25th Parliament · 1st Session
Mr. SPEAKER (Hon. Sir John McLeay) took the chair at 3.30 p.m., and read prayers.
Mr. HAYDEN presented a petition from certain electors of the Commonwealth praying that the Commonwealth Government (1) instruct its representative at the United Nations to condemn the French Government’s proposals to test nuclear weapons in the Pacific, (2) again protest directly to the French Government with a view to cancellation of the tests and (3) use all appropriate means at its disposal to obtain an extension to the treaty to cover underground tests.
Petition received and read.
– I direct to the Minister for Trade and Industry a question relating to the Australian tobacco growing industry and a statement by a member of the Government Members Rural Industries Committee, the honorable member for Wannon, in which he said that the industry is inefficient and advocated a greater share of the Australian market for United States tobacco in the doubtful hope that, in return, the United States of America would lower tariffs on Australian wool. I ask the Minister: Is the Australian tobacco industry inefficient? Does he regard it as expendable in the terms suggested by the honorable member for Wannon? If not, will he ensure that, contrary to the present situation, the Australian industry is provided with a market in Australia for all its usable leaf?
– I do not intend to engage in a debate on this subject, but I say that I believe that the Australian tobacco growing industry is very valuable for a variety of reasons. Today, it produces tobacco to the value of about £16 million a year. It gives widespread employment. It, above all industries, has given both migrants and native born Australians an opportunity to graduate from workers through the ranks of share farmers to land owners.
This industry also saves Australia a great deal of foreign exchange.
– I ask the Minister for External Affairs a question. Has he seen reports of a statement by Mr. Rusk, Secretary of State in the United States of America, that Communist China may soon explode an atomic bomb and that this expectation is based on recently acquired information about China’s advances in atomic energy? Will the Minister say whether Australia has been and will be kept informed by the United States of these developments and whether, in view of the effect of such a detonation on the nuclear test ban treaty, any diplomatic protest would be worth while?
– The statement made by the Secretary of State, Mr. Dean Rusk, is consistent with what has been generally estimated to be the progress - if “progress” is the right word - of the Chinese towards possession of a nuclear weapon. It has been known that for some time past China has been devoting a good deal of her resources, first with some Russian aid and more recently without Russian aid, towards the point where she oan produce a nuclear detonation. It should also be well known that China is opposed to the idea of a nuclear test ban treaty and has refused to be a party to a nuclear test ban treaty. The possession of a nuclear weapon by China would not, of course, change the basic character of the -situation in South East Asia. It would only add to the military power in the hands of China generally speaking, I think China’s nuclear power would still be a good way behind the nuclear power in the hands of the other two great nuclear powers.
– My question is directed to the Minister for External Affairs. Is it a fact that the Australian and New Zealand Governments refused to support the idea of an air strike by the British forces on Indonesian naval bases earlier this month? If it is a fact, will the Minister make the details available to the House?
– I can assure the honorable member and the House that there is complete understanding and accord between the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Malaysia and Australia in all matters affecting the defence of Malaysia and the military activities of Australia. We are in the closest and most effective consultation with our allies.
– My question is addressed to the Postmaster-General. As the United States has in orbit the Syncom III satellite, which will bring televised pictures of the Olympic Games to America, and as the previous Postmaster-General said that Australia could not afford this form of development, can the PostmasterGeneral inform me whether signals from Syncom HI can be picked up in Australia and whether at this late stage arrangements can bc made so that telecasts of at least the opening and closing of the Games may be seen in this country?
– The honorable member doubtless knows that over a number of years there has been much experimentation in relation to television via satellite. Unfortunately this country has not the ground facilities to receive television in this way. As 1 understand it, these facilities are available only in Tokyo, America, France and Great Britain. I believe it will be a considerable time before these facilities are available to us, and probably they will have to result from negotiations which are taking place in relation to satellite communications generally.
– I ask my question of the Minister for Primary Industry. Is the Government considering any proposal to place a restriction on wheat production, by way of restricting areas being used for wheat producton or by any other method?
– No consideration has been given to the control of wheat production by the Commonwealth. As a matter of fact, the Commonwealth does not control production nor has it power to do so. That power resides with the State Governments.
– My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industry. Is the Minister aware that the price of eggs in Victoria is now at a level which must surely be below the cost of production, and that as a result thousands of hens of good laying strain are being sold for slaughter? Can the Minister state whether this low price is the result of overproduction or of the dumping of eggs in Victoria from other States? Can he say whether the proposed Commonwealth egg marketing legislation has, as its chief object, the maintaining of egg prices at a level at least equal to the cost of production? Can he say also whether any progress is being made towards the stabilisation of this valuable industry?
– I could not give any specific figure for production costs in Australia, nor is there any recognised basis for calculating such costs. I think it must be admitted that costs of different producers would show wide variations and, undoubtedly, some would be producing eggs at a loss. The Victorian Egg Board reduced prices recently and the Chairman of the Board stated that the reduction resulted from what he termed dumping of eggs produced in other states. I think the C.E.M.A. scheme - the Council of Egg Marketing Authorities of Australia - has more or less reached a stalemate, although South Australia is still negotiating and I think it is intended that a vote be taken amongst egg producers in that State to decide whether South Australia will join in the scheme.
– My question is directed to the Minister for Shipping and Transport. What facilities exist in Australia for the testing of ship models to ascertain, amongst other things, their stability in different weather conditions? Are these facilities available to the Australian Shipbuilding Board when its officers are designing new types of vessels for local requirements?
– I cannot give the honorable member a precise answer. Some limited facilities are available but I am not sure of the exact scope of them. I know there is one tank in Sydney which is available to the Australian Shipbuilding Board. I will inquire what other facilities are available and let the honorable member know.
– My question is directed to the Prime Minister. I would like to say, first, that 1 am sure the right honorable gentleman will agree with many others who were lucky enough to see the military tattoo in Sydney that it was a great spectacle. Will the Prime Minister use his good offices to induce the responsible authorities to stage the tattoo in Melbourne so that some of the 2,000,000 inhabitants of that city may also see it? Would this not present great opportunities to assist in defraying the expenses of the tattoo, and does the Prime Minister not think that it would bc a good recruiting advertisement?
– I do not know what the future arrangements in relation to this exhibition may be but I will find out from the High Commissioner for the United Kingdom and I will also convey this suggestion to him.
– I address a question to the Minister for National Development. Some time ago a committee commenced investigating transport matters in Northern Australia, lt has apparently ceased taking evidence, and I ask whether the Minister has received the committee’s report. If he has not, has he any idea when he will receive it? After he has received it will he make copies available to honorable members?
– I think it will be some considerable time before this committee is in a position to report. It is true that it has visited the north west of Western Australia, the Northern Territory and the north of Queensland, and that it has taken evidence in those places, but it will be taking further evidence and still has quite a considerable amount of work to do. I understand that when the committee was originally established my predecessor told the committee that he would look for a report from it in about 12 months. On this basis I should think quite a few months may still elapse before we can expect a report.
– I ask the Treasurer a question. The right honorable gentleman is aware, of course, that totally and permanently incapacitated ex-servicemen’s pensions arc taken into account in determining entitlement to the age allowance for income tax purposes. I understand that Mr. Justice Ligertwood said in his report that this was an anomaly. Can the Treasurer say whether it is intended to rectify this anomaly?
– I am aware that there were references to this matter in the report-, but, as yet, I am not in a position to say whether any decision on it has been taken by the Government. I shall bear in mind the representations now made by the honorable gentleman. I shall see whether there is any further information that I can Supply to him.
– My question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the New South Wales Government proposes to increase assistance to industrialists to establish decentralised industries in country districts, will the Prime Minister now give evidence of his Government’s oft-repeated claim of support for country development by providing Commonwealth incentives for decentralisation? Will the right honorable gentleman take immediate action to decentralise Commonwealth departments by establishing branches in country districts? Will he convene a Commonwealth-State ministerial meeting for the purpose of formulating proposal’s to promote decentralisation on a national basis?
– If the honorable member will put that question on the notice paper, I will be glad to give him a carefully prepared statement of the things that we are doing and have done to encourage decentralisation Some of them are quite major, and they ought to be in the record.
– Is the Minister for Trade and Industry aware that certain Australian cattlemen, especially breeders of Angus cattle, are desirous of showing their cattle at the next exhibition of Australian products in Japan, with a view to establishing a market for Australian cattle in that country? Would such a proposition fit into the programme of the Department of Trade and Industry? If it would, will the right honorable gentleman give consideration to government participation in meeting the cost of transporting such cattle?
– I am aware that Interest in this matter has been displayed by various associations of cattle breeders in Australia. This applies not only to dairy cattle, as in the past, but also to beef cattle. In fact, I have received correspondence from the Australian Woolgrowers and Graziers Council. I think my colleague, the Minister for Primary Industry, has been approached, too. The honorable member for Mallee inquired whether I could arrange for or facilitate exhibits at the next Australian display in Japan. The next Australian display in Japan probably will be at the Tokyo International Trade Fair. That is not a kind of exhibition at which it would be possible to display live cattle. So the answer to that question is “ No “. However, there is a Japanese fair known as the Japanese International Livestock Show. I will set inquiries in hand to ascertain the conditions for exhibition of livestock at that show. On the advice available to me, that seems to be the only appropriate opportunity. The question of the subsidisation of freight charges is by no means an easy one.
– I ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry a question. Have imports of steel plate, section, ingot, and so on increased by from 100 to 300 per cent.? Is the acute shortage of steel plate and section seriously affecting expansion in Australia? Is the delay in the delivery of steel approximately one year? Is the Minister aware that numerous construction firms are importing foreign steel at a price greater than the price of Australian steel so that they can meet their contractual com mitments? Will the Minister have this shortage of steel investigated and ascertain whether the Broken Hill Pty. Co. Ltd. is deliberately maintaining production at a level just short of demand in order to ensure total sales? In view of that company’s monopoly of steel production in Australia, will the Government consider nationalising this major, basic industry or, alternatively, will the Government negotiate a joint financial and developmental agreement with the company in order to ensure the maximum utilisation of Australian deposits of coal and other minerals so that shortages of steel will not be a recurring problem.
– It is not customary to answer a question on policy at question time, but I am sure that the Prime Minister would approve of my making an exception and saying immediately that the Government would not consider nationalising the Broken Hill Pty. Co. Ltd.
– What about the financial agreement?
– I am not in possession of the statistical data to confirm the figures mentioned by the honorable member.
– If you read the report you will find that they are factual.
– I am not challenging them, but I am not in a position to confirm them. I am aware of an increased importation of steel products into Australia at the present time due to a tremendous burst of prosperity and confidence and building arising from the policies of this Government. We are all proud of this. At the same time B.H.P. is increasing its production of steel at a quite phenomenal rate. I am glad to add that B.H.P ., notwithstanding increased local demand, which is very great indeed, has not terminated its supply to certain important export markets. New Zealand has historically been a great market for Australian steel products. We hope that it will remain so. Other markets for Australian products on the western coast of the United States of America and elsewhere have been sought out and developed. I am sure that in the company’s own interests and in the interests of the Australian economy no thinking person would wish B.H.P. to withdraw from a market developed at great pains and considerable expense when there is an upsurge of Australian demand.
– I address a question to the Minister for Labour and National Service. In view of the many holdups and strikes which relate to apartheid and which are causing economic loss to Australia and affecting our relationship with South Africa, is it correct that Red China’s trade with South Africa has increased enormously as a result? Is the strike weapon now being used to reduce the trade of the Western powers with each other in order to increase Communist trade with the countries affected?
– I am not sure of the cause, but it is true that trade between Communist China and South Africa, between Russia and South Africa and between other Communist countries and South Africa has increased considerably percentagewise in the last few years. Although 1 am unable to say that this is due to a policy concerning apartheid that has prevented the movement of cargoes through Australian ports, I can say that the Communists do not mind doing business with South Africa despite apartheid. What does puzzle me, and puzzles me considerably, is that although the Communist countries do not mind doing business with South Africa and certainly do not raise the issue of apartheid, there is the extraordinary fact that the local Communists use that issue. I should like to know what the approach of the Communist Party of China would be if the same situation occurred there and what would be its attitude to the activities of the Australian Waterside Workers Federation.
– I ask the Minister for Labour and National Service a question. As the galloping inflation due to rapidly increasing prices has robbed the workers of the advantage of the recent £1 increase in the basic wage, will the honorable gentleman expedite a successful hearing of a claim before the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to ensure that the workers will have the inequitable burden of inflation removed from them as early as possible?
– The assumption made by the honorable gentleman is, of course, totally wrong.
– It is certainly right.
– It is totally wrong.
– It is certainly right.
– If you look at the figures you will see that, at the moment, there are, of course, signs of inflation. There has been a rise in prices of the order of 1 per cent. No-one in his right senses could argue that that amounts to galloping inflation. As to the future, none of us can accurately forecast what the change in the next consumer price index is likely to be. What is happening - and I think this should be emphasised - is that we have a degree of prosperity and of real progress in this country that is unequalled anywhere else. The Australian Labour Party is obviously attempting to mount a campaign to create a fear complex - a psychology complex - designed to disturb business and also designed, if it can, with the possibility of another election taking place, to create a psychological outlook which will be favorable to its cause.
– Now answer the question.
– If it is a political question, it will be answered in a political way. So, this campaign is designed to create the illusion that we now have galloping inflation. If the Leader of the Opposition has his way and reverts to type and to his previous statements, he will try to create the psychological approach of galloping inflation. I see no evidence of any speculative tendencies here. I think if more moderate statements were made in this House by members of the Opposition, we would keep inflation under reasonable control.
– Would the PostmasterGeneral consider asking the Australian Broadcasting Commission whether it could inform the people of Australia, through television and radio, of the serious situation confronting this country in the north? It is obvious that people are hungry for this sort of information and it is not always available to them.
– Sometimes I receive complaints from the community that the Australian Broadcasting Commission is telling the people the things that they should not be told. I would believe generally that the programmes which are shown on television or broadcast by radio stations do, in fact, give a broad interpretation of events happening in the north, but I will be pleased to bring the honorable member’s question to the notice of the Commission.
– I ask the Minister for External Affairs a question. In view of the Government’s oft repeated claim that there is complete agreement between the Governments of the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand in regard to the defence of Malaysia, will the Minister say specifically whether or not the Australian Government refused to support the suggestion of the United Kingdom Government earlier this month that an air strike should be made by British forces on an Indonesian naval base? The information is in his Department. Anyhow, the allegation is known to his Department. Will the Minister state how complete or incomplete is the co-ordination of policy between the Governments of the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand in regard to the defence of Malaysia? Finally, will he say whether Australian policy in regard to Malaysia is designed to avoid the commitment of Australian forces there for as long as possible because of the defencelessness of Australia?
– The commitment of Australian forces to the defence of Malaysia is clear and precise in terms which have been communicated to this House by the Prime Minister. In keeping with that commitment, we have been in close, constant and effective consultation with the Government of the United Kingdom. I do not think it would bc in the interests of Australia or of any of our allies if I were to make a breach of confidence and expose any of the course of that consultation, but it has been close, constant and effective and has served Australia’s interests. In conclusion, I hope that the honorable gentleman himself will not differ from me- in fact I feel sure he will not differ- when I say that for our part in Australia we want to make it clear to the President of Indonesia that unprovoked aggression on the territory of Malaya must be countered and will be countered.
– I ask the Minister for the Army whether he has seen reports that in Red China and in Russia there are respectively 20,000 and 17,000 very active rifle clubs, the members of which spend a great deal of time in training to become proficient riflemen. I ask also whether the Government can give some assistance to rifle clubs in Australia, the members of which receive no pay but are put to a good deal of expense. Now that these clubs are to be faced with the burden of paying rates and other charges on their ranges, it is possible that, without such assistance, they will pass out of existence.
– Since becoming Minister for the Army, I have given very careful consideration to representations made by and on behalf of rifle clubs. I have come to the conclusion that the policy laid down by my predecessor and affirmed by the Government on numerous occasions - that assistance to rifle clubs other than in connection with rifle ranges shall cease as from June 1965 - should continue to be implemented.
– Is the Treasurer aware of reports that there is uncertainty in business circles resulting from the Government’s failure to announce full details of the proposed Commonwealth assistance in meeting the cost of converting business machines to the new decimal currency requirements? Can the Treasurer now give full details of the Government’s proposals? If not, when does he expect to be in a position to do so?
– Yesterday I tabled the report of the Decimal Currency Board. I think that report covers the progress made in dealing with this matter about as fully as we can cover it at this stage. If, after studying that report, the honorable gentleman would like any elaboration of the information appearing in it-
– Does this report cover equipment in what is called the B category?
– If you mean things like taxi meters and so on, no decision has yet been taken either by the Board or the Government in connection with them. The Board has said that it will give consideration to those matters and make recommendations on them, but the recommendations have not yet reached the Government.
Mr. KELLY__ Is the Minister for Trade and Industry aware that Australian manufacturers who use ingot aluminium and who have to purchase their supplies at an artificially high price are meeting serious competition from imported articles made by overseas manufacturers who can buy their ingot aluminium much cheaper? Will the Minister assure me that the position of those Australian manufacturers who use ingot aluminium will not be overlooked when methods of protecting the aluminium ingot industry are being formulated?
– It is always likely, when protection is accorded to a raw material, that imported fabricated materials will have an advantage unless there is a consequential or complementary arrangement for protection against such imported fabricated materials. I do not know whether the honorable member is asking me to arrange a Tariff Board inquiry for the manufacturers of fabricated aluminium products in Australia. If that is his request, ] shall gladly give consideration to it. I say this a little facetiously, of course. However, I make the point that if Australian fabricators arc put at a disadvantage by the use of raw material which has a higher relative price than has the raw material used in imported fabricated material they know that they can make representations to the Department of Trade and Industry for a reference to the Tariff Board.
– Mr. Speaker, I ask you a question. Does the fact that the honorable member or former honorable member for Robertson is now seated in the diplomatic gallery mean that he has accepted a diplomatic appointment or any other appointment in the gift of the Government?
– I think I might take advantage of this opportunity to say that I have received from Mr. Roger Dean a letter dated 30th September 1964 resigning his seat as member for the electoral division of Robertson.
– My question to the Treasurer relates to the transfer of funds from this country to a foreign country. I ask: In what circumstances docs the Treasury exercise a regulatory power in the transfer of funds? Would the Treasury in all cases know in advance the ultimate destination of funds being transferred and do the bona fides or purposes of those involved in the transfer of funds in any way influence Treasury control?
– I would like to get a precise answer for the honorable gentleman. Broadly, in recent years, thanks to a much improved external situation, we have tried to liberalise as far as practicable the movement of capital from this country as desired by those entitled to transfer it and also the transfer of annual earnings where that too is desired. However, when I have studied the question more closely I will get an authoritative reply from the Treasury.
– Is the Prime Minister aware that four weeks annual leave is enjoyed by most State public servants, newspaper employees, bank staffs and other workers employed by most enlightened employers? Is he also aware that there was a time when the Commonwealth gave the lead to other employers in regard to first class working conditions? In view of this, can the Prime Minister inform the House when he intends to grant justice to his own employees and provide four weeks annual leave to all Commonwealth public servants?
– The matter is one of policy, and 1 am not prepared to say anything about it at present except that 1 would not mind four weeks annual leave myself.
– You can have long service leave, if you like.
– That is right.
– I desire to ask the Minister for Trade and Industry a question. Have any requests for the sale of iron ore and bauxite to the Republic of China been received? If so, have they been refused? If no official requests have been made through Government channels, is the Minister aware of any such requests, and refusals, being made through private channels?
– I think such a request would be processed by the Department of National Development. To the best of my knowledge, no such applications have been made.
– I ask the Minister for Housing a question. About eight weeks ago the Minister said that he thought the Housing Loan Insurance Corporation would be in operation before many months had passed. Will the necessary legislation be introduced this session? When will the scheme come into operation?
– My thoughts on this matter have not changed. I expect to introduce the necessary legislation before the end of the session and expect the Corporation to come into operation not long thereafter.
– I ask a question of the Treasurer in view of the increasing concern being expressed by many Australians at the rapidly mounting number of companies in Australia that are controlled overseas. Did the Treasurer have discussions in New York recently with leading figures in the banking and financial worlds? Did the people with whom the Treasurer had discussions include American industrialists who already have control of companies in Australia or who contemplate such an investment? If so, did the right honorable gentleman stress that any investment in Australia by overseas companies would be greeted with more appreciation by Australia if Australians were given an opportunity to participate in the shareholding of any new company established here or in any take-over of an existing company?
– My discussions were principally with people in banking and financial circles and not with those who were concerned with the possibilities of direct industrial investment. However, there were others who were interested in the development possibilities of Australia. 1 call to mind one such organisation which, I understand, is one of three large groups all of which have Australian affiliations and which are contemplating development of the very rich iron ore resources of Western Australia, leading finally to the creation of a steel industry in that State.
Replying generally to the honorable gentleman, I think that the policy of the Government in respect of the encouragement of Australian participation in investment in this country by overseas companies is well known. All members of the Government take such opportunities as they can, when appropriate circumstances occur, to bring this policy to the notice of those who contemplate investment in this country. May I remind the House of something which is frequently overlooked, and that is the equity which the Australian people have in every successful enterprise in Australia, whether it be Australian-owned or overseasowned. I refer to the equity secured by the Commonwealth revenues from the profits earned by these enterprises.
Commonwealth revenue is the biggest dividend holder in any such successful enterprise. I ask the honorable member for Reid, who is interjecting, to allow me to answer this question in my own way. The Commonwealth gets 8s. 6d. in the £1 or 421 per cent, of every £1 of profit earned in Australia. To the extent that there are remittances of profits overseas, in addition to that 42i per cent, we get 15 per cent, in the case of countries which have double tax agreements with us and a 30 per cent, withholding tax in the case of those which do not have double tax agreements. So quite apart from any Australian equity investment which may occur, as a result of the revenues that the Commonwealth derives from the profits of these companies the Australian community has a very substantial stake in overseas investment in this country.
– I ask the Minister for the Interior: Is it true that damage caused by wave action to a portion of the retaining wall of Lake Burley Griffin has been found to be far more extensive than was first thought? Has the Minister’s attention been directed to stories being given wide circulation in Canberra at present, quoting unidentified engineering opinion, estimating that very extensive reconstruction work will be required and mentioning the sum of f 1,250,000 as the cost of the necessary repairs to, and reconstruction of, the lake wall generally? If these stories have any basis whatsoever in truth, will the Minister explain the extent of that basis? If the stories are false or mischievous, or both, will he give them the earliest possible public denial and make a full statement of the actual position regarding the lake wall?
– I have not heard these rumours that the honorable member has mentioned. They sound mischievous. The damage to the lake wall took place, I think, three or four weeks ago. The report that I obtained then stated the estimated cost of repairing the wall as a few thousand pounds. I suggest that one has to recognise that when a retaining wall is built around an area of dry land and that land is submerged, some settling will take place and some repair work on the wall will be necessary, because weaknesses sometimes appear. But there is certainly no evidence of large scale weaknesses in the wall of the lake, and I should hate to think that the rumours will gain any ground. I shall look into the matter and give the honorable member a reply when I receive advice from the National Capital Development Commission.
Motion (by Mr. Calwell) agreed to -
That leave of absence for two months be given to the honorable member for Shortland (Mr. Griffiths) on the ground of public business overseas.
Debate resumed from 2nd September (vide page 900), on motion by Dr. Forbes - That the Bill be now read a second time.
– Is it the wish of the House that the subject matter of the two measures be debated together as the Treasurer has suggested? There being no objection, I shall allow that course to be adopted.
.- Mr. Speaker, one of the two measures that we arc now debating will determine the rates of income tax to apply to individuals and companies for the ensuing twelve) months. The other will make certain minor adjustments in the Income Tax and Social Services Contribution Assessment Act. For convenience, these Bills are being debated together. We all know that, historically, provision relating to the imposition of a tax rate cannot be included in the same measure as provision for other matters. Traditionally, measures prescribing tax rates are separate from other measures. I understand that the Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt) intends at a later date during this sessional period to bring down another measure to amend the Income Tax and Social Services Contribution Assessment Act. Therefore, I propose for the most part this afternoon to confine my remarks to the subject of income tax rates as they affect individuals and companies.
To put the matter in its proper perspective, I direct the attention of honorable members to the document entitled “Australian National Accounts - National Income and Expenditure 1948-49 to 1962- 63 “. At page 59, this document indicates that, for the year ended 30th June 1963, the total of the taxes raised by all governments in Australia - the Commonwealth Government, the State Governments and local government authorities - aggregated £1,764.6 million, or about 22 per cent, of the gross national product. So it can be seen that taxation is of some significance in the economic life of Australia and that it greatly affects the destiny of the Austraiian people. Of this total, £267.4 million was raised by income tax on companies and £541.3 million by income tax on individuals, making an aggregate of some £808.7 million. Those are primarily the two tax fields that the House is considering this afternoon - the rates of tax on individuals and on companies. This financial year, the total of these two forms of income tax will probably be nearer to £900 million than £808.7 million. So the rates of income tax and the principles according to which they are applied are of some significance to the Australian community and merit the closest possible scrutiny by this House.
I direct the attention of honorable members also to the Income Tax and Social Services Contribution Assessment Act 1936- 1963, which states the principles according to which income tax is levied, first, on wage and salary earners, who, of course, represent the greater proportion of the taxpayers of Australia, secondly, on small scale private enterprise, including farmers and proprietors of corner stores and the like, partnerships and trusts, and thirdly, on companies - the field sometimes described as corporate activity - on both the large and the small scale, as typified mainly by public companies on the one hand and private companies on the other. The Act provides for a system of deductions and concessions applicable to various fields of endeavour in the assessment of taxable income. In 1964, there is probably a case for recodification of the Act. After all, we amend it haphazardly each year. Sometimes a new deduction is introduced and sometimes an anomaly is found and removed. The consequence is that the size and complexity of the Act have increased. I recall that, when I became a member of this House in 1951, the Act was perhaps only one third or one half of its present size. I suggest that some of its sections, as they are drafted, are now redundant. Some are certainly most untidy.
The other factor which makes the Act appear in the way it does is that there have been several occasions where, because of constitutional limitations or sometimes arising from sheer political expediency, things have been written into the Income Tax and Social Services Contribution Assessment Act that ought not to appear in the Act at all. For instance, the device taken recently of making insurance companies responsible for having a certain part of their investments in Government bonds before they could get tax concessions was one such example. Another example was the inclusion in the Act of some longwinded and almost incomprehensible - as far as laymen are concerned - sections dealing with the question of petroleum research in Australia. Such things are straining the purpose of the Act: They are increasing its bulk, and the time has probably come when we ought to be taking a look at this document and the way in which it is written.
I draw the attention of honorable members to a booklet published recently by the Melbourne University Press. Its title is “Taxation in Australia - .Agenda for Reforms “. It is the joint production of four professors of economics of various Australian universities - Professors Downing, Arndt, Boxer and Matthews. They have made a searching and critical examination of the question of taxation in Australia and their consideration was mainly directed to personal income tax and income tax upon companies. I suggest that what they have written is worthy of the attention of this House. Honorable members may buy this booklet for themselves - it is in a paperback edition - or they can obtain it from the Library. The authors have approached their deliberations from the point of view of what they call “ equity “. They realise the importance in the community of income tax. They realise, as do most people, that the most equitable method of collecting revenue in a modern society is to impose income tax. Perhaps it is appropriate at this stage to say that at least up to the present we are fortunate in Australia that we now have only one authority collecting income tax in Australia, namely, the Commonwealth Government.
Recently one of the Premiers, Mr. Bolte of Victoria, delivered what the “ Taxpayers’ Bulletin” described in its most recent issue, that of 19th September 1964, as a “bolt from the blue”. Mr. Bolte apparently feels that he is not receiving a fair deal from the Commonwealth in the allocation of resources and the only way he sees open to him is to levy a separate income tax over and above that levied by the Commonwealth. I should think that if that were to come about it would be most unfortunate. The Australian Labour Party has had in its platform for many years now the principle that uniform income taxation is the most desirable system for Australia. We realise that in a Federal system there are, naturally enough, differences in economic strength between the States - differences that arise from the fact that some States started earlier than others and differences arising from the fact that nature has not always been uniform in the way in which she has bestowed climatic and other conditions in the Commonwealth and also from the fact that some States are much bigger and more sparsely populated than others, and so on.
– What do you say of the concept that the person or body spending the money should have the responsibility of raising it?
– I will come to that in a moment. This is what you and I as students once heard described as a vicious principle. We were told that it was wrong for the person who spends the money not to be the person who collects it. Unfortunately, I think it is inevitable that what happens now must happen because, to give one reason, it is impossible to split the collections from income tax rationally in Australia. The most equitable way is as we have it at the moment; to have a single authority. Of course, that begs to some extent the second question, and that is whether the relationship which exists between the States and the Commonwealth is as harmonious as it should be. The Commonwealth has the onerous duty of collecting the taxation and the States would like the pleasure of spending it. Nevertheless, we have said, and I repeat it, that we believe in the uniform system.
We do not believe, however, that the Commonwealth, as the central taxing authority, is paying sufficient at the moment to allow the important needs of the States to be met. After all, one has to think only of the various constitutional responsibilities that fall to the States to perform, of which education, health, the provision of roads, irrigation and transport are the principal responsibilities. What we perhaps call national development in the various States is still the responsiblity constitutionally, of the States, and there are bound to be arguments all the time about how much money is distributed to the States.
I remember a year or two ago the Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt) bringing down the new formula. I then expressed some doubt as to whether the introduction of the new formula, which was supposed to look five years ahead, would mean the end of the disagreement between the Treasurer and the States. I think he at least would see the reality of that situation. Mr. Renshaw, the Labour Premier of New South Wales, has gone on record, according to the “Taxpayers’ Bulletin”, as saying that he had some sympathy with the difficulties of Mr. Bolte but nevertheless did not think that the solution was to have a separate income tax in New South Wales, Victoria or any other State. 1 think that almost every other Premier agreed with him. Sir Thomas Playford certainly did, as did, I think, the Premier of Queensland. The Premier of Western Australia made a guarded statement on the matter, if he did not commit himself finally. I simply want to go on record today on behalf of the Australian Labour Party as saying that so far as we are concerned uniform taxation is the most logical system for Australia, but perhaps there are difficulties still to be resolved between the States and the Commonwealth about the sharing of what is collected.
– And always will be.
– There always will be: I am prepared to concede that. I turn first to the question of income tax as it operates on individuals in the Australian community, after which I shall examine income tax as it operates on companies in Australia. I am indebted to the Treasurer for the document which of recent years has accompanied the Budget Papers, lt is called “Income Tax Statistics”, and on page 5 it summarises the position concerning the collection of income tax on individuals for the year ended 30th June 1962 - a period two years past, but nevertheless these are the most up to date statistics available. Although the population has increased by 4 or 5 per cent, since then and the total collections of tax have gone up proportionately, the same sort of arguments that I want to use now would still apply if we had later figures. Rounding off these figures for the year ended 30th June 1962, there were, in all, 4.4 million taxpayers in Australia, of whom 3 million were male and 1.4 million female. But there was some difference in income distribution as between the male section and the female section of the community. I want the House to note this particularly because I wish to draw a certain inference from these figures. Of the 3 million male taxpayers, 2.3 million had incomes of less than £1,500 a year - £29 a week or less.
– That is not taxable income.
– No. It is not taxable income. I am talking about grades of actual income. You will see in a moment that I mean actual income. This is how the figures are recorded.
– That is before deductions for dependants.
– Yes. That is before deductions have been allowed. As I have said, 2.3 million of these male taxpayers had actual incomes of less than £1,500 a year. That, in effect, was the wage they received before tax was taken out. In addition, 700,000 male taxpayers had incomes of £1,500 a year and more. Of the female taxpayers, 1.3 million had incomes of less than £1,500 and only 100,000 had incomes in excess of £1,500. It can be seen that there is a good deal of difference between income distribution amongst males and amongst females.
One reason for this, of course, is that quite a large number of female taxpayers are young persons who have not yet married. A considerable number are wives who, for one reason or another, have chosen to go out to work. But there is a very large group, numbering about 330,000, of what are called “ provisional taxpayers “. Provisional taxpayers are, for the most part, non-wage-earning taxpayers. To me the implication is clear that a large number of those females have incomes simply because arrangements have been entered into between them and their husbands to split the incomes of the husbands so as to reduce the total amount of tax that has to be paid. We have at least a social problem of some magnitude here, and I think that in approaching the question of equity in taxation this is something that should be looked at pretty closely.
That is the first problem to which I want to direct attention. I am not offering any solution at the moment. All I suggest is that the matter is worthy of consideration. Some women in the community are forced to be breadwinners all their lives. Some perchance remain single all their lives. Some women who marry may become widowed or may, for reasons best known to themselves, wish to continue to work. But there is a very large group of female taxpayers who apparently are taxpayers only because income that otherwise would have gone to the husband has been split between husband and wife so as to reduce the total amount of tax payable. This may be done by way of a family partnership or a trust or something of the kind. Some countries have overcome the difficulty by aggregating the income of husband and wife. I am not suggesting that this is necessarily and always an equitable remedy but at least it is a remedy that has been applied in the United Kingdom.
– It would work out very unfairly to wives.
– It could work out unfairly. I say that the solution is not simple, but at least there arc people who are adopting this practice to break down the incidence of taxation. Perhaps it is regarded as legitimate, but perhaps also there are some social and moral implications that should be looked at. After all, we are supposed to have an equitable system of taxation, and if some people can drive coach and horse through the principle of equity, having some clever lawyer draw up a documuent, then we are entitled to take measures to have the law changed.
– When you speak of moral considerations I may say that I have heard it argued that aggregating the income has the effect of encouraging immorality because it discourages people from matrimony if they stand a chance of having to pay substantially more by way of income tax.
– That brings up a new set of problems that I had not contemplated. However my remarks have provoked the Treasurer to see that these matters are not always cut and dried.
– Let me remind the honorable member that the Labour Government tried to introduce legislation along these lines many years ago when I was a member of the Opposition.
– It is not often, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we have this cut and thrust as some one called it the other day in our debates. At least I hope I have made the first point I wanted to make, that some of the people paying income tax are doing so because an income that otherwise would have been a single income has been cut into one or more parts. The second point to which I want to direct attention and which also is clear from page 5 of “Income Tax Statistics,” is this: The total amount of actual income received by the 4.4 million taxpayers was, in round figures, £5,000 million. This represents something more than two-thirds of the gross national product, and when we consider that it does not include company profits, depreciation allowances, investment and the like, we see that it gives a pretty fair picture of the situation. That amount of £5,000 million was actual income, and it was reduced by £1,000 million to give a taxable income of £4,000 million. About £1,000 million had been allowed in concessions of one kind or another. It was made up of allowances for dependent wives, allowances for children, allowances for medical expenses, education allowances, allowances for insurance premiums and the like. These allowances aggregated £1,000 million, or one-fifth of the initial tax base, as it might be called. In the United States of America the term “ tax base “ is used to mean the total income on which tax could have been levied if no deductions at all had been allowed. The tax base of £5,000 million was reduced to give a taxable income of £4,000 million.
On a previous occasion when a question was asked from this side of the House as to the amount of revenue lost by allowing concessions of one kind or another the answer was given that it would be between £140 million and £150 million. That was some years ago. I suggest it is reasonable to estimate today that the loss to the revenue by allowing these concessions of one kind or another is certainly more than £200 million and is probably closer to £250 million. That is another fact that needs to be noted alongside the next one, which is that the total amount of income tax collected from individuals for the year we have been considering was - again in round figures - £500,000,000. So the loss of revenue due to allowing concessions of one kind or another is approximately half of the total amount of taxation revenue that is finally collected. Again there is a problem of some proportion there, and I ask the House to bear with me while I give some of my reasoning.
I suppose it is legitimate enough to say that in any social system a married man with a wife and, perhaps, a number of children has greater economic responsibilities than has a single person, and that the taxation law should recognise that. But, of course, there is more than one way of recognising it. The learned authors of “Taxation in Australia” direct attention to that fact. They suggest that what they call a rebate system ought to be introduced into Australia. Presumably, everybody would be taxed on his gross income and then allowed rebates according to his family circumstances. We might say: “We will allow a rebate of £50 if you have a wife “. That rebate of £50 would apply whether a man’s income was £10,000 or £1,000. That is one possible approach to this problem.
A second approach is one which was in operation in this country when income tax was first introduced. That is the principle of what was known as statutory exemption. The Government would not tax anybody unless his income exceeded a certain initial figure - let us say £250. Another £250 would bc added if he was a married person, so that no married person with an income less than £500 would pay tax. If he had children, he would be given certain other concessions. And so it would go on. That is another way of approaching this problem.
A third way of approaching the problem would be not to have concessions at all and to meet family problems by benefits such as child endowment. In this country, child endowment becomes an issue at election time. Sometimes we are met with the argument from the Treasury that we could not double child endowment because it might involve us in the expenditure of a further £75 million, and we could not afford that amount. That is the way the argument goes. But perhaps honorable members are not quite aware of what income tax concessions are costing the revenue at the moment. As I have suggested, the cost of the concessions given at present could be at least £200 million and is probably nearer £250 million.
Let us consider how these concessions are distributed among income groups. The table of statistics to which I have referred can help us to do that. When we look at the concessions that are other than family concessions - I put in this category deductions for life assurance premiums, medical and hospital benefit contributions and the like, as distinct from deductions for a spouse and dependent children - we find that there is what the statisticians call regression, in that the deductions operate against the lower income groups and in favour of the higher income groups. I have made a calculation. At some stage the Treasurer may be in a position to get his experts to try to make their own calculation. My calculation leads me to this conclusion: If we doubled the family concessions - that is, the allowance for a wife and the allowances for children - and cut out everything else, the majority of taxpayers would be advantaged. The revenue would be some millions of pounds better off, too. We would achieve a better sharing of that amount of £250 million. In fact, the loss of revenue would not be as great as that. It probably would be nearer to £220 million.
– Does that leave out medical expenses?
– Yes. I am coming to th: matter of medical expenses. After all, the Government, when it suits it, claims that it has a wonderful health scheme. If we have a good health scheme, why do we need to have concessions for medical expenses in our taxation laws at all? If we have a good child endowment scheme, why do we need to make separate allowances for children?
In compiling the table of statistics, I drew the line at an income of £1,500 a year or £29 a week. In that group of people with an annual income of less than £1,500 are 69 per cent, of taxpayers who claim a deduction for a spouse and 67 par cent, of taxpayers who claim deductions for first and second children. I ask honorable members to contemplate seriously whether, in what nowadays we call an affluent society, anybody who receives an income of £29 a week or less and has a wife and two children is on the verge of affluence. In my opinion he is not. There is another group of people of whom honorable members and the community at large may not be aware. The income group from £105 to £999 a year - the group of people whose income is less than £20 a week - contains one-fifth of the families of Australia. Again I ask honorable members to contemplate whether a person who is earning £19 a week or less and who is supporting a wife and two children is in a state of affluence in our society today.
I believe that it is time we had a look at these matters. In my view, our tax structure has atrophied over the years. Instead of reviewing the tax structure systematically, we look around for some new piece of political ingenuity - a new deduction. Recently the maximum allowable deduction for assurance premiums was raised to £400 per annum or £8 a week. That may be of some significance to a person whose income is from £3,000 to £4,000 per annum; but I doubt whether it is of any great significance to a married man in the income group of £1,500 to £1,000, or the income group of £999 to £100. Who benefits from this sort of concession? I suggest that well over half of that total loss of revenue of between £200 millon and £250 million is going to about one-fifth of the taxpayers of Australia. I know that these figures are subject to challenge, but I have worked them out according to the best devices that are open to me.
The greatest inequality in these concessions is not in the family deductions; it is in what I call the fancy deductions - the ones that could be done without. Let me say categorically that if I had my choice I would prefer doubling the allowance for the wife to giving some of these fancy deductions for fares to and from work and the cost of working clothing.
Perhaps deductions for those things ought to be included; but before they are allowed an appropriate deduction should be allowed for a wife. Why is the allowable deduction £143? What is the logic of £2 1 5s. a week as the taxation deduction for a wife? Why is the deduction not £130 per annum? Why is it not £260 per annum? Why is it £143 per annum?
I want to give two examples which show the nature of these fancy deductions and, to my mind, highlight the inequality. 1 do not suggest that either income that I use as an example is necessarily typical or that the circumstances that I cite are typical. I have taken a person whose actual income is £3,600. Taking the figures from the salary and wages return for 1964, a person with a salary of £3,600 with no deductions would pay £1,011 tax. If he had a wife and three children he would have concessional deductions of £364. I presume that with an income of £3,600 he could afford to pay £150 life insurance and could also claim a £100 deduction for educational expenses for each child. That would bring his tax concessional deductions to £814, which I round off to £800. The concessional deductions would reduce his actual income of £3,600 to a taxable income of £2,800, and his tax instead of being £1,011 would be £671, a tax saving of £340. In other words, he has had the benefit of deductions worth £800 and his taxation is £340 less in consequence. That means that the Government is subsidising him to the extent of nearly 10s. in the £1 on all the deductions that he has claimed.
Look at the position of another taxpayer, also a married man with three children and earning £1,300 - that is, about £25 a week. If he were a single man with no deductions his tax would be £174. His wife and three children, as in the other case, entitle him to a deduction of £364. I presume that be could afford only 10s. a week for insurance, so 1 have allowed £26 per annum. I have allowed education expenses for his three children at £200 and some other deductions which would give him total concessions of £600, reducing his actual income from £1,300 to a taxable income of £700 on which the tax payable would be £51. The tax saving in his case would be £123 and the degree of subsidy for his concessions would be about 4s. in the £1 compared with 10s. in the £1 in the previous case.
They are simply two examples, but you could choose manifold examples. The worst feature is that there are far more taxpayers in the £1,300 category in that circumstance than there are taxpayers in the other group. 1 think the point should be clear that there is no equity in the present method of concessional deduction. That is a second point that I should like honorable members to note.
I have not had an opportunity to quote from the works of the learned gentlemen from Melbourne and other places, but I should like to refer now to “Taxation in Australia “ at page 53, paragraph 98, which states -
Without any such detailed research,-
I am not suggesting that mine is detailed research - however, it can certainly be said that the Australian tax structure as a whole is much less progressive than the personal income tax alone. We suspect that it was only the obvious progressiveness of the nominal rate structure of personal income tax, coupled with the general ignorance of experts and laymen alike about the weight of regressive indirect taxes on the lower income groups, and about the extent of evasion, avoidance and erosion that enable Australians to think of their tax system as a reasonably equitable one.
I have not time this afternoon to go into greater detail about the questions of evasion, avoidance and erosion, but I hope to do so when the bill implementing the recommendations of the Ligertwood Committee comes before the House. It was three years ago that the Ligertwood Committee pointed to tax avoidance of the order of £15 million. Probably by now the figure would have doubled and would be perhaps £25 million to £30 million. But in that space of time this Government has done nothing whatever to remedy the deficiencies to which the Committee draw attention.
The authors of “ Taxation in Australia “ continued -
We therefore favour a substantial move over the next decade in the direction of increasing the relative importance of such direct personal taxation at the expense of the more regressive indirect taxes.
– Is that Labour policy also?
– Yes. We suggested that there should be a shift of at least £100 million from the amount that is levied as indirect tax to the amount levied as direct tax. That would produce a more equitable structure so far as the majority of people in Australia are concerned.
I am surprised that I have already used so much of the extra time I was given for my speech. I had intended to talk about company taxation, because the same sort of problems are implicit there. However, I shall draw the attention of honorable members again to the statistics contained in the official Budget document. These show that in the year ended June 1962 there were 995 companies in Australia which had profits in excess of £100,000. In total there are about 80,000 companies in Australia, but only 995 were successful enough to have profits exceeding £100,000. In other words, fewer than 2 per cent, of the total number of companies registered in Australia derived 58 per cent, of all the profits earned by companies in Australia. I have just time to mention briefly in passing that these figures show the sorts of concessions that have been given by this Parliament and demonstrate the small number of hands into which they sometimes fall.
This House, on two recent occasions, has had before it one bill relating to investment allowances and another relating to export market development allowances. We were told that these were the kinds of things that were necessary to encourage private investment in Australia and to encourage Australia’s export trade. The figures show that the 995 companies which may be called the successful companies of Australia received half of the total amount allowed under the investment allowances provision in the year ended June 1962 and half of the benefits that were bestowed under the provisions relating to the export market development allowances. In all seriousness I merely ask: Does the House believe that trade would not have been promoted by those big companies without that fillip or that they would not have bought a particular piece of plant that they did buy, had they not had the encouragement of those allowances? If the investment allowance were reaching down to small and desirable businesses, all right; but these figures simply point again to the need to be selective sometimes in giving such concessions. Perhaps as my time has almost expired I can close on that point. I have tried this afternoon to draw the attention of the House to one or two inequities and obvious anomalies that have crept into the income tax structure because of the piecemeal way in which this Parliament has approached it for the last 15 years.
– I support the statements of the honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Crean) on this legislation. At the outset I shall deal with the statement by the Minister for the Army and Minister assisting the Treasurer (Dr. Forbes) in his second reading speech on the Bill. He said-
For reasons already stated by the Treasurer, it is not proposed to re-enact for the current year 1964-65 the rebate of ls. in the £1 allowed to individuals for the past three financial years.
Of course, we all know that during the last three financial years this Government has brought down the most sectional legislation that has been enacted during the 15 years of its administration. This Government brought down the legislation to grant the tax rebate of 5 per cent. It was sectional legislation. We members of the Australian Labour Party do not oppose the abolition of the rebate on this occasion because we think that it is sectional and benefits the wealthy element of the community. We on this side of the House believe, as Socialists, that taxation provides the best means of making an equitable distribution, of the wealth of the nation. That wealth should be diverted from those who possess it in order to assist those who are in need. In the three years during which the rebate of 5 per cent, has been allowed more than £100 million has been handed out to the community but the great mass of the people have received only a small part of this sum. In the last full financial year this tax rebate amounted to £35 million. The figures I am about to quote, which are issued by the Commissioner of Taxation, were available at the end of June 1962. At that time there were 4.4 million taxpayers in the Commonwealth. The actual annual income of 82 per cent, of those taxpayers was less that £1,500 or approximately £29 per week. Those taxpayers - 3.6 million people - received some £14 million of the £35 million which was handed out through the operation of this tax rebate. The other 1 8 per cent, of taxpayers, or 800,000 people, who each earned more than £1,500 per year, received some £21 million of the handout. These figures show that this sectional group has benefited greatly from the handouts exceeding £110 million over the last three years.
The Labour Party believes that even though the rebate of 5 per cent, is to be abolished the taxation scales applicable to persons in the lower income group should be reduced and taxation on persons in the higher income brackets should be increased. To illustrate my contention, I point out that in the last year of the administration of the Chifley Government no tax was paid on any incomes up to £350 per annum. At that time, the basic wage was approximately £6 9s. per week. If that comparison is applied to today’s figures, no taxation will be levied on any income below approximately £800 per annum. We believe that the taxation scales applicable to people in receipt of small incomes should be revised. The basic wage in November 1949 was £6 9s. In June 1964, it was £15 8s. If, in the days of the Chifley Government, no taxation was paid on incomes up to £350, it is basically sound to argue that no taxation should be paid by married people with families on incomes under £800 per year. We know that the Menzies Administration has maintained this indirect taxation scale. As I have said, in 1948-49 any income up to £350 was not taxable. In terms of the basic wage the comparable income now is £800. But a person with an income of that amount is paying tax at the rate of 3s. 2d. in the £1. It must be remembered also that purchasing power is less today because the price of practically everything has doubled. The illustration I have just given illustrates just one way in which this Government has received money through its taxation policy.
I come now to a consideration of the actual way in which the Government raises money. Income tax, of course, is the most equitable way of raising money from taxes within our community. In 1951-52, this Menzies Administration raised 42 per cent, of its total taxation revenue by means of income tax on individuals. That percentage represented an amount of approximately £386 million. In the last financial year for which I have figures, the Government raised £636 million in revenue from taxation on the incomes of individuals, but the percentage of the total taxation revenue represented by that sum had dropped to 39.8 per cent. In other words, there is a downward trend in this equitable way of raising revenue through taxation. We know that more and more this Government is raising money by means of indirect taxation. One could, in passing, talk about the way in which this Government has raised money through excise, sales tax and other forms of indirect taxation. Later in my speech I want to explain how this Government has increased indirect taxation.
By the legislation now under consideration the Menzies Administration increases company tax by 6d. in the £1. This Government states that company tax is a direct tax. Company tax, as I will explain later, is not a direct tax but a transferable tax; in other words, it could be called an indirect tax because it is transferable.
– Every tax is an indirect tax in that sense.
– It is not.
– In the sense you have defined it, it is.
– I am pleased that the Minister assisting the Treasurer has said that. I wish he would advise the Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt) that company tax is an indirect tax.
– I did not say that.
– Company tax is a transferable tax. Being a transferable tax, it is passed on in the price which is paid by mass consumers. They are the ones who will have to pay this increase in company tax.
I said that this Government proposes to increase company tax by 6d. in the £1. I will now deal with that matter in a little more detail. In his second reading speech, the Minister assisting the Treasurer stated -
The rates of primary tax payable by all companies are being increased by 6d. in the £1. In consequence of this increase in the rates, the maximum rate of primary tax payable will be 8s. 6 ti. in the £1 for a public company and 7s. 6d. in the £1 for a private company. These rates will apply to the part of the taxable income in excess of £5.000.
If this increase had been made applicable to the smaller companies which make a profit of less than £5,000, the position would have been more difficult. I readily agree that many small companies are struggling for existence against the great monopolistic companies in this country, and they would have found it very difficult to pass on to their customers as a transferable tax or as an indirect tax this increase in company tax. They would have to meet this tax burden. But the great monopolistic undertakings pass this tax on to consumers. I think it is worth while to make the country aware of this growth of monopolies. The latest figures available arc contained in the report of the Commissioner of Taxation. They show that there were 54,000 companies with taxable earnings in Australia. But 1 per cent, of all companies earned between them 53.5 per cent, of all company profits. In other words, 99 per cent, of all companies shared only 46.5 per cent, of alt company profits. It is well to keep in mind also that this 1 per cent, dominated not only profits but also the manpower and the production of this section. Any increase in costs caused through higher company tax would be passed on in higher prices, which would accentuate the inflationary pressures about which the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Menzies) and other members of the Government are continually talking. The proposed increase of 6d. in the £1 in company tax will be inflationary, because the mass of the consumers will have to pay that tax in the form of higher prices for the goods they buy.
To illustrate the growth of monopolies in this country, I point out that 33-1/3 per cent, of the total company profit earned is earned by the top 102 companies - those earning profits in excess of £1 million a year. Those companies represent only .19 per cent., or less than one-fifth of 1 per cent., of all companies. Let me say in passing that the growth of monopolies in this country has been twice as great as in the United States of America and three times as great as in the United Kingdom. Last year, company profits in Australia amounted to something like £816 million.
When we are speaking about taxation, we cannot ignore foreign capital because foreign investors have controlling interests in many of the major companies in our country. Some industries are almost wholly controlled by overseas investors. At least one-third of the company profits made in this country are made by companies which are controlled from overseas. In reply to a question asked today by the honorable member for Indi (Mr. Holten), the Treasurer stated that foreign controlled companies pay 8s. 6d. in the £1 by way of company tax in Australia. They do not pay that 8s. 6d. in the £1; the Australian, consumers pay it, because the charge is included in prices. I repeat that the Australian consumers, not the foreign controlled companies, pay this tax of 8s. 6d. in the £1.
I suggest to the Treasurer that he brush up his knowledge of the double taxation agreements, which are administered by his own Department. He stated that all foreign investors in Australia paid a withholding tax of 3s. in the £1. That is not right. Let me give the facts. In 1946, the Chifley Labour Government entered into a taxation agreement with the United Kingdom under which British companies investing in Australia were exempted from paying any income tax in Australia. That agreement also provided that individual British investors would pay only half of the Australian rate of tax. At that time, the maximum rate of tax was 16s. 8d. in the £1. The tax rate for individual British investors remained at half the Australian rate until 1959, when the present Treasurer altered the system and levied a retaining tax of 3s. in the £1. la 1953, Australia entered into a double taxation agreement with the United States of America and in 1958 she entered into a similar agreement with Canada. Under both those agreements, the rate of the retaining tax was 15 per cent. The point that I wish to emphasise is that the greatest recipients of dividends from profits made in Australia are British companies and that when they repatriate their dividends they do not pay one penny in income tax to the Australian Treasury. I ask the Treasurer to revise the answer he gave to the honorable member for Indi today. I do not propose to deal with double taxation agreements in any more detail, because I know that my colleague, the honorable member for Scullin (Mr. Peters), proposes to do that. I merely wanted to explain the position to the Treasurer.
Let me quote one great authority who agrees that company tax is a transferable tax, and (hat the great monopolistic concerns transfer the company tax to their prices. I refer to Dr. H. C. Coombs, the Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia. During the course of a lecture which he gave in Perth in .1959, Dr. Coombs said -
An important element in the pricing policy of industrialists and traders is their belief that selling prices should be sufficient to provide not merely cover for costs of production, including a reasonable return on capital, but also a substantial part pf the additional capital required for expansion. Undistributed profits after the payment of dividends at normal rates provide a very substantial part of the development funds of Australian companies.
Of course, we know that at least one-third of Australian companies are now controlled by overseas investors. Dr. Coombs went on to say -
Also prices designed to provide such surpluses represent a kind of unofficial indirect tax imposed on consumers for the benefit of the industrialists and traders concerned . . . It is possible for prices to be managed in this way partly because of the widespread semi-monopolistic elements in contemporary productive and distributive organisation . . .
Those are not my words; they are the words of the Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia. Surely honorable members opposite should know that the great monopolistic undertakings which comprise only one-fifth of 1 per cent, of all the companies in Australia earn one-third of the total company profits in Australia, and that 1 per cent, of all the companies in Australia earn 534r per cent, of the total profits. The growth of monopolies has been most apparent under this Government’s administration. Although the Government has talked a lot about introducing legislation to control this growth, very little has been done. This Government has used its taxation powers not for the purpose of distributing wealth amongst the community in the interests of the development of the nation, but as a selective weapon used to enrich and protect a minority section of the community. This Government is a sectional government. It has been more sectional over the last five years than it was for the 10 years prior to that, as I shall prove with figures that I propose to quote later in my speech.
There are many ways of rectifying the position, as the honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Crean) explained in the very knowledgeable speech which he delivered today when he spoke of the inequity of the income tax rebate system. I refer to the question of undistributed profits. In this day and age a good deal of the development of major monopolies in Australia is financed not with new capital inflow or by new investment in shares but by the use of undistributed profits. Since 1951, £2,698 million in undistributed profits has been re-invested in companies. Prior to 1951, a tax of 2s. in the £1 was levied on undistributed profits. Had that tax been continued, an additional £269 million taxation revenue would have been collected by this Government between 1951 and now. A progressive government, a government that had some regard for the best interests of Australia as a whole, would not only have retained but would have increased the tax on undistributed profits. By the use of undistributed profits, the great monopolies have been enabled to build up enormous reserves.
We do not know, and the Treasury does not know, whether all the undistributed profits have been used to build new plant and to develop the companies. Much of the money has been used to water down shares. The companies have issued bonus shares and in this way have evaded taxation. This is another method of tax evasion and I think I explained this during my speech on the Budget. I took out figures for the Myer Emporium Ltd. and found that the Myer family had enjoyed a tax free capital appreciation of £22 million in the period from 1st January 1954 to 1st January 1960. This is a way in which the Government has helped this wealthy section of the community. I am not being sectional in selecting this one family. This has also happened with the major shareholders of the Broken Hill Pty. Co. Ltd., the Colonial Sugar Refining Co. Ltd. and many other monopolistic undertakings. However, these companies are at least Australian and owned by people who live in Australia. They are in this respect one step better than the foreign-owned companies.
The Government has been truly sectional in another way. It has allowed the companies to accrue wealth beyond all reason by the use of the depreciation allowance. In the last year of office of the Chifley Administration some £96 million was allowed for the depreciation of plant. In 1963-64 under this Government some £664 million was allowed for this purpose. We have suffered from an inflationary trend under this Government, and therefore to obtain the true picture we should refer to the allowance for depreciation as a percentage of the gross national product. In 1948-49 this allowance was 4.2 per cent, of the gross national product and it was 7.6 per cent, in 1963-64. The Government has allowed the amount of the allowance for depreciation to increase by 3.4 per cent, during its term of office. In terms of money, £5,72S million has been allowed by this Government for depreciation. This has been given mainly to the major companies, the monopolies, which control most of the nation’s wealth. Over the last five years £3,000 million has been allowed for depreciation. More has been allowed in the last five years than was allowed in the preceding ten years.
I have referred to two major matters. One is the depreciation allowance. This has not been an accident; it has been the direct policy of the Government to allow the wealthy section of the community to accumulate vast sums. The other matter is undistributed profits. Admittedly a good deal of this money has been used for new equipment, new plant and new buildings, but a considerable part of it has been converted into liquid assets which have been used in the taking over of other companies and in the issue of bonus shares. The Treasury should make a searching inquiry into these matters. The Menzies Government has been a sectional Government as no other government in Australia’s history has been. It should be damned for the position it has taken. The more that it can be exposed for the role it has played as a sectional government the better. It has not governed for the benefit of all the Australian people and we should condemn it for not having done so.
I want to draw attention now to the report of the Commonwealth Committee on Taxation, which was tabled on 17th August 1961. The report estimated that at least £14 million a year was being lost to the Federal taxation revenue by devices that took advantage of the present legislation. This £14 million did not include any money connected with the means used by the Government to encourage the big companies. At the time the Committee’s report was tabled the gross national product was £7,200 million. At the end of the last financial year it was £8,700 million. The gross national product increased during this period by 16.7 per cent. We can be sure that the loss to the revenue by the evasion of taxation today is much more than £14 million. It is at least double this amount, as the honorable member for Melbourne Ports said. It could be even more than this. Prior to the time the Committee’s report was tabled taxation was being evaded only by those who knew how to make the necessary arrangements. But since the report was tabled everybody in the business world has known how to evade taxation. I am not trying to say that there are not people in the business community whose principles will not allow them to stoop to the deliberate evasion of taxation, but others have climbed on to the bandwagon. I would say that a conservative estimate of the loss to the Treasury through tax evasion is between £30 million and £40 million today. This, of course, is excluding the loss through the sectional policies of the Government. We should not forget that the cost of the depreciation allowance has risen by 3.4 per cent, of the gross national product under this Government, and we can imagine the wealth that this has meant for the monopolistic companies. One per cent, of the 54,000 companies in Australia make 53 per cent, of the total profits. This section has been subsidised by its friends on the Government side of the chamber. The Government represents this group.
When the Government frames legislation to implement the recommendations of the Committee on Taxation it should look at the matters I have raised. As the honorable member for Melbourne Ports has said, there should be a complete review of taxation legislation. Taxation should be used for the benefit of Australia as a whole and not for the benefit of the few.
.- The honorable member for Reid (Mr. Uren) seemed to be attacking monopolies. Although he is a mild-mannered member, he seemed to get a snarl in his voice when he spoke about the wicked monopolies and suggested that the people on this side of the Committee are the friends of these monopolies. Apparently he believes that honorable members on this side of the chamber are wealthy. He seemed to be saying that he does not have any money, although he was recently awarded £30,000 by a court. But the honorable members on this side of the chamber are not wealthy. If you tried to borrow money from them or turned them upside down and shook them, you would not get any money at all. The only wealthy man in the chamber is the honorable member for Reid, who has £30,000. One of his colleagues has just collected £5,000, I understand, following a little argument that has been occurring in Sydney.
How genuine is the Australian Labour Party in its attack on monopolies? Have the 36 members of the Australian Labour Party’s Federal Conference decided that this will be Labour’s policy? If this is Labour’s policy, why did the Labour Government encourage two of the greatest monopolies in the world to establish themselves here? One case was that of General Motors-Holden’s Pty. Ltd., which was established as a result of the greatest and most successful intrusion of foreign capital into the Australian economy. This company was established under a Labour government. Is the honorable member for Reid serious when he attacks the wealthy monopolies, because his own party has encouraged two of them? I take it that the Labour Party opposes two kinds of monopolies - the foreign owned ones and the Australian owned ones.
Let me refer to two organisations. General Motors-Holden’s Pty. Ltd. is a foreign owned company. The Broken Hill Pty. Co. Ltd. is an Australian owned company. How did General Motors-Holden’s start? How did it come to be a monopoly? Why was it able to hold its advantageous position until this Government encouraged other companies, such as the Volkswagen company and the Rootes group, to establish themselves in this country? General Motors brought in 5 million dollars and obtained from Mr. Curtin, the Labour Prime Minister, a letter saying that there would be no problem about the foreign ownership of capital in the company. That letter was sent by the Labour Prime Minister to Mr. Hartnett, who was then in con trol of General Motors-Holden’s operations. But not being satisfied with placing General Motors in this monopoly position, the Treasurer at the time, Mr. Chifley, arranged for a large loan - £4 million or £5 million - to be granted to the firm. So General Motors came into Australia with know-how, some capital, and the right to borrow from the Commonwealth Bank. This situation was encouraged by the Labour Government. General MotorsHolden’s was established in this country with strong assistance from the Labour Government. The company some years ago had been able to take out of Australia about 200 million dollars.
The efforts of General Motors-Holden’s probably represent the most successful foreign intrusion the world has ever seen and this was aided by a Labour government. In view of these facts it is odd to see an honorable member from the other side of the chamber with a synthetic snarl on his face attack the wicked monopolies and foreign owned companies.
Let us be realistic. Let us face the facts. Does the honorable member for Reid behave in this fashion and then beat himself about the head for having done so? Was he right or was he wrong? Has General Motors-Holden’s made a contribution to Australia?
– Of course it has, but the honorable member for Reid, inflamed by the tripe and wretched nonsense that he reads in books that he does not fully understand, has attacked a company whose activities have been of the greatest benefit to Australia. Let us face the facts. Are we to shut our doors to the foreign owned companies that seek to bring know-how to Australia, thereby creating wealth for this country? Has the honorable member for Reid read anything about the creation of wealth or does he want to be another Robinson Crusoe, living on an uninhabited island, clad in the hides of animals and eating with utensils made out of forked sticks whatever foods he can find? This would be the situation that would exist in Australia were it not for know-how brought in by foreign companies.
– He has his own wealth.
– Yes, he does not have to worry because he has £30,000. If we looked at his investment portfolio no doubt we would find that he had a few shares in B.H.P. I am sure he has invested his £30,000 wisely. Or has he put it into a strong box in the Bank of New South Wales, where we know another Labour member had his money and secret papers? What has the honorable member for Reid done with his £30,000? Is the tax gatherer getting something out of it? Is the Commonwealth getting a dividend? Or has the honorable member hidden his money in an old sock?
– What about the policy of the Country Party?
– That is an example of the nonsense and humbug that we get from honorable members opposite. The parrot who is interjecting has said many things about large companies in this country. Let us look at some of the companies in the B.H.P. group. Let us look at Australian Iron and Steel Ltd., which employs 17,000 men in the Illawarra district. I know that those men vote against the Labour Party. I know that they have had the Labour Party. A former Minister for Munitions, who was a colleague of the honorable member for Lalor (Mr. Pollard), once said that the B.H.P. company had made a tremendous contribution towards Australia’s defence. The B.H.P. group - that great monopoly sneered at by the honorable member for Reid - has created all this employment and has built a great steel metropolis on the New South Wales south coast, increasing in its manufacturing process the value of the raw materials used by £100 million.
– The workers do that.
– I agree, but there must be a steel master. Somebody has to organise the work. We are proud that the Australian foreman - the Australian steel master - is a little better than his counterpart in other parts of the world. Steelmakers from Pittsburgh and Sheffield come to this country with their cameras and take coloured photographs and make records of our steel-making techniques so that they may return to their steel plants and endeavour to make up the 5 per cent, margin that Australia holds over them because of the initiative and resourcefulness of the Australian foreman and the Australian worker in general, who sometimes does not have a perfect command of the English language. This often presents a danger problem.
I have attempted to answer the honorable member for Reid, who is known as a left winger or as a militant member of his party. He has said certain things and they had to be answered. I had to meet his attacks on what he calls the wicked monopolies. We know that two commissions inquired into the matter of foreign investments in Canada. They recommended that the problem be dealt with by use of the tax weapon. I suggest that honorable members opposite read the reports of the Gordon commission and the Porter commission. The Gordon commission started a move which unseated the Mackenzie King Government, I think, because there was too much American investment in Canada. I think the Finance Minister in the Government was a man named Howe. The Government had been in power for about 17 years. It was found that there had been a heavy intrusion of American capital into Canada and that there was a big movement of money out of the country in the form of dividends. Gordon became Finance Minister in the new Government in Canada. He brought down measures to prevent the intrusion of foreign capital. But in two hours he withdrew all his legislation because it would not work.
Then the Porter commission inquired into the matter. It found that foreign capital had a beneficial influence on the growth of Canada. The importation of foreign knowhow and capital and all the good things that result therefrom mean an increase in the gross national product and greater expansion and development of the country. But I would not expect the honorable member for Reid to know anything about growth, development or expansion. He would not understand anything about private enterprise. He would not understand about the things that create wealth, because he hates wealth. He hates large companies.
– What about his £43,000?
– That money is not actual wealth, lt is a windfall which could easily be dissipated in the hands of the honorable member. It all could go. He has had no experience of the way in which wealth is created by the establishment in Australia of enterprises like General Motors-Holden’s Pty. Ltd. Enterprises such as this directly provide work and income for the people, and indirectly help to provide hundreds of thousands of homes and services for those who want them. General Motors-Holden’s Pty. Ltd. has also made available economical means of transportation for the Australian people.
I have mentioned what happened in Canada. After a lot of hoo-ha, the Government there was dismissed because of the volume of foreign capital entering the country. A man named Gordon, who had been instrumental in unseating the Government, was made Finance Minister in the new Administration and was given the task of stopping the inflow of foreign capital. But, in two hours, he withdrew the measures that he had introduced in an attempt to damp down the inflow of foreign investment. I am glad to see that the honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Crean) is listening to this. I am sure that he understands it. I hope he will read the report of the Porter commission and note the change of attitude in Canada. The honorable member for Reid, by his utterances, has made it clear that he would adopt primitive methods similar to those by which Gordon tried to stop the inflow of foreign capital into Canada, although that foreign capital was helping his country.
– He did not know that.
– As the honorable member for Wannon has said, he did not know. That is the point. The Canadians have now learned the truth and they will encourage foreign investment there, knowing that it will help to make Canada a great country with an expanding economy - a country able to defend itself. I hope the day never comes when the Australian Labour Party is influenced by the sort of nonsense that we have heard from the honorable member for Reid, which is in contrast with the wise policies adopted by
Curtin and Chifley when they encouraged the General Motors Corporation of the United States of America to invest in this country and establish General MotorsHolden’s Pty. Ltd.
– We all know-
– This was a good thing, and the honorable member for Lalor, who has just interjected, probably knows that it was a good thing, because he was a member of the Cabinet of the day. I am sure that he remembers the letter that went to Mr. Hartnett.
– We received only abuse and criticism.
– I am not abusing and criticising now, but the honorable member for Reid has done so. The abuse and criticism of what was done has come from a colleague of the honorable member for Lalor, who would damage those who invest foreign capital in Australia. He would do this because he has seen in the newspapers reports of the success of their enterprises in this country. Australia can grow if we bring in more people, more money, more know-how and more industrial techniques. The British have the greatest overseas investment in Australia. They still have the greatest share of Australian trade.
The two measures that we are now debating have a defence aspect, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister for the Army (Dr. Forbes), in his second reading speech on the Income Tax and Social Services Contribution Assessment Bill (No. 2) 1964, said -
Honorable members will recall that in June the Minister for Defence (Senator Paltridge) announced certain decisions that the Government had taken following a review of Australia’s defence planning. Amongst these was a decision to exempt from income tax the pay and allowances of members of the citizen forces received during part time training. This Bill gives effect to this decision. In providing this exemption the Government has in mind two broad purposes. It considers it important to show in a tangible way its appreciation of the special nature of part time voluntary service with the citizen forces and also to emphasise the importance of the role of these forces in Australian defence. The Government also has in mind that the exemption from tax will serve as an incentive to recruitment and an encouragement to long service in the citizen forces.
Another feature … is the provision of means whereby special income tax treatment may be accorded civilian personnel contributed by Australia for service overseas with an armed force of the United Nations.
This will apply to the Australian police unit stationed in Cyprus. I am sure that this will strike a chord in the heart of the honorable member for Hunter (Mr. James). May I tell the House that Australians achieved some popularity in Cyprus during the war. The Australian police unit now there will inherit that popularity. The Australian troops who went to Cyprus during the war were welcomed with open arms by the Cypriots. The Australians, by their warm hearted and generous behaviour, captured the imagination of the Cypriots. The sending of an Australian police unit to Cyprus during the current troubles was a good move.
– What aspect of these Bills is the honorable member discussing, Mr. Deputy Speaker?
– The Income Tax and Social Services Contribution Assessment Bill (No. 2) will give special tax treatment to members of units such as the Australian police group in Cyprus, as the honorable member will realise if he wakes up. I am discussing a matter that comes within the order of business now before the House. The Australian police unit in Cyprus will inherit the good name won by the Australian troops who were there in 1940 and 1941. They were extremely popular with the Cypriots, whom they treated in a friendly way as human beings. The Australian troops were accepted without reservation into the homes of both Greek and Turkish Cypriots. At that time, I believe, about one third of the population was made up of Turkish Cypriots and about two thirds of Greek Cypriots, though I understand that the Turkish minority is becoming even smaller. The Australian police unit can perform very useful service in Cyprus, and we are delighted that the members of that unit will be accorded special tax concessions by this Government. As I. have said, the police unit will inherit the good name left by the Australian troops who were on the island during the war. The members of the police group will be accepted gladly by the people of Cyprus. Some savage things have been done on the island recently. Let us hope that the Australian police, with the background of their training and experience, will be successful in helping to overcome the troubles. I am sure that the New South Wales members of the unit will do effective work. I am not sure whether some of the police came from other States.
– Some came from Victoria.
– In Victoria, one is almost gaoled for singing on Sunday. I do not know whether those members of the unit who hail from Victoria will go down quite as well as those who came from the New South Wales Police Force and who, I know, will do a good job in Cyprus. We know that things are pretty tough in Victoria, but members of the New South Wales Police Force are human and they will be readily accepted by the people of Cyprus, who will be glad to see them there.
The consideration of these two measures, Mr. Deputy Speaker, brings up the whole question of whether the Australian people are ready to pay higher taxes in order to provide for the defence of this country. We have been told that the 5 per cent, rebate of income tax that has been allowed in each of the last few years will now be removed. This means that income tax will be higher. It may be said that people generally are reluctant to pay increased taxes, but there will be no great reluctance on the part of the Australian people to pay higher taxes in order to provide adequately for the security and defence of this country. The Australian people are ready to make sacrifices. They are members of an affluent society and their incomes are increasing. So they can spare a little more for defence.
– As long as we get some defence.
– As long as we get some defence. We on this side of the Parlia-ment will take every available opportunity to improve Australia’s defence. Australians do not like full time military service or training in peacetime. This is an unfortunate national attitude.
– This Government wants to conscript them.
– I would do that. All these things have to be considered.
– Would the honorable member conscript men?
– I was replying to the honorable member’s previous interjection when I said -
I would do that.
The Minister for the Army says that the unanimous advice of the military chiefs is against conscription. I am for it, because I believe it is my duty to take responsibility for putting this view. The special provision of tax concessions for members of the citizen forces and civilians contributed by Australia for service overseas with armed forces of the United Nations is good. It represents a move in the right direction. In the past, the people of Australia have not given enough attention to defence. Within a year, the situation has changed. The whole Parliament wants more adequate defence. All Australians who know the score recognise that more adequate defence is needed. I was glad to hear that the PostmasterGeneral (Mr. Hulme) was prepared to communicate with the Australian Broadcasting Commission about making the people of Australia fully aware of the dangers and the greater risks that now face Australia. These were mentioned by the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Menzies) a few days ago when he said that Australia has never, been in a situation of greater risk than at present.
Order! I suggest that the honorable member is now getting very wide of the Bills.
– You are quite right, Sir. When he was speaking to the Income Tax and Social Services Contribution Assessment Bill No. 2, the Minister for the Army (Dr. Forbes) directed the whole of his attention to taxation for defence purposes. My remarks now are directed to the need for reducing taxation in the interests of defence. The special treatment provided for will cost the taxpayers money. The reduction in taxation is directed towards defence, and two pages of this document are on defence.
– That is not true.
– The honorable member says that that is not true. The Budget increases the defence expenditure by about £75 million. I should like to say, with such authority as I have as an obscure backbencher, that we should spend more on defence. In the review that is being made now there will be a need for more expenditure, and that expenditure will be authorised by this Government as soon as possible, but first we must determine on what the money will be spent. It is proposed to increase taxation for the purposes of defence, but if we are to buy a strike aircraft carrier what will that cost the taxpayer? Or do we buy it on time payment? If we buy more of these DDG’s or destroyers that accompany aircraft carriers as protectors, this will require more taxation. We hope that a great deal of money can be spent on defence without our calling for more from the individual taxpayers. However, as the revenue is buoyant, large sums will be available throughout the year, because a buoyant community will be sending in more money to the tax gatherer all the time. I would not be reluctant to impose additional taxation, if it were necessary for defence purposes. The public can look at this and say to themselves: “Well, if it is necessary, we will pay in more money so that Australia can be secure and so that we will have adequate defence “. I commend the Bill to the House.
Sitting suspended from 5.58 to 8 p.m.
.- Before the suspension of the sitting the honorable member for Macarthur (Mr. Jeff Bate) pointed out - and quite rightly - that General Motors-Holden’s Pty. Ltd. was established as a result of the action of a Labour Government. The honorable member reflected upon remarks made by the honorable member for Reid (Mr. Uren) concerning taxation of overseas investors. What the honorable member for Macarthur did not tell the House was that when General MotorsHolden’s Pty. Ltd. was established in Australia the overseas investors in that company paid income tax at the rate of 7s. in the £1 and that there was an undistributed profits tax of 2s. in the £1. He did not tell the House that taxation at these rates continued until 1953, when income tax was reduced from 7s. in the £1 to 3s. in the £1 and the undistributed profits tax was removed altogether. After all. the market in Australia and the opportunities in Australia were attractive enough to General
Motors-Holden’s Pty. Ltd. without adding the attraction of reduced tax rates.
Referring specifically to the legislation now before the House, I think everyone would agree that the Government should continually consider methods of making more equitable the incidence of taxation and should also consider the improvement of methods of raising necessary revenue. Revenue money should be raised from such sources and in such a fashion as to cause the least possible interference with the expansion of industry and the development of the nation. Some time ago I asked the Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt), on notice, the following question -
The Treasurer replied yesterday to that question in the following terms -
Statistics of the tax paid in Australia by overseas investors have not been compiled in relation to the income derived by residents of the countries mentioned by the honorable member. However, as I informed the honorable member in reply to a similar question previously asked by him, it is not to bc assumed that all of the income on which Australian tax has been paid by non-residents would have been derived had double tax agreements not been entered into. The agreements have facilitated the investment of capital in Australia and tax has been paid on the income arising from those investments even though the income has been re-invested in Australia. In consequence, there may well have been an increase in the amount of tax collected on income derived in Australia by residents of those countries with which Australia has concluded taxation agreements.
The Treasurer used all those words and took all that time to tell me that he had not the slightest idea of the answers to my questions. However, I will now supply the right honorable gentleman with the answers to the questions I asked. The agreement with the United Kingdom came into operation in 1946. The rate of taxation applying to individual investors was altered by the Treasurer in his 1959 Budget. It was provided that United Kingdom investors would pay a minimum of 15 per cent, or 3s. in the fi Before that they had been paying 7s. in the £1 in income tax and a tax of 2s. in the £1 on undistributed profits. I have received from a rather reliable source the information that, on the basis of the amount invested by United Kingdom investors in this country, a conservative estimate of the amount saved by them as a result of the double taxation agreement in the period from 1946 to the present time is £130 million. In addition, British companies have benefited from the removal of the tax of 2s. in the £1 on undistributed profits. Since 1951, British companies have retained £249 million in undistributed profits, so that they have benefited by about £24 million.
United States investors paid income tax of 7s. in the £1 before 1953. That was the rate which applied to investors in General Motors-Holden’s Pty. Ltd. from 1947, as I have already pointed out. After 1953 the rate was reduced to 3s. in the £1 and it is conservatively estimated that United States investors have saved £42 million as a result of this reduction. United States companies have benefited to the extent of about £24 million as a result of the removal of the tax of 2s. in the £1 on undistributed profits.
These are considerable savings. Why, after all, should United States investors have taxation advantages in this country that Japanese investors do not enjoy? Why should they have advantages that are not enjoyed by investors from Holland? The investors of Holland have requested double taxation agreements. Representatives of Japan have requested, during the last few weeks, that a double taxation agreement be entered into between Japan and Australia. I cannot see why investors in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada and other places should have taxation advantages in Australia that are not enjoyed by investors from other countries when the United States and the United Kingdom buy much less from this country than we buy from them. On the other hand, Japan buys much more from us than we buy from Japan. European countries, too, buy much more from us than we buy from them, but they do not get the advantage of taxation concessions. I suggest that the Treasurer, when reviewing the taxation laws and deciding whether there will be increases or decreases in income tax, should consider whether we should continue this vast subsidisation - as it is, relative to the people of other countries - of United States and United Kingdom investors.
We are told that the object in granting these taxation concessions is to induce capital to come to Australia. The people who say that when they are speaking on a taxation measure such as this are the same people who tell us that never before in history have conditions in. Australia been so attractive for investment from other countries. They say that there exist in Australia such opportunities for investors, such security for their money and such opportunities for the repatriation of their capital or dividends that overseas investors should be rushing to pour their money into this country. If that is the position, why did the Government grant concessions to the United States in 1953, when that country had already commenced operating most of her biggest industries in. Australia? Why that was done is inconceivable.
I suggest that the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Menzies), when he is having his interrupted conversation with the Premier of Victoria, Mr. Bolte, in connection with the imposition of an income tax by the Victorian Government in addition to the income tax imposed by the Federal Government, might say to Mr. Bolte: “Here is a field which we have partially vacated.” Because of the operation of the double taxation agreements with the United Kingdom and the United States, there have been savings by companies of about £150 million in one case and more than £70 million in the other case, a combined total of more than £220 million or approaching £20 million a year. Therefore, there is a field in which Mr. Bolte could raise the money that he wants without injuring the Australian people in any way whatsoever. After all, a big proportion of these overseas moneys is invested in Victoria.
But there are other means by which the Commonwealth Government could raise the moneys that are required to meet the Commonwealth expenditure on defence, developmental work and so on or which Mr. Bolte could use. The use of those means would enable the Government to give concessions such as the one that it has decided to give to new recruits to the armed forces. It could bring into operation an excess profits tax. It could say to the people who are making big profits: “ You shall pay tax on your profits over a certain amount “.
– At what level would you impose that tax?
– I am not the Government.
– That is the kind of answer I would expect from you. At what level would you impose that tax?
– I am not the Government, but I point out that General MotorsHolden’s Pty. Ltd. declared a dividend of 400 per cent.
– On what?
– On paid up capital, and dividends payable in New York. Myer Emporium Ltd., a more homely organisation, has made a profit of more than 30 per cent, every year for the last five years. David Jones Ltd. has made a profit of 25 per cent, over a period of about five years. Over the last five years Myer Emporium Ltd. has declared a dividend of 16) per cent, and still has had undistributed profits which have been almost equivalent to the dividends paid and upon which practically no income tax at all has been paid.
– What about the depreciation allowances?
– The vast depreciation allowances are not taken into consideration for taxation purposes. These companies declare their profits after every payment that the company is required to meet has been met. Do honorable gentlemen opposite mean to tell me that those profits are reasonable, and that, if there are difficulties in connection with raising money for the defence of the country, those profits are not sources from which additional money can be raised?
– It is no wonder that you chase capital miles away.
– What an absurdity! Not long ago the Government considered that taxation on income from investments, rent, interest and profits should be at a higher rate than taxation on income derived from personal exertion. Why should not any honorable gentleman opposite, who has £5,000 invested in Myer Emporium Ltd. and who receives a profit of £1,500 a year or £30 a week from that investment in addition to his salary, pay more tax on that £1,500 than a member of the Opposition or any other person in the community has to pay on the income that he derives from personal exertion, whether that exertion be of brain or of brawn? Of course, there is no argument against that proposition.
If we desire to defend this community and to promote its interests, should we not encourage people to work instead of making conditions so desirable that they can secure big incomes from a minimum of exertion, or without any exertion at all; merely by the investment of money which some of them did not even earn themselves but which they obtained from some benevolent relative who lived in the past.
– Are you talking about the honorable member for Reid?
– If the honorable member for Reid secured, as he ought to secure, not £43,000 but £100,000, he would agree with me that he got it easily, but not nearly as easily as many honorable members opposite secure Ohe wealth that they accumulate. Of course. when I make the obviously just suggestion that taxation on income derived from personal exertion should be at a lower rate than taxation on income derived from, dividends or profit there is all this opposition. There should not be opposition. Honorable gentlemen opposite should . say: “ We are dividend earners, the recipients of rents or of interest who, in reality, have to do nothing, or little, to secure the returns that come from our investments. But every service that this community provides,- including the defence of Australia, which is essential to the preservation of profits, should be paid for mainly out of the taxation incomes from personal exertion by the workers.” Honorable members opposite want the preservation of their exorbitant profits to be paid for in that way.
– They have done nothing about an excess profits tax.
– There was a time, I am now reminded, when not only the Prime Minister but a former Treasurer and a former Attorney-General - who has since been elevated to a judgeship of the High Court - said to this Parliament that the only thing that was- preventing them from implementing the excess profits tax that was promised in the 1949 policyspeech of the Liberal and Country Parties was that the scheme was so involved, so complicated, that they needed time to think about it.
– Fifteen years.
– They thought about it for 15 years and then decided that it was too complicated to do anything about. That promise was similar to the promise about monopolies and restrictive trade practices. The Government promised to do something about that matter four and a half years ago, and it is still thinking about it. I suggest that it is time some action was taken on it.
Even if honorable members opposite are not willing to tax the vast profits that are being made by industry and are not willing to ensure that overseas investors pay at least as much in taxation for the provision of requisites for their industries in Australia as Australian investors are called upon to pay, I think that at least the income tax provisions should be made a little more equitable. I agree with the honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Crean), who said that allowable deductions for wives,; children, education, - insurance and so onamounted to about £250 million a year. The honorable member said also that the wife of an honorable member on this side Of the chamber is ‘at least as valuable as a’ wife of an honorable member on the other side. Although the honorable member for Watson (Mr. Cope) has an allowable deduction of £143 for his wife, he benefits only to the extent of about 143 times 5s., whereas an honorable member opposite would benefit to the extent of 143 times 13s. 8d. So honorable members opposite secure nearly three times as much in taxation deduction for their wives as the honorable member for Watson receives for his wife. I know the wife of the honorable member for Watson and I know that she is worth at least as much as the wife of any honorable gentleman opposite. But it is not only a question of wives; there are the children also. The honorable member for Bendigo (Mr. Beaton) and the honorable member for Lang (Mr. Stewart) receive a a taxation allowance of £91 for a child, which benefits them to the extent of 91 times 5s., or thereabouts. But the honorable member for Mackellar (Mr. Wentworth) benefits to the extent of 9 1 times 13s. 8d. for a child, if he has one. Is that equitable?
Is it just? Of course it is not equitable. Of course it is not just.
There was a time not long ago when a flat rate of about £35 was allowed for each child, not as a deduction before calculating tax but as a direct deduction from the tax payable. Such a provision still operates in other countries, and it should operate here if we are to have more just taxation. Then there are allowances for education which are as high as £150 a year for each child. Honorable gentlemen opposite benefit to the extent of 150 times 13s. 8d., but because my constituents are not able to spend £150 a year to educate each of their children they benefit only to the extent of about 30 times 3s.
– That is right. Do honorable members opposite suggest that there is justice in that?
– What a damn fool you arc.
– It is this Government that increased the amount of permissible
– I rise to order. The honorable member for Macarthur directed a remark at the honorable member for Scullin saying: “ What a damn fool you are “. I ask that the remark be withdrawn.
– Did the honorable member make that remark?
– I ask the honorable member to withdraw the remark.
– I refuse to withdraw it.
– Order! The honorable member will rise in his place and withdraw the remark.
– I will not withdraw it. On a point of order-
– Order! The honorable member has been asked to withdraw the remark he made.
– 1 refuse. I think he is a damn fool.
– Order! I name the honorable member for Macarthur.
– Mr. Speaker, I move-
– Mr. Speaker, may I intervene on the honorable member’s behalf?
– Order! The honorable member for Scullin will resume his seat.
Motion (by Dr. Forbes) agreed to -
That the honorable member for Macarthur be suspended from the service of the House. (The honorable member for Macarthur thereupon withdrew from the chamber.)
– I will now conclude my remarks with regard to taxation. Taxation deductions are allowable for expenditure on life assurance, and about £400 can be claimed. The ordinary man in my electorate cannot pay £400 a year in life assurance premiums; at the best he can pay £10, £12 or £20, and so he benefits to the extent of 10, 12 or 20 times 3s., if he is in receipt of the basic wage or thereabouts. Those who spend £400 a year on life assurance premiums are on big incomes and benefit by deductions representing about 400 times 13s. 8d.
Because of the matters that I have mentioned I believe that many methods of taxation in Australia should be altered. I, too, believe that the report upon evasions of taxation presented by Mr. Justice Ligertwood, in which he estimated that companies evaded £14 million in tax every year, should have been dealt with in 1961 when the report was submitted.
.- Mr. Speaker-
– I rise on a point of order. I refer to the dismissal from the House of the honorable member for Macarthur. Could you explain to the House, Mr. Speaker, why no-one was prepared to call a division on that issue?
– There is no substance in the point of order. The honorable member for Mallee may proceed.
- Mr. Speaker, I do not desire to go into the. fine details of the taxation law, but one or two things have been said this evening, especially by the honorable member for Scullin (Mr. Peters) that made me think that 1 should rise and say a few words about them. First of all, we are debating two Bills. They are very simple Bills, and it is my considered opinion that the Opposition will support both of them. If it will not support them, the Opposition could easily say so now. We have heard speeches made on subjects which have nothing whatever to do with the Bills before the House. I need read only one or two points in the second reading speech of the Minister assisting the Treasurer (Dr. Forbes) to illustrate that. One of the Bills explains that the Government will not re-enact the taxation rebate of ls. in the £1 that has been allowed to individuals for the past three financial years. The chief purpose of the other Bill, amongst other things, is to give effect to the decision to exempt from income tax the salaries and allowances of members of Citizen Military Forces which have been received during part time training. Now, it appears to me that those two Bills represent straight out legislation and that the Labour Party, in spite of its attack and what it has been saying on different subjects, will support both Bills when the time comes to vote upon them. What the Labour Party is really doing is wasting the time of the House. 1 want to compliment the honorable member for Reid (Mr. Uren). He spoke on these Bills, and I compliment him because he is the one man in this House on the Opposition side who gets up and says: “ We are Socialists “. But he never says so at election time.. Such things are said only when we are a long way away from a Federal election. But, strange to say, many of the members of the Labour Party will not speak of Socialism at all although it is their policy.
These two Bills are straight out measures and should not give rise to a lot of discussion on matters which have nothing to do with them at all. Mention has been made
Of General Motors-Holden’s Pty. Ltd. Does anybody realise what a wonderful amount of money General Motors-Holden’s has saved the Australian people as far as our balance of payments is concerned. Our primary industries are chiefly responsible for building up over £800 million in our Overseas balances and for having sent forward 80 per cent, of our total exports. We have been able to buy, with our overseas balances, the raw materials which are not available in Australia to keep our secondary industries active. Therefore, every effort that has been made to save every penny to build up our overseas balances should have the support of the Labour Party:
The Labour Party says that it represents the men who work in the factories. But does it represent those men? What is happening today in Australia? What is happening about Socialism? When Labour was last in office, very few people who received less than a certain income owned a home, or had the chance of buying and paying one off over a period of time. Today, there are so many more people who have been given the opportunity to buy their own homes. But when we-
– Mr. Deputy Speaker, I call your attention to the fact that the honorable member for Mallee is not addressing himself to the Bill under consideration. We are not discussing housing; we are discussing taxation.
The honorable member for Mallee is in order.
- Mr. Deputy Speaker, I appreciate your support. You realise that I am nearer to the subject matter of the Bills than many other honorable members have been. General Motors-Holden’s Ltd., which is saving honorable members opposite money, has made so much more money available to buy the raw materials that this country needs if its factories are to continue to operate satisfactorily. If there were the same number of imported motor cars as there are Holden motor cars on the roads today, what a tremendous amount of money would have gone out of Australia for the purchase of those motor cars and to bring them into this country. One of the most unusual things about members of the Labour Party is that while a man is on a low wage, they regard him as the very cream of the population. But if through his determination and efficiency he saves up some money to enable him to get into business and makes a few pounds, he is immediately under suspicion. Yet he is the same man. He has the same principles. He stands for the things that matter in this country.
In fact, he is one who shows to Australia just what Australians can do. But the Labour Party immediately regard him as under suspicion.
The honorable member for Scullin made a comparison between what the wife of a member of the Government is worth compared with the wife of a member of the Opposition in regard to the dependant’s allowance of £143 that is permitted for luxation purposes. As a person’s income goes up, and the rate of tax increases the £143 is worth more, and as the income goes down, so is the £143 worth less. I want to say as truthfully as I can - and what I mean by “ as truthfully “ is that as far as I have been able to make my assessment-
– Within the limits of your ability.
– “ Within the limits of my ability “ is a good phrase. I have tried to make an assessment of the value of this argument. As I know members on this side and as I have come to know over the years most members on the Opposition side, I think that this argument is very fair from the standpoint that there are many members on the Opposition side who are very wealthy men.
– Name them.
– I can name them. Over the years it must have become known in this House that I do not deal with personalities; I deal with policies.
– Order! There are too many interruptions. The honorable member for Mallee is entitled to bc heard in silence.
– The honorable member is provoking us.
– The honorable member for Watson must not provoke the Chair.
– I must admit, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that if the truth hurts I am provoking honorable members opposite. What I am telling them is factual. When we take one or two members on the Opposition side of the House and one or two members on this side of the House having a fair amount of money, I think the balance is just about equal. The main points which were made by the honorable member for Scullin cannot be substantiated in any circumstances. Does the honorable member know what every member on this side of the House is worth? You would think he was speaking with authority, but he was speaking with prejudiced guesswork.
I wish now to say one or two things with regard to primary products and taxation. In Australia, there are certain industries that could be fostered greatly if they were allowed taxation concessions. I want to make reference to one special industry, and that is the cotton growing industry. Only 11 per cent, of the cotton that we use is produced in this country. We want to foster that industry. If the income tax levied on the individuals who produce cotton, particularly if they grow cotton in decentralised areas, were reduced I think the industry would be fostered greatly. I also want to speak about olive oil, because only 3 per cent, of Australia’s consumption of olive oil is produced in this country. If that industry is to be fostered, it must be given more taxation concessions. If we can increase the output of this country in order more closely to meet the requirements of the home market, we will be conserving our overseas balances and have more money to buy raw materials required to keep our factories in operation.
Those are the things I wanted to say in this debate. As I said at the start, there were not many things with which I wanted to deal. I said that the members of the Labour Party were dealing with all sorts of matters that had nothing to do with the Bills. If I kept on speaking and going into other subjects, I would be doing the very thing that I have found wrong in the Labour Party’s approach to the Bills. Therefore, I will leave it at that. I feel sure that the Labour Party will support these two Bills and, as it will support them, I would like to know what it is arguing about now.
.- I listened with great interest to the honorable member for Mallee (Mr. Turnbull). Taxation bills are not to be dismissed lightly. This National Parliament has to consider authorising the collection of the sum of £800 million from the wage earners and the income recipients of Australia, and I can conceive of no matter that is of greater importance or that requires fuller deliberation.
Before proceeding to make my observations on the legislation, let me say that I regret the absence of the honorable member for Macarthur (Mr. Jeff Bate) because I feel that there is one matter on which I should answer him. I refer to his attack on the honorable member for Reid (Mr. Uren) before the suspension of the sitting tonight. He twitted the honorable member for Reid with having received a sum of money by way of assessed damages awarded to him by a jury after a lengthy and savage trial. That money was awarded to the honorable member for Reid as a measure of the jury’s assessment of damages - and exemplary damages at that. It was awarded to him not merely as an individual, not merely as an exserviceman, not merely as a member of the Australian Labour Party, but in a general sense, as one who stood up for the dignity of Parliament and the reputation of Parliament. Whatever he possesses was awarded to him in the best traditions, and he is fully entitled to it. Let the Press of this country be warned against trifling with the reputations of men who choose to make the sacrifices necessary to serve in the national legislature. Shakespeare wrote-
Who steals my purse steals trash; But he that, filches from me my good name Robs me of that which not enriches him, And makes me poor indeed.
Now to return to the Bill. It was the late and great Ben Chifley who said that the hip pocket nerve is the most sensitive nerve in the human body. It is not so many generations ago that the imposition of, I think, 6d. in the £1 by way of income tax by the British Parliament precipitated almost a revolution. Some people thought that the day of General Judgment itself had arrived. In this legislature, we have to consider the lineal descendant of that measure.
Let us have a look at the general principles - or perhaps I might more correctly, say the lack of them - on which these Bills are based. What are the taxation scales applying today? They are ad hoc scales. They have no scientific or fiscal basis, nor have they any basis in accountancy. They are imposed from time to time. They are a thing of shreds and patches. It is high time there was a complete revision of the methods and scale of taxation in this country. The thing which struck me most forcibly as a new member of this Parliament was the disparity between the burden of direct taxation and the burden of indirect taxation. I refer particularly to such indirect taxes as customs duties, excise duties and sales tax. For the year 1962-63, the amount of customs duty collected was £116 million, the amount of excise duty £291 million and the amount of sales tax £162 million. The total company tax paid by all the monopolies, oligopolies and trading companies of Australia was £293 million. That was equalled by imposts of £133 million on beer and spirits, £82 million on tobacco and cigarettes and £68 million on petrol. So much for fiscal justice. That could not be expected from this Government, with its traditions and its policies.
The honorable member for Macarthur also made reference to General MotorsHoldens Ltd. This is a wonderfully efficient company. Every Australian can take justifiable pride in the Holden car. It is wonderful to know that we are capable of making fully an automotive engine, which was a matter “ of considerable debate and doubt before the advent of World War II. It is a matter’ of great comfort to us to know that in Australia there is .a company with such ramifications and with such a scale of employment. We can take great pride in the skill and ability of Australian craftsmen. But the point on which we take issue is not the company, not its equipment, not its product, not its work force, but the allocation of its profits.
– You want to socialise it.
– That will come later. I am speaking of the present situation. There has been some scathing criticism by the most sober and staid financial journals in this land of the profits of General MotorsHoldens Ltd., and honorable members opposite well know it. This company achieved almost the impossible. It was not satisfied with borrowing a paltry £6 million to £7 million on which to pay 6i per cent, by way of preference dividends. This is the overall situation of this company -
In 11 years, from 1947 to 1959 the General Motors Corporation in America received £30 million in dividends on its original investment of less than £1 million in G.M.H., and in addition had ploughed back £58 million undistributed profits in the further expansion of plant and equipment. In 1959 G.M.H. valued its assets at £70 million. The bonus issue of 5 for 1 in 1963 represents a capitalisation of only a small part of these assets. To have capitalised them in full would have involved G.M.H. paying a tax of 3s. in the £1. The £15 million net profit in 1959 represented 875 per cent, on ordinary capital and more than 1,500 per cent, on General Motors Corporation’s original investment of £965,000 in 1930.
This exorbitant profit aroused widespread public criticism of the G.M.H. monopoly. In 1956, when G.M.H.’s profit was just on £10 million, the Leader of the Federal Opposition, Dr. H. V. Evatt, said that the price of a Holden car should be reduced by at least £120.
– What is the book?
– lt is a most reputable one.
– Tell us what it is.
– It is entitled: “ The 60 Families Who Own Australia “. What contribution is that company making to our revenue? It is contributing only on the basis of a tax of 8s. 6d. in the £1. What would be the rate of taxation that its parent company would pay in the United States of America? It would be 10s. 7d. in the £1. Then we have Broken Hill Pty. Co. Ltd. A former Chairman of the General Motors Corporation in the United States of America - I think his nickname was Engine Charlie Wilson - said: “ What is good for General Motors is good for the United States”. Let me state the position in reverse. What is good for Australia is good for Broken Hill Pty. Co. Ltd. Frankly, the situation is nothing short of a scandal. If honorable members do not want to accept my assurance, I refer them to the leading article in the “ Sydney Morning Herald “ of Friday last and to its scathing criticism of this company, of its monopoly status and of the fact that it was, in American parlance, feather bedding. It was not prepared to satisfy the full steel requirements of Australia and it was not able or willing, apparently, to meet fully the export market that was there to be exploited. The criticism is scathing indeed and I will refer to it later tonight. The company at present is not even satisfying its own shareholders, because there was most stringent criticism at the recent annual meeting of shareholders. Of course, some solatium had to be thrown out and an intimation has been given that there will be a bonus share issue within a couple of years.
My point is that if this Government wants to find new ways of raising revenue, it should look at the possibility of imposing a capital gains tax on bonus share issues. In addition, we need a super tax on excess company profits. Let us consider the latest data available on company profits. This is for the year 1962-63. Of the public companies, as their returns revealed, 995 out of a total of 9,400 non-private companies with taxable incomes had profits of from £100,000 to £1 million or more a year. Their taxable incomes totalled £518 million and their profits represented about 80 per cent, of the whole. Why could not these companies pay not merely 8s. 6d. or 10s. in the £1 but 12s. in the £1? They can afford it, we deserve it and the people of Australia need it. It is time that the Government took a realistic approach to these matters. I heard the honorable member for Macarthur speak of taxation to meet defence needs. If taxation is needed, let the Government tax those best able to pay and refrain from taxing the weak, the widows, those who are battling, the small business people and the people who are the backbone of the community.
Another obvious field of taxation that has been entirely neglected is that of company borrowings. A tentative move was made in 1961 to tax company borrowings, because this is a very neat expedient adopted by companies. In former days, companies seeking extra capital were willing to sell shares and to admit those people who bought the shares to a proprietary interest in the company, but now a better means has been devised. The companies have said to themselves: “ We will borrow. Instead of paying tax on our profits, we will siphon an amount to the same shareholders who, instead of buying more shares, will lend money to the company.” There was a marked reaction to the proposed tax from the financial masters of the Government, and the Government very quickly abandoned this field. This is a tax that must be considered again, and the sooner the better.
Another matter that strikes me as a major fiscal injustice is the distribution of income in Australia today. The figures of actual income for the year 1962-63 show that no fewer than 2,615,000 taxpayers out of a total of 4,400,000 have an actual income of less than £1,100 a year. These people represent 59.38 per cent, of the total number of taxpayers. They are not able to afford to purchase even the most modest and most mediocre home that could be built for them. This is one of the strongest examples I can give of the overall position in Australia today. Sixty per cent, of the people in the community are not receiving an income sufficient to warrant an orthodox building society or lending institution lending them sufficient money to build a home. They are dependent on State and semigovernmental housing for their elementary requirements. This is a scandal; this is a shocking state of affairs. Again, of the 4,400,000 general taxpayers, no fewer than 549,000 have an actual income of less than £399 a year. In the name of common Christianity, in the name of common decency, in the name of common charity, those people could well be exempted from the payment of tax. but even the widow’s mite apparently is not beyond the notice of the Government.
Another permitted deduction for consideration is the family allowance. God knows that we need to populate the country. One of the best ways to do so is to help those who are willing to raise a family of young Australians. There should be a graduated scale of tax deductions for families, and the deductions should increase as the family grows larger. A deduction should be allowed for each member of a family so that larger deductions would be allowed for larger families. This is the best way of encouraging immigrants to come to the country. I do not cavil at the present immigration programme. It is a wonderful programme and it is necessary. But still the best migrants are the Australian children bom in Australia of Australian parents, whether they are Australians by birth or by migration. I have the honour to represent an industrial constituency and I know that a big burden on the working man is the payment of fares to and from work, whether they are rail fares or bus fares or whether, because of the inadequacy of public transport, the worker must drive an old car. No matter what form pf transport is used, the workers bear a very real burden. In many instances, they pay 25s., 30s. or 35s. a week in fares. They do not receive any tax allowance for this. But in a higher income group the company executive can take a company car, use company petrol and charge the repairs and maintenance of the vehicle to the company’s account. This in turn is a permissible deduction for income tax purposes. This is another shocking example of fiscal injustice.
If we want to explore the field further for ways and means of obtaining additional income from taxation, let us turn to the report of the Tariff Board and the scathing comment about oil companies that was made in it. The oil companies import crude from overseas. Their puppet companies overseas sell it to them at a fixed price and with a fixed differential. This is to the detriment of Australia. The Commissioner of Taxation deserved credit for challenging the Shell Oil Company of Australia Ltd. and I hope that the Government will give further power to him so that he can bring these people to book. There companies are the major tax evaders in Australia today.
I want to mention two other matters. I have received a letter from Mr. Murray, the Acting Secretary at Wollongong of the South Coast Branch of the Waterside Workers Federation of Australia. He complains that the Taxation Branch does not allow his branch members to deduct the full amount of £21 for their union dues. He says -
In the majority of cases, £10 has been deducted, allowing them £11 only. Our members pay in excess of £21 per year and I would deem it a favour if you would take this matter up with the Taxation Department on my behalf.
– It must be a wealthy union.
– Don’t cackle, Cockle. The members get value for the money they pay, and the union has left its lash marks on your hide, too.
I want to pay a heartfelt tribute to certain officers of the Taxation Branch. I refer to the Parliamentary Liaison Officers. I had 13 years experience in the State Legislature and I can only speak in the highest terms of their co-operation. Many of the assignments given to these gentlemen have been difficult and urgent, and I have every admiration for them. I bear them every gratitude. I want the Minister for the Army (Dr. Forbes), who is at the table, to note this particularly and to pass it on to the Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt), because these gentlemen deserve special praise for a difficult job that is very well done.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.
Consideration resumed from 2nd September (vide page 901), on motion by Dr. Forbes -
That the Bill be now read a second time.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.
Assent to the following Bills reported -
Commonwealth Bureau of Roads Bill 1964.
Post and Telegraph Rates Bill 1964.
Broadcasting and Television Bill 1964.
Consideration resumed from 29th September (vide page 1 607).
Department of Customs and Excise.
Proposed expenditure, £6,771,000.
Department of Trade and Industry.
Proposed expenditure, £5,531,000.
Department of Primary Industry.
Proposed expenditure, £17,616,000.
.- Before I refer to some matters concerning the Department of Primary Industry, with which I particularly want to deal, I feel that I should make some remarks about the statements made yesterday by the honorable member for Wannon (Mr. Malcolm Fraser) concerning the tobacco industry. As honorable members know and certainly as people engaged in the tobacco growing industry know, the Labour Party has been waging a vigorous campaign to have some form of stabilised marketing introduced into the tobacco industry. Unfortunately, people engaged in the tobacco growing industry find themselves, because of the tactics of exploitation adopted mercilessly by the manufacturers, bordering on a state of poverty and in many cases they have been forced out of the industry and into bankruptcy. Rather than take an objective look at this very serious problem a man of the ability of the honorable member for Wannon - we should not doubt his ability for a moment; he obviously has ability - comes into the chamber and states a string of inaccuracies. When this is done by a man of his ability one wonders whether it is done for some personal reason - whether in fact he is wilfully misinterpreting issues which are very important to a large number of people in a particular economic class in our community. I rather suspect that this is the case.
The honorable member said that despite a high cost factor arising from wages compared with the wages cost factor in Australia, growers in the United States of America were able to producetobacco cheaper than were growers in Australia. This is not true: I do not believe the honorable member believes the statement to be true. The facts about the tobacco industry in the United States are that a tremendous work force engaged in the industry is living on sub-standard wage scales. The peons from countries in South America who have migrated from their homelands, either in haste because of revolution or because of the attraction of reputed high living standards in the United States, are living in the tobacco growing areas in that country on below what Australians would regard as a reasonable living standard. In addition large number of negroes are engaged in the industry at a low wage level. Because of this exploitation on a grand scale for intensive labour purposes tobacco is produced in America more cheaply than it can be produced in Australia.
The honorable member said that about 34 per cent. of tobacco imported into Australia came from South Africa and Rhodesia. I do not know whether the honorable member seeks to imply that we should have a Prime Minister like Mr. Smith of Rhodesia running this country, with his racially discriminatory policies depressing people on horribly low living standards, or whether he supports the apartheid policies of Dr. Verwoerd of South Africa and the discrimination and exploitation that follow the implementation of those policies in that country. In the United States, Rhodesia and South Africa tobacco is produced by people who endure low living standards. Europeans in Australia could not possibly live at the depressed standards forced on the people of those countries. I sincerely trust that the honorable member for Wannon does not recommend the adoption in Australia of the systems used in the United States, South Africa and Rhodesia.
We must bear in mind that the honorable member for Wannon is a wealthy wool grower. It appears that he wants to sacrifice the tobacco growing industry on the altar of the wool grower. One suspects that he has a personal motive for promoting his thesis. I can suggest only that this is a very selfish stand for any man to take, particularly in view of the sufferings, low living standards, and worry due to financial stress that people in the tobacco growing industry are experiencing. The honorable member claimed that the tobacco growing industry in Australia is grossly inefficient and that it would be better to reduce the quantity of tobacco grown so that wool growers, himself in particular, I suppose, could obtain higher living standards. This is an argument with which I do not agree. If the honorable member claims that because the tobacco industry is inefficient its volume of production should be reduced I assume he would claim also, if he is to be consistent, that similar action should be taken with regard to the sugar industry, because production of sugar in Australia for export is heavily subsidised by the consumer. Does he propose similar action with regard to the butter industry? Does he propose that we should import larger quantities of butter, onions, potatoes, wheat and many other primary products that one could mention from countries that can produce cheaper than we can? The honorable member is like far too many people in this country, particularly a number of economists who are enjoying fat salaries and living in affluent circumstances and who think in terms of a neat algebraic equation and a geometric form figure rather than of the social problems which present themselves to the community.
If we did not support the sugar industry most of Queensland would not be developed. If we did not support certain other industries in the way that we do we would not have the Ord River project. Without support of some industries certain areas of this country would not be developed. The honorable member for Wannon must realise that there are certain social responsibilities inherent in this matter. He should realise also - this is very important - that human elements must be considered. I trust that the honorable member does not ruthlessly propose that people engaged in the tobacco growing industry should be cast to one side solely to enable him and others of his ilk engaged in the wool industry to enjoy a greater measure of prosperity.
I do not object to people engaged in the wool industry obtaining a greater measure of prosperity but I do not think many people engaged in the wool industry would adopt the peculiarly selfish, narrow, sectional outlook which the honorable member proposes. The honorable member’s speech was obviously a brief for a sectional view in the wool industry and one comes to the conclusion that the honorable member has been enthusiastically supported by the tobacco manufacturers’ lobby in this country. Having in mind the tobacco manufacturers’ lobby, Australians must realise that the tobacco manufacturers and producers - the people who sell the cigarettes - are enjoying tremendously healthy profits. I think last year Rothmans earned a profit rate of 40 per cent., which represents a profit of more than £1 million for a twelve months period. That is a staggering profit when one realises that large numbers of people engaged in the tobacco growing industry are either living in a state bordering on poverty or, having reached a state of poverty, have been forced out of the industry with a heavy debt to which they are committed for some considerable time. The honorable member for Wannon seems to be quite callous in his disregard of the unfortunate tobacco growers.
I seriously suggest that the time is ripein fact, overripe - for the introduction of a system of organised marketing in this industry. Indeed, the time is overripe for the introduction of systems, of organised marketing in most primary industries. I can never understand the utter silence of members of the Australian Country Party con;cerning this very urgent need for our primary industries today. Only yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Calwell) in this chamber quoted a prepared statement by the Liberal Party of Australia, which has been published in an official organ of the party. In that statement, the Liberal Party claimed as its own all the features of policies for the benefit of the primary industries that have been adopted in this country. If the Liberal Party really is responsible for policy on primary industry one can well understand the present Government’s inactivity on this very important matter and its lack of regard for primary producers. Indeed, I heard one Liberal assail the dairy industry rather severely at question time only a few days ago. Again, I heard no member of the Country Party answer his attack.
I believe that the need of the tobacco industry for stabilisation and an organised marketing scheme can be met successfully without any radical alteration of our constitutional structure. Some elementary or basic steps must be taken. A technical survey of lands throughout the Commonwealth ought to be made to establish which areas are suitable for the growing of tobacco. We should establish the acreage that will give a farmer a fair living. We should establish what the land requires in the way of fertilisers, improvements and the like. Farm areas and suitable quotas for farms must be assigned. The whole industry must be regulated. A special research body ought to be established. I do not consider that this responsibility should be given to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, although that Organisation undoubtedly can make a valuable contribution. A special and distinct government research and advisory body should be established to undertake scientific research and to promote the tobacco industry.
– Suitable organisations already exist.
– I wish the honorable member for Maranoa would be equally vociferous in support of proposals to ameliorate the conditions of tobacco growers. He has been amazingly silent throughout this debate while we have been discussing proposals that should be adopted in an effort to help the tobacco growers. Something similar to what I propose for the tobacco industry in the field of research has been done in Queensland for the sugar industry, which has benefited amazingly. We must maintain a high percentage of local leaf in tobacco production. A system of organised marketing could be introduced by bargaining. The Government could tell the tobacco manufacturers that they must accept quotas of tobacco leaf of suitable standard from registered growers. Any other growers who enter the industry would do so at their own risk. The Government could warn the manufacturers that if they did not do as it requested it would use fiscal policies at its disposal and that imports of foreign leaf tobacco would be prevented under import policy. I am sure that we could succeed, particularly if we obtained the co-operation of the States. I see no reason why we should not have their co-operation, because they are as disturbed about the plight of the tobacco growers as are we on this side of the chamber. I am sure that a successful scheme of organised marketing could be introduced.
One hears amazing stories from honorable members who represent areas in which tobacco is grown. One is told that leaf offered at an auction has been completely rejected. Yet the same leaf, after being repacked, is offered at a later auction and brings high prices. Obviously, discrimination is being practised in the tobacco industry. If, as honorable members opposite claim, the trouble with the industry is overproduction, surely the industry needs stabilisation and a scheme of organised marketing. In 1959, the Constitutional Review Committee, which was a joint committee of both Houses of this Parliament, stated in its report that organised marketing schemes should be introduced in primary industries. The Committee’s recommendations have never been followed up by the Government, despite the fact that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr. Adermann) is a representative of the Australian Country Party. We find that the problems that face the tobacco industry today face far too many sections of primary industry, though the tobacco industry perhaps is one of the most sorely affected. In various agricultural industries, we find recurrent gluts when overproduction results in low prices and farmers find themselves on the verge of bankruptcy, with the banks putting pressure on them to meet overdraft repayments that they cannot possibly meet. I believe that the dairy industry could operate with a successful stabilisation scheme if the Government were only prepared to attack the problem, but that industry is going from bad to worse.
In my own State, Queensland, there is a Country-Liberal Party Government which repeatedly vaunts the great achievements of primary industry in that State for which it claims to be responsible. In 1956-57, the year in which that Governmen took office, the realised income of unincorporated farm enterprises - in other words, average farmers - was £107.8 million. By 1961-62, after the present Queensland Government had been in office for about four years, the figure had fallen to £85.6 million. Butter production in Queensland fell from 41,422 tons in 1956-57 to 31,276 tons in 1960-61. We hear honorable members opposite mouthing rather mealy platitudes to people in rural areas but doing nothing for them.
Now I come to the record of the present Commonwealth Government. In 1948-49, the realised income of unincorporated farm enterprises throughout Australia totalled £300 million. In 1962-63, it rose to £539.3 million. In terms of the purchasing power of 1948-49, this was worth only about £252 million, or appreciably less than the value of farm income in 1948-49, when Labour was in office. It is very interesting to note, incidentally, how regularly the Government contrives to have debates on matters concerning primary industries set down for Wednesdays when the proceedings in this chamber are not broadcast, so that primary producers cannot hear such debates over the air. I suggest to all primary producers who may happen to read the record of this debate that only the Australian Labour Party is interested in the stabilisation of primary industries and the organised marketing of primary products.
– Order! The honorable member’s time has expired.
Mr. PETTITT (Hume) [9.17).- Mr. Temporary Chairman, it is perhaps a good thing for the honorable member for Oxley (Mr. Hayden) that we are not on the air. I suggest that if the primary producers of this country, and especially those in his electorate, heard his suggestions for the socialisation of primary industry, he would not receive much support in his constituency. Obviously, he has- very little knowledge of the primary industries, about which he talks so much.
I wish to discuss what I consider to be a most important subject - the welfare of our great primary industries. I consider that I am in a position to discuss the primary industries with some authority, being a practical farmer and, I believe, a reasonably successful one. I have listened to a great deal of talk by honorable members opposite in their efforts to take advantage of the unfortunate position of a small section of primary producers. A great deal is being done for primary producers generally, but Opposition members are trying to take advantage of the unfortunate temporary position of a few.
Everybody knows that in general the primary producers of this country were never more prosperous than they are now. Everybody knows furthermore, that the entire prosperity of Australia is built on the prosperity of our primary industries. They are the foundation on which the prosperity of our economy rests. Even today, almost 90 per cent, of our export income is derived from the sale of primary products. The earnings from the sale of those products make it possible for this nation to expand its secondary industries, to advance its economy, to grow in strength and to become powerful enough to hold this land. All this depends on our primary producers, who have fought flood, fire, drought and depression and continue to maintain our primary industries on the soundest foundation enjoyed by any industries in this country. We have had rising costs in what may almost be described as an artificial economy in which our secondary industries have been over-protected while our primary industries have to sell on the world’s open markets. Yet these primary industries are still prosperous because of the know-how and keenness of our producers who have been able to lift their production by over 50 per cent, in the last 20 years. Today they keep this, country still moving ahead financially.
I want to deal specifically with one of our greatest industries - the wool industry. It has been said truly that Australia rides on the sheep’s back, and it does. It is rather strange that this great industry has never had any proper system of training the operative’s who work in it. This is the industry upon which our whole prosperity stands, yet no serious attempt has ever been made to institute any form of training for shearers or shed hands. Shearing is a highly skilled occupation, and it is good to see an expert shearer doing a good job. The job commands a high pay, and the shearer cams it. But how do men learn to shear? By “ harrowing “, as we call it. When the bell rings for smoko they get a sheep and try to learn how to shear. If a shearer is kind enough, he will give a hand and also give a few points. Not only does the beginner learn the good points of shearing, he learns the bad points too. Shearing, like any other skilled occupation, is much easier if you know how to do it and have been trained properly right from the start.
During the last ten years there has been a 27 per cent, increase in the flocks in this country. Good shearers are becoming more and more difficult to get. It has been estimated that bad shearing in this country is costing about £6 million a year. Second cuts and torn fleeces lead to bad and inefficient classing. The difference between a good shearer and a bad shearer is known by those of us who have had practical experience in the industry. Anyone who has worked on the wool table or as a wool classer can tell the difference between a good shed hand and a bad shed hand. One inefficient shed hand can make the whole job difficult. He can make wellnigh impossible the work of a classer in keeping up with the shearers. As with shearers, so with shed hands; there has never been any attempt to train them. It has been estimated that the inefficient shearer, because of his inefficiency and second cuts, costs the industry approximately £500 a man a year. I think that points to the obvious need for a proper and efficient school. This is something that we can use. Many voluntary schools have been organised by land owners who have made an effort to train shearers for themselves, the industry and the nation. They have put their sheds and their sheep at the disposal of voluntary organisations and have got instructors to come along and conduct schools for shearers. They have been successful in their efforts, but this is not enough for an industry on which the whole economy of this country stands.
I think 1 have the right to speak for the wool industry, because there are more wool growers in my electorate than in any other electorate in Australia. In my electorate there is a move to establish a proper shearing school on a proper footing. The local branches of the Graziers Association are sponsoring it. They have gone into it deeply and have obtained facts and figures relating to the financing of a school. They have done much of the groundwork. The Cootamundra district is one of the most closely settled sheep areas and is a most suitable site for this school. Members of the Opposition always suggest that every wool grower is a wealthy man, but I remind them that the average wool grower in Australia produces 20 or 21 bales of wool a year. Many wool growers in my district are comparatively small, financially speaking. It is all the more important, therefore, that they get full value for their wool when it is grown. No matter how tenderly you look after your sheep, the wool can be destroyed on the shearing board by a bad shearer.
At Cootamundra an area of SOO acres has been set aside for a school. To set up a four-stand shed and to establish yards will cost less than £40,000. Running costs - and these are based on paying the students about £12 a week and paying the staff - would be about £15,000 a year. This is a small sum to pay for an industry as important as the wool industry. It is estimated that a school of this size would need probably 20,000 to 24,000 sheep. Local graziers have already offered to provide sheep. There is an abattoir in the area. Most honorable members who have had anything to do with this industry know that many butchers when they purchase sheep in the wool, like to shear them. These sheep will represent another source of supply. It should be possible to buy sheep in wool, shear them and sell them as off-shears and not lose money but make money. A school of this type would not require a big staff. It would not be costly to establish. It is estimated that the staff required would comprise one sheep and wool teacher; one shearing instructor - and there are some able shearing instructors working in the voluntary shearing schools; one machine expert; one general hand; and a sheep manager. Certainly a hostel would be necessary, but it has been proposed - and this has been carefully examined - to ask the students to pay for their board at the hostel.
Honorable members may ask where we are to get the finance. Apart from graziers and wool growers the main movers behind the scheme are the technical staff of the technical college at Cootamundra. They feel that money should be forthcoming from the Department of Technical Education. Surely this is a skilled technical job which merits adequate and efficient training. If the New South Wales Government is genuine in its advocacy of decentralisation it must come to the assistance of the school. I remind honorable members that recently the Premier made a great boast about allocating £1,500,000 for decentralisation in New South Wales. Quite recently we have seen more industries closing down in the country areas. He allocates £1,500,000 for decentralisation, yet £17 million is required for the Sydney Opera House, £13 million for the Eastern Suburbs railway and £7 million for a road to Mascot. How important does the State Government consider decentralisation to be?
– You have never done anything in your life about it.
– That shows how ignorant you are, because I happen to have been Chairman of the Industrial Development Committee in my area. I held the position for a number of years, but you would not know. Here is another case where the Government should do something under its adult education scheme to assist the training of shearers and shed hands. The Australian Wool Board should come to the party, too. It is estimated that it would cost about £200 or £220 to train a student and make him an efficient shearer. It is easy to make a keen learner into a good shearer, provided he has not already learned bad habits. I have seen many a young man taught how to shear - and shear well in a very short time. Compare £200 to train a man with the loss of about £500 a year from an inefficient shearer and you see something of the value of this scheme. If ever a scheme deserves support, this is one which should be supported by the whole community. There is today a definite shortage of shearers, and our sheep population is increasing all the time. The potential of our rural industries has hardly been scratched. Within a few miles of this capital city of Canberra there are thousands of acres yet to be developed. This country is carrying a sheep to the acre or a little more, while if it were developed with known and proved methods it could carry five or six sheep to the acre.
As I said before, this is a national problem, and if the scheme I have outlined is adopted we would be able to lift the status of the shearer. Make no mistake, a good shearer is a highly skilled tradesman. Some of the finest men I have met have been amongst the top shearers. If we established schools such as I have referred to we would attract better types to the shearing trade. We would get local boys - fellows that we know and have lived with. We would have less industrial trouble. We would reduce the numbers of casual shearers who are interested only in cutting what they can and getting out.
I say again that it is not good enough to carry on without providing suitable training in this trade in Australia’s greatest industry. The scheme will be adopted, I am sure, because it is being backed by a team of determined men who can see its possibilities and who believe in the future of Australia. They know that our future is dependent on the ability of our primary industries to continue expanding and earning export income. The scheme will be adopted, but it must have the support not only of the Commonwealth Government but also of the State Governments. I commend it to the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr. Adermann), who I am sorry to see is not in the Committee at the moment. The Minister has done a tremendous job in a difficult portfolio. We look forward to the day when we will have not just one school at Cootamundra, although Cootamundra may be the centre of one of the best and most densely populated sheep areas in the Commonwealth, but schools scattered throughout this great Commonwealth of ours. We will then have a pool of efficient, trained and skilled men who will enjoy the standing that their skill merits. Again I commend this scheme very strongly to the Minister and the Government.
.- I commend the honorable member for Hume (Mr. Pettitt) for his fight for better shearing standards and for the suggestion he has made for a shearers school.
– You need a haircut.
– If I do I will have to pay 7s. to have it cut. Having been rudely interrupted by the honorable member for Gippsland, who would hardly know much about shearing anyway-
– I will challenge you any time you like.
– Oh, go and get your hair shorn. I would like to get started with this speech, Mr. Temporary Chairman.
– I have shorn more sheep than you have had haircuts.
Order! The honorable member for Wilmot will continue with his speech.
– As I was saying when 1 was quite rudely interrupted by the honorable member for Gippsland, one would assume, after listening to the honorable member for Hume, that all Australia’s primary products were grown in the electorates represented by honorable members located in the corner where the honorable member for Hume sits. But how wrong one would be to believe that story that those honorable members are always trying to push down our throats and the throats of the Australian people. Let me point out for the record that 19 of the 52 members of the Australian Labour Party in this chamber -or 37.2 per cent, of the Labour members here - represent rural electorates. Every type of Australian primary product is grown in those electorates. So much for the bogus claims that these honorable members in the corner represent the country people.
– We put our policies into practice.
– And you pinch our policies too. Ned Kelly was a gentleman compared with this Government, having regard to the way it takes our policies and puts them into practice when it suits the Government to do so. The farmer is the backbone of this country. The honorable member for Hume need not stand up and accuse us of being anti-farmer or anti-farming community.
– He did not do that.
– He did. Just read the first few remarks that he made in his attack on the honorable member for Oxley. (Mr. Hayden). There are many farmers who are prepared to individualise their gains and socialise their losses. They come to the Government for assistance in times of despair, loss and bad prices. What follows is a form of socialism. Bounties and subsidies are all forms of government aid; the granting of them is a form of socialism. The honorable member criticised the members of the Australian Labour Party, saying that they are socialists. Every farmer in Australia is a socialist up to a point, if he accepts Government assistance in any form. So why put this kind of humbug into “ Hansard “?
– Sit down then.
– Will you please remove the honorable member for Gippsland, Mr. Temporary Chairman? I want to speak about fruit shipments from Tasmania, or from Australia, to the United Kingdom. When the season recently ended a record quantity of 9,000,000 cases of apples had been sent from Tasmania and the mainland to the United Kingdom. The crop went in 54 ships. This was a fantastic performance, and I want to congratulate all concerned on getting that huge shipment of apples to the United Kingdom and to other European and Asian markets. However, some of the. fruit was bruised during refrigeration. A friend of mine who recently went to the United Kingdom on a fruit ship has given me some information about this matter. A refrigeration expert on the same ship was a big help in this regard. About 20 lorry loads of fruit were turned back from Port Huon wharf because the fruit was bruised. That is all to the good; we cannot send bad fruit to England or anywhere else. But the interesting point is that bitter pit, a disease in apples, shows up a few days after the apples are put into refrigeration. The expert said that the disease results from the failure of the orchardists to spray in December and January to combat it. I do not know how many of our orchardists spray in those two vital months, but I have simply given the opinion of the refrigeration expert on this ship. If our orchardists are at fault they can easily effect a remedy by spraying in the two months I mentioned. The fruit is moved in the months from February to June, to the United Kingdom market.
I also want to say something about Australian butter being sold in England. In my opinion the Australian dairy farmer earns everything he gets. I received a letter yesterday written by a friend in England last
Thursday, 24th September. This person visited the market at Leeds on Thursday of last week, so the information could not be more up to date. Australian butter was selling at 3s. Id. per lb., Danish butter at 3s. 10d., New Zealand butter at 3s. 7d. and loose butter, which would be local butter, I suppose, at 3s. 6d. The Australian butter was the cheapest on the Leeds market. Margarine was selling at ls. 2d. per lb. The Australian consumer is paying at the moment 5s. Id. per lb. for butter, so we are very heavily subsidising people in Britain and probably in Denmark also, and I do not think this is a fair go. The United Kingdom has been guilty of re-selling Australian butter to Denmark and Holland at a profit. How long can we go on allowing one of our best customers, the United Kingdom, to play around with our products like this? As I have said, Australian butter sells for 3s. Id. per lb. in England, which is equivalent to 3s. 10¼d. in Australian currency. That is ls. 2d. less than the Australian consumer is paying. This is a matter that will have to be considered by the Australian Dairy Produce Board, in my opinion. I am very critical of the present position. I do not think that we are getting a fair go from the United Kingdom in respect of Australian butter.
I congratulate the Board and its officers in Great Britain on the launching of the “ Kangaroo “ brand of butter in the 12 months since the previous report of the Board was presented. I congratulate the Board on the choice of a name which will be popularised by its use in connection with many products in addition to butter. The report of the Board for the year ended 30th June 1964, which was delivered to us recently, contains some very interesting information on the battle to popularise the new brand of Australian butter in Great Britain. I have heard about the battle from friends in that country. The publicity on television and radio and in magazines, newspapers and the like is very good. The Board must bc congratulated on its strenuous and intelligent campaign to sell Australian butter under this new brand name. The Board, at page 22 of its report, says -
The most important event of the year was the launching of “ Kangaroo “ brand butter by the Board in association with the Directorate of Australian Trade Publicity. In addition to the initial promotion of the brand, the launching of “ Kangaroo “ required many other activities on the part of the Board including the making of agreements with packers, arrangements for selecting suitable butter for packing, and the setting up of a virtually new marketing system under which existing agent’s received incentives to promote the sale of “Kangaroo”.
The slogan was: “ The best ‘ bread ‘ butter in the world.” This was a new venture in publicity and it met with outstanding success. The Board’s report states -
At the end of October -
That is October last year - . . first-hand sales commenced and immediately settled down on an allocation basis at the very high level of 400 tons per week. Early in November, “ Kangaroo “ brand packets were available generally at the retail level and the initial advertising started on 13 (h November. In the subsequent two weeks, there were fifty-two 15-second commercials on T.V., one full-page in colour in the London “ Evening News “, followed by three black-and-white insertions of commanding size in both London evening papers.
At page 24 the Board went on to say that from 28th October, the time when sales commenced, to 27th June, 11,465 tons, or 328 tons a week, were sold. Sales have now settled down to an average of 260 tons a week. That is a wonderful performance by our people overseas. They are often criticised, but on this occasion they should be highly commended. The expenditure on the promotion of our butter in the United Kingdom is about £500,000 a year. That is money well spent.
I also mention that freight rates on our exports to Great Britain and other overseas countries look like rising next year. According to a newspaper report on 27th August, the freight on exports to the United Kingdom may cost Australian exporters, who are mainly primary producers, £2 million a year more than at present. The Australian Meat Board revealed this very sad news in its annual report, which was tabled a few weeks ago. The newspaper report stated -
The Federal Exporters’ Overseas Transport Committee, which represents exporters; and the Australian Tonnage Committee, which represents British and Continental shipowners, will meet later this year to re-negotiate the freight rate formula.
A one per cent, increase would cost Australia about £2 million a year.
The shipping conference operating between Australia and Europe is the only one in tha world which does not set its own freight rates unilaterally.
In other words, these are the Conference lines, and when they fix a rate for one company that rate operates for all the 22 shipping companies in the Conference. So there is no competition. The Conference has a monopoly in freight rates, and it operates to the detriment of this country. One ship which took fruit from Tasmania to Great Britain this year was a chartered ship which came out in ballast and took to Europe a cargo worth £30,000 to the owners. So the shipping companies must make a colossal profit on the shipment of apples to the United Kingdom, Hamburg and Rotterdam. Any increase in freight rates would be disastrous to our evenly balanced overseas commitments. The newspaper report continued -
The Meat Board also expressed concern about the increase in freight rates to North America. These were made by the shipping companies without consulting exporters. “ Since the increased rates did not apply to New Zealand, Australian meat exporters have been placed in a less competitive position in the North American market than those of New Zealand,” the board said.
The way these shipping freights operate against Australia is all haywire. 1 make a plea for an increase in our trade with Indonesia, in spite of our abhorrence of its political system. The trade statistics show that our trade with Indonesia is increasing. Imports from that country increased from £2,257,000 in July 1963 to £2,690,000 in July 1964. Our exports to that country increased from £380,000 in July 1963 to £420,000 in July 1964, and from £2,616,000 in 1962-63 to £4,838,000 in 1963-64. That is a big increase. I hope that it continues.
I have received from the Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr. McEwen) a letter about potato products imported into Australia. In that letter the Minister said -
More recently, the Department has been in touch with the importer of some Canadian processed potatoes. However, his imports over the last six months have been small, and because there is little demand, he does not plan any large imports.
So I do not think we will have anything to fear from the importation of processed potatoes. However, I know that in the last few days the price of potatoes has risen to £78 a ton. Goodness knows what people will eat instead of potatoes in the next few weeks, if that price is maintained. 1 think it will be maintained because of the shortage in Victoria and because the potato season in Tasmania has finished.
.- At the present time we are discussing the estimates of three very important departments - the Department of Customs and Excise, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of Primary Industry. On many occasions in the work of the Government in connection with Australian products, these three Departments work together. 1 believe that we should try to extend primary production in Australia. I do not especially refer to wheat, wool or dairy products. The Chowilla Dam will supply water to irrigate thousands of acres of land around the Murray River on each side of the border between Victoria and South Australia. The dam will be on the South Australian side of the border and will back up water to near Wentworth in New South Wales. On the land that is irrigated we must grow primary products. The question is: What will we grow that we can market to advantage throughout the world? 1 have often thought that the Department of Trade and Industry, through its overseas services, could make surveys of various countries and find out what primary products they desire to purchase. Then the Department could advise the Australian primary producers what is required and the required products could be grown. However, I realise that there are certain difficulties. Assume that the Department made a survey and ascertained that certain primary products were required and then sent word back to Australia. Because we cannot prepare to grow primary products and grow them overnight or perhaps even in a year, by the time the producers had the products ready for the market, the market might have disappeared or some other country might have come in and claimed it. That is a very difficult circumstance to overcome. The Department of Trade and Industry could give the advice only on the condition that it was not definite but was subject to change from month to month or from year to year. So I have tried to find out what could be grown in these areas.
Right along the Murray River, which is our greatest waterway, and especially the mid-Murray, we require more weirs and dams to be built. Chowilla Dam is one that is being built. There is a proposal to build a high water dam near Swan Hill in Victoria. That project has been called the Marraboor Weir. That would give irrigation to thousands of acres in New South Wales and Victoria. But what will be grown on those thousands of acres? Cattle? Pasture for fattening lambs? More wheat? The answer to the last one is, “ No “, because I am of the opinion that we are growing sufficient wheat at present and if we lost our sales to mainland China we would, very quickly, have a lot of wheat left on our hands. It is only the wheat in our silos that we cannot sell elsewhere that we sell to mainland China. The point about mainland China is that it buys from us only because it wants the wheat. The moment it can do without it our wheat will be left on the market, if we cannot find other buyers.
– Is that Communist China?
– You can call it Communist China or anything you like.
– Is it Communist China?
– Yes, it certainly is. If they did not want our wheat they would dump us quick and lively. They are buying from us only because they want to and because we want to sell our .wheat. So we do not necessarily want to extend our wheat acreage at this stage. So what can we grow? I suggest that we grow cotton. About 11 per cent, of Australia’s requirements is grown in this country. Therefore, 89 per cent, of our cotton is imported. It has been proved very definitely that cotton can be grown to perfection along the Murray Valley. It is true also that modern implements are now able to pick cotton. Long ago, of course, that was a very arduous job. A song suggested that somebody had to plant and pick the cotton and that’s why darkies were born. That may have been so in America, but that time has passed. Good machines are now in operation for this purpose and they can be used in Australia. I suggest that our own cotton would have a sure home market. We would not have to import it. We now Import 89 per cent, of our requirements of cotton. If we could supply our home market for cotton we would have a market we were sure of.; We would not need advice from overseas and the crop would be of great help to Australia and, of course, to decentralisation. We could decentralise population in the’ Murray Valley. The Murray Valley Development League has said that if we worked the Murray Valley properly there would be room for a million people to settle. I have referred briefly to decentralisation already tonight when speaking about taxation.
Another crop we can grow is olives. At present in Australia we grow only enough olives to provide for 3 per cent, of our consumption of olive oil. Therefore, 97 per cent, is imported. It has been proved definitely that we have the soil that will grow olives, and we have the climatic conditions. Conditions along the Murray, and especially the mid-Murray, are much like conditions in California, but we do not need this illustration. I can take members of Parliament or anyone else to Robinvale and show them the Oliveholme groves where olives grow to perfection. The growing of olives could be extended right along the Murray Valley. To my knowledge it could be extended as far as the South Australian border, and perhaps further. Therefore, we can grow the additional 97 per cent, of olives needed to supply our requirements of olive oil. Olive oil is required in increasing quantities in Australia because of our migrant population, which is increasing year by year and wanting more and more olive oil.
The growing in this country of olives and cotton would have a dual, if not a treble effect. First, by growing them here we would save the overseas funds that we are now spending on importations. Secondly, we would decentralise much of our population. Thirdly, we would establish firmly in this country industries for whose products we know that we have a market. These are things which the Government must look at and must encourage. The growth of the products I have suggested could not begin straight away, because the Chowilla Dam is only in its infancy. Other weirs must be built, but at present hundreds of acres can be irrigated. If the growing of these products extended to thousands of acres we would be producing crops that we could market.
There are many other products for which we have strong competition in Australia. One of the great troubles of the primary producer is that he cannot sell in Australia all that he produces - he must send much of it overseas. Australia consumes only a portion of our wheat and dairy products, although perhaps a bigger percentage of dairy products than of wheat and wool. We send overseas the big surplus of products that we grow in Australia. One trouble at present is that Australian farmers cannot get the Australian standard price for all the products they grow, but if my suggestion were adopted the Australian market price would be available for cotton and also for olives. Any primary industry that has not been stabilised by this Government or by previous governments is out of focus with the things that really matter in the financial sei up of the Australian economy.
– What about tobacco?
– These things must be attended to. I stress to the Government that it should make moves now along the lines I have suggested so that when the great bulk of water which is available through the Snowy Mountains scheme and from the building of these weirs becomes available we can have people ready to move onto the thousands of acres of land and grow the products I. mentioned on their small holdings. Some honorable member mentioned tobacco. 1 am only too happy to refer to that, for the simple reason that last night the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Whitlam) submitted one or two questions to me. He knew that when he was speaking I could not answer his questions by interjection. However, 1 did interject and I asked him a question. He spoke about what had happened in a certain industry and I asked: “ Does that include private buying too?” Then, probably in the method that he had learnt in the law courts, he said: “ which side is the honorable member for Mallee on in this matter?” The honorable member might have been able to get away with that in a court case, but he cannot get away with it in the House of Representatives. When a court case is over the defendant or complainant leaves the court room and cannot speak again, but in this House members can speak again.
Tonight I have the opportunity to answer his questions. He did not answer my question; he merely turned it round. These arc his questions: Which side is the honorable member for Mallee on? I reply to that by saying that I am on the side that means the best deal for Australia. His second question was: Is he in favour of the private treaty system or the auction system in wool selling? My reply is that I am in favour of the auction system with a floor price that has been approved by the growers at a referendum. That is the policy of the Country Party. The Country Party says that the wool or other primary product, whatever it may be, is owned by the man who has produced it, and that there will be no stabilisation unless the growers approve of it at a referendum. This, in one swoop, does away with the suggestion that stabilisation of primary industries is socialism.
The honorable member for Wilmot (Mr. Duthie) has just made certain remarks, and I wrote one or two things down. He said that all manner of primary producers who have suffered some form of loss come to the Government for assistance. Is he against that? Surely when primary producers suffer loss they can come to the Government. If the Government gives the primary producers temporary aid, is that socialism? Of course, it is not. This is only temporary action to get them over a drought or some loss sustained by fire, flood or something else, it is not Socialism. Therefore, I say that we must stabilise as well as possible this industry.
I come now to the next question. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked -
Does he agree in this matter with the honorable member for Wannon that the tobacco industry is expendable, or does he think with the Minister for Primary Industry that this is purely a State matter? Does he think with the honorable member for Indi (Mr. Holten), who is one of his colleagues, and the honorable member for Bendigo (Mr. Beaton), who is one of mine, that this is one of those industries which will save necessary foreign exchange?
Everybody knows that the Australian tobacco industry saves us foreign exchange. It is a very queer thing that you can bring in, I understand, a certain amount of overseas leaf and blend it with the Australian leaf, and you are given a very good smoke, but if you blend too much of our product with the overseas leaf, it is said by smokers that the smoke is not as good as it would bc otherwise. It is a strange thing also that all the speakers who made these authoritative statements are non smokers. Yet, they are speaking with great authority about the sweetness of the leaf. I believe that we must use as much of the Australian leaf as possible. That is my answer. Of course, I believe to a certain extent that this is a State matter. Indeed, there was this announce-; ment in the “ Sun “ yesterday under the heading “ Slates’ talks on tobacco “ -
A plan to stabilise the Australian tobacco industry will be discussed by State Ministers for Agriculture in Sydney on October 8.
Although my time has nearly expired, I want to reply to one other honorable member. This is the honorable member for Capricornia (Mr. Gray) who, when speaking about certain industries, said: “Why does not the Country Party plead for the stabilisation of industries small as well as big? “ Did we not have passed just recently legislation for the stabilisation of the dried fruits industry? Did not the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr. Adermann) go up to Sunraysia? Do honorable members opposite not know all about this? The dried fruits industry is a small industry. In fact, it is small in terms of parliamentary representation because I represent 80 per cent. of the production in that industry. But the honorable member for Capricornia added: “ . . . so that the members of the Country Party will justify themselves in this House “. Members of the Country Party have long ago done this. I suggest it would be almost impossible to point to any worth while or significant primary industry in this country that has not been assisted by a Country Party organisation and by its Parliamentary representatives. It would be impossible to find any significant rural achievement without associating with it the Country Party organisation and its Parliamentary representatives. The Labour Party knows that we fight for primary industry. That is why it fights us. That is why honorable members opposite say that the Country Party does not fight for primary industry. This has been the Opposition’s method since Federation. If honorable members refer to the days of the early English Parliaments, they will see that the same thing happened - the party that does the most for an industry gets the most abuse from the Opposition. We are pleased to accept that abuse, and will continue our advocacy.
– Order! The honorable member’s time has expired.
Motion (by Mr. Aston) put -
That the question be flow put.
The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Mr. L. J. Failes.)
Majority . . . . 15
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Proposed expenditures agreed to.
Department of External Affairs.
Proposed expenditure, £15,433,000.
.- Let me say at the outset that the action of the Government in bringing the estimates for the Department of External Affairs forward for discussion at this time of night is not in the best interests of the Parliament. It was arranged that these estimates would not be discussed until tomorrow. Honorable members on this side have been given no opportunity whatever to prepare for the debate, although the Department of External Affairs is one of the most important departments to come up for discussion during the debate on the Estimates. We note that the Minister for External Affairs (Mr. Hasluck) is not in the chamber when his department is being discussed.
The Department of External Affairs is, in effect, Australia’s first line of defence. Its responsibility is to promote goodwill with all the nations of the world, especially the Asian nations to our immediate north, to arrive at an understanding with them and to maintain good relations with them at all times. We all know that the Government has experienced difficulty in recent times with the External Affairs portfolio. Under this Government, the holding of this portfolio has never been regarded as a full time job. For example, when the present Lord Casey was Minister for External Affairs he was only a part time Minister in that office. Sir Percy Spender was only a part time Minister for External Affairs. Wc know, too, that the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Menzies) was a stop gap Minister for External Affairs. Sir Garfield Barwick, who had held another portfolio, held the External Affairs portfolio alone for only a few short months before suddenly being relieved of his duties and promoted upstairs. Let me say that, as Minister for External Affairs, Sir Garfield Barwick carried out his duties particularly well in many respects. I believe that in his own way he did try to build up good relations between Australia and our neighbours to the north. However, for some reason or other, he was given the sack and was promoted upstairs. It will be remembered that he was criticised greatly by the Opposition for stating what the commitments of the United States of America would be in the event of Australian troops being attacked in Malaysia. I think that is the reason why he was sacked.
We must admit that the present Minister for External Affairs did have some experience in this Department before entering the Parliament in 1949. He should have some knowledge of the administration of the Department. I hope he has. But, since attaining his present office, the Minister has been reluctant to divulge any more information than he can possibly help. At all times, he has shown a tendency to be most secretive. I hope that he will abandon his Messiah-like attitude - the attitude that he is the only one who understands the difficult problems connected with international relations. I hope he will be more frank and open in his replies during question time. I remind honorable members that during question time today I asked the Minister whether it was a fact that Australia and New Zealand had refused to support the idea of a British air strike against Indonesian naval bases earlier this month. The Minister took up a Messiah-like attitude on that problem. He is a very righteous person, a very secretive person. It appears that he believes that he is the only one who can solve international problems. He does not like to give the House any details. He was later prompted to give information by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Calwell), but still refused to give any details.
The Minister should have no fear about giving details to the Parliament. If the Government followed an independent Australian foreign policy, members on this side of the Parliament would give it their full support. We must be greatly concerned about relations between Malaysia and Indonesia. We on this side feel that the present dispute between those countries could develop into a world conflict. We have to look at the political side of these matters, and, as honorable members know, Great Britain is approaching the eve of an election. At such times, the Conservative Government of Britain like other Conservative governments, tries to create hysteria about one question or another. I am concerned that the British Conservative Government may create some divergence between Indonesia and Malaysia. The Menzies Government has continually shown that it is incapable of expressing an Australian view with regard to foreign policy. It has demonstrated this by either giving what might be termed rubber stamp approval to the foreign policies of the United States of America and the United Kingdom or following the more regressive of the two. For example, on the occasion of the Suez crisis, did it support the American policy or the more regressive policy of Great Britain? It supported Great Britain. Again, on the question of Malaysia, Australia supported Great Britain wholeheartedly, and Great Britain has adopted the attitude that Malaysia has all the right on her side and that all the wrongs lie with the Indonesians. Because Britain has been taking a more progressive line in connection with China, we have been supporting the American attitude. Again, we have supported America on the South Vietnam questions although the British forces have remained out of South Vietnam. Those examples are typical of the attitude that has been adopted by the Government all along.
The new Minister for External Affairs has stated that Australia will take a more independent attitude to foreign policy. I hope he will see that that is done. He should be given every encouragement to do so, and if he does he will have the wholehearted support of the Opposition, because we want to see Australia adopt an independent attitude. We do not want her to adopt an anti American, an an ti British or an anti Russian attitude; we want to see a truly pro Australia attitude adopted.
I come now to the question of Malaysia. The Australian Labour Party supports the concept of Malaysia. At its 1963 conference the Party decided that it wanted to see Brunei, Sarawak and Sabah decolonised according to the principles of the United Nations, and it stated its policy quite clearly. We also ask for the decolonisation of Malaysia, whether it be military decolonisation or economic decolonisation. Decolonisation is necessary because there are problems on both sides in this Malaysia-Indonesia dispute. The Australian Labour Party does not support the stationing of Australian forces in Malaya or the participation of Australian forces in the struggle in North Borneo, although it would permit our troops to be sent overseas under certain conditions. In 1963, the Federal Conference of the Australian Labour Party declared -
Labor does not believe that Australian forces should be committed overseas, except subject to a clear and public Treaty, which accords with the principles of the declaration which gives Australia an effective voice in the common decision of the Treaty Powers.
Under present conditions, Labour does not support the stationing of Australian Military Forces in Malaysia. In 1955 the Australian Labour Party laid down the principles for its future relations with Asian nations. Its decision, stated very clearly and specifically, was -
The Australian Labor Party is satisfied that the use of Australian Armed Forces in Malaya will gravely injure Australian relations with our Asian neighbours, while in no way contributing to the prevention of aggression.
I think this has been proved time and time again.
Labour’s attitude is that the dispute between Malaysia and Indonesia should be settled by peaceful negotiation between the two nations with the assistance of the United Nations. Labour does not support military aggression by any nation. The infiltration of Indonesian volunteers should be discontinued. The infiltration pf Indonesian forces into Malaysia will only inflame an already delicate situation. Honorable members on” the Government side have already - “ stated that all the wrongs are on the one side, that Malaysia is completely right and that Indonesia is. wrong. We do not support aggression by Indonesia against the Malaysian people. It must be recognised that Malaysia now is a reality and the Leader of the Opposition has made it quite clear that we support the concept of Malaysia. But I say to honorable members that the only people who can solve the problems of Malaysia are the people who live within the borders of Malaysia. These people will determine the future of Malaysia.
I remind honorable members that there are at present great military forces stationed in Malaysia. These are not Malaysian forces but forces from outside. Included in them arc Gurkha mercenaries. They may be the darlings of many honorable members opposite, but I do not like mercenaries of any type. I do not like to see foreign troops on any soil. Britain has certain commitments in Malaysia and British forces are there for a certain period. But Labour has said that there must be a gradual decolonisation of Malaysia, and a decolonisation of the military and economic concept. I hope that honorable members on the Government side will realise this. Malaysia is not the great democracy that people try to say it is. We know that in many respects it was a concept of Whitehall. “ Newsweek “ this week carried a report that Tunku Abdul Rahman had said that it was necessary to bring the Malayan States of Sabah and Sarawak into Malaysia so that the Malay population would be able to maintain its numbers over the Chinese within the area. Internal politics are tied up in the concept of Malaysia. More representatives come from the two States I have mentioned than from Singapore. Yet the population of Singapore is far larger than the total population of the two States. We know that many people in Malaysia have been detained in gaols, just as people have been detained in Indonesian gaols.
We on this side of the chamber have been trying to look at the problem with some balance. We should not put our imprimatur on the actions of Malaysia and say that it is in the right. The Government’s action in moving our military forces into the area is something that Australia will pay for in the future. We should try to understand the Indonesian people. Historically, the Australian Labour Parly gave much assistance to the people of Indonesia to achieve independence. If we can maintain the goodwill that we won then and at the same time keep our good relations with Malaysia, we will be able to play an important part in that area. It would be better if we adopted an independent role and a conciliatory role between these two nations. I hope the Government takes heed of the points I have made.
I criticise the Government for bringing on this important debate at this late hour. lt is a disgrace. The Minister for External Affairs is not even in the chamber because this important debate was brought on without his knowledge. The Government gagged the debate on the previous estimates that were before the Committee so that this matter could be brought on tonight. Apparently, the guillotine will be used. I ask honorable members to give deep consideration to the dispute between Malaysia and Indonesia because it is of importance not only to Australia but to all countries in the region.
.- The honorable member for Reid (Mr. Uren), of course, spoke with tongue in cheek when he said that these estimates were brought on by surprise. This matter appears on the business paper and on the blue sheet for today. He knows perfectly well that he had due and proper notice of the debate. He has raised an issue which I know will be debated at length and vehemently by honorable members on both sides of the Committee. I know that a number of my friends on this side are eager to deal with the arguments that he has raised. For my own part, as I was a member of the parliamentary delegation to the General Assembly of the United Nations last year, I feel some obligation to take this opportunity to say a few words about the organisation.
Usually Opposition members speak as if the voice of the United Nations were the voice of God. Members of the public very often speak as if the United Nations consisted of a number of interfering busybodies who ought to be ignored. Opinions that fall between these two extremes are expressed by various members on this side of the chamber. Some people believe that the United Nations is in a state of decay and some that it ought to perish. I want to have a look at some of these arguments. Because the Russians and indeed the French have defaulted in their payments in respect of the peacekeeping force in the Gaza strip and in the Congo, some people think that the United Nations has failed or must fail, that it will not have the financial support that it needs to survive. Sir Alec DouglasHome at the time of the Goa dispute spoke about the double standards of the Africans and Asians in respect of some disputes. He said that if white people were involved thi Africans and Asians would condemn them, but there was no condemnation for the very same kind of imperialism imposed, for example, by Russia. Recently, the Malaysian dispute was taken to the United Nations and the result was a veto in the Security Council. It is claimed that the organisation has been powerless to deal with this dispute.
For these various reasons many people think that the United Nations is an organisation that we ought not to support and thai it has no future in keeping the peace pf the world. This needs to be examined. I might mention as an indication of the popular attitude that a leader in the “Sydney Morning Herald” on 17th September was headed “A Bleating Response to Aggression “. There is no need for me to read the leader; all I need say is that it docs represent a quite common point of view today. What is the truth of the matter? It is true that the Security Council has failed because the Russians in particular have exercised their right of veto. I think they used the veto on the 102nd occasion recently. The Security Council has been stultified for peacekeeping purposes. In 1950 the Unity for Peace resolution was passed and in effect the Assembly took over the function of the Security Council when the Security Council, through the veto, was unable to function. Power having passed, in effect, to this body, one has to look at the nature of the body itself. Since the inception of the United Nations the number of member nations has grown from about 50 to about 120 and one must look at the attitude of the new members in an organ that has now become of paramount importance if peace is to be preserved at all by the United Nations.
As far as the Afro-Asians are concerned, they have shown a disinclination to become embroiled in the cold war. This attitude is quite commendable and understandable. At a pinch they have shown a pretty healthy regard for their integrity and independence where their countries or continents might become involved in the cold war. These attitudes show a good deal of common sense on the part of these people. Of course, they have also shown, naturally enough, a great regard for the liberation of colonial peoples who are not yet independent. This, again, can be understood. It is part of a world wide trend - a tide that is not to be denied. They have shown a great interest in the rights of coloured majorities vis-a-vis white overlords. Again, this is natural enough. If their attitudes are perhaps somewhat pathologically emphatic, again they can be understood. It must be admitted that often this may lead to breaches of the peace.
They have shown a great desire for the economic benefits given to them, provided
Strings are not attached. They have been willing to take these benefits through organs of the United Nations or from either side of the great ideological conflict in the world. Perhaps this is not altogether a bad thing. If the backward nations are to progress it is quite a good thing that economic aid is offered from both sides. The peace of the world is not likely to be preserved if this process does not go on rapidly. It so happens that the circumstances of the time make this possible. There is no need to deplore this at all.
I have spoken of the attitude of the AfroAsians in the General Assembly. Let me speak now of the attitudes of the Russians and the Communists generally. Here I draw upon a paper prepared by Professor Dallin, Professor of International Relations at the Russian Institute, Columbia University. He points out that in the Russian view the United Nations is simply another arena in the struggle between the two world systems of our age - Socialism and Capitalism. He states that this admits of no lasting neutrality and claims that for an Americaninfluenced state, neutrality guaranteed by both world camps is a step forward, but for a Socialist state it is a step backward. He claims that the Russian objective is to keep the United Nations alive but weak. The normal aim, he states, is to minimise the organisation’s power and to safeguard Russia’s freedom of action. He points out that Russia will tolerate no interference within the Communist world, as in the case of Hungary, but that on the other hand Russia will not hesitate to interfere in the affairs of other states. In a word he concludes that the Russian view combines a revolutionary outlook with a conservative pursuit of Russian security and a pragmatic effort to make the most of the complex and shifting United Nations scene.
With regard to the Americans, because the power struggle continues within the United Nations as well as in the rest of the world, I draw on a paper prepared by the United States Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International Organisation Affairs. In the first place he points out that the United Nations is a place of debate and a centre for publicity, education and persuasion. He states that most Americans rightly believe that in the long run free debate works against error. Secondly, he sees the United Nations as a place for negotiation and not as a place for open disagreements openly arrived at, as the gibe has it. Thirdly, he sees the United Nations as a place for action through the diplomatic initiatives of the Secretary-General, through mediation and conciliation, through observation and fact-finding in trouble spots and through the actual mounting of military operations, as in the case of the dispute between Israel and its Arab neighbours and in the case of the Congo. He does not see the voting procedures as being unduly harmful to American interests because the only alternative to the present system would be to vote in accordance with population. This would balance the scales even more against the Americans and against the western world generally. There does not seem to be any other possible basis upon which voting could be conducted.
Finally, he sees the opportunity for exercising the veto by the United States in the Security Council and the ability to get a one-third vote in the General Assembly on important matters as safeguards against American interests being over-ruled. This is the attitude of the Afro-Asians, the Russians and the Americans with regard to the United Nations. As far as Australia is concerned, I do not have time to go into the matter in detail but one knows that there has been on the part of the Government some lack of enthusiasm for the United Nations, possibly because the Government has in mind what it would regard as undue interference, for example, in our trusteeship in New Guinea.
The small nations, too, have a place in the United Nations. The Scandinavian nations, for example, provide a peace force organised and available to the Secretary-General when he requires it. The Canadians also do this. With regard to the Malaysian dispute it must be remembered that the countries which took the initiative were countries such as Morocco, the Ivory Coast and Norway - small countries, but on the side of peace. In the case of the Cyprus dispute it was Brazil which took the initiative in securing an extension of the stay of the United Nations forces on the island. It is the small nations that stand for peace so far as the United Nations can bring about this desirable result.
Finally, I would like to refer to the place of the Secretary-General. The evolution of the organisation has given ‘more and more importance to his peculiar function.
Hammarskjoeld, in the introduction to his annual report on the work of the organisation for the year 1960-61, stated alternative concepts of the United Nations. On the one hand he said it could be regarded as consisting of static conference machinery for resolving conflicts of interests and ideologies, served by a secretariat representing within its ranks those very interests and ideologies. On the other hand he said it may be conceived as a dynamic instrument through which governments try to develop forms of executive action to forestall and resolve conflicts by appropriate diplomatic and political means in a spirit of objectivity and in implementation of the principles and purposes of the Charter. Taking the latter view he considered that the United Nations should be served by a secretariat the actions of which, irrespective of the background and whatever the views of its individual members may be, should be guided solely by the principles of the Charter, the decisions of the main organs and the interests of the organisation itself.
It was in pursuit of this objective that certain new techniques were developed, largely at his inspiration, such as the appointment by the United Nations of fact finding sub-committees, teams of observers and police forces to maintain the peace. Where the General Assembly had given imprecise directives the Secretary-General was often forced to interpret the decisions in the light of the Charter, precedents and the aims and intentions expressed by members. When the Secretary-General sought guidance from the organs of the United Nations, and it was not forthcoming, he conceived it his duty, as the guardian of the Charter, to shoulder responsibility for certain limited political functions. This, of course, brought him into collision with the Russians, who put forward the troika proposition in regard to the secretariat. It has to be remembered that, because this was strenuously opposed by the small nations, the Russians withdrew in disorder and U Thant was appointed.
I am not suggesting that the United Nations can solve all the problems of peace when the two great world powers come into conflict. But I suggest that it is still a useful body which Australia could support, perhaps with something more than the lack of enthusiasm that it has shown in the past. This does not mean that the
United Nations is the voice of God. This does not mean that it can resolve world conflicts between the two great powers. But it does mean that it has great utility. We in Australia should recognise this fact.
Motion (by Mr. Roberton) proposed -
That the House do now adjourn.
– Mr. Speaker, I rise to refer to an article signed by Mr. Tom Dougherty, General Secretary of the Australian Workers Union, which was published in the “ Worker “ last week. The article carries the caption, “ Mr. Clyde Cameron, M.H.R., writes to ‘ Dear Jim’ “. Incorporated in the article is a photo copy of a letter dated 19th March last year. The letter is from my parliamentary office in Adelaide and is addressed, “Mr. Jim Doyle, Secretary, A.W.U. Barrier Local Committee, Trades Hall, Broken Hill”.
In his article, Mr. Dougherty makes the feeble and, I may say, petty charge that, about eighteen months ago, I used up one whole sheet of parliamentary paper to answer an official communication that I had received from the Secretary of the A.W.U. Barrier Local Committee concerning the naval communication station at North West Cape. He correctly states that the secretary happens to be a Communist.
May I make it quite clear that I apologise to no-one for answering my correspondence - whether it comes from supporters of the Australian Labour Party, the Liberal Party of Australia, the Communist Party of Australia or the Australian Democratic Labour Party. It is my duty to do so. In carrying out that duty, I have a perfect right to use parliamentary paper.
Mr. Dougherty’s next complaint is that I was at fault in answering a letter from a Committee after official recognition of the Committee had been withdrawn by the Federal Executive of the A.W.U. in 1961. What Mr. Dougherty did not tell his readers is that the rank and file ofhis own Union at Broken Hill unanimously rejected the Federal Executive’s decision and the Committee has functioned as usual ever since. I am one of those people who respect rank and file viewpoints.
Mr. Dougherty’s chief point of attack, however, is that I began the letter with the salutation “Dear Jim” instead of “Dear Mr. Doyle” or “Dear Sir”. The sinister implication is that only A.L.P. members should be addressed by their Christian names and that only Communists address Communists by their Christian names. This is deliberate perversion. No other construction can be placed on his remarks, because otherwise his article would be quite pointless. It also demonstrates the weakness of Mr. Dougherty’s case against me.
If, in fact, this is the rule that he uses to discover Communists, the finger points also in his own direction, because he himself always addressed the late Mr. Healy, who was a top Communist and General Secretary of the Waterside Workers Federation of Australia, as “Jim”. He addresses other well known Communist union officials by their Christian names.
Although Jim Healy was a leading Communist, he was known to friend and foe alike as “ Jim “. The Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt), the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. McMahon), the late Mr. Chifley and hundreds of other nonCommunists liked him personally and saw nothing wrong with calling him “ Jim “. There was nothing evil in what they did. I even call the honorable member for Mackellar (Mr. Wentworth) by his Christian name. I imagine that he would laugh in my face if I ever addressed him as “ Mr. Wentworth “.
Mr. Dougherty may as well say that the Secretary of the South Australian Branch of the Australian Workers Union is antiDougherty merely because, when he sent Mr. Bill Deuis his duplicate tickets in June of this year so that he could nominate against Mr. Dougherty as General Secretary, he began his letter, “ Dear Bill “, and ended it by extending his kind regards. Such a proposition, of course, would be utterly ridiculous.
The questions, therefore, that must immediately spring to the minds of all decent Labour men are: How did Mr. Dougherty gain possession of a letter addressed to a Communist Secretary? Secondly, what was his purpose in attempting to use such a letter to destroy the reputation and public standing of a Labour member of the National Parliament? This is a task usually reserved for the lunatic fringe of the Liberal Party and other enemies of the A.L.P. It is obvious to me that the letter was either stolen or else it came into Mr. Dougherty’s possession through collaboration with Doyle himself. Mr. Dougherty can take his pick. But I am prepared to say that the letter was stolen from the office of the Committee in the Trades Hall at Broken Hill. In fact, I charge Mr. Dougherty with knowing that he is in possession of stolen property at this moment.
Collaboration with a Communist, of course, would not be a new venture for Mr. Dougherty, because one can call in evidence to support such a charge the A.W.U.’s own newspaper, the “Worker”.
I shall now name his Communist collaborationists in the 1956 shearers’ strike. They were Messrs. C. G. Hennessy and Wilson of the Commonwealth Council of the Amalgamated Engineering Union, who, in a letter to Mr. Dougherty, stated that they preferred to discuss their plans with him rather than with any other official of the A.W.U.
Tom Nelson, Secretary of the Sydney Branch of the Waterside Workers Federation, and Jim Healy, General Secretary of the Waterside Workers Federation, who according to the “ Worker “ assisted to formulate policy for the A.W.U., were among the other Communists with whom Mr. Dougherty collaborated. There were also the Communist officials of the Seamen’s Union of Australia. A report of this collaboration is set out in detail in the “ Worker “ of 21st March 1956.
Mr. Dougherty appeared on the same platform as Mr. A. Macdonald, Communist Secretary of the Queensland Trades and Labour Council, when they both addressed a conference of pastoral delegates held in the A.W.U. offices on 22nd and 23rd September 1956. This, and the fact that Mr. Dougherty also collaborated with Communist officials of the Newcastle Trades and Labour Council, is reported in the “ Worker “ of 3rd October 1956.
It is an historical fact that the Australian Workers Union could not have won the 1956 shearers’ strike without Mr.
Dougherty’s collaboration with the Communists, whom I have mentioned.
It is the very height of hypocrisy, therefore, I say, for him to publish now an article that is deliberately and maliciously designed to create the false impression that I am disloyal to my party and therefore unfit to represent it in the Parliament merely because I call some insignificant Communist, whom I have known personally for 13 or 1 4 years, by his first name.
To understand the reason for Mr. Dougherty’s malicious attack on me is to know the reason for his public attacks on so many other good Labour men. Labour Premiers and Labour Presidents have been his specialty. In his time, he has publicly smeared no fewer than four Labour Premiers and three Labour Presidents. In addition, he has publicly maligned Mr. Albert Monk, President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, Mr. Joe Chamberlain, Secretary of the Western Australian Branch of the Australian Labour Party, and six other Labour members of this Parliament. His newspaper has called the A.C.T.U. industrial advocate, Mr. Bob Hawke, an “ Egg Head “.
Mr. Dougherty gave aid and comfort to every Communist in Australia as well as to every other anti-Labour supporter when he made his public attack on Labour’s Federal Leader, Mr. Calwell, in Perth earlier this year. Mr. Dougherty condemned the whole of the New South Wales Branch of the Australian Labour Party on 23rd’ January 1957, when he told the A.W.U. convention that the Labour Party in New South Wales was run by “ a bunch of go-getters, legal experts, retired or not retired publicans, intellectual cranks and professors “. Is it any wonder that the New South Wales Branch of the A.L.P. was once moved to describe Mr. Dougherty as a “saboteur” and found him guilty of “ deliberate perversion “? At the same convention he indicted every Federal and State Labour parliamentarian when he declared that there was not one true Labour man in Parliament. That statement was 100 per cent, untrue.
The sitting members for West Sydney (Mr. Minogue), Grayndler (Mr. Daly), Dalley (Mr. O’Connor) and Lang (Mr. Stewart) were described by Mr. Dougherty in the “Worker” of 15th May 1955 as “ Santamaria marionettes “. That was a lie and Mr. Dougherty knew it.
On page 120 of the 1957 official report of the A.W.U. Convention, Mr. Dougherty is reported as saying that Mr. Albert Monk spoke for “ big capitalism “ and that Labour leaders in Australia had been “ undermined “ and “ bought.” That was a lie, too.
On another occasion he accused the present Secretary of the A.L.P. in New South Wales, Mr. W. R. Colbourne, as being a Santamaria sympathiser and a “ saboteur “. That also was a wicked lie. He accused ex-Senator Armstrong, Dr. Lloyd Ross, Lindsay North, H. J. Blackburn and other Labour leaders of being disloyal to the Labour Party. These allegations were wickedly false and malicious. Members of Parliament generally were once described by Mr. Dougherty as “Liars of Coward’s Castle “ and judges were said to be political hirelings. One could go on and on.
I do not intend to describe the character of Tom Dougherty. I merely state the facts. Listen to what the A.L.P. Executive in New South Wales once said about him. That body described Mr. Dougherty as a “ disruptionist “ and it resolved to “ repudiate and severely censure Mr. Dougherty for his opportunistic and antiLabour attitudes “. The statement went on to describe him as a “ saboteur “ and said that the Executive was “ shocked that it has been left to the leader of a great trade union to attack the reputation of the N.S.W. Executive and the character of two of Labour’s most respected Cabinet ministers”. His attack was described as “ deliberate perversion “.
I do not think that Mr. Dougherty was expelled from the A.L.P. on that occasion, and so far as I know he is still a member. I regret that a Labour member of Parliament should find it necessary to defend himself against a public attack by a member of his own Party.
I could tell the Parliament a lot more about Mr. Tom Dougherty, but that can wait until the necessity arises. In the meantime, I give Mr. Dougherty a grim guarantee that whenever my reputation and good standing in the Labour movement are challenged I shall not hesitate to defend myself with every means at my disposal.
.- I understand that during the recent recess the Minister for the Interior (Mr. Anthony) issued a Press release to the effect that on 11th October the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Menzies) will unveil the reconstructed Desert Mounted Corps memorial at Albany, Western Australia. This memorial originated with the members of the Desert Mounted Corps towards the end of 1918. Everyone, whether serving in the front line or in base units, gave one day’s pay towards the cost, to which were added generous subsidies by the Governments of Australia and New Zealand. The statue, by the late Sir Bertram Mackennal, was eventually erected beside the Suez Canal at Port Said as a tribute by their comrades to the men of the Australian Light Horse, New Zealand Mounted Rifles, Imperial Camel Corps and their associated units, and of the Australian Flying Corps, who lost their lives in Egypt, Palestine and Syria between 1916 and 1918.
The memorial was destroyed in the Suez Canal riots, but at the request of the Returned Servicemen’s League and by courtesy of the Australian and New Zealand Governments, and at their expense, the remains were brought back to Australia and reconstructed by Mr. Ray Ewers and his assistant Mr. Cliff Reynolds. The honorable member for Maranoa (Mr. Brimblecombe) and myself, the only two representatives of the Desert Mounted Corps in this chamber, desire to congratulate all concerned, and particularly the sculptors, who have reconstructed for posterity this beautiful replica of one of the finest pieces of equestrian statuary in the world. We also wish to record our grateful appreciation on behalf of all surviving members of the Desert Mounted Corps.
The present-day survivors of the Corps and of the Australian Flying Corps who served in that war area were originally opposed to the choice of the site at Albany. With the exception of two Western Australian associations, which were divided on the site question, the 26 unit associations asked for a reconsideration of the decision, Canberra being the site favoured by most, including the New Zealand Mounted Rifles associations. The R.S.L. in Australia and the
New Zealand Returned Soldiers’ Association were unable to agree to this almost unanimous request. Nevertheless, the honorable member for Maranoa and I feel that we arc expressing the wishes of all the Desert Mounted Corps associations in saying that although we have not changed our opinions we are proud to know that our memorial has been selected to represent the first Anzacs as a whole and has been re-erected in Australia at Albany, the point of departure of the first Anzac convoy of which, incidentally, I was a member, in the original 7th Battalion.
I am sorry I shall not be able to be present at the unveiling as I shall be in Tokyo as a guest of the Japanese Olympic Committee. I would have appreciated the honour of an invitation, and respectfully request that perhaps even at this hour it is not too late to issue such an invitation to the honorable member for Maranoa. It may be that there is no justification for the two invitations I will suggest, but the absence of any official representative of the Desert Mounted Corps would, I feel, be a very grave mistake from every point of view. I desire, therefore, to make a special request that some appropriate person be issued with an invitation as the official representative of the Desert Mounted Corps, and also that a similar appointment be made from the New Zealand Mounted Rifles. I have heard, but have not been able to confirm, that two members of the New Zealand Mounted Rifles have been appointed either by the Government or the R.S.A. of New Zealand as the official representatives.
I believe that few, if any, of the representatives of the association invited can afford to travel to Albany, hence this request for both the Australian and New Zealand Governments to pay the expenses of both such official representatives. The three senior ranking officers of the Desert Mounted Corps in Australia today would bc, I believe, Air Marshal Sir Richard Williams, ex-commander of the Royal Air Force wing in Palestine who, I understand, has received an invitation but cannot go; Lieutenant-General Sir Sydney Rowell, ex- 3rd Australian Light Horse Regiment; Major-General Sir Kingsley Norris, ex-lst Australian Light Horse Brigade, neither of whom, I understand but have not been able to confirm, received invitations. There are also two or more ex-commanding officers of Desert Mounted Corps units still living, and I would suggest that any one of those, or maybe somebody else decided upon by the Government, would be a very suitable official representative for the Desert Mounted Corps.
The R.S.L. represents the Australian Imperial Force as a whole, but as this is the Desert Mounted Corps memorial I would ask on behalf of those who originated and partly paid for the memorial, and those of our comrades, including the honorable member for Maranoa, who rode knee to knee from the Suez Canal almost as far as Aleppo, that this request receive sympathetic and favorable consideration either from the Government or through the Government by the R.S.L., as I do not know who is responsible for the ceremony.
.- I desire to refer to an answer to a question that was put to the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. McMahon) yesterday. 1 am sorry he is not in the House. He was answering a question asked by the honorable member for McMillan (Mr. Buchanan). The honorable member for McMillan was referring to a strike on the Melbourne waterfront and the Minister replied as follows -
The House will recall that some months ago the Victorian police decided that, because of the large scale of pillaging on the Melbourne wharfs, they would search the vehicles of waterside workers as they left the wharfs. Subsequently, the Melbourne branch of the Waterside Workers Federation, under the leadership of Mr. Young, decided to hold a strike because the time taken by the police to search the vehicles was too long, so the Federation said. It asked that the employers pay for whatever time was lost by the workers. The Melbourne Harbour Trust provided additional gates as exits from the wharfs and negotiations were held between the Trust, the police and the Federation. We hoped that, by this means, future strikes would be avoided. Nonetheless, subsequent to this a further strike was held. Details were taken of the vehicles passing in and out of the gates and it was found that many vehicles went out one gate and in by another. . . .
I heard again yesterday that another strike has been called, ostensibly on the ground that delays are taking place. I do not believe that is the true reason. As I have ‘said in the House before, these wilful strikes are called on the waterfront in Sydney and in Melbourne on any pretext whatever. Any excuse is good enough. I do not think the reason given by Mr. Young yesterday is good enough.
I do not want to argue the merits or demerits of the disputes or stoppages which occur on the Melbourne wharfs. As one who visits them frequently and takes the time and trouble to look at what is going on, I am prepared to say that quite a lot of the disputes that occur on the Melbourne wharfs could be avoided with a little tolerance on both sides. I think many of them are incited by over-zealous officials. But it would seem to follow from the Minister’s statement that any excuse is good enough for a strike on the wharfs and that any excuse would be good enough to malign the wharf labourer. I say with a good deal of feeling that wharf labourers are the most maligned workers in this country. I know a great number of them who live in my electorate and they are looked upon with just as much respect as any other citizens in the electorate.
Let me also point out the Minister’s smearing tactics. What the Minister said, virtually, is that the search is being conducted because of wholesale pilfering by each and every waterside worker on the Melbourne wharfs. I deny that there is any substance in that suggestion. I suggest that the Minister read the report of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority for the year ended 30th June 1963. On page 70 of that document appears some information concerning numbers of waterside workers deregistered for disciplinary reasons. It shows that theft and pillage accounted for 25, an increase of nine over the previous year. In other words, 25 waterside workers out of 22,000 in Australia were dismissed from the Australian wharfs for pillaging. Then the report deals with appeals. It shows that four of the appeals dealt with by the Commission involved theft or pillage and that the charges were not proved.
In giving the answer that I have read to the House the Minister has smeared each and every worker on the Melbourne wharfs. The truth is that police and customs officials have become so concerned about illegal entry of noxious drugs that they have decided to conduct this search. The waterside workers do not object to it, but they do say that it is the responsibility of the Commonwealth Government and that the search should bc conducted during the working hours of the waterside workers. They believe that after having worked their eight hour shift they should not bc held in the compound for periods from half an hour to three quarters of an hour, and that they should be able to go home after work as every other worker does. If the Minister likes to look even more closely into the activities of the waterside workers - this very much maligned group - he will find that they do not condone any act of pillage. Any man convicted or found guilty of pillaging will get no sympathy from the waterside workers. They have said that again and again.
In conclusion I just want to say that in common decency this smear that the Minister has placed on all these decent citizens should be removed. These men gave great service during the time when Australia was facing its greatest peril. They were the heroes in those times, but now they are the Communists. In common decency the Minister should qualify that statement. If he means that the reason for this search is that large scale pillaging by the Melbourne waterside workers is going on, he should say so. If he does not, he should apologise for this statement and say exactly what he does mean. I speak on behalf of all these waterside workers. I register their protest and I register their resentment of this statement. It has caused, widespread resentment in each and every individual, irrespective of’ whether he is a. supporter of the Communists, the Democratic Labour Party, the Australian Labour Party or the Liberal Party. My objection is supported by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Calwell) and the honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Crean), who also have large numbers of waterside workers living in their electorates. I feel it is up to the Minister to qualify his statement.
We must try to induce peace on the waterfront. We must try to induce good relations. If this is an example of the Government’s attempts to create peace and’ good relations, I do not know how to create peace and good relations. This was one of the most damaging statements ever made in this House. I appeal to the Minister to qualify his statement. I know this is one of the most difficult industries that we have in Australia, but it is made more difficult by statements of this sort. If the Minister wants to be held up as an example of a promoter of peace and public relations, he should withdraw this statement generally.
– I desire to say a few words on the matter raised by the honorable member for Chisholm (Sir Wilfrid Kent Hughes) with respect to the unveiling of the memorial erected at Albany in Western Australia. The honorable member for Chisholm has put the case very clearly to the House, but 1 want to draw attention again to the fact that originally this was not an Australian Imperial Force memorial. It was a memorial erected for and contributed to by members of the Desert Mounted Corps - the greatest body of horsemen that rode in World War I. I am disappointed that the Government did not see fit to accede to the request of members of the units who contributed one day’s pay to the cost of the memorial. Of course they were assisted very generously by the Governments of Australia and New Zealand. The men of these units - I am speaking now for most of them - are disappointed that this memorial was not erected in a more appropriate place - that is, in Canberra.
I attended a reunion a few weeks ago of the old 5th Light Horse Regiment. Those men knew that I was a member of this Parliament and a member of the old Desert Mounted Corps. The majority of the fellows that I spoke to - old soldiers - were very disappointed that this magnificent statue was to be put in a place where very few people would be able to see it. I believe that the mcn should have been consulted by the Government and their wishes acceded to. We appreciate that the Government is standing all the expense of bringing the memorial from the Port Said area and erecting it in Australia. We appreciate that, and we feel proud, as the honorable member for Chisholm said, that this will be a monument representing the entire A.I.F. of the First World War. But the fact still remains that we feel that if it had to be moved to a place in Australia, it would have been more appropriate to have had it placed in Canberra, where more people would be able to view it. All the associations agreed that Canberra would be the most appropriate place. I refer to the old Light Horse associations and the New Zealand Mounted Rifles associations. We wrote to three of them - the Auckland, Canterbury and Wellington associations.
However, the memorial has now been creeled at Albany. We thank the Australian
Government for erecting it here in Australia as a memorial to the whole of the A.I.F. It is true that Albany is the place from which the first contingent left for overseas in World War I. But very few members of the Desert Corps, particularly the Light Horsemen, who made contributions to the memorial, were the original men. The casualties suffered among the original men were terrific. The majority of the people who made contributions were people who left from other ports in Australia. There certainly was a Light Horse Unit from Western Australia; but the great majority of the Australian Light Horse Regiments were recruited from the eastern States. I could probably have argued that the memorial should have been erected in Queensland, for the simple reason that there were three Light Horse units from Queensland. The argument that applies to Albany would apply just as well to Queensland because some of us left from ports in Queensland. Others left from other places in Australia.
However, the memorial has been erected at Albany now and, along with the honorable member for Chisholm, I make a plea that a representative of the Desert Mounted Corps be the official guest at the unveiling ceremony which is to take place on 1 1 th October. Like the honorable member for Chisholm, I will not be able to attend the ceremony. But I make the same plea as he made tonight, namely, that at least a fair sprinkling of every old Light Horse Unit and the New Zealand Mounted Rifles be invited to the ceremony. If there are any surviving members of the Camel Corps - I believe that there are quite a few of them - ‘and of the Australian Flying Corps, representatives of those units should be invited as official guests. As the honorable member for Chisholm said, quite a few of these people, particularly those from north Queensland, could not afford to go to Western Australia. But they are entitled to be represented. They made a sacrifice and they made a contribution. At this late hour I ask the Minister for the Interior (Mr. Anthony), who is at the table, to consider the request made tonight by my old Light Horse friend, the honorable member for Chisholm, and myself.
.- I should like to reply in a few words to the suggestion made by the honorable member for Chisholm (Sir Wilfrid Kent Hughes) and the honorable member for Maranoa (Mr. Brimblecombe). I inherited the job of completing the Desert Mounted Corps Memorial in Western Australia. I am very proud and honoured to have this task. I have taken a great interest in it. There has been a great deal of controversy over this matter, first in relation to the siting of the memorial and secondly in relation to the naming of it.
First of all, the decision on the siting was not made lightly. There was a lot of discussion with various organisations. Eventually it was decided that Albany would be a suitable site. I have visited this site. I saw the preliminary stand where the memorial has b:en erected. It is a magnificent site on top of Mount Clarence overlooking King George Sound. I know of few other sites that are more prominent or more suitable for such a memorial. It is true that this site is somewhat isolated from the rest of Australia, but it has the significance that it was the marshalling point for the New Zealand and Australian forces going overseas in 1914-. I do not think there is much point in arguing about this aspect. The site has been chosen. The memorial will be unveiled on 11th October. If the honorable member for Chisholm had given me notice of this matter I could have obtained the file and told him the names of the people to be invited. I am sorry if some people have been overlooked and there is not a direct representative of the Desert Mounted Corps. However, I shall take the honorable member’s suggestion to heart. I should like him to tell me if somebody who should be included has not already been included.
The invitation list has been given very close attention and about 180 people have been invited. The list was examined by the Returned Servicemen’s League, and we have consulted with the League as often as possible. I assure the honorable member that if his suggestion had been conveyed to me I would have considered it. 1 shall still do so and I hope that there will be a considerable representation from the four armed Services that contributed to the erection of this memorial. I hope, too, that many other members of this House, if they have the opportunity, will come to the unveiling of the memorial. It is a very fine memorial and all of us can be proud that the Commonwealth Government saw fit after the memorial was destroyed at Port Said in 1956, to have it re-erected. The Australian sculptor Ray Ewers has done a magnificent job, working from photographs and from pieces of the memorial that were recovered.
– What is the height of it?
– The actual sculpture work is about 10 feet high. It was cast in Italy in bronze and is truly a wonderful piece of sculpture. I shall examine the remarks of the honorable member for Chisholm, and if suitable people can be found to represent the organisation to which he has referred I will be happy to have them invited.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
House adjourned at 11.17 p.m.
The following answers to questions were circulated -
m asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -
– The answer to the honorable member’s questions is as follows -
These ships have been available to the Government under varying charter terms, or according to detailed agreements with the ship-owners concerned, and it is not considered appropriate to reveal the details of the terms of charter.
In addition to the ships listed, there have been charters of vessels of small capacity for the transport of stores, Stc.
The Department of Trade and Industry, although not engaged in the actual chartering of vessels, is responsible for extending financial assistance to two shipping companies operating direct services to South America. These services were introduced to assist Australian exporters develop the South American markets.
In respect of the service to the west coast of South America and the Caribbean, the present Agreement, entered into in March 1964 for a period of one year, provides for financial assistance of £150,000 spread equally over six voyages. The Company is obliged to provide sailings at two monthly intervals to specified ports in the area covered by the service.
The east coast service operated under a two year agreement which was due to expire in May, 1964, and provided for financial assistance to a maximum of £175,000 over the period of the agreement at a maximum rate of £21,875 per voyage. As the line operating this service could not complete the required number of voyages within the period of the agreement, due to circumstances outside its control, the Commonwealth has indicated its willingness to extend the present agreement for a further period to enable the stipulated number of voyages to be completed. A decision on the future of this service will’ be taken shortly.
An annual subsidy of £150,000 was paid in respect of vessels on the Australian Register and operated by Australian crews in competition with other vessels in the Australian-New Guinea trade.
An establishment allowance of £12,000 was paid to assist in the provision of a new vessel on the Melbourne to King Island service. This service also attracted a subsidy of £3,600 so that voyages could be maintained to King Island while the regular supplying vessel was out of commission.
An annual subsidy of £4,250 was paid in respect of shipping services to isolated Northern Territory ports in the Gulf of Carpentaria.
s asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -
With reference to the answer, on 18th August 1964, to my question No. 198 (“Hansard”, page 334) with respect to the provision of assistance from public funds to private schools, what was the date of commencement of each of the provisions mentioned in the reply?
– The answer to the honorable member’s question is as follows -
The information supplied to the honorable member is primarily information as to what Slate Governments are now doing in providing assistance to private schools or assistance to pupils at private schools. What they are doing now could vary considerably from what they did when these various schemes of assistance first began. I am not in a position to provide the information now sought. I do not know whether the States have the information readily available or whether they would need to engage in considerable research to obtain it, and I suggest that the honorable member could himself ask the S’tates for the information he seeks as to their activities.
son asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice -
Is it possible to provide any information or findings in respect of the following questions currently being examined by the Research Section -
– The Minister for Health has furnished the following reply -
The work carried out in the Research Section of the Department of Health consists in the main of investigations into particular questions for internal purposes within the Department rather than for publication. Where it is appropriate for work done in this Section to bc made public it is generally done in departmental publications such as the Annual Report of the Director-General of Health and the quartely journal “ Health “. Copies of both the Annual Report and the journal “ Health “ are available to honorable members should they desire to receive them.
s asked the Treasurer, upon notice -
Will the subsidy for the conversion or replacement of accounting and adding machines arising out of the introduction of decimal currency also apply in the case of taxi meters?
– The answer to the honorable member’s question is as follows -
The Government has already announced details of the assistance it will give to owners of adding machines, accounting machines and cash registers requiring conversion to decimal currency operation. These groups constitute the major part of the machine conversion programme and have accordingly been given first priority by the
Decimal Currency Board in the plans it is making for the changeover. There are many other types of machine (including taxi meters) which may be affected by the changeover and the Decimal Currency Board is at present examining these with a view to making recommendations to the Government on the form of assistance (if any) which might appropriately be given to owners of these machines. Details of the Government’s decisions on these questions will be announced as soon as practicable.
Schering Pty. Ltd.
t. - On 22nd September 1964, the honorable member for Hughes (Mr. L. R. Johnson) asked the Acting Treasurer a question without notice concerning complaints by the Australian Shareholders Association concerning the method of sale of the shares in Schering Pty. Ltd. which are vested in the Controller of Enemy Property.
At the outset, I wish to point out that there is no record of any representations having been received by the Government or the Treasury from that Association concerning the method of sale of the shares.
An invitation to tender for the purchase of these shares was widely advertised, with tenders remaining open for 8 weeks. I cannot see how such a procedure can be said to discriminate against anyone.
The alleged complaint that the information provided about Schering Pty. Ltd. was less than the Companies Act would require of a private company offering shares to the public, overlooks the fact that the shares offered for sale were already issued by the Company, and it is up to the prospective purchaser of such shares to make whatever inquiries he deems necessary. As owner of the shares, the Controller of Enemy Property merely has the right of access to information available to a shareholder. Prospective tenderers were provided with an information circular which showed, inter alia, a summary of the balance sheet of Schering Pty. Ltd. as at 31st December 1963, together with the amounts of sales and net profit for the years 1960-61, 1961- 62 and 1962-63. Subsequently when the Balance Sheet as at 30th June 1964 became available, a supplementary circular was forwarded to all previous inquirers. Additional information was given to those seeking it, or they were referred to other sources.
son asked the Minister for the Navy, upon notice -
– The answer to the honorable member’s question is as follows -
The depth of the water at the site of the sinking of H.M.A.S. “Voyager” is over 600 fathoms (3,600 feet) and could be as great as 1,020 fathoms (6,120 feet). An overseas firm made inquiries with the object of salvaging the vessel but the proposal was not proceeded with when the firm was advised of the depth of water. The salvaging of H.M.A.S. “ Voyager “ is considered to be quite impracticable.
y asked the Minister for Immigration, upon notice -
Mr.Opperman. - The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows -
New South Wales.
Amaratji, Mrs.Ivy, . 222 Addison Road, Marrickville.
Angelopoulos, Panayotti, 161a Palmer Street, Sydney.
Arena, Frank, 59a Reynolds Road, Balmain. Azzopardi, Vincent, Box 48, P.O., Leeton. Baguley, Kenneth, Tamworth Tourist & Travel Service, 430b Peel Street, Tamworth.
Barbouttis, Michael George, 221 Elizabeth Street, Sydney.
Barnard, Geoffrey Keith, World Travel Agency, 132 Crown Street, Wollongong.
Beauchamp, Frederick Sydney, 8 Innes Road, Greenwich.
Bingham, Clifford William, 193 Bayswater Road, Kings Cross.
Boccalatte, Mario, 24 Church Street, Ryde.
Boer, Luitjen (known as Lloyd Boer), Room 3, Kildare House, Main Street, Blacktown.
Borgo, Mario, 91 Burelli Street, Wollongong.
Bulmer, Richard Templeton, 7 Castlereagh Street, Sydney.
Bosi, Giuseppe, 12 Norton Street, Leichhardt.
Butler, John Turnham, 417 Parramatta Road, Leichhardt.
Butler, John Spencer, c/o Borthwick & Butler, 44 Byron Street, Inverell.
Calabro, Giuseppe, Railway Ground, The Crescent, Fairfield.
Gammacreri, Vincenzo, 66 King Street, Sydney.
Campbell, Peat McGregor Sprout, 149 Bayswater Road, Rushcutters Bay, and 195 Macquarie Street, Sydney.
Capellari, Laurence, 727 George Street, Sydney.
Capellari, Elda, 727 George Street, Sydney.
Carnovale, Giovanni, 1 Regina Avenue, Brookvale.
Capelletto, Vittorio Alesandro, Box 367, P.O., Cooma.
Carrol, Claud William, 6 Main Street, Blacktown.
Castiglione, Francesco, 10a Norton Street, Leichhardt.
Cefai, Ronald, 190 Burke Street, Darlinghurst.
Celsi, Pino, 66 Orana Avenue, Cooma North.
Cerreto, Frank, 98 Rowe Street, “Eastwood.
Chapman, John Gibson, 183 The Mall, Leura.
Chard, Yvonne, 13 Eight Street, Adamstown.
Cignarella, Michael (Michele), c/o Admiral Television, Gow Street, Bankstown.
Colozoff, Anthony, 24 Goodrich Avenue, Kingsford.
Comino, James Gregory, 182 Phillip Street, Sydney.
Compagnon, Quinto Joseph, 178 Parramatta Road, Stanmore.
Constantine, Zen, 188 Elizabeth Street, Sydney.
Critzalidis, Zafiris, 263 Crown Street, Darlinghurst.
Cropley, Jack Gubbins, 287 Argent Street, Broken Hill.
Cula, Reginald (Adolphus Bradlaugh), 263 Princes Highway, Corrimal.
Cutrone, Hugo John, 6 Chard Road, Brookvale.
Dalla Valle, Lorenzo Albino, 30a Iodine Street, Broken Hill.
Dalton, Charles Gregory, 9 Wade Avenue, Leeton.
Davey, Joseph Leonard, 305 Argent Street, Broken Hill.
Davey, Wallace Sydney Robert, 7th Floor, 383 George Street, Sydney.
Davis, John Arthur Harold, P.O. Box 317, Albury.
Dawson, Louis Jesse, 69 Sharp Street, Cooma.
De Blasi, Henry, 24 Harris Street, Fairfield.
De Celis, Anthony, 123a Norton Street, Leichhardt.
Deane, Vivian Earl, 26 O’Connell Street, Sydney.
De Havillaad, Frederick Mark, Suite 7, 22 Harris Street, Fairfield.
Del Pin, Eustacchio, 10 Harris Street, Fairfield.
Di Giusto, 68 Ramsay Road, Haberfield.
Di Marco, Samuel Salvalore, Scott Street, Liverpool
Ebert, Oswald Ferrier, Dubbo Street, Warren.
Eftemew, Charles K., 263 Crown Street, Darlinghurst.
Einfeld, John Isadore, 12-14 O’Connell Street, Sydney.
Eliades, George, 19 Bridge Street, Sydney.
Elais, Wemetrios Gergiou, Suite 6, 3rd Floor, 283
Elizabeth Street, Sydney.
Eliades, Aspasia, 19 Bridge Street, Sydney.
Fantini, Victor Ferruccio, 233 Parramatta Road, Annandale.
Firth, Jack D., 340 Argent Street, Broken Hill.
Ford, George, 10 Wills Crescent, Kingsford.
Frisina, Leone, 499 Chapel Road, Bankstown.
Gates, John R., P.O. Box 184, Haymarket.
Gillan, Hugh Ernest, 263 Crown Street, Darlinghurst.
Gjurgjevic, Jadran, 8 Ward Street, Concord.
Gambotto, Gian Carlo, 16 Norton Street, Leichhardt.
Gatt, Emmanuel Joseph Paul, 32-36 Keira Street, Wollongong.
Goldman, Philip, 26 College Street, Sydney.
Goliger, Alfred Samuel, 498 Marrickville Road, Dulwich Hill.
Griffin, Guy Francis Cameron, Church Street, Dubbo.
Grace, Patrick Raphael, 11 Kurrajong Avenue, Leeton.
Hardwick, George Allan, 126 Liverpool Street, Sydney.
Hartman, Win, 181 Carpenter Road, St. Marys.
Heffernan, Thomas Patrick, Suite 6, 2nd Floor, 297 Elizabeth Street, Sydney.
Hepburn, Jack, P.O. Box 16, Culcairn.
Hickey, Errol Vincent, 75 Mann Street, Gosford.
Hill, Roland, 60 Hunter Street, Sydney.
Hogbin, Albert Eric, 174 High Street, Coffs Harbour.
Hollister, Harry Edmund, 9 Martin Place, Sydney.
Hoogevelt, Arnold Emanuel, 82 Elizabeth Street, Sydney.
Hon Wing Pake, 54-56 Campbell Street, Sydney.
Hungerford, Healey, 37 Burringbah Street, Mullumbimby.
Hunting, Clem George, Cnr. Wharf Street and Commercial Road, Murwillumbah.
James, Jim, 146 Hopetown Avenue, Vaucluse.
Jenkins, John James (Jnr.), 141 Scott Street, Newcastle.
Johnson, Francis Patrick, A.P.A. Buildings, Martin Place, Sydney.
Kaligeracos, Theodore, 10 North Terrace, Bankstown.
Kemnitz, John Herbert, 67 Castlereagh Street, Sydney.
Kirkland, James Wilfred, Magellan Street, Lismore.
Kitchen, Keith, Jerilderie Street, Jerilderie.
Laundry, Norman Samuel, 71 Motesworth Street, Lismore.
Lebrocchi, Lidia, 128 Wentworth Avenue, Port Kembla.
Levi, Albert S., 82 Newcastle Road, Rose Bay.
Levi, Leo Albert, 737 George Street, Sydney.
Louvaris, Arggros Themistoelis, 340 Botany Road, Alexandria.
Luciano, Antonio Luigi, ‘ 40 Foveaux Street, Sydney.
Madden, Gregory, 26 O’Connell Street, Sydney.
Mallos, Angelo, 247 Elizabeth Street, Sydney.
Martorana, Pietro, 337 Penshurst Street, Willoughby.
Maxwell, James, 2 Everton Street, Hamilton.
Megna, Frank, 248 Victoria Street, Kings Cross.
Middleton, Malcolm, c/o Orange Travel Service, Summer Street, Orange.
Molinaro, Achille Concergio, Coronation Club, Box 85, Yoogali, via Griffith.
Montano, Edgar John, 512 Parramatta Road, Petersham.
Moore, Sidney Arthur, Bathurst City Council, Civic Centre, Bathurst.
Moreira, Joro, Dunlop Rubber Aust. Ltd., Cary Street, Drummoyne, New South Wales.
Morton, Peter Gaden, 12 Wentworth Street, Port Kembla.
Moussa, Hanna, 66 Pitt Street, Sydney.
Murito, Enoch, Suite 7, 116 Liverpool Street, Sydney.
McCarron, Douglas Hugh Huston, General World Travel, Orange.
McClenehan, Thomas Osborne, 43 Tramway, West Ryde.
McPhail, Stuart Harbron, 1 Castlereagh Street, Sydney.
McClellan, William Thomas, Kooyoo Street, Griffith.
McDonald, John Gerard, 123 Murwillumbah Street, Murwillumbah.
McSpedden, Edward Bruce, 110 Dangar Street, Armidale.
Natoli, Giacomo, 160-168 Great North Road. Five Dock.
Nucifora, Sebastiano, 4 Bigge Street, Liverpool.
O’Dea, Cecil John, 11c Castlereagh Street, Sydney.
Offiffe, Charles Joseph, Broadway Building, Kooyoo Street, Griffith..
ONeill, John P., 114 North Terrace, Bankstown.
Oriti, Vincenzo, Office N26, No. 3, City Markets, Sydney.
Owczarek, Constance, 56 Keira Street, Wollongong.
Panicci, Irene Rita, 85a Stanley Street, East Sydney.
Princi, Edward Florian, 209 Hay Street, Sydney.
Politis, Constantine. 7 Burton Street, Sydney.
Plithakis, Vlassios, 224 Castlereagh Street, Sydney.
Pitts, Osmond Francis William, 211a Elizabeth Street, Sydney.
Pisk, Hans Victor, 16-18 O’Connell Street, Sydney.
Piombo, Henry A., 41 Phillip Street, Sydney.
Phelan, Percy Fitzgerald, P.O. Box 330, Dubbo.
Perusco, Guiseppe, 21 Carroll Road, East Corrimal.
Perries, 210 Riley Street, Sydney.
Percy, Jacob Peter Franz Rudolf, 143/145 Castlereagh Street, Sydney.
Patroni, Room 7, 6th Floor, 396 Kent Street, Sydney.
Papadopoulos, George, 88 Hanley Street, South Sydney.
Papadopoulos, Costas Vasili, 46 Park-street, Sydney.
Pall, Stephen, 72 Polding Street, Fairfield.
Paine, John Jackson Dick, cnr. George and Kable Streets, Windsor.
Rado, Margaret, 2nd Floor, 173 Pitt Street, Sydney.
Raft, George, 144 Liverpool Street, Sydney.
Rankin, Ivan Sava, 1441 William Street, Sydney.
Rajah, James, 186 Liverpool Street, Sydney.
Rappaport, Harry Heinz, 147 Elizabeth Street, Sydney.
Refchange, Francis George Henry, 190 Argent Street, Broken Hill.
Regan, Archie, Suite 7, The Concourse, Wynyard.
Reitano, Rosario, 118 Swanson Street, Erskineville.
Reynolds, James Grant, Box 989 P.O. Griffith.
Robertson, Charles Anthony Milne, 88 Katoomba Street, Katoomba.
Rogers, Reginald John, 206 George Street, Sydney.
Rohr, John Grant, 105 Pitt Street, Sydney.
Rummery, Thomas Edward, c/o Rummery-Liddy, Woodlark Street, Lismore.
Russell, Hazel Elizabeth, 160 Gambel Street, Griffith.
Russell, William John, Yambil Street, Griffith.
Salerno, Francesco, 36 Warrimo Road, St. Ives
Stamatiou, Constantine Satinias, Suite 303, 221 Elizabeth Street, Sydney.
Stamell, John Hector, 141 Castlereagh Street, Sydney.
Stathakis, Peter, 33 Hardy Street, Ashfield.
Stefanowski, Bronislaw Syrokomlo, 362 South Terrace, Bankstown.
Sterling, J. O. 1a Addision Street, Kensington.
Stocker (Stocha), Nicholas, 498 Marrickville Road, Dulwich Hill.
Sloikovich, Radivoj, Belgrade Real Estate, 252 Hume Highway, Liverpool.
Strano, Luigi, Room 3, 22 Harris Street, Fairfield.
Strano, Domenico Antonio, 421 Sussex Street, Sydney.
Sullivan, Robert Ignatius, Guardian Travel Office, Kendal Street, Cowra.
Symonds, Cedric Reuben, 84 Pitt Street, Sydney.
Saab, Joseph, 58 Redfern Street, Redfern.
Saidy, Frederick, 56 Garners Avenue, Marrickville.
Samuels, Albert Norman, Macquarie Chambers, Macquarie Street, Dubbo.
Santangelo, 39 Bank Street, North Sydney.
Sardella, Domenico, 97 Wentworth Street, Port Kembla.
Sawtell, Herbert George, 255/7 Oxford-street, Darlinghurst.
Sawyer, Thomas, 29 The Boulevard Arcade, Sydney.
Schriek, Frederick Albert, 115 Pitt Street, Sydney.
Sciarrone, Raphael (Roy), 3 Northcote Street, Haberfield.
Scott, Leslie Victor, 179 Main Street, West Wyalong.
Seba, Magdalen, 23 The Crescent, Fairfield.
Sec, Thomas Frederick Wong, Room 112, 1st Floor, Hardy’s Chambers, 5 Hunter Street, Sydney. Selwood, John Edwin, 83 Molesworth Street, Lismore.
Serisier, Lercy Dudley, 193-195 Summer Street, Orange.
Seymour, John Eugene, 110 Bathurst Street, Sydney.
Sietsma, Harry, 17 Fitzpatrick Avenue, French’s Forest.
Sills, Alexander, 15 Raleigh Street, Coogee.
Smith, Archie John, c/o East-West Airlines, Tamworth.
Solari, Alda Margaret, 727 George Street, Sydney.
Somervaille, Andrew James, 167 Maitland Road, Mayfield.
Spanopoulos, Nita, 576 Anzac Parade, Kingsford.
Spyrides, Andreas, 76 Crown Street, Wollongong.
Sta inlay, Leo Agar, P.O. Box 819, Murwillumbah.
Svoronos, Gerassimos, c/o Gerry Benson & Co., 6 King Street, Newtown.
Tatham, John Robert Wentworth George, 6/8 Paul Street, Milson’s Point.
Tcdejchi-Robcrts, Robert Attilio, 26Highfield Road, Lindfield.
Theodore, George, 110 Bathurst Street, Sydney.
Theodotou, George Nicholas, 283a Elizabeth Street, Sydney.
Thiveos, John, 14 Beaumont Street, Hamilton.
Travers, John Thomas, 212 Argent Street, Broken Hill.
Tsykalas, Aristide, 50 Crown Street, Wollongong.
Tsaoussis, S. George, 4 Tait Street, Five Dock.
Tuxen, Jeffrey Garnet, Box 44, P.O. Albury.
Vassalios, Andrews, 263 Crown Street, Darlinghurst.
Ventura, Silvio, 727 George Street, Sydney.
Volpato, Floriano, 97 Keen Street, Lismore.
Vuina, Ljubomir, 66 Oxford Street, Sydney.
Wong, A. S. (Ah Sing Wong), New York Cafe, Vincent Street, Cessnock.
Watson, Lindsay Eldon, 72 Pitt Street, Sydney.
Williams, John Francis, Lachlan Street, Forbes.
Wilcox, Gordon Ray, 30 Elm Street, Enfield.
Woynowski, Wladyslaw, 75-77 Pitt Street, Sydney.
Wellingham, Cyril, Hoskin Street, Temora.
Waterford, William Ernest, 194 Aberford Street, Coonamble.
Walsh, Thomas, Nat. Bank Chambers, Woodlark Street, Lismore.
Walker, William Bruce, 80 The Terrace, Windsor.
Wales, Bruce Kenneth, 280 Pitt Street, Sydney.
White, Raymond Haldane, 19 Laycock Street, Neutral Bay.
Wych, Augustus Lawrence, 209 Macquarie Street, Liverpool.
Young, George,155 Bathurst Street, Sydney.
Yannoulatos, Sylbannos, 283a Elizabeth Street, Sydney.
Zotos, Alexis, Box 96 P.O., Petersham.
Aiello, Gene, 91 Hopkins Street, Footscray.
Amarena, Pasquale, 17 Havelock Street, St. Kilda.
Andrews, William, 21b Koornong Road, Carnegie.
Argyros, Pasashos G., 32 Avoca Street, South Yarra.
Astolfi, Giovanni, 220 Faraday Street, Carlton.
Atkinson, William, Haygarth Street, Echuca.
Baglin, Roy Lawrence, 330 Syndam Street, Shepparton.
Balestra, Vincenzo, 473 Brunswick Street, Fitzroy North.
Bellomo, Luigi,150 Dawson Street, West Brunswick.
Brich, Ross and Atkinson (see W. L. Ross), Korumburra.
Bloink, John Joseph, 26 McCann Street, Geelong.
Boicos, Stavros, 250 Elizabeth Street, Melbourne.
Boffa, Domenic, 539 Punt Road, South Yarra.
Bonola, Giovanni B., 304 Drummond Street, Carlton.
Brown, Andrew John, 214 Campbell Street, Swan Hill.
Bugg, Leslie James, 366 Bourke Street, Melbourne.
Bush, James Charles, Broadway, Yallourn.
Butowski, Alfons, 42-53 Elizabeth Street, Melbourne.
Byrne, John Neil, 9 Bridge Street, Benalla.
Cameron, Bruce,Fraser Street, Shepparton.
Carabot, Gaetano, 584 Sydney Road, Brunswick.
Carboni, Salvatore, 584 Sydney Road, Brunswick.
Cartiere, Bruno, 4 Murray Street, Colac.
Cass, Michael Christopher, 253 Lonsdale Street, Melbourne.
Choulkes, Raphael Harry, 466 Little Collins Street, Melbourne.
Ciantar, Alfred, 535 Sydney Road, Brunswick.
Clarke, Leo Desmond, Box 313, Robinvale.
Collie, George Thomas, 47 Lime Avenue, Mildura.
Constable, Robert Arthur, 44 Reig Street, Wangaratta.
Crothers, Alexander Felix, Deakin Avenue, Mildura.
D’Agostino, Rocco, Box 22, Myrtleford.
Daily, Joseph Eugene, Clyde Street, Myrtleford.
Dalla Rosa, Elizabeth, 79 Hagelthorn Street, Wonthaggi.
D’Aprano, Ottavio, 601 Sydney Road, Coburg.
Davis, William (Mildura) Pty. Ltd. (see Smith, Henry Charles).
De Bona, Walter, 366 Bourke Street, Melbourne.
Delany, Bryan Wm., 270 Curlewis Street, Swan Hill. de Manicor, Luigi, 149 Lygon Street, Carlton. de Vries, Pieter Cornelis, 327 Bourke Street, Melbourne.
Doyle, Gavan, 86 Murphy Street, Wangaratta.
Dymitrowski, Jan., 128 Spensley Street, Clifton Hill.
Eatough, Gerard David, 343 Little Collins Street, Melbourne.
Fasciale, Giuseppe, 150 Dawson Street, West Brunswick.
Favaloro, Norman Joseph, Deakin Avenue, Mildura.
Feltham, Percy Victor, Fryers Street, Shepparton.
Fokas, Dimitrious, 384 Chapel Street, South Yarra.
Frewen, William Kevin, 53 Wilson Street, Horsham.
Frigino, Sarina (Mrs.), 191 Union Street, Ascot Vale.
Galea, Victor L., 191 Union Street, Ascot Vale.
Gangitano, Philip, 151 Lygon Street, Carlton.
Garde, James Bruce, 71 Deakin Avenue, Mildura.
Gentiluomo, Giovanni, 18 James Street, Geelong - 714 Sydney Road, Brunswick.
Georgiadis, Athanasios, 234-236 Gertrude Street, Fitzroy.
Geroc, William, 573 Collins Street, Melbourne.
Giasoumi, Garry, 349 Chapel Street, South Yarra.
Giglia, Leone, 323 Smith Street, Fitzroy.
Gigliotti, Luigi, Fischer Street, Kyabram.
Giurovich, Ferruccio, 31 Farnham Road, Bayswater.
Goumas. Peter, 213 Lonsdale Street, Melbourne.
Grasso, George Peter, 4 Lockhart Street, Caulfield.
Green, Thomas Bridson, 4 McCallum Street, Swan Hill.
Greenberg, Harry, 62 Wilson Street, Horsham.
Griffin, John Peter, 27 Albert Street, East Brunswick.
Halat, John, 56 Alfreda Street, Saint Albans - 66 Warrigal Road, Surrey Hills.
Hall, James Joseph, 6-14 Flinders Street, Melbourne.
Harris, James Stewart N. 90 High Street, Wodonga.
Hayes, Alec Michael, 113 Campbell Street, Swan Hill.
Heller, Harold, 366-8 Bourke Street, Melbourne.
Hipworth, John Alexander, Tourist Bureau, Kerang.
Hogan, Leonard Arthur, 99 Lieberg Street, Warrnambool.
Interdonato, Frank, 206 McIlwraith Street, North Carlton.
Ioannidis, Georgios, 86 Brunswick Street, Fitzroy.
Josephides, Forde, 238 Russell Street, Melbourne.
Joyce, John Patrick, 262 Flinders Lane, Melbourne.
Kagan, Effie Kay, 27 Severn Street, Box Hill.
Kaye, Henry Russell, 116 Foster Street, Dandenong.
Kiburg, Antonius, 527 Collins Street, Melbourne.
Koce, Jure, 37 Heidelberg Road, Clifton Hill.
Kontas, Theodoras, 185-187 Lonsdale Street, Melbourne.
Lake, Eric, 374 Bourke Street, Melbourne.
Lambert, Ada (Mrs.), 19 Derrimut Street, Albion.
Lambis, Helen, 163 Swanston Street, Melbourne.
Landman, Lionel, 234 Collins Street, Melbourne.
Larkins, John Joseph, Murray Street, Colac.
Lassaro, John, 246 Sydney Road, Brunswick.
Litchen, Spiros, 246 Russell Street, Melbourne.
Logus, Basil, 62 Swanston Street, Melbourne.
Long, James, 48 Howard Street, North Melbourne.
McCarthy, Eugene F., 28 Murphy Street, Colac.
McKenna, Vincent J., 39 Reid Street, Wangaratta.
MacKenzie, Kenneth R. A., 32 Blair Street, Leongatha.
McKenzie, William K., King William Street, Cohuna.
McSwiney, Arthur E., 57 Reid Street, Wangaratta.
Maggio, Giuseppe, 45 McCallum Street, Swan Hill.
Makris, Demetrius, 246 Little Collins Street, Melbourne.
Manier, Frank, 1 Somerset Street, Richmond. Medley, Harry, T.A.A., 339 Swanston Street, Melbourne.
Micali, Antonino, 49 Elizabeth Street, Melbourne.
Milio, Umberto, 786 High Street, Thornbury.
Muriti, Marino, 170 Faraday Street, Carlton.
Morrissey and Deane, Maude Street, Shepparton.
Musolino, Alexander, 31 Swan Street, Richmond, 258 Lygon Street, Carlton.
Nekvapil, Otto, 36 Alfreeda Street, St. Albans.
Newman, Charles E., Melville Street, Numurkah.
Noall, John A. M., 86 Scott Street, Warrnambool.
Nollis, Victor, 374 Bourke Street, Melbourne.
Nutly, Eric T., Box 362, Robinvale.
O’Mullane, Kelvin David, 18-20 Princes Street, Traralgon.
O’Toole, Patrick Stephen, 111 Hogan Street, Tatura.
Palatsides, Charalambos, 290 Coventry Street, SouthMelbourne.
Pantazis, Stanatios, 121 Smith Street, Fitzroy.
Papadopoulos, Leftios, 238 Lonsdale Street, Melbourne.
Pellegrino, Carmelo, 280 Victoria Street, North Melbourne.
Pellegrino, Charles, Milne Road, North Ringwood.
Peluso, Frank, 136 Johnston Street, Collingwood.
Pistorino, Agostino, 25 Leeds Street, Footscray.
Pittaway, Callum R., 185 Hare Street, Echuca.
Platis, Spyridon N., 366 Bourke Street, Melbourne.
Poutakidis, Savvas, 126 Gertrude Street, Fitzroy.
Raggatt, Francis R., Railway Subway, Morwell.
Riordan, John F., 26 Fryers Street, Shepparton.
Robertson, Malcom, Fraser Street, Shepparton.
Rokkas, Angelos, 170 Lonsdale Street, Melbourne.
Romanic, Lazor, 93 Lt. Malop Street, Geelong.
Ronchi, Ernest P., 182 Raymond Street, Sale.
Ross, William L., Commercial Street, Kormumburra.
Rouda, Anwar R., 258 Lygon Street, Carlton.
Russo, Angelo, 150 Sydney Road, Brunswick.
Ryan, Matthew, 5 Napier Street, West Brunswick.
Samartsis, Georgios, 131 Gertrude Street, Fitzroy.
Schiavon, Romeo, 205 Victoria Parade, Collingwood.
Sheen, Joseph, 19 Derrimut Street, Albion.
Shepherd, Edwin L., 116 Foster Street, Dandenong.
Simari, Domenico, 65 Warrigal Road, Oakleigh.
Slutzki, Isaac, 62-64 Lygon Street, Brunswick.
Smith, Henry Charles, 126 Eighth Street, Mildura.
Soumilas, George, 6 Prentice Street, East St. Kilda.
Sonnino, Walter, 115 Hampton Road, Sunshine.
Spark, John K., 57 Napier Street, St. Arnaud.
Stife, Sydney W., Box 13, Numurkah.
Terry, Keith A., 116 Foster Street, Dandenong.
Tilley, Edward G., 27 Albert Street, East Brunswick.
Toma, Lucano, 10 Moubray Street, Albert Park.
Toma, Orazio, 10 Moubray Street, Albert Park.
Torre, Carmelo, 440 Victoria Street, North Melbourne.
Truglio, Bartolo, 75 Garden Street, East Geelong.
Tueta, Maurice, 246 Russell Street, Melbourne.
Turr, Lambert S., 31 Swan Street, Richmond.
Vaccari, Gualtiero, 90 Queen Street, Melbourne.
Vagliasindi, Daniele, 369 Brunswick Street, Fitzroy.
Vallarsa, Vincente J., 25 Barkly Street, Brunswick.
Vanella, Salvatore, 61 Victoria Street, Melbourne.
Weiner, Sychma B., 190 Bourke Street, Melbourne.
Welshman, Arthur J. B., 32 Bair Street, Leongatha.
Woodhouse, Roy, 85 Fortuna Avenue, North Balwyn.
Wright, KennethI., 51a Langtree Avenue, Mildura.
Zarecki, Slanislaw, 94 Elizabeth Street, Melbourne.
Zarzycki, Marian, 6a Elizabeth Street, Melbourne.
Zilinskas, Kazys A., 24 Hardware Street, Melbourne.
Zito, Alberto R., 104 High Street, Shepparton.
Zonnios, George, 170 Lonsdale Street, Melbourne.
Zouliou, George, C, 83 The Strand, Newport.
Alcorn, Ernest Leonard, Railway Street, Stanthorpe.
Allen, William Geoffrey, 51 Broad Street, Sarina.
Aplin, William Frederick, Amiotts Building, West Street, Mr Isa,
Arnell, Ralph Leslie, Box 178, Innisfail.
Barr, Herbert Edwin, P.O. Box 8, Babinda.
Bell, Lloyd William, Bryant Street, Tully.
Blanch, Kenneth Frederick, Box 55, Cunnamulla.
Boyce, Carmody & Co., Box 46 Ayr.
Boyctt & Stubbin, Box 77, Innisfail.
Brigs & Mazlin, Proserpine, Box 105.
Brandon, Ronald David, 118 Queen Street, Ayr.
Bulinski, Victor, 165 Elizabeth Street, Brisbane.
Burla, Dario, Herbert Street, Ingham.
Butler & Ker, Churchill Street, Childers.
Calvisi, Michael Domenico, 406 Queen Street, Brisbane.
Camp, Spencer John Patrick, c/o J. Fleming & Co., Box 288, Townsville.
Canale, Guido, Ital-Lines Travel Co., 1st Floor, 134 Adelaide Street, Brisbane.
Carey, Brian Joseph, Box 2, Ingham.
Carubbi, Gian Carlo, 47 Bramston Terrace, Herston.
Caruso, Carmelo, 665 Ann Street, Valley, Brisbane.
Cavallaro, Salvatore, Box 477, Ingham.
Coco, Antonio, 59 Queen Street, Ayr.
Comino, Stephen, 286 Queen Street, Brisbane.
Comino, Harold, 17 Charlotte Street, Brisbane.
Connolly, Suthers & Walker, 26 Denham Street, Townsville.
Cook, John W., Box 8, Dalby.
Cooper, Maurice Wilmington, Box 74, Monto.
Copp, Alfred Cyril (Wrench & Copp), Box 98, Childers.
Cormack, Daniel Sinclair, 123 Queen Street, Ayr.
Costa, Dante Adriano, 665 Ann Street, Valley, Brisbane.
Costello, Kevin F., Herbert Street, Ingham.
Courtenay, Olive Dawn (Mrs.), Victoria Street, Mackay.
Covacevich, Anthony Thomas, 26 Abbott Street, Cairns.
Cummins, John Murdoch, c/o Cummins A Campbell Ltd., Box 464, Townsville.
Danesi, Costantc, Box 144, Innisfail.
D’Antonio, Joseph, 168 Edward Street, Brisbane.
D’Antonio, Robert Bartholomew, 168 Edward Street, Brisbane.
Dawson, David Alexander, 8th Avenue, Home Hill.
Dawson, Rowland Stanley (Keller & Co.), Box 167, Home Hill.
Dean, William Alexander (Lucas & Dean), Brodie Street, Hughenden.
De Vietti, Giovanni Goffia, Box 380, Ingham.
Dickson, Roy, Bell’s Chambers, Bryant Street, Tully
Drougas, Constantine, 46 Charlotte Street, Brisbane.
Dunworth, Patrick Thomas, 96 Victoria Street, Mackay.
Dyer, George, 45 Ross Street, Newstead.
Elsworthy, William Anthony, c/o Messrs. Michael Shanahan & Co., Box 99, Rockhampton.
Elwing, Eric Duncan, Commercial Bank Chambers, Mary Street, Gympie.
Evans, Lawrence Arthur, West Street, Mount Isa.
Fabris, Robert George Natal, Raleigh Street, Dimbulah.
Farrelly, Laurence Roger, 75 Abbot Street, Cairns.
Finemore, Walters & Story, Box 204 Bundaberg.
Formosa, George, 41 Sydney Street, Mackay.
Forsyth, John, 27 Wood Street, Mackay.
Gallo, Rosina, P.O. Box 413, Mareeba.
Guides, Mario (Guides & Nehmer), 18 Denham Street, Townsville.
Glen, Donald James, Munro Street, Babinda.
Grose, Frederick Edward Nellore, Box 110, Bundaberg.
Hammat, K. T., P.O. Box 387, Mount Isa.
Harloe, Lawrence James, 66 Owen Street, Innisfail.
Harris, Edward Harold, Callide Street, Biloela.
Hogan, Patrick, Rankin Street, Innisfail.
Hoole, Ronald Henry, Box 281, Mareeba.
Johnson, Archibald George, Lannercost Street, Ingham.
Joseph, Cyril Norman, 42 Gondoon Street Gladstone.
Karhula, Nestor Ilmar, Eight Mile Plains.
Korpela, Yrjo, 16 Buckley Street, Mount Isa.
Lees, Spanner & Lilley, P.O. Box 199, Warwick.
Le Maire, Lionel Henry, 36 Denham Street, Townsville.
Le Mura, Agatino, 190 Brunswick Street, Valley.
Loskutoff, Leonid, 45 Hawthorne Street, Woolloongabba.
Lowis, Charles Eric, 8th Avenue, Home Hill.
Lunchi, John, Lannercost Street, Ingham.
Madigan, John Hugh, c/o Lyons Ryan & Co., Stanley Street, Townsville.
Martinez, Domingo, c/o Wilson, Ryan & Grose, Denham Street, Townsville.
Martinuzzi, Joffre Bortolo, Box 767, Cairns.
Maxwell, Douglas Samuel, Palmerin Street, Warwick.
Mayoh, Joseph George, Box 127, Tully.
Mellick, Habib A., P.O. Box 627, Cairns.
Mighell Lee-Bryce & Vandeleur, 35 Rankin Street, Innisfail.
Millie, Joseph Spence, Longreach.
Miroglio, Ettore, P.O. Box 42, Halifax.
Moffatt, Victor Raymond, 9 Miles Street, Mount Isa.
Molachino, Eusebio, Box 158, Ingham.
Montgomery, William Patrick (Snr.), Main Street, Atherton.
Moore, Peter Bernard Robert, 108 Victoria Street, Mackay.
Musumeci, Angelo, 8th Avenue. Home Hill.
McAdam, Robert Blair, Gladstone Road, Biloela.
McDonald, David Allan (McDonald & Moody), 72 Main Street, Atherton.
McKay, Robert, E. M. Boden & Co., 32 Abbott Street, Cairns.
McKewin & Haley, P.O. Box 53, Emerald.
McKinnon, Angus Malcolm, 21 Main Street, Atherton.
McNamee, John Frederick, Atherton Street, Mareeba.
Newton, Charles Edward, Newton’s Travel Bureau, 9 Newton’s Arcade Stores, Logan Road, Stones Corner.
Noel, Arthur Francis Spencer, Box 72, Toowoomba.
O’Brien & Fahey. Box 236. Ayr.
Obst, Earle Charles, c/o Wonderley & Hall, P.O. Box 58, Toowoomba.
O’Donnell, William George, Byrne Street, Mareeba.
O’Donohue, James G., Butler Street, Tully.
O’Loughlin, James, 41 Rankin Street, Innisfail.
Origlasso, Mario Frederick, Lannercost Street, Ingham.
O’Shea. John Joseph, P.O. Box 100, Mareeba.
O’Shea, John Joseph, Box 53, Stanthorpe.
O’Sullivan, Justin F., 118 Cunningham Street, Dalby.
Pearce, Henry George, Room 32, 2nd Floor, Commonwealth Bank Building, cnr. Queen and Edward Streets, Brisbane.
Petralia, Giuseppe Venero, 658 Brunswick Street, New Farm.
Philippides, Constantine Michael, 239 Elizabeth Street, Brisbane.
Pickwell, O. A.. Gregory Court, 177 Ann Street, Brisbane.
Pobar, C. J., 195 Margaret Street, Toowoomba.
Ponti, Giuseppe Giovanni Agostino, 118 Flinders Street, Townsville. Radlof, Rudolph Herman, Box 214, Atherton.
Randazzo, G., Box 198, Innisfail.
Rawicz-Wyszomirski, Janasy, Hill Street, Bribie Island.
Riba, Joseph Juan, 125 Abbott Street, Cairns. Roberts, Ian Haughton (Roberts, Leu & North), Box 403, Townsville.
Ruddy & Tomlins, Box 181, Home Hill.
Sacconi, Louis Joseph, L. J. Sacconi & Co., P.O. Box 19, Dimbulah.
Scucchi, Andrea, c/o A. Scucchi, R. H. Hoole& Co., 176 Byrnes Street, Mareeba.
Signorini, Frank Albert, Butler Street, Tully.
Smith, Laurence Sutton, 40 Norman Street, Gordonvale.
Spanner, Leo James, 50 Palmerin Street, Warwick.
Speedy, Arthur Radly, 119 Queen Street, Brisbane.
Sulima, Maria, Exchange Chambers, Turbot Street, Brisbane.
Sullivan, John Denis, Front Street, Mossman.
Sullivan, Neil Stephen, P.O. Box 271, Stanthorpe.
Thomson, Henry John, 79a Lake Street, Cairns.
Tomlins, Lionel Edlyne David, P.O. Box 590, Ayr.
Torrisi, Leonardo, P.O. Box 7, Stanthorpe.
Trotta, Antonio, 9 Atherton Street, Mareeba.
Turner, George, Main Street, Atherton.
Tuttle, Oswald Gerard, G. Rawlings Bolton, 14 Cribb Street, Milton.
Walsh, Kevin James, 26 Abbott Street, Cairns.
Walters, George, Bourbong Street, Bundaberg.
Weedon, Allan Thornhill, P.O. Box 212, Winton.
White, Athol Roland, c/o Thomas & Harley, Box 6, Goondiwindi.
Woodcock, Edwin Lacklan, Shamrock Street, Blackhall.
Zochowski, Stanislaw, Wecker Road, Mount Gravatt.
Barry, Thomas Dunbar, c/o George Wills & Co, 33 Gilbert Place, Adelaide.
Brown, Robert Foster, Mount Gambier. Buttery, Roland Richard, 13 Grenfell Street, Adelaide.
Con’s Ltd., 145a Hindley Street, Adelaide.
Cornell, Elizabeth R., Bowman’s Buildings, King William Street, Adelaide.
Dilernia, Antonio, 73 Hindley Street, Adelaide.
Gorzelack, Tadeusz, 15 Gouger Street, Adelaide.
Gubbins, Ronald James, Harby Arcade, Tasman Terrace, Port Lincoln.
Haarsma, Maurice John, Australian Finance Control Association, 189 Hanson Street, Adelaide.
Hunt, William Robert, Bay Road, Mount. Gambier.
Hutchesson, Gordon B., George Street, Millicent
James, Stanley Arthur, 9 Ral Ral Avenue, Renmark.
Johnson, Jeffrey W. H., Port Lincoln.
Jorgic, Goro, 153a Hindley Street, Adelaide.
Kariotoglou, Hercules, Hermes Hellenic Services, 120a Hindley Street, Adelaide.
King, Leonard James, 24 Waymouth Street, Adelaide.
King, Roy Leonard, 30 Currie Street, Adelaide.
Kuuse, Marina, 31 Annesley Avenue, Trinity Gardens.
Lamberto,Ilario, 55 Gouger Street, Adelaide.
Lucaci, Angel, 7 Second Street, Bowden.
Lymberopoulos,Ioannis, 137 Hindley Street, Adelaide.
Maddern, La u rice Hedley, Monash, Box 259, Berri.
Matison, Victor, C.M.L. Building, cnr. Hindley and King William Streets, Adelaide.
Margarety, Brian Attiwill, Giles Margaret & Lloyd, 40 Pine Street, Adelaide.
McKay, Malcolm Arthur, 43 Morphett Street, Adelaide.
Nuske, Sydney Gordon, Nuriootpa.
Pagliaro, Arthur, 161 Hindley Street, Adelaide.
Pagliaro, Eveline A., 161 Hindley Street, Adelaide.
Kokkas, Angelos, Hermes Travel Service, 120a Hindley Street, Adelaide.
Rostenko, Sergej, 15 Gouger Street, Adelaide.
Kuggeri, Giuseppe, 21a Hallett Street, Adelaide.
Rubeo, Elena, Arrow Travel Agency, King William Street, Adelaide.
Ruggiero, Giovanni, Bank of New South Wales, Gougher Street, Adelaide.
Sinodinos, Athanassios, 43 Morphett Street, Adelaide.
Vassos, Dionyisos, 14 Ashfield Road, Keswick.
Wallace, Norman Verschuer, Box 3, Naracoorte.
Williamson, James Aubrey, 73 King William Street, Adelaide.
Alessandro, Leone, 158 James Street, Perth.
Antonas, Stanley, 332 Newcastle Street, West Perth
Brett Asplin, Roger, Hampton Street, Bridgetown.
Buktenica, Frank, 270 William Street, Perth.
Caruso, Guiseppe, 37 Scarborough Beach Road, North Perth.
Conti, Frank, Sheffield Estate Agency, 7 Howard Street, Perth.
Curlewis, George Campbell, 145 Fitzgerald Street, Northam.
Del Piano, James, 224 William Street, Perth.
Fischer, Rudolf, Clarke Street, Manjimup.
Forbes, Colin Ward, c/o Burkett & Gostelow, P.O. Box 29, Carnarvon.
Gaddini, Dennis, 206 William Street, Perth.
Goodman, Robert William S., 49 Peel Place, Albany.
Hackett, Frederick James, 32 Durlacher Street, Geraldton.
Hartrey, Thomas Augustine, Palace Chambers, Maritana Street, Kalgoorlie.
Heenan, Eric Michael, 70 St. George’s Terrