davies)** clearly seems to have misunderstood the Government's policy with relation to the extension of television to country areas which has been stated very clearly not once but several times by tha Postmaster-General **(Mr. Davidson).** It has been said very clearly by the PostmasterGeneral and other Government spokesmen from time to time that it is the policy of the Government to establish independent country television stations in areas that can sustain a commercial television service. Obviously there would be no point in calling for applications for a licence to conduct a commercial television station in a particular area if that area could not support ad independent commercial television station. Indeed, it would bc impossible to induce any commercial enterprise or group of private persons to undertake the establishment of a television station in those circumstances. This bill is designed to give a reasonable television service to those areas that cannot support an independent television station in their own right. What is proposed is but a reasonable attempt to achieve that objective. It is obvious that a translator will not be established in any area that can or will support an independent commercial station, but translators could and must bc sci up in those areas which have reasonably large populations, which need a service and which cannot get good service at the present time. The honorable member for Braddon seemed to imply that the alternatives were either the automatic approval of any application to establish a translator service or the procedure suggested in the amendment foreshadowed by the Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Calwell).** That is absolute nonsense. If the Leader of the Opposition does move the amendment which he has foreshadowed and it is not accepted - I sincerely hope the Postmaster-General will not accept it - that will not mean that any and every application to set up a translator service will be granted by the board. The board will make its own inquiries and arrive at its own decision whether an area might be able lo support an independent station, or whether it should be given only a translator service. In my opinion, that is the only reasonable approach to be made in this phase of the extension of television services to country areas. The bill is particularly pertinent to the present needs of country areas thai are not now enjoying good television recepti m and which will never have the benefit of good television reception if they have to wait for the establishment of an independent and private television station for the simple reason that, as things stand at the moment, those areas could not support an additional independent commercial television station. In such cases, a translator service is necessary. The benefit that can accrue to a groat number of country areas is all too obvious and it is most unfortunate that one of the effects of the amendment foreshadowed by the Leader of the Opposition could cry likely bc to prevent country television stations from adopting translators, thus preventing remote country areas from ever enjoying a good television service. {: .speaker-KCA} ##### Mr Davidson: -- That is quite right. {: .speaker-QS4} ##### Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP -- If the amendment foreshadowed by the Leader of the Opposition were accepted, the difficulties with which country television stations could bc confronted would be insuperable. Perhaps I can best demonstrate that by quoting an example or two. The Ballarat television station is very interested in establishing a translator station that will serve Warrnambool and Portland, which are not now enjoying what might be termed an A class service. Technical examination is now being undertaken to decide whether one or two translators would be needed for this purpose. Later, the Ballarat station might bc interested in establishing a further translator, perhaps at Nhill to serve the southern Wimmera district. A service would then bc provided for the area in Western Victoria that at present does not have first-class television reception. It seems to mc to bc a thoroughly reasonable proposal. 1 give this only as an example, and 1 do not suggest that this is the only such situation or that this is an example taken in isolation. Many country television stations are not having an easy time in their first years of existence. Anything that can be done to increase their revenues will mean that a better television service will bc provided in the country. At the same time, it will assist the country television stations to maintain their independence. There are two ways of destroying the independence of country television stations. One is to allow circumstances to arise that will enable metropolitan stations to take over country stations. The second way is to permit the establishment of too many commercial stations in country areas. This would spread the revenue available in country areas too thinly and none of the stations would be really profitable. The sensible middle course is to strengthen the present country stations by making it possible for them to extend their services into additional areas by the use of translators. The amendment foreshadowed by the Leader of the Opposition frankly plays into the hands of those who oppose the independence of country television stations or who do not wish country television stations to be strengthened. Let us examine the position to see what would happen in practice. Let us' suppose, in the circumstances that I have envisaged, that Ballarat applied for one, two or three translator services. In the terms of the amendment to be moved by the Leader of the Opposition, any television station within 200 miles could object and once an objection had been lodged a full inquiry would be undertaken. This would mean that counsel would bc engaged and there would be a full hearing before the board. This would be a costly and timewasting procedure. If the amendment were carried, Ballarat could not apply for a translator service without an objection being lodged by one or both of the metropolitan stations. The metropolitan stations, with infinitely greater resources, could employ leading counsel for days and for weeks if necessary. Such an expense could tax the already strained financial resources of country television stations beyond the limit. In these circumstances, some country television stations might well say, " It is just not worth the fight to try to obtain a translator service ". Therefore, I believe that there is no merit at all in the amendment foreshadowed by the Leader of the Opposition. It plays into the hands of those who do not want the country television stations to have independence, strength and security. It would mean that the establishment of any translator service would be postponed for twelve months or more, and this would further weaken the financial position of the independent country television stations. One purpose of the bill, as I understand it, is to provide a good television service to isolated pockets of population and communities, some of which are quite numerous and most of which are very important. These communities cannot in their own right support an independent television station. Therefore, a translator relay service from a country television station is the means by which they will obtain a good service. There is no other way of supplying an adequate service to areas that cannot give economic support to a full commercial television station. In addition country television stations will be strengthened, and this is a most important element of the bill. It is strange indeed to learn that the Opposition proposes to move an amendment that will have the very opposite effect. However, I would suggest that the Leader *el* the Opposition and those who support his proposed amendment have not read the principal act. The principal act allows the Minister or the board to initiate a full inquiry, if they believe this course to be desirable in a particular situation. Section 18 of the principal act provides - >Before making a recommendation under this Act to the Minister as to any matter, or before taking action under this Act in relation to am matter, the Board may if it thinks fit, and shall if this Act so provides or the Minister so directs- That means, either on the initiative of the board or the initiative of the Minister - hold an inquiry in accordance with this Division into that matter. Therefore, if the circumstances warrant, it would be quite open to the board or to the Minister to initiate a full inquiry into the extension of a particular translator service. This is quite different from making a full inquiry mandatory, to all intents and purposes, as the Opposition's proposed amendment clearly does. I would suggest that no circumstances could be envisaged in which either the board or the Postmaster-General would really believe that a full inquiry into a proposed translator service would or might be necessary. I do not think the section to which I have referred would be used in relation to this service. However, the section is there to be used it peculiar circumstances do arise at any time.I am certain that the Postmaster-General and the House will reject the amendment foreshadowed by the Leader of the Opposition. I hope that country television stations throughout Australia will take note of what the Opposition has done to-night. {: #subdebate-34-0-s5 .speaker-KID} ##### Mr LUCHETTI:
Macquarie .- The bill has for its basic purpose the establishment of translator television stations throughout Australia. To put the matter clearly before the Parliament, I think it would be well to read the definition in the bill of a television translator station.It is - " ' television translator station ' means a station for the transmission by means of wireless telegraphy of television programmes, being a station of low operating power and designed to receive and re-transmit signals from a television station, or from another television translator station, without (substantially altering any characteristic of the signals other than their frequencies and amplitudes;" Having defined a translator station, I think it would be appropriate to consider the broad field into which these translator stations will fit and their purpose in providing television programmes for the people. The introduction of the various phases of television in Australia has left very much to be desired. The strange decisions of the Postmaster-General **(Mr. Davidson)** in granting licences and in some instances in reversing the decisions of the Australian BroadcastingControl Board seem to have left members of the public perplexed. I have also been very concerned at the disregard of local interests, which has manifested itself in public concern and protest throughout Australia. There has been considerable public interest in television, which has been one of the most exciting developments in Australia. The granting of television licences, which has taken place in Melbourne from time to time, has been bewildering and mysterious. I come now to the sale of shares in television companies. The honorable member for Wannon **(Mr. Malcolm Fraser)** quite rightly drew attention to the danger of monopoly control of television stations and said how necessary it was to have firm control in this regard. I would like the Postmaster-General, when replying to the debate, to give the Parliament his explanation of what has taken place on the south coast of New South Wales, where the shares of one television company have been purchased by other people with interests outside the south coast area, and also what has taken place further north in the Newcastle district. {: .speaker-KCA} ##### Mr Davidson: -- **Mr. Deputy Speaker,** I do not want unduly to restrict the honorable member's remarks but I point out that this amending bill deals with television translator stations and has nothing whatever to do with shareholdings of people in television companies. I therefore submit that the honorable member is not in order. {: #subdebate-34-0-s6 .speaker-KCU} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury:
RYAN, QUEENSLAND -- I have allowed the honorable member for Macquarie a fair amount of latitude, and I ask him now to keep within the framework of the bill. I have let him make the passing references be has made, but 1 would be glad if he would now come back to the bill. Mr.LUCHETTI. - Thank you very much, **Mr. Deputy Speaker.** I am sure you will appreciate that I was replying to the honorable member for Wannon and felt that I was within my rights in directing attention to what had taken place in connexion with the ownership of television stations. I do not intend to go beyond that point. This legislation has been designed to fill in gaps which have been left by the Postmaster-General in providing television services in Australia. As the bill indicates, it is a measure to amend the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942-1962 in relation to television translator stations. In the course of studying the legislation that we are now obliged to amend, I have examined the earlier amending measures very carefully. There is the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942-1956; the amending act No. 36 of 1960; the amending act No. 32 of 1961; and the amending act No. 96 of 1962. As you can see, **Sir, I** am holding in my hand a sheaf of statements made by the Postmaster-General in regard to these matters, all answering and trying to fill in the gaps which have so far been left unfilled. Now we are obliged to take this further step. It is true that there are pockets of population in Australia where the people have received scant consideration from the Postmaster-General. From time to time in this Parliament, I have made pleas to the Postmaster-General to deal with these problems of people in the fringe reception areas and where, because of physical difficulties such as mountain ranges and so on some action ought to be taken. The Postmaster-General has always answered my questions, but has gone merrily on his way, extending television in its various phases and only now, in the dying hours of this Parliament, do we have this legislation to correct a glaring anomaly and a situation which should never have been tolerated in Australia. I regret to think that this legislation has to be rushed through at this time. It is so important that I believe it should have been considered much earlier during the sittings of this Parliament. This measure provides for translator stations, but the provision of a translator station in any area in Australia would give the viewers reception from one station only. When a translator station is installed in any area where at present there is no reception or unsatisfactory reception, the programme of only one television station will be able to be received. I have always come down on the side of the public and I believe that consideration of the public should come first. Quite apart from any other consideration, I believe that people ought to be able to have a choice. It appears that under this legislation there can be only one translator station in each area, ai.d the PostmasterGeneral would not go beyond that. This measure begs the fact that the public in an area are entitled to a choice. I wish now to refer to an area in my own district, which I know so well, the Lithgow, Wallerawang and Portland area, Bathurst, certain folds of the Dividing Range and the Blue Mountains. Some people might think that Channel 8 at Orange is the station to be received in in those areas and that a translator station connected with Orange would be desirable. Other people, perhaps, would feel that Channel 7 or Channel *9,* or the Newcastle or Wollongong stations - Channels 3 and 4 - should be connected with the translator station so that their programmes might be received. I think it is quite proper that people ought to have the opportunity of that choice granted to them. I regret to think that by means of this legislation the public will, with the exception of one programme retransmitted by the translator station, continue to have to suffer inferior - technically inferior - reception of programmes being transmitted by other stations. This is not as it should be, and I would have thought the Minister, when going into this matter, would open the gateway for the best possible reception. The department, in holding inquiries into this question, has disregarded the welfare of people in country centres. The honorable member for Wannon spoke, with some indignation, about the rights of the country people and said they should be able to have the type of programme they desired. Let us look at the manner in which these matters were decided. First, there was the inquiry into the question of television stations, which decided who would get the licences, and the questions of reception and the community's interests were not considered at all. The inquiry was held in Melbourne and if any one in the country wanted to put before it his point of view in regard to his own area he was obliged to get counsel and go to Melbourne in order to say: " We are not going to get good reception with what is being proposed. We think something different ought to be done." The local point of view was disregarded. I believe the inquiry should have taken evidence in the country areas to be served by television. The inquiry seemed to me to be a rich man's field day for big business and power politics. The local shire president, mayor, chamber of commerce and the local community were entirely disregarded. All that was considered by the inquiry into these matters in Melbourne was how this very profitable instrument of entertainment, education and the dissemination of news was to be divided between strong and powerful groups - the people who, in the main, have been deeply interested in mass communication and who have been concerned with the press and with radio stations, while the great interests of the community were altogether disregarded. All I can do is hope that by providing for these translator stations the Government will open the gate. I sincerely hope, as the Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Calwell)** has said, that this legislation will do nothing to hinder the granting of licences for new television stations where they are considered necessary. My mind goes back some time to when applications were received for the operation of stations to give service to the people. One application was lodged with the Australian Broadcasting Control Board by a well-known industrialist who proposed to erect his transmitting station on one of the highest peaks of the Blue Mountains in a position which would have given excellent service in the area which the translator station now will cover. But his application was rejected, not because his station would not give good service to the people of this area but because the programmes from his station would" feed back into the Sydney metropolitan area and would have clashed with programmes being televised by stations in the metropolitan area. The rejection of that man's application paid no heed to public interest. Public interest ran a very poor last in that race. The incoming Labour government will undoubtedly give consideration to this matter. The subject of television will have to be reviewed. When the Labour Party reviews this matter I am certain that the community will come first. The type of programme to be televised, the technical quality of the programmes and the needs of the people will be placed1 before the profits of those engaged in the industry. It seems that no purpose would be served in debating this bill at very great length at this time in the life of the Twenty-Fourth Parliament. On 30th November the people will have an opportunity to determine the type of government that they want in Australia. When that decision is given the Labour Party will accept its responsibilities and will legislate for the public good. {: #subdebate-34-0-s7 .speaker-KDS} ##### Mr FAILES:
Lawson .- I was amazed to hear the honorable member for Macquarie **(Mr. Luchetti),** in some parts of whose electorate there is a great need for a translator station, criticize this proposal. He is opposed to the bill and he used the debate as a vehicle for criticism of the Postmaster-General **(Mr. Davidson),** his department and th; Australian Broadcasting Control Board. The board has gone to no end of trouble to try to give the people exactly what the honorable member says they should have - the best possible television service that can be provided. {: .speaker-KID} ##### Mr Luchetti: -- Say something about Dubbo's licence. {: .speaker-KDS} ##### Mr FAILES: -- I will keep within the limits of the bill, which is something the honorable member for Macquarie could not do. The bill is designed to establish a translator service. Translator stations are necessary because of the peculiar circumstances of television. Those circumstances exist in other countries, but they exist in Australia to a very much greater extent. The very high frequency used in the transmission of television docs not always follow the pattern that it may theoretically be expected to follow. So it is quite incorrect to say that the Postmaster-General is merely filling in the gaps that were left when licences were allocated for the stations that we enjoy in Australia at present. What he is proposing to do is fill in the gaps that occur because of the peculiar natural obstacles that arise in this country. In his second-reading speech the Minister said - >The studies which have been made have revealed that a fairly substantial number of people reside In areas which, although not a great distance from existing transmitters, are inadequately served because of the topography of the country. This is not an unexpected situation. In fact, in all overseas countries where television services are in operation, similar difficulties have been experienced. But those difficulties are probably more pronounced in Australia because we have a vast area to cover and a fairly limited frequency range in which to fit the stations. This means that the number of stations that we can put into the channels that have been allocated for this purpose is limited. The original scheme whereby television stations were established in Australia was designed to give service to the greatest number of people. It has been estimated that when the present scheme is finalized about 91 per cent, of the people in this country will be enjoying a television service. Unfortunately there arc small pockets here and there in Australia which cannot enjoy good television reception. One such pocket is the town of Mudgee, in my electorate. Mudgee lies behind a range of mountains and is unable to receive good television signals from a station which was designed to serve that area. Most peculiar anomalies occur in Mudgee. One side of a street may be receiving good signals while the other side of the street is not receiving any signals. Naturally the people of Mudgee are very disappointed. I have no doubt that a similar phenomenon occurs in many other places which are similarly located. The people of Mudgee asked me whether it would be possible to make representations to have a receiving antenna erected on the hills in order to feed a strong and fresh signal down into the town; in other words, to activate the transmitting antenna and send a signal down into the town. On behalf of the people of Mudgee I made representations in the matter to the Australian Broadcasting Control Board, which gave my representations fair consideration. The board stated that when the time was right it hoped to do something that would give effect to the proposals put before it. In the case of Mudgee a translator station will be exactly what the people want. I imagine that situations similar to that which exists in Mudgee exist in the electorates of some honorable members opposite who have taken part in this debate. Areas inhabited by small groups of people - not sufficient people to warrant the establishment of a new television station - now getting unsatisfactory reception will benefit by tv.e provisions of this bill. It has been pointed out that the translator stations do not originate programmes. In his secondreading speech the Minister said - >Their establishment must therefore, of necessity, be restricted to areas where it is possible from an efficient site to receive the programmes from a normal television station for rc-transmission by the translator. I do not think honorable members opposite who have taken part in the debate fully appreciate what the new system will mean The honorable member for Braddon **(Mr. Davies)** said that relay stations are needed in certain parts of Tasmania. He probably does not appreciate that translators will do the job for which he seeks the erection of relay stations. It is not intended that translator stations will have any great range. Their range will be limited to a few miles. They are designed to give a service in a particular locality in which difficulties are now experienced. I do not intend to delay the House, but I would point out one or two things. There is nothing to prevent the granting of more than one commercial licence in areas which are now covered by licences. Admittedly to date only one commercial licence has bs-n granted in country areas, but if the demand is sufficient and if the population warrants the establishment of another commercial station, there is nothing to prevent this b?-ing done. But I suggest that licences should not be granted for additional commercial stations until the demand warrants more commercial stations. The people are entitled to the best possible programmes they can get. They can get the best possible programme only if the station is financially able to provide it. If more stations are licensed, they will not get the best possible programme. In those areas where people are getting very indifferent reception the translator service will fill the bill and give them reception of the standard to which they are entitled. Many people to-day are experiencing reception which is far worse than what was originally considered to be suitable for the area for which a station is licensed. In fact, many people are caught in an overlap between two areas. The signals which they are receiving are similar to the signals we received in the early days of radio. In those days, because radio was a novelty, we put up with static, fading and all the other difficulties of bad reception. But to-day the average man wants good radio reception, free of static, interference and fading. He is not content unless he gets good reception. As time goes on the same feelings will apply to television. People will not be content to have ghosting, double images, snow and all the other annoyances which inhibit the enjoyment of a decent programme. The proposals contained in this bill, which I heartily support, will be of benefit to those people who at present are within what is considered to be a television area but who are not enjoying satisfactory reception. I do not consider that the proposed amendment will do anything to assist them. On the contrary, it will cut right across the proposals which the Postmaster-General and his department arc sponsoring. {: #subdebate-34-0-s8 .speaker-KCA} ##### Mr DAVIDSON:
PostmasterGeneral · Dawson · CP -- in reply - The bill which I presented to the House is designed to carry out the undertakings which I, on behalf of the Government, have given from time to time that our television services will be developed steadily and that in the course of that development we will take steps to deal with certain areas in which, because of topographical and other features, the coverage, particularly by stations already established, is unsatisfactory and in which the viewers are getting very poor reception. We stated that as our system developed and as it became increasingly evident that there were areas which were not being covered adequately, wc would use all means within our power to provide reasonable television coverage. The first method for which provision was made in the original act was the licensing of community antenna systems. That method has been in operation for some time and some of these systems have been established to cover small pockets in which reception has been poor. There has been no suggestion (hat this was a matter which should be the subject of further extensive inquiry by the board. The principle has been accepted. The proposal now to establish translator stations where they are shown to be necessary is simply an extension of the community antenna system. Community antenna systems have a very limited coverage and are very expensive to establish. Some areas are too large to be serviced by a community antenna system but are too small to justify the development of a full television service. By providing for translator services, we are taking one more step in our extension of television coverage. I have been a little surprised at some of the comments that have been made and some of the objections that have been raised to-night, although I was pleased when the Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Calwell),** who led the debate on this bill for the Opposition, said that this certainly was a laudable thing for the Government to do. He also said that to extend the benefit of television to as wide an area as possible we should plan quickly. With that I agree completely. Therefore I am astonished at the Opposition's proposal which, if accepted, would place a very definite brake on our plan to use translators wherever possible. I cannot help thinking that the Oppo sition's attitude stems from a failure to realize the essence of the translator system. I think the honorable member for Lawson **(Mr. Failes)** made this point It has been the experience in other countries that as television develops there are certain pockets which do not receive a satisfactory coverage from already established stations. The translator system, by which the signal from a parent station is picked up and retransmi itted on a different frequency and at a lower power to a limited area, has been found to overcome this difficulty, lt is important to realize this. In Australia the frequencies available to us are limited and, therefore, in the development of this translator system, we must give a reasonably small coverage to suit a particular area to avoid interfering with already established services in other areas. A translator system based on an already established full-power television station will provide good reception for those viewers who at present are getting only poor reception. The translator system is not a very attractive economic proposition for already established stations. The parent station provides the programmes for the translator station. However, as this is not always an economic proposition it is not something which organizations that are not already involved in television transmission would be inclined to undertake. The cost to a parent station of providing a mast and transmission facilities for a translator station would be in the vicinity, I am told, of £2,000 to £4,000 but the revenue, because of the limited coverage, could be as low as £1,000. S;. there is nothing very attractive about this proposition except that a parent station, desiring to cover a certain area and finding that it is not covering small pockets in that area, would have the satisfaction of giving a good service. That is the whole essence of thi., matter. Certain honorable members, particularly some on the other side of the House, have been pressing me for some time - quite rightly - to establish a service such as is now proposed. In the circumstances, I find it hard to understand why the Opposition has advanced a proposal which will cut right across the principles on which we are operating. Let us consider the proposed amendment, which I now inform the House the Government does not intend to accept. As television services extend, the Broadcasting Control Board, as a result of its daily surveys of the services that are being provided, realizes that here, there and somewhere else are areas which need some sort of booster or translator service. Consequently, we have reached the stage at which the board can set out to try to encourage - in many cases this is what the board will be required to do - certain operators in th. relevant areas to establish translator se: vices. Already we have received representations from the honorable member for Macquarie **(Mr. Luchetti).** He knows that representations have been made from his area for the establishment of such services. We have received representations from the Snowy Mountains area, Western Australia and South Australia that such services should bc established. The board, because of its knowledge, will be in a position to decide whether it is desirable to encourage and to assist in the establishment of translator services in those areas. In order to make the proposition attractive, we have provided in the bill that the board must make proper investigations of any prospective applicants for such services. Of course the board must make investigations. The main ground on which I challenge the amendment foreshadawed by the Leader of the Opposition is that it states that the Minister must refer an application for a licence for a television translator station to the board. In most instances it will be the board that knows where these services are required and it will be the board that will initiate moves to provide these services. The foreshadowed amendment also provides that the board must give notice in writing of such application in newspapers. That will not be necessary because for some considerable time the board will have been carrying out detailed technical investigations of the reception of the signal in the relevant area in order to enable it to determine whether there should be a translator service in that area. Consequently, every one in the area will know about it. This is the dangerous part of the Opposition's proposal: Notice in writing of such application must be given to ali licensees of commercial television stations operating within a radius of 200 miles of the site of the proposed television translator station and to such other persons as the board thinks fit. The foreshadowed emendment goes on to say - >If notice of objection to the granting of the application is lodged with the Board by a person interested within fourteen days after the giving of such notices the Board shall hold an inquiry in accordance with the provisions of Division 3 of Part II. of this Act. Let us stop and think about what that would mean. Notice would have to be given to all licensees of commercial television stations operating within a radius of 200 miles of Lithgow, or within a radius of 200 miles of Ballarat, which was mentioned by the honorable member for Wannon **(Mr. Malcolm Fraser).** That means that we would say to the metropolitan licencees on the east coast of Australia: " If some one in these country areas applies for a translator station licence, you can come in with your opposition. You can make an objection within fourteen days and then the board must hold one of these inquiries. Dozens and dozens of them have been held already, but you can hold up the whole business for as long as you like - for months or more. You can get counsel to appear before the board and inquire into the status of these applicants." The board would be carrying out the same sort of inquiry as it has carried out already in respect of every application for a commercial television licence that it has heard. There would not be anything new, because the parent applicants have been investigated by the board thoroughly and completely over a long period. They have been forced to spend tens of thousands of pounds on these inquiries. Under the Opposition's proposal, the board would have to do all of that again. Why? Does the board need to hold inquiries into the status of a parent applicant and where he stands? Does the board need to make these inquiries in order to find out what he can do with regard to the production of programmes and what his financial position is? The board has all of that information already. Members of the Opposition could not possibly have realized what this proposal meant. What the Opposition says, in its proposal, that it intends to do will cut completely across the provisions that we are attempting to put into effect. The Leader of the Opposition said that the Opposition's plans are designed to ensure as quickly as -possible the further extension of television. This proposal would not do that. It would hold things up for months and months. Therefore, I say that the Government cannot accept it. One or two other points were made. The honorable member for Braddon **(Mr. Davies)** raised a fear which he and other honorable members from Tasmania have expressed to me already. It relates particularly to the south-western area of Tasmania. He asked whether this bill would mean that, if an application for a translator service in that area were received and considered by the board, other organizations could not establish a full-blooded television service in that area. Of course, the answer is " No ". I know who those organizations are because they have been writing to the board for some considerable time. The primary requirement placed upon the board under the act is to provide television services - not television translator services - to all areas in which it is considered such services can be provided economically and soundly. Therefore, in the area to which the honorable member for Braddon has referred, and in any other area, the first responsibility of the board is to ascertain whether it would be practicable for it to recommend to the Minister that applications for a full-blooded television licence in the area should be called for. If the board makes such a recommendation, the question of substituting a translator system does not arise. This proposal for translator stations is not devised as a means of getting away from the establishment of full-blooded television stations. A translator station is only an adjunct. This system will be employed only where it is obvious to the board, from its experience and investigations, that it is the only available method of providing a television service to an area. As a matter of fact, I have already advised the honorable member for Braddon and other people who have approached me on this matter that this legislation does not relate to areas in which no commercial television service is operating at present but in which it is clear that one may be established in the future. The area referred F.9601/63.- *R.-* 1891 to by the honorable member is not the only one concerned. The present position is that, as far as translators are concerned, the board will be concerned only with areas in which a service is operating and it has become completely evident that that service is not satisfactory, and therefore the board must turn its attention to a translator service as an adjunct. That is the way this legislation will operate. Phase 4 is now in operation. It does not represent the limit of the board's determinations on the extension of full-scale television services. As honorable members know, over a period of years the board has been very busily engaged in extending television services. We have gone through phase 4. Applications have been received and certain recommendations have be in made. From now on the board will be directing its attention to various areas in which, as a result of its investigations, it believes full-scale television services could be established. That will be one of the board's prime tasks in the next two or three years. Now we have reached the stage where the board can also apply itself to the problem of servicing small pockets which are not serviced properly at present and which can be serviced by translator stations. The Leader of the Opposition, in talking about inquiries, asked, "What is wrong with public inquiries? " I have dealt with that already. There is nothing wrong with them. We have provided for the holding of them. We have held public inquiries into all the matters which could possibly come up for consideration under this proposal to establish translator stations. In fact, if it were felt that there was still a need to make sure about the right of the board to hold public inquiries, as the honorable member for Wannon pointed out very plainly, section 18 of the act lays down that in certain circumstances the board may, and under direction the board shall, hold inquiries. The provision reads - >Before making a recommendation under this Act to the Minister' as to any matter, or before taking action under this Act in relation to any matter, the Board may if it thinks fit, and shall if this Act so provides or the Minister so directs, hold an inquiry in accordance with this Division into that matter. So the requirement is already in the act. But the point made by the honorable member, which I confirm, is that we are not going to include in this amending legislation a firm requirement that every time we arc asked to look into the provision of a translator system in some small area we must hold a public inquiry costing thousands and thousands of pounds. If we do that we will obviously not achieve our objective, because the local stations that should be the parent stations will not bc prepared to spend the money involved in an inquiry. They will be frightened out and the field will be left to those with plenty of money and who desire to get into these areas and gain control of them. The Government, therefore, will not be prepared to accept the amendment foreshadowed by the Leader of the Opposition. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. In committee: The bill. {: #subdebate-34-0-s9 .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr CALWELL:
Leader of the Opposition · Melbourne -- I refer to clause 4, which reads in part: - After Division 5 of Part IV. of the Principal Act the following Division is inserted: - " Division 5a. - Television Translator Stations. " 10iB. - (1.) The Minister may, after receipt of a recommendation by the Board, grant to a person a licence for a television translator station upon such conditions, and in accordance with such form, as the Minister determines. " (2.) The Board shall not recommend that a licence be granted for a television translator station if, in the opinion of the Board, satisfactory reception of television programmes from a commercial television station is being obtained in the area in which the signals from that television translator station are designed to be satisfactorily received. " (3.) One of the conditions of the licence for a television translator station shall be that the station is operated only for the reception and re-transmission of the programmes of a specified commercial television station. " (4.) The establishment, erection, maintenance and use of a television translator station in pursuance of a licence under this section shall be deemed not to be a contravention of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1905-1950 or of the regulations under that Act. I move - At the end of the proposed section 105b add the following sub-section: - " (5.) An application for a licence for a television translator station shall be referred by the Minister to the board. The board shall give notice of receipt of the application in such newspapers and by such other means as the board thinks lit and shall give notice in writing of such application to all licensees of commercial television stations operating within a radius of 200 miles from the site of lbc proposed television translator station and to such other persons as the board thinks fit. If notice of objection to the granting of the application is lodged with the board by a person interested within fourteen days after the giving of such notices the board shall bold an inquiry in accordance with the provisions of Division 3 of Part II. of this act. The board shall not recommend that the application be granted if the board is of opinion that the television translator station would operate so as to prevent or to be likely to prevent the establishment of a commercial television station in or about the area to which the application relates or to be unfair to the licensee of any other commercial television station ". I have advanced all the arguments I wanted to advance. The Postmaster-General **(Mr. Davidson)** has demolished them to the best of his ability and to his own satisfaction, but not to the satisfaction of members of the Opposition. I congratulate him on not fading out of politics. I think he went out fighting for what he believes. {: .speaker-KCA} ##### Mr Davidson: -- But I left my voice behind. {: .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr CALWELL: -- Yes, the Minister unfortunately left his voice behind. He will not be making many more speeches in the Parliament. On behalf of the Opposition I wish him well in his retirement. I hope he has a long, healthy and happy retirement and I hope be comes here occasionally. At any rate, I hope we will see him from time to time. I hope that he will continue to take an interest in Post Office affairs and in television and broadcasting. If the proposals that he has put to the Parliament are amended at some future time I hope he will not feel annoyed or disappointed. Amendment negatived. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. {:#subdebate-34-1} #### Third Reading {: #subdebate-34-1-s0 .speaker-KCA} ##### Mr DAVIDSON:
PostmasterGeneral · Dawson · CP -- by leave - I move - That the bill be now read a third time. I have been reminded by the Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Calwell)** that this is the last time on which I shall move in this House that a bill be read a third time. I sincerely thank the Leader of the Opposition for his kind remarks. I think it was very generous of him to make them. In this place we have our own opinions and we have our differences. I have always found that we can express ourselves forcibly without offence, saying what we mean, and realizing that others put their points of view with sincerity, although not always agreeing with those points of view. I repeat that I very much appreciate the remarks just made by the Leader of the Opposition. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. {: .page-start } page 2433 {:#debate-35} ### RIVER MURRAY WATERS BILL 1963 {:#subdebate-35-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed from 23rd October (vide page 2158). on motion by **Mr. Fairbairn** - >That the bill be now read a second time. {: #subdebate-35-0-s0 .speaker-KSC} ##### Mr SPEAKER (Hon Sir John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA -- There being no objection, that course will be followed. {: #subdebate-35-0-s1 .speaker-KID} ##### Mr LUCHETTI:
Macquarie .- The three bills that we are now called upon to discuss deal with the water resources of the Macquarie-Darling Rivers systems. I think it is essential that we give serious consideration to the available supplies in the two rivers involved and their tributaries. As to financial considerations in connexion with these bills, agreement has been reached between the respective governments, and no purpose would be served by holding a post-mortem on a matter that has been determined to the satisfaction of the governments involved. I particularly want to say something about the Darling River, upon which the Menindee Lakes are located, and of the need to conserve water, having regard to the arid nature of our vast island continent. Australia has a limited amount of water available for its development. It has the lowest rainfall of all the continents. The average rainfall in Australia is 16.5 inches a year. The world average is 26 inches. The average in the United States of America is 29 inches, in South America 53 inches, in Africa 28 inches, in Asia 25 inches in Europe 24 inches and in North America 24 inches. These figures show the very serious problem facing us in Australia. I personally believe that not enough consideration has been given to the conservation, reticulation and use of water in our land. I am not certain that the available water is being completely utilized. It is not merely a matter of storing the water. It will be the purpose of a broad overall authority to consider the needs of the nation. The States of New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia have joined with the Commonwealth in an understanding respecting the waters of the Murray-Darling system. It is most important that agreement be reached. The respective governments ought to get closer together to achieve the necessary agreement and to create an authority which will ensure that our water can be stored and used for necessary purposes. The requirements of western New South Wales are undoubtedly great, but most generous terms have been agreed upon by the New South Wales Government with respect to the vast water reserves created under the Menindee Lakes proposals - water which will be made available to the Commonwealth for use in Victoria and South Australia. Those terms show that we are reaching the understanding necessary in dealing with these important matters. It is to be commended. May I point out to the House that the total water run-off of Australia's 3,000,000 square miles is only four times the discharge of the Tennessee River in the United States of America from an area of 44,000 square miles in a high rainfall catchment area. It is obvious that greater care should bc exercised in dealing with our available water. The implementation of water storage schemes is wise and imperative. I suggest that with the passing of this legislation further consideration should be given by the incoming government of the Commonwealth to this ever-important and challenging question in a practical and patriotic way. The price paid for making available the waters of the Menindee Lakes scheme was the obtaining of funds for the Chowilla reservoir and the further extension of the River Murray Waters Agreement. The Menindee Lakes scheme .provides for a storage of about 1,000,000 acre feet. This could rise to 1,500,000 acre feet. The New South Wales Government has. made a most practical approach to the scheme, and we ought to pay tribute to it. It has a very fine record in the matter of water conservation and of practical assistance in meeting an Australian problem. Because of the lateness of the hour it is not my intention to speak as fully as I should have done in other circumstances. However, I think it is important to place on record some of the features of the Menindee storage scheme, through which water will be made available from the Menindee Lakes under the agreement we are considering. The river storage is 160,000 acre feet. Lake Malta has a capacity of 4,000 acre feet, Lake Balaka of 20,000 acre feet, Lake Bijijie of 21,000 acre feet, Lake Tandure of 85,000 acre feet, Lake Pamamaroo of 3 10,000 acre feet, Lake Menindee of 750,000 acre feet, Lake Cawndilla of 570,000 acre feet and miscellaneous small lakes and depressions have a total capacity of 80,000 . acre feet. In aggregate, the capacity available is approximately 2,000,000 acre feet, which represents a wonderful achievement in water conservation. From this storage must be obtained the waters we shall be called upon to provide under the terms of this legislation. Various authorities from time to time have referred to the importance of water conservation. I have an important publication which contains a passage which I think should go on record. With the concurence of honorable members I shall incorporate it in " Hansard ". The Commissioner of the Tasmanian HydroElectric Commission, **Mr. A.** W. Knight, said the conservation of Australian water resources was a national problem which called for the "wisest planning ". I would like to suggest that there is an urgent need for a thorough reappraisal of the basic data on which we assess our as yet undeveloped waterpower resources. This should be done with the object of filling in the gaps in the fundamental information which must serve as the basis for future investigations. The Opposition is pleased to support the three bills. We wish the measures a speedy passage so that they may contribute to the development of our country. Again I commend the three States concerned. Their governments are of somewhat different political persuasions but they and the Commonwealth Government have joined forces in this matter, which is of such great importance. I commend the legislation. {: #subdebate-35-0-s2 .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr TURNBULL:
Mallee .- The three bills we are discussing deal with the subject of life-giving water. They are welcomed by the people who live where the additional waters are to be made available. Each bill is very important. I will deal first with the River Murray Waters Bill, which involves certain amendments to the principal act. Some of them are not very important. The first amendment relates to the depth of water to be maintained in channels and locks on the river Murray. The next amendment is much more important. It relates to the voting of members of the River Murray Commission in times of drought. It is not a minor amendment, because it is in times of drought that voting has to be done in a way that will bring the water to the people affected. Sub-clause 5 1 (8) of the principal agreement makes provision in periods of drought for the drawing by New South Wales and Victoria of water additional to their prescribed entitlements. Such drawing, however, is conditional upon the water being replaced by those States from their tributaries below Albury and is also conditional upon it not prejudicing the rights of the other two States. In his secondreading speech, the Minister for Air **(Mr. Fairbairn),** representing the Minister for National Development, said - >In the event of a disagreement between New South Wales and Victoria as to the quantity of water to be used or as to the manner in which it is to be replaced the agreement prescribes that the matter shall be determined by the commission by means of a majority vote. No provision is made however for the resolving of the decision in the event of there being an equality of votes between the four commissioners constituting the commission. The amending agreement proposes to give the Commonwealth commissioner a casting as well as a deliberative vote in such an eventuality. . . . The Commonwealth as a disinterested party in such a dispute would be able to give ah impartial judgment. The amendment is very necessary. It is no good waiting until there is a disagreement about the water being provided in drought time. The Government's amendment is greatly appreciated. Some time ago I corresponded with the Minister for National Development **(Senator Sir William Spooner)** in relation to the river Murray waters. He is chairman of the River Murray Commission. Amongst other things, in a letter to me he said' - >The scheme is being designed to guarantee practically constant annual electricity production from its power stations and this results in a substantially uniform release of water irrespective of whether the years are wet or dry. > >On the average about 55 per cent, of the water released through the Murray Power Stations originates from the various Murray River tributaries which rise on the western side of the Snowy Mountains, and 45 per cent, from diverted Snowy River water. During a severe drought, however, about 80 per cent, of the release would be diverted Snowy water, which had been previously stored in Lake Eucumbene, and only 20 per cent, existing Murray water. > >The extent of irrigation development in any river system is of course dependent on the flows which can be guaranteed during such a drought, lt is basically because of the fact that during drought periods additional quantities of Snowy water will be released from storage to make up the deficiency in Murray water that irrigation development may be planned to utilize a considerably greater amount of water than the annual average Snowy diversion. The final comment that I want to read from the Minister's letter is as follows: - >If the Scheme is operated generally on the lines assumed in its design, sufficient additional water will be provided to the River Murray during drought periods to justify an increase in the normal annual supply for irrigation of approximately 800,000 acre feet. That is a very important thing. All along the Murray River, people have been fearful that, in drought time, they will not get enough water to maintain the vine fruits, citrus and other crops that grow there so prolifically. Water has created magic along the Murray in the dry areas that were just mallee scrub before the water became available. One needs only to go to places like Tresco and Nyah for vineyards, and to Boundary Bend to see how well citrus will grow, or to the new soldier settlement at Robinvale, which is producing dried " vine " fruits so abundantly, and to the Sunraysia district, which includes Merbein, Red Cliffs and Mildura - the foundation dried fruits settlement - to see how vine fruits can be grown. This development is something that has happened as if by magic. When the Chaffey brothers went there, the land was just barren country. To-day, it is highly productive and a great asset to Australia. I will deal very briefly with the Menindee Lakes Storage Agreement Bill 1963. I do not need to repeat what the honorable member for Macquarie **(Mr. Luchetti)** said about the waters from the Menindee Lakes scheme. They are to be made available for distribution, if a drought should come, during the construction of the Chowilla dam. This is very important. The third measure is the Chowilla Reservoir Agreement Bill 1963. I will discuss it very briefly, too. The Chowilla dam will be the largest water reservoir in the whole of Australia. Lake Eucumbene has been cited as holding as much water as Sydney Harbour. {: .speaker-K5L} ##### Mr Cope: -- More. {: .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr TURNBULL: -- Or more, as the honorable member interjects. Lake Eucumbene has a capacity of 3,860,000 acre-feet of water. The Eildon weir, which is known in Victoria as the big Eildon, has a capacity of 2,750,000 acre-feet and the Hume reservoir, 2,500,000 acre-feet. The Chowilla dam will have a capacity of 4,750,000 acre-feet. The estimated cost of this dam will be £14,000,000. I think that at this stage I should mention the great liberality shown by the Commonwealth to New "South Wales. The four governments of South Australia, Victoria, New South Wales and the Commonwealth have each agreed to meet one-quarter of the cost of the Chowilla dam. The agreement with New South Wales provides that each year the Commonwealth will assist New South Wales to find its share of the cost - being £1,000,000, £1,500,000 or whatever is needed each year - until the construction work is completed. Interest' will be payable by New South Wales at the long-term bond rate applying at the time when each payment is made by the Commonwealth, and repayments of each Commonwealth payment by the State will commence tcn years from the time when the Commonwealth payment was made, and will be made at the rate of one-tenth each year. To sum up the matter, the Commonwealth will lend New South Wales, over a term of twenty years, the funds needed by the State each year to meet its share of the cost of construction of the Chowilla dam. Victoria and South Australia will have to find the money to meet their share of the cost, but special treatment has been given to New South Wales in respect of this scheme, as with the Blowering dam scheme. Yet I have not heard honorable members opposite who represent federal electorates in New South Wales say that in their view this is magnificent treatment! {: .speaker-K5L} ##### Mr Cope: -- How could we do that? We would be expelled! {: .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr TURNBULL: -- I have no doubt about that. The Australian Labour Party is pretty quick to expel people when those in control do not agree with everything that is said. However, 1 do not want to enter into party politics in discussing this subject. This is a matter of great national moment, relating to the supply of a larger volume of water which this country urgently needs, as we know. Therefore, the three bills that we are now discussing are probably the most important that have come before this House for a long time. We have heard lately many long speeches on television and on various things that are happening, though those things do not produce much. The additional water supplies that will be available as a result of these three measures will increase productivity in the Murray valley and elsewhere. As a result, people will be attracted to irrigation settlements and many thousands of acres of land will be brought into production. The extremely large expenditure in recent years on water storages is now being reflected in greater security from droughts and in the prospects of bringing into full production thousands of acres of land that at present have only low productivity. I support and welcome these bills. 1 believe they are excellent measures. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. {:#subdebate-35-1} #### Third Reading Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by **Mr. Fairbairn)** read a third time. {: .page-start } page 2436 {:#debate-36} ### MENINDEE LAKES STORAGE AGREEMENT BILL 1963 {:#subdebate-36-0} #### Second Reading Consideration resumed from 23rd October (vide page 2159), on motion by **Mr. Fairbairn** - That the bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. {:#subdebate-36-1} #### Third Reading Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by **Mr. Fairbairn)** read a third time. {: .page-start } page 2436 {:#debate-37} ### CHOWILLA RESERVOIR AGREEMENT BILL 1963 {:#subdebate-37-0} #### Second Reading Consideration resumed from 28th October (vide page 2363), on motion by **Mr. Fairbairn** - >That the bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending an appropriation, for the purposes of a new clause to be moved in the bill, announced. In committee: The bill. Proposed new clause 4. Amendment (by **Mr. Fairbairn)** agreed to - >That the following new clause be inserted in the bill:- "4. The payments by the Commonwealth to the State of New South Wales provided for by the agreement referred to in the last preceding section may be made, by way of financial assistance to that State on the terms and conditions contained in that agreement, out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, which is appropriated accordingly.". Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with an amendment; report - by leave - adopted. {:#subdebate-37-1} #### Third Reading Bill (on motion by **Mr. Fairbairn)** - by leave - read a third time. {: .page-start } page 2436 {:#debate-38} ### NATIONAL HEALTH BILL 1963 Bill returned from the Senate without amendment. {: .page-start } page 2436 {:#debate-39} ### ADJOURNMENT H.M.A.S. "Bendigo" Association - Austraiian Labour Party - Aborigines. Motion (by **Mr. Fairbairn)** proposed - That the House do now adjourn. **Mr. BEATON** (Bendigo) [U 22].- I want to take this opportunity to put certain matters before the House. One is a very important matter which concerns a group of ex-naval men, and which is of interest to the city of Bendigo which I represent. I refer to the H.M.A.S. " Bendigo " Association, an association of former crew members of a minesweeper of that name which was commissioned in 1941 and paid off in 1946. I have here a letter from. the secretary of the association complaining of what is termed the stupid action of the Navy. 1 might add that, couched in naval terms, its comments are rather stronger. In 1941, H.M.A.S. " Bendigo " saw service in Singapore and the Dutch East Indies. Indeed, she was under attack off Singapore and Batavia. She also carried a number of Australian Imperial Forces escapees from Singapore and a number of survivors from Dutch and other ships that had been" torpedoed or bombed and sunk in those areas. She later served in New Guinea and in Philippine waters with distinction. She had a fine record of service. The ship's bell hangs in the Bendigo City Hall as a link with the past and a symbol of the service which the ship and her crew rendered under the name " Bendigo " to our country in time of war. At the end of World War II., when H.M.A.S. " Bendigo " was decommissioned and sold, crew members signed a white ensign belonging to the ship. For many years the whereabouts of this white ensign was unknown, but several years ago it came into the possession of the I'.M.A.S. "Bendigo " Association. The association then had the name H.M.A.S. "Bendigo" placed on the ensign, leaving the signatures of members showing. A gold fringe was affixed to the borders of the ensign, and it was mounted on carrying poles. For three years this ensign has been carried in the Anzac Day march in Sydney, and behind it have marched upwards of 100 men, all former crew members and their comrades who had come from all over Australia to Sydney for their reunion and to follow their ensign. In a letter dated 13th August, 1963, the secretary of the association stated - >In July 1 received an instruction from the Chief of Naval Staff that we would not be permitted to carry the Ensign and if it were carried on any future *occasion, it* would be confiscated, " forcibly if necessary ". > >I am writing on behalf of the Association to ask you to approach the Honorable, the Minister for the Navy, with representations that we be allowed on Anzac Days to carry this relic of our service to our country. > >I can assure the Minister that in no way is there any desecration of the White Ensign. The men of H.M.A.S. "Bendigo" revere and honour their banner. I can say personally that I have been astounded at the depth of respect that these Australians, reputedly scornful of sentiment, have shown for their flag. Last Anzac Day we had heard rumours of the Navy's attitude and ev:ry man present at the reunion was deeply disturbed. He went on to say - >Not only Sydney men, but men all over Australia, whom I have personally contacted, have Indicated their concern. It is a rallying point for them; every Anzac Day they come to this focal point and I have observed them deliberately iry to be near the banner and I have seen them paying their respects to those whose names are on it, some of whom are deceased. > >As the years pass and men become older, their feelings become more mature, and as I have said, I can assure you that the men of H.M.A.S. " Bendigo " during the past years have come lo have the deepest respect for their colours. It seems to them grossly unfair that other services can display their colours, but they are not allowed to carry this banner, which they feel is no longer a Navy While Ensign, but a symbol of their patriotism and their service to their country. > >The Ensign has been decorated in such a manner that it is no longer a true White Ensign. I know that Navy tradition is that the White Ensign may not be defaced, but feel that the course that we have taken is one of honouring, not defacing, and that we have turned it into a " Banner " suitable for parading without offence to the Navy. **Mr. Speaker,** I am aware that in his reply to the representations which have been made, the Minister for the Navy **(Senator Gorton)** has quoted regulations. But what are regulations? For instance, if the staff of the Postmaster-General's Department decides to stick to regulations, their action is called a regulation strike. Indeed, I remind the Government and the Minister for the Navy that if Lord Nelson had not put the telescope to his blind eye and ignored regulations at the Battle of Trafalgar the history of the world would have been entirely changed. If I recall my history correctly, at the battle of Jutland, Admiral Jellicoe refused to button his coat. He consistently refused to do so, and, if I recall aright the story in the history books, he never wore his hat at the correct angle. No doubt there have been a great many other occasions in history when the blind eye has been turned on naval and other regulations. These former crew members of H.M.A.S. " Bendigo " honour their banner. They remember their comrades who served with them, some of whom have passed on. They look upon it as a standard under which to gather on Anzac Day and other days of solemn ceremony. I appeal to the Minister for the Navy to reconsider this attempt to take away the banner under which these men from all over Australia, on one day of the year, assemble and remember the ship in which they served for four or five years in the time of war, and their colleagues with whom they fought at Singapore and in the Pacific. In the short time left to me, I wish to refer to another naval matter. I refer to the unfortunate recent tragedy which occurred to the north-west of Hayman Island when five young Australian naval men lost their lives, f know that this occurrence is at present the subject of an inquiry by a naval inquiry board, and I do not want to touch on any of the matters connected with that inquiry. But there is one point which touches the responsibility of the Minister for the Navy and the Government, which needs some examination and which calls for some explanation. 1 wish to quote a statement made at that inquiry. It reads - >The Commander of H.M.A.S. "Sydney", Captain William John Dove rs, said to-day that his ship was so short of crew that- . {: #debate-39-s0 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order! 1 will hear what the honorable member for Bendigo has to say. {: #debate-39-s1 .speaker-JOO} ##### Mr BEATON:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA -- 1 do not want to touch on matters connected with the inquiry. I want to refer to a matter that is the responsibility of the Government. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Is it a matter that is before the court of inquiry? {: .speaker-JOO} ##### Mr BEATON: -- It concerns the shortage " of crew on H.M.A.S. " Sydney " and does noi relate to the tragedy that is being investigated by the court. The quotation is - >The commander of H.M.A.S. " Sydney ", Captain William John Dovers, said to-day that his ship was so short of crew that- {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order! The honorable member is now referring to an article that he has read about the inquiry, lt is left to the integrity of the honorable member not to refer to anything that would relate to an inquiry of this type. He would be out of order in referring to a subject that is before the court inquiring into the fatalities that have occurred. {: .speaker-JOO} ##### Mr BEATON: -- I make the point, **Mr. Speaker,** that this is not a court. I merely want to refer, not to the tragedy- {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order! The honorable member cannot use the inquiry for any purpose and 1 would suggest that he docs not pursue this line. {: .speaker-JOO} ##### Mr BEATON: -- I will leave that matter until some other occasion. 1 would like to refer again to the matter of the banner of H.M.A.S. "Bendigo". I ask the Minister for the Navy to reconsider his decision and to do as Lord Nelson did, if necessary, and turn a blind eye to the members of the association who, on Anzac Day and other solemn occasions during the year, like to gather together behind their banner and march just as other ex-servicemen do. {: #debate-39-s2 .speaker-4U4} ##### Mr KILLEN:
Moreton -- I want to refer to what 1 would describe at once as the most disgraceful, the most violent and the most bitter attack made on Malaysia by any person or newspaper in Australia. If it did not come from the source from which it did, 1 would take the view that it deserves to be swept into oblivion by being completely ignored. The article is riddled with hatred and hostility. lt is so utterly in conflict with the interests of this country that it deserves to be struck at with every element of condemnation and indignation. It is a matter of regret to me, and I hope it is a matter of regret to my friends opposite, that I have to say that this article has appeared in what is described as the "Official Journal of the Australian Labour Party in Queensland ". It carries the approval, presumably, of the State secretary of the Australian Labour Party, who is also the federal president of the Australian Labour Party. He is one of the masters, in effect, of the Australian Labour Party. 1 say at once that I do not dismiss his views lightly. If any honorable gentleman opposite is persuaded or tempted to interject and to say that what ] have to recite does not represent his views, may I be so bold as to remind him of what this gentleman had to say during his federal presidential speech this year. He said - >For years too, the Menzies administration has squandered a substantial portion of the Defence Vote to keep Australian troops in Malaya. That is a lovely sentiment. He continued - >The decent Malayans don't want our troops in Malaya, and the A.L.P. does not want to keep them there. The article to which 1 refer deserves a special place in the annals of the contemptible records of this country. It reads - >Malaysia - a Step Backwards. > >Seldom, if ever, has a new Stale come into being under less promising circumstances than the Federation of Malaysia, born on September 16. Its parents were the Tory government of **Mr. Macmillan** and the even more conservative government of Malaya, Icd by Tunku Abdul Rahman Such a parentage is, of course, a liability for any child to overcome. In the case of Malaysia, signs are already evident that the new State's childhood will be far from a tranquil one. > >It is impossible to understand political developments unless we look below the surface - something newspaper commentators seldom bother to do. When we probe Malaysia, however, we find that, below the welter of congratulations for this latest bulwark of anti-communism, lies un artificial creation imposed on a scarcely comprehending people, lt is a creation that will bring shem few advantages and many dangers. But, then, Malaysia wasn't formed for their benefit. > >For the Malay aristocracy, for the Chinese Chamber of Commerce, Malaysia spells safety. For **Mr. Lee** Kwan Yew, once a socialist but now a recruit for private enterprise, k spells a new lease of political life. For the indolent and feudal rulers of Sarawak and North Borneo, Malaysia spells the perpetuation of luxury. For the Western alliance in general and Britain in particular, if spells a last hope of damming up the spread of ibc colonial revolution which has already brought the European empires to dust. > >Britain's interest in Malaysia is the safeguarding of its investments in Malaya's tin and rubber. Despite Malayan independence in 1957, most of the country's rubber estates remain in British hands. " " One can detect the sneer all the way through the article. It continues - >Half its tin output is still controlled from London while most of its mercantile enterprises are British owned. The British government, too, secs in Malaysia the strengthening of its military position in the area. There is almost a tone of regret there. The article continues - >The territories now forming Malaysia are almost identical with those contained in the Far East Unified Command. Malaysia is, in fact, the political expression of that Command. > >The Malayan government is reactionary, redhaling and avaricious. It is tied in the timeless chains of Islam and retains power by deceit. A system of discrimination effectively disenfranchises one-third of the large Chinese minority most of whom would be opponents of the regime. When necessary, the Tunku's government augments its authority by the arrest and imprisonment of ils political opponents. Malaysia will intensify, rather than weaken, these anti-democratic practices. > >In Singapore the position is different. Here an industrial population, turbulent and vociferous, is reaching out for political power and socialism. With one and three-quarter million people and the highest birthrate in Asia, Singapore is a fused time bomb. There is a note almost of hope there. The article says further - >The government of Lee Kwan Yew, elected on a left-wing programme in 1959, is striving desperately to slay in power. To do so it has thrown in its lot wilh the city's wealthy capitalists, a choice that has inevitably led to agreement wilh the Malay aristocracy to form Malaysia . > >Thus wc see again a phenomenon often witnessed in the past; the betrayal of a " labor " government when confronted wilh an inescapable choice between defence of the establishment and the creation of a new social order. The article also had this to say - >The truth, of course, is that communism is not the issue here at all. What is involved throughout South East Asia is noi communism but the encouragement of whole peoples in a struggle for those basic human rights won for us years ago. > >We in Australia have an interest in all this. There is little doubt that the Federal government will conclude a mutual defence agreement wilh Malaysia. It will commit Australian armed forces to the defence of the Federation. We cannot agree to defend such a state as Malaysia, particularly against the onslaughts of its own repressed inhabitants. That article appeared in the official journal of the Australian Labour Party in Queensland, approved of by the state secretary of the A.L.P. in that Stale and the federal **president** of the party led by my friend the Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Calwell).** He shakes his head. I will concede to him that I hear no rattles but then, on all major issues, his head seems like a ramshackle old house, without a decent stick of furniture in it. I invite the Leader of the Opposition to denounce this article. 1 ask him to stand up and say, in the plainest language, that what is said in this article, approved by the federal president of the Australian Labour Party, does not represent his sentiments. I ask him to stand up and say, in the plainest language, that Malaysia is vital not only to the people of South-East Asia, but also 10 this country. 1 ask him to repudiate that article or, in turn, to run the risk of being repudiated by the Australian electorate, because I solemnly warn him that this will haunt him like Hamlet's ghost. All through the coming election campaign he will either repudiate this article or be repudiated by it. I noticed his deputy, the honorable member for Werriwa **(Mr. Whitlarn),** joining in the chorus of approval of this article. I invite him to stand tip and repudiate it. I invite him or challenge him - whatever may be the appropriate verb to use on this occasion - to come into the division of Moreton, stand up in front pf the electors of Moreton and argue the A.L.P.'s case on Malaysia versus the Government's case on Malaysia. I say to both my honorable friends opposite that the Labour Party's case on Malaysia is thoroughly rotten and thoroughly dangerous, and I hope that the people of Australia will be given every opportunity to apprehend that fact. {: #debate-39-s3 .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr CALWELL:
Leader of the Opposition · Melbourne -- The honorable member for Moreton **(Mr. Killen)** has worked himself into a passion on something which is quite synthetic. There were a lot of other people like the honorable member in the last Parliament - people who used to use the debate on the motion to adjourn the House for the purpose of belting the anti-Communist drum, and most of them disappeared in the 1961 election. The honorable member survived it on Communist preferences, and other preferences, too. To-night he is trying to work himself into a frenzy over these same issues again. I have put the Labour party's position on Malaysia quite clearly in this House, and after I had done so the Leader of the Country Party **(Mr. McEwen)** said he found very little in it with which to disagree. If the honorable member for Moreton wants an argument on this matter, let him walk around to the room of the Leader of the Country Party. He would probably be as welcome there as would any other member of the Liberal Party, because I believe there is a civil war on to-night between those two parties and that it has been in existence for quite a time - a lot of it brought about by the Minister for the Interior **(Mr. Freeth),** who said that the Leader of the Country Party should withdraw a statement that lie made or resign from the Government. The Prime Minister **(Sir Robert Menzies)** did not repudiate the Minister for the Interior or ask him to apologize and made no amend whatever to the leader of the Country Party. Let the honorable member for Moreton look inwards and not outwards on this question of Malaysia. I have been on television on this matter, I have made several speeches on it outside the House, and I will make quite a number more. I will not honour the honorable member by going to the Moreton electorate, but I will be tn Brisbane. If he wants to come along and if he can manage to get into the Brisbane City Hall on the night I go there, he will hear what I have to say on this question. Our case on Malaysia is not rotten. Our case on Malaysia, as on everything else, is founded on the good principle that Australia's interests must bc served first and at all times. I am not going to restate the position to-night, because what I have said is already in " Hansard ", and it stands. I repudiate nothing. I heard the honorable member speak on the European Common Market, and he was in pretty strange company on that occasion. I would like to know who paid his fare to London to fight on the issue of the European Common Market. Some of the people who subscribed then would not be acceptable in the best circles of the Liberal Party now or at any other time. Let him say who his associates were then and who they have been since then. He quoted an article in the " New Age ". The man who wrote that article is a young Englishman who, like a lot of other people, regards himself as an authority on foreign affairs. He writes a lot of contributed articles. He expresses bis own views. They are his own views and nobody else's views. He gets the opportunity to put his point of view in the " New Age " but that journal accepts no responsibility for those views. The secretary of the Australian Labour Party in Queensland, **Mr. Keeffe** - he is federal president of the party and may some day be a senator of the Commonwealth of Australia - did not at any time endorse the views expressed by that contributor and does not support them now. He supports my view and the view of the Labour Party. If there is one thing in the Labour Party on which we pride ourselves, it is loyalty to the majority decision. Once we make a decision we stand by it. We are something like the Country Party in that regard. We do stick together. We have nobody running wild, as happens in the Liberal Party. Quite recently, I heard the Prime Minister praising the virtues of individualism. There is no room for individualism in our party. What I have to say on Malaysia goes for every member of the Labour Party. Every member of the Labour Party supports those views. The efforts of the honorable member for Moreton, who was emulating or imitating some broken-down actor to-night, did not interest even his own colleagues. They tolerated him, but he has to get a better gimmick than that if he is to survive as the member for Moreton. All I say is that, if he cannot do better than that, we will miss him in the next Parliament. {: #debate-39-s4 .speaker-KEE} ##### Sir WILFRID KENT HUGHES:
Chisholm .- The Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Calwell)** was not in the House when the honorable member for Moreton **(Mr. Killen)** began his speech and, therefore, did not hear him quote from the inaugural speech of **Mr. Keeffe** when he became federal president of the Australian Labour Party. The honorable member for Moreton quoted portion of the speech, in which **Mr. Keeffe** said that we should not have troops in Malaysia and that they should be withdrawn. I do not want to get heated about this. Let us be calm. Let us look at the facts calmly in their proper perspective. It is no use the Leader of the Opposition saying that **Mr. Keeffe** does not support the views set out by whoever wrote the article which the honorable member for Moreton quoted. I did not look especially to see whether there was anything in the " New Age " stating that the views of writers in it are not necessarily the views of that newspaper. However, it is always said by any reputable newspaper - I do not suggest that the " New Age ", being the organ of the Queensland branch of the Australian Labour Party, is not a reputable paper - when it does not endorse articles of that nature, that they are not necessarily the views of the paper. The article is published in the official organ of the Queensland branch of the Australian Labour Party. As the honorable member for Moreton has said, the secretary of the Queensland branch of the party is also the party's federal president. I do not doubt that what the Leader of the Opposition stated are his views, but we have already had evidence of what happens when the Leader of the Opposition and ">e Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Whitlam)** try to put their views to the federal executive of the party and ask it to agree with those views. The leader and his deputy were forced to wait outside the ho -I in Canberra while other people decide.1 Labour's policy. I can understand the concern of the Leader of the Opposition about this particular matter. I do not doubt what he himself thinks, but he does not control the policy of the party. That policy is formulated by people not elected to this Parliament and the Opposition must follow that policy. Can any member of the Labour Party deny that? All honorable members opposite have said that they support that policy. Time and again in this House they have supported their control by outside people. {: .speaker-KXZ} ##### Mr Peters: -- What dd you do? {: .speaker-KEE} ##### Sir WILFRID KENT HUGHES: -- Never mind what we do. The Leader of the Opposition finds himself in a very difficult position when statements like that referred to by the honorable member for Moreton are supported by the federal president of the Labour Party. The Leader of the Opposition is like **Dr. Subandrio** who, in the United Nations in 1961, said that he had no objection whatever to Malaysia. But **Dr. Subandrio** does not control Indonesia's policies. When **Mr. Aidit,** leader of the Partie Kommunist Indonesie, decided against Malaysia and in favour of a policy of confrontation, **Dr. Subandrio** had to fall into line. The Leader of the Opposition finds himself in a similar position. It :s interesting to note that the " Guardian ", the Communist newspaper of Victoria, carried headlines similar to those which appeared in the official journal of the Queensland branch of the Australian Labour Party. The honorable member for Moreton was right in bringing this matter before the notice of the electors of Australia so that they may be well aware of Labour's policy at the election. If the Leader of the Opposisit ion is posing as an election model in the shop window surely honorable members on this side of the House are entitled to point out to thi electors that although the mode! resembles the man himself and despite what the man himself may think, he is not the master of his own house and cannot give effect to his own ideas. It is **Mr. Keeffe** and a majority of the 36 men who decide the policy of the Labour Party. Nothing more important could have been raised in this House than what has been raised by the honorable member for Moreton. If the Leader of the Opposition `oes to Queensland he will find that the further north he goes the greater is the concern of the electors as regards which party is in power and what is its defence pc'-icy. It is not long ago that the Leader of the Opposition did not agree with the policy that he has now enunciated. He has switched from the policy that he was advocating seven or eight months ago. {: .speaker-KXZ} ##### Mr Peters: -- You do not agree with the policies of **Sir Robert** Menzies. {: .speaker-KEE} ##### Sir WILFRID KENT HUGHES: -- I support this Government's defence policy. {: .speaker-KDI} ##### Mr Einfeld: -- You have changed your views. {: .speaker-KEE} ##### Sir WILFRID KENT HUGHES: -- I have not. As honorable members know, for at least eighteen months I have advocated that Australia should have a stronger defence policy. Now the Government has adopted a stronger defence policy and I will back it 100 per cent. I am very glad the Government has done this. I wish only that I had been wrong and that it had not been necessary t*) adopt a stronger defence policy. But because I disagreed with the Government's defence policy when I did not think it was sufficiently strong does not mean that I disagree with it now. The Government has taken the right steps. I think many honorable members opposite would like to alter Labour's policy, but how can they alter it when such a diatribe against Malaysia is included in the newspaper which is the official organ in Queensland of the Australian Labour Party and which expresses the views of the federal president of the party? No wonder honorable members opposite are quiet. No wonder they are disgusted. No wonder they are sorry that the article was printed and brought up !n this House. I can understand their chagrin and sorrow but please do not ask the electors of Australia to believe that an effigy of this nature represents the true policy of the Labour Party. It would be better if the effigy were burnt try the Communist Party in the way that effigies are burnt in other countries. But that would be foolish in Australia. However it is foolish to mislead the people and say that you can give effect to a policy unless you have the full support of your federal executive. {: #debate-39-s5 .speaker-JF7} ##### Mr BEAZLEY:
Fremantle -- I wish to deal with a different subject from that which has been before the House in the last few minutes, but before doing so *I* would like the honorable member for Chisholm **(Sir Wilfrid Kent Hughes)** to note the fact, if he is accusing people of misleading, that he spoke on the assumption that the decision of the Perth conference of the Labour Party was for the withdrawal of troops from Malaya. The decision of the Perth conference was not that troops be withdrawn from Malaya. The official policy of the Labour Party as decided by the Perth conference was quite the opposite of that suggested by the honorable member. {: .speaker-QS4} ##### Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP -- What was the resolution about? {: .speaker-JF7} ##### Mr BEAZLEY: -- We are speaking of the decision of the Perth conference, which Is not as the honorable member for Chisholm appeared to believe it was. Of course it was a change of previous policy. The honorable member for Chisholm claimed that what the Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Calwell)** advocated in this House was not the policy of the Labour Party, meaning, I presume, of the federal conference. What the Leader of the Opposition has said in this House is the policy of the Labour Party as determined at its federal conference. That is not the matter which I wish to discuss. 1 have received a letter from the chairman of the Aborigines Welfare Board in Victoria. He directs my attention toa statement that I made in the House on 12th September last when I referred to the Lake Tyersreserve, which I believed had been closed. The chairman of the board states - >In order that you may be more reliably informed than you appear to be on this subject, I desire to advise that Lake Tyers has neverceased to be an Aboriginal Reserve, but that a considerable number of Aboriginal inhabitants havevoluntarily accepted the Victorian Aborigines Welfare Board's offer of belter housing in areas where their children may have belter educational and employment opportunities. > >Victorian Aborigines are certainly not treated as " conquered people ". They have the same rights as any other citizens of this State and are not in any way subject to direction by the Aborigines Welfare Board or any other body, excepting so far as those who choose to live on the Reserve are expected to comply with the regulations governing this institution. Referring to the petition to the United Nations, the chairman of the board states - >The representations made to the United Nations were made personally by Pastor Nicholls and were directed mainly at the land question in the Northern Territory and Queensland . . . If I have misunderstood the position in Victoria and misrepresented the position of the Aborigines Welfare Board, I am very glad to take this opportunity to correct the matter.I also am very glad to learn that the aborigines in Victoria have not lost the Lake Tyers reserve. {:#subdebate-39-0} #### Wednesday, 30th October {: #subdebate-39-0-s0 .speaker-DB6} ##### Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar . -I think it is time that we returned to the matter raised by the honorable member for Moreton **(Mr. Killen)** and the comments which have just been made by the honorable member for Fremantle **(Mr. Beazley).** The honorable member for Fremantle said that the Labour Party had changed its policy in this regard. That may be true, but is it perhaps true also that the Labour Party has changed its policy for election purposes? Is it perhaps true that the Labour Party is not saying what it really thinks? Is it perhaps true that the left wing of the Labour Party has gone underground for a while so that the Labour Party will be able to gain power, and so that, once it has gained power, the left wing will be able to use its puppets in this House to implement its policies? Honorable members opposite are the puppets of the left wing. They have said this of themselves. I have heard the Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Calwell)** say of himself that he carries out the orders of the Labour conference, which is a body outside this House. I have heard him say of himself, therefore, that he is a mere puppet. There is a sinister parallel between the material which the honorable member for Moreton read and the material contained in the Communist" Tribune " of 1 6th October, only a few days ago. If honorable members will read the article by the Communists on Malaysia which appears on page 5 they will find it completely parallel with the article appearing in the official journal of the Queensland Labour Party which was read by the honorable member for Moreton. This is not, I think, entirely coincidental. The Leader of the Opposition said: " These are not necessarily the views of the Labour Party. They are the views of a correspondent ". Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition has something to say about the article which appeared in the " Western Sun" of July, 1963, a journal which is published by the State executive of the Australian Labour Party in Western Australia. Its editor is **Mr. F.** E. Chamberlain, who is well-known, I am sure, to the honorable gentleman. The article is an editorial. It is the official policy of that journal, the official policy of the Labour Party in Western Australia and the official policy sponsored by **Mr. Chamberlain,** who is not uninfluential in the councils of the Labour Party. The article is headed " Not For Us " and I ask for leave to incorporate it in " Hansard ". {: #subdebate-39-0-s1 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Is leave granted? {: .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr Calwell: -- No. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Leave is not granted. {: .speaker-DB6} ##### Mr WENTWORTH: -- Then I shall read the article. It states - The Trades and Labour Council has acted correctly by reacting strongly against an announcement that applicants for work at the American radio facility at North-West Cape would be required to pass " security screening " whatever that may be. All the indications are that the trade union movement will not at any price permit such a procedure, and that the matter will need to be resolved to its satisfaction before work commences. The concept of subjecting people to investigation and intimidation because of their political beliefs seems to fit happily enough into the Climate of Americana. But to Australians it is alien and repugnant. I would have liked to read the whole of this article but time will not permit me to do so. {: .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr Calwell: -- We will give you permission to incorporate the remainder of the article in " Hansard ". {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Is leave granted for the remainder of the article to be incorporated in " Hansard "? {: .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr Calwell: -- Yes. {: .speaker-DB6} ##### Mr WENTWORTH: -- Then with the concurrence of honorable members I incorporate the remainder of the article in *' Hansard ". The probable result would be that some Australian workers, at the prompting of a foreign power, could be rejected for employment in their own country not because of any inferiority of workmanship, but because their political views do not happen to coincide with those of the Menzies Government or the Government of the United States. Moreover, what is proposed has no basis in Australian State or Federal law. The Menzies Government has repeatedly tried to introduce -he trappings of a police state into this country, but it has always found the Australian Labor Party a formidable obstacle. This has been true in Parliament, in the courts, and before the forum of public opinion. To his lasting credit, our former Parliamentary Leader, **Dr. H.** V. Evatt, had the Dissolution of the Communist Party legislation thrown out of the High Court, and subsequently successfully led the campaign to refuse constitutional powers to the Federal Government to enact such measures, which culminated in a " no " vote at a referendum of the people. The result of these efforts is that all political parlies in Australia are permitted to operate legally, and that no person may be prejudiced as a result of his political views. The Government faces formidable legal barriers to what it proposes to do to applicant workers for jobs at the North-West Cape project. First, it is obvious that the United States Government has neither the power nor the facilities to investigate or "screen" Australian citizens in their own country. It would have to co-opt the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation and the related Commonwealth Police Force for ils work. But both these organisations are only able to exercise bona-fide powers of investigation in Commonwealth Territories, such as Canberra and the Northern Territory, or on Commonwealth properties, such as airports and military establishments. And they have power of investigation and action only in respect to the commission of an offence. The same applies to the State police forces, which are supreme in their cwn areas - of jurisdiction. No offence under any Australian law, Federal or State can arise out of the mere holding of a political viewpoint, and no Australian police forces have power to compel any person to answer any question which is related to politics or political attitudes. - The position of a Commonwealth investigation officer in Western Australia is that if he approached a householder for purposes outside his jurisdiction, such as " security screening ", he could be ordered off the property. If he dallied after reasonable warning he could be removed with the due force necessary to ensure that his exit was accomplished. It is often forgotten that in most situations " security *' men have no more status, no more legislative protection than a private detective. In the current situation it is well worth remembering. Second, if as a result of a security report a worker was unreasonably prejudiced in his employment he would have a case at law against the Crown. This means that if a worker could prove that he was rejected for employment at Exmouth due to a report by ASIO that he was an industrial militant or politically unreliable, and that he was otherwise suited for the job and would have been engaged, he would win in an action against the Commonwealth Government, which is legally responsible for the actions of ASIO. No current State or Federal legislation gives sanction to what the United States Navy proposes to do, nor would public opinion in this country allow a Government to ratify such acts by legislation. Australians have decisively rejected the pr0110- sition that a man should be prejudiced in his employment or profession merely because of the political viewpoint he happens to hold. The legal tools available to the Trades and Labor Council and the ultimate backstop of industrial sanctions will assist it in its fight to reject a move quite alien to our Australian way-of-life. This article which is officially sponsored by the Labour Party, is a deliberate incitement to trouble at North West Cape. It repudiates the proposition that Australia has any right to keep our Communist enemies and their agents out of defence projects. It specifically states that. {: .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr Calwell: -- Rubbish! {: .speaker-DB6} ##### Mr WENTWORTH: -- The Leader of the Opposition may say " Rubbish ", but when this is read in " Hansard " in its context - it will be now - he will see, and Australia will see, that I am speaking the truth. Surely the right exists to decide whether a Communist agent is among the people applying for work on the base at North West Cape. This article claims that it is repugnant to the Labour movement for any such examination to be made. Furthermore, this article is an incitement to prevent work proceeding on the base if any attempt is made to prevent Communist agents from going there. If this were one article one would not mind. Perhaps it could be shrugged off. But this article fits into a pattern of sabotage of the defence capacity of Australia and its allies against Communist aggression. This has happened too often to bc shrugged aside as mere coincidence. {: .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr Calwell: -- You say that before every election. {: .speaker-DB6} ##### Mr WENTWORTH: -- I have said it before every election and it has always been true. Unfortunately the Labour Party carries in itself the infection of communism. This does not mean to say that all members of the Labour Party are Communists. 1 know very much the opposite. I know that there are genuine and sincere antiCommunists in the Labour Party. I make this appeal to them: Do not allow yourselves to be used as a cat's paw and as a screen to cover up for communism. Do not allow yourselves, you anti-Communists in the Labour Party, to be used as a screen of respectability behind which the party can be pushed into power. Once it gets into power its leaders will be subject to the dictates of an outside body in which Communists are lying low at present. They want power. They want to get their cat's paws into power so that ultimately they will bc able to dictate to a Prime Minister just as they can dictate to a Leader of the Opposition. It is terrifying to think that, according to the Gallup poll which was conducted last week, the Labour Party is within an ace of becoming the government. If the Gallup poll is accepted, this could happen. But this is a party which takes its orders from an outside body in which the Communists are well represented and over which the Communists can assert effective control as soon as they think it desirable to do so, and as soon as they find that it is no longer necessary for them to lie low to get their cat's paws into power. Motion (by **Mr. Downer)** agreed to - >That the question be now put. Original question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 12.9 a.m. (Wednesday). {: .page-start } page 2445 {:#debate-40} ### ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS The following answers to questions were circulated:- {:#subdebate-40-0} #### Dried Fruits. (Question No. 234.) {: #subdebate-40-0-s0 .speaker-JOO} ##### Mr Beaton: n asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Did he several months ago receive a request from the Australian Dried Fruits Association through the Victoria and New South Wales governments seeking urgent financial assistance for dried fruits growers in necessitous circumstances? 1. Is it a fact that the report of the Australian Dried Fruits Control Board for 1962-63 slates that for many growers their present finances are such that, without immediate assistance from the Federal or State governments they will be unable to remain in the industry? 2. ls he aware of the urgency of the growers needs; if so, what is the reason for the delay in making a decision in connexion with this financial assistance? 3. Will he urge the Government to give an immediate and favorable answer to this request? {: #subdebate-40-0-s1 .speaker-JLR} ##### Mr Adermann:
CP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - >J, 3 and 4. Requests were received by the Prime Minister from the Premiers of Victoria and New South Wales for financial and other assistance to certain sections of the dried vine fruits industry. In view of the Government's offer of a stabilization plan, the improved marketing situation and higher export prices in recent months, the Government has decided against providing the special assistance sought for certain sections of the industry. > >The Australian Dried Fruits Control Board in its report for the year 1962-63 dated 31st May, 1963, did draw attention to the financial difficulties of some growers. However, since this statement was made, the financial position of the industry has been improved by the sale of the remaining fruit from the 1962 crop -md the higher prices now ruling for this year's crop. {:#subdebate-40-1} #### Telephone Services. (Question No. 328,) {: #subdebate-40-1-s0 .speaker-KYS} ##### Mr Reynolds: s asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What was the number of (a) applications for and (b) installations of telephone services in each of the exchange areas of Hurstville, Kogarah, Blakehurst and Rockdale during each of the last five years? 1. How many applications have remained unsatisfied in each of these exchange areas for {: type="a" start="a"} 0. six months, (b) one year, (c) eighteen months, (d) two years and (e) two and a half years or more? 2. Have some applications in this long-settled community been unsatisfied for three and four years; if so, why? {: #subdebate-40-1-s1 .speaker-KCA} ##### Mr Davidson:
CP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - l. {: type="1" start="3"} 0. Two applications only are outstanding longer than three years. These are in the Kogarah exchange area awaiting cable relief scheduled for 1964. Northern Territory. {: #subdebate-40-1-s2 .speaker-ZL6} ##### Mr Hasluck:
LP k. - On 17th October, the honorable member for the Northern Territory **(Mr. Nelson)** asked a question relating to the financial allowances for elected members of the Legislative Council for the Northern Territory and I promised to obtain an answer. I find that there have been delays in the Department of Territories and in the office of the Parliamentary Draftsman in giving effect to the Government's decision to increase the fees, allowances and expenses of members. The regulations have now been drafted and promulgated. The increases will be effective from 1st February, 1963. United Nations. {: #subdebate-40-1-s3 .speaker-126} ##### Sir Garfield Barwick:
LP -- On 26th September, the honorable member for Banks **(Mr. Costa)** asked the Acting Minister for Fxternal Affairs the reason given by defaulting nations for withholding their contributions to the financial support for United Nations peace-keeping operations in the Congo and the Middle East. The Acting Minister promised to have a statement prepared of the reasons given in connexion with this matter. As honorable members will be aware, a significant number of member states of the United Nations have not paid their assessed shares of the expenses incurred in the two major peace-keeping operations, in the Middle East and in the Congo. For convenience these states may be divided in'0 two groups, the one being described as " economic defaulters " and the other as " political defaulters ". There are economic defaulters in respect of both operations, and they are, generally speaking, under-developed countries which find genuine difficulty in paying their assessed shares. Again in general, these states have not denied that the costs of the operations are the collective responsibility of the organization's membership, but they have insisted that the Charter confers upon the bigger powers the major share of the responsibility for the maintenance of peace, and that peace-keeping expenses should therefore be apportioned in such a way that the permanent members of the Security Council bear a larger proportion, and the less-developed countries a smaller, than the regular scale of assessments would require. Some account has been taken of this point of view in the General Assembly resolutions which have apportioned the more recent costs of the two operations, the relatively more developed countries of the Western world having agreed to accept a rather larger share of the bill than usual ?n order that concessions might be given to the less-developed countries. The so-called political defaulters ar a gi . ..p have no such economic arguments to justify their stand. The group comprises mainly the Soviet Union and its allies in respect of both the United Nations emergency force in the Middle East - launched in 1956 - and the United Nations operation in the Congo - launched in 1960 - and France, Belgium, South Africa and one or two others in respect only of the Con*,;) operation The arguments employed by these states to justify their refusal to pay their assessed shares of the two operations are fully set out in the records of the International Court of Justice which, in 1962, gave the General Assembly an advisory opinion on the question whether those costs were expenses of the organization within the terms of Article 17 (2) of the Charter and therefore appropriate for apportionment by the General Assembly in the normal way. In order to understand the arguments the states in question have adduced, it is necessary to recall that the two operations had very different legislative histories. The Middle Eastern operation was launched not by the Security Council but by the General Assembly under the *Uniting* for Peace procedure. The Congo operation, on the other hand, was originally set in train in Security Council resolution, although its subsequent course was affected by resolutions of the General Assembly. The costs of both were duly apportioned by annual resolutions of the General Assembly. The Soviet Union and its allies have always denied the validity of the Uniting for Peace procedure, and have insisted that the Charter confers upon the Security Council the primary and exclusive responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. Upon this basis, they have argued, with consistency even if directly in the face of overwhelming world opinion, that the United Nations emergency force was illegally set up and that in any event its costs should be borne by those states which they describe as the aggressors, namely the United Kingdom, France and Israel. But in respect of the Congo operation the Soviet bloc are obliged to go further as the Soviet Union's representative in the Security Council voted in favour of the resolution authorizing the operation. On the one hand, they contend that the opera* tion, under the direction of the late SecretaryGeneral, took a course which was contrary to the Charter and the original intent of the Security Council resolution. On the other, they assert that the Security Council's responsibilities in respect of peacekeeping operations are absolute, relating not only to the launching of the operations but also to their detailed direction and to the determination of how they shall be financed; in other words, the Soviet Union has argued that the authority which the Charter gives the General Assembly to apportion the expenses of the organization does not extend to expenses relating to peace-keeping, in respect of which the Security Council alone can act. All of these arguments were rejected by the International Court, which gave the advisory opinion that the costs of the two operations were expenses of the organization within the meaning of the Charter and were thus appropriate for apportionment by the General Assembly. This opinion, which put beyond doubt the validity of the series of General Assembly resolutions which had apportioned the costs in question, was accepted at the 17th session of the General Assembly by a very handsome majority. France's arguments in justification of its refusal to pay its share of the costs of the Congo operation are rather different. As I understand it, the right of the General Assembly to apportion the costs of peacekeeping operations has not been denied, but rather as France stated that the General Assembly, by claiming the right to impose by majority vote financial obligations on all member states, including those opposed to particular operations, has given itself the attributes of a world government. The French claim that an Assembly resolution of this type can be binding only on the States which have voted for the resolution itself and have thus accepted the responsibility to support the operation. This argument was also rejected by the International Court, which took the view that the Charter gave the General Assembly the right, by binding resolution, to apportion all the legitimate expenses of the organization, whatever their character. Belgium's view is, in my understanding, different again. It will be recalled that the events in the Congo giving rise to the despatch of the United Nations force involved loss of Belgian life and damage to Belgian property, and that even after the arrival of the United Nations force some damage to Belgian interests continued. For this reason, the Belgian Government has insisted that its claim for compensation should be settled before a Belgian contribution to the costs of the operation can be considered. I am happy to say that the Belgian Government has recently announced its decision to contribute its share of the costs of the Congo operation in 1964, and that it has regularly paid its share of the costs to the emergency force in the Middle East. I would take this opportunity of reiterating the view, previously stated, that the future of the United Nations depends on the active participation of member states in its activities and upon their discharge of their basic responsibilities to pay their assessed shares of the costs of running the organization. The attitudes of the political defaulters in respect of peace-keeping operations have brought the organization into a state of acute financial crisis, and I can assure the honorable member that the Australian delegation at the present session of the General Assembly is instructed to work actively for a solution of this crisis. United Nations. {: #subdebate-40-1-s4 .speaker-126} ##### Sir Garfield Barwick:
LP .- On 26th September, the honorable member for Ryan **(Mr. Drury)** asked the Acting Minister for External Affairs whether he would look into the relation of Article 19 of the United Nations Charter to the question of whether a nation in arrears in its financial contributions to the United Nations peace-keeping operations in the Congo and the Middle East is entitled to a vote in the General Assembly. The Acting Minister promised to make such an inquiry. I would like to remind honorable members of the terms of Article 19 of the Charter. Article 19 reads: >A member of the United Nations which is in arrears in the payment of. its financial contributions to the Organization shall have no vote in the General Assembly if the amount of its arrears equals or exceeds the amount ot the contributions due from *it* for the preceding two full years. The General Assembly may, nevertheless, permit such a member to vote if it is satisfied that the failure to pay is due to conditions beyond the control of the member. The attitudes of the Soviet Union and .ls allies and of France with regard to the costs of peace-keeping operations have confronted the United Nations with the difficult question of the application of this article. By January, 1964, the Soviet Union will be in the position that, unless it pays all or part of its arrears in respect of these costs, they will in total exceed the amount of its assessed contributions for 1962 and 1963. France will be in the same situation in January, 1965. While the meaning and intent of the article seem clearly to be that states in the situation described should automatically lone their vote in the General Assembly, the honorable member will appreciate that the precise mode of application of the article is a matter for the appropriate organ of the United Nations to decide, and that itwould be unprofitable for me to speculate on the outcome. I would only say that the deprivation of a member state's voting rights would be a serious step, especially in the case of a member state which is a permanent member of the Security Council. It is therefore, my earnest hope that the states in question will in good lime be persuaded by the weight of world opinion to discharge their arrears, and thereby relieve the organization both of the financial crisis which they themselves have largely created and of the difficult decisions which will otherwise have to be taken in their regard. Accommodation of Migrants in Hostels. (Question No. 198.) {: #subdebate-40-1-s5 .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr Daly: asked the Minister for Immigration, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How many migrants arc at present in hostels? 1. What are the (a) longest and (b) average periods of occupation of hostels by migrants? {: #subdebate-40-1-s6 .speaker-KCK} ##### Mr Downer:
Minister for Immigration · ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP r.- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. As at 17th August, 1963, there were 18,945 migrants in hostels controlled by Commonwealth Hostels Limited. 1. Currently, the average stay in a hostel is approximately eight months. In 1961, it was approximately 50 weeks, so that over the past two years there has been a decrease in the average length of stay of about four months. Persons applying for accommodation in Commonwealth Hostels are required to sign a form acknowledging that the maximum period of stay will be limited to two years in the case of families, six months in the case of married couples and three months in the case of single people. Most migrants abide by these conditions, but some who are unable to find alternative accommodation within the prescribed period are allowed to extend their stay on compassionate grounds. Through the operation of this policy, there is a small number of persons in hostels who have been there more than five years. A special committee presided over by a member of the Commonwealth Immigration Advisory Council periodically surveys cases of "long term residence " to determine whether further extension is warranted on compassionate grounds. This committee also encourages migrants to make positive efforts to obtain alternative accommodation. Migrant accommodation officers recently appointed also give assistance to hostel residents in their efforts to obtain accommodation. {:#subdebate-40-2} #### Immigration. (Question No. 207.) {: #subdebate-40-2-s0 .speaker-KDV} ##### Mr Jones: s asked the Minister for Immi gration, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How many non-British (a) assisted and (b) other migrants have come to Australia annually since the year 1945-46? 1. How many persons who came here as (a) assisted and (b) other migrants have (i) left Australia and (ii) been naturalized annually? {: #subdebate-40-2-s1 .speaker-KCK} ##### Mr Downer:
LP -- The answers to thehonorable member's questions are as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Non-British permanent and long-term arrivals - " Permanent and long-term arrivals and departures" relates to persons, other than Australian troops, who state they intend to reside for a period of one year or more - in Australia in the case of arrivals, and abroad in the case of departures. " Permanent and long-term arrivals " are divided into three components - {: type="a" start="i"} 0. " settlers " (permanent movement): - i.e. persons who, on arrival in Australia, declare their intention of remaining here' permanently. {: type="i" start="ii"} 0. Australian residents returning after an absence abroad of more than one year (long term movement). 1. Visitors arriving for stays of atleast one year (long term movement). " Permanent . and long term departures " are divided into - 1. Former settlers departing permanently. {: type="i" start="ii"} 0. Other - residents departing permanently, 1. Australian residents departing for stays abroad of at- least one year. 2. Visitors departing after stays inAustralia of at least one year. A new statistical analysis first published by the Commonwealth Statistician on 1st .May, 1962, shows the following more detailed information for the period commencing 1st January, 1959: - {: type="1" start="2"} 0. (a) (i) and (b) (i) Detailed information of this question is not available but investigations by the Department of Immigration of the new " settler " statistics shows tentatively that of every 100 persons arriving lo settle permanently in recent years, 94 still remain here at the end of five years. (a), (b) (1) Assisted and other migrants who have left Australia - The analysis of settler movement referred to earlier shows the following pattern of departure: - 2 (a) (ii) and (b) (ii). Assisted and other migrants naturalized. - Statistics on naturalization do not differentiate between persons coming to Australia as assisted migrants and as other settlers. Total naturalizations for each year from 1945 to 1963 are as follows: - {:#subdebate-40-3} #### Department of Supply. (Question No. 369.) {: #subdebate-40-3-s0 .speaker-JOO} ##### Mr Beaton: n asked the Minister for Supply, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What was the value of orders placed by the Department of Supply during 1962-63? 1. What percentage of these orders was placed with (a) Commonwealth Government defence establishments and (b) private industry? {: #subdebate-40-3-s1 .speaker-KEN} ##### Mr Fairhall:
LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Production at Department of Supply establishments plus contracts placed with private industry totalled £59,587,000 for 1962-63. 1. Cost of production at departmental establishments was 25 per cent, of total, and value of private industry contracts 75 per cent. The latter consisted of such items as motor vehicles and mobile plant, electronic equipment, aircraft instruments, machine tools, foodstuffs, paper products, . textiles and footwear, for' which no Government productive capacity exists. Orders which can be carried out by the Government factories are normally placed with those factories. Employment of Aborigines. {: #subdebate-40-3-s2 .speaker-ZL6} ##### Mr Hasluck:
LP k. - In the answer to a question asked by the honorable member for Werriwa **(Mr. Whitlam)** on 23rd October regarding the number of aborigines employed by the Northern Territory Administration and the average wage paid to them, an error was made in certain figures. The question was in the following terms: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How many aborigines are employed by the Northern Territory Administration? 1. What is the average wage paid to them? The correct answer is as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. There are approximately 1,330 aborigines employed al present by the Administration of lue Northern Territory. Most of them are employed by the Welfare Branch of the Administration, including employment on government settlements as part of measures for their support or their training, 1. It is not possible to give an average wage that would have meaning as in some cases the wages are in reality a relief measure and in other cases of a similar kind payments vary from week to week. Of 29 aborigines employed by the Northern Territory Administration (apart from Welfare Branch) eight receive full award rates and conditions in accordance with the classification in which they are employed. The other 21 receive wages varying from £5 to £10 per week. Three aborigines employed by the Welfare Branch are employed on full Public Service or award rales and conditions. Other aborigines employed by the Welfare Branch on government settlements receive from CI to £13 10$. per week in return for their services on the settlement but they and their families also receive keep and other benefits. Aborigines on the minimum wage of £1 per week und keep arc slow, aged and infirm. Banking. {: #subdebate-40-3-s3 .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr Harold Holt:
LP t.- On 16th October, and again on 22nd October, the honorable member for Mitchell **(Mr. Armitage)** asked me for some information about a letter said to have been sent recently by the Reserve Bank of Australia to the Rural Bank of New South Wales on the subject of banking policy. The Reserve Bank is required under section 31 of the Banking Act to furnish in confidence at least once in each quarter to each trading bank that is subject to the Banking Act, its estimates of movements likely to occur over the current financial year in the main banking figures, and also to inform each such bank of the policy the Reserve Bank expects to follow with respect to statutory reserve deposit ratios during the year. The Governor of the Reserve Bank has informed me that, at the end of September, in accordance with its statutory obligation, the bank wrote to each such bank. At the same time, as is customary, the Reserve Bank informed the trading banks of its views, in the light of prospective banking and economic conditions, about the appropriate banking policy to be followed under changing circumstances during the year. In accordance with its usual practice the Reserve Bank at the end of September also wrote in confidence to each of the State trading banks - that is, the Rural Bank of New South Wales, the State Bank of South Australia, and the Rural and Industries Bank of Western Australia - informing them of the general nature of the advice it had given to the trading banks that are subject to the Banking Act, and inviting them to convey to the Reserve Bank any views they might care to express about banking conditions and the banking outlook generally. In this connexion, I would observe that, although the State banks are not subject to the Banking Act and the Reserve Bank therefore has no jurisdiction with respect to them, it is obviously desirable from the viewpoint of the State trading banks themselves as well as for more general banking policy reasons, for the Reserve Bank to keep the State banks informed of its assessment of the banking outlook and in turn to be informed by them of their views. Periodically also the Governor of the Reserve Bank meets representatives of the major trading banks and discusses with them the policy aspects of banking as well as matters arising out of the administration of the banking legislation. These discussions are, of course, on a strictly confidential basis as between the Reserve Bank and the trading banks concerned. I am informed that discussions of this nature also took place at the end of September, and have since been pursued in correspondence. As a result of these exchanges the Reserve Bank's policy is still under review and will be further discussed by the Reserve Bank Board later this week. It would seem likely that some general statement on how the Reserve Bank views the situation will be made before the week is out.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 29 October 1963, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1963/19631029_reps_24_hor40/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant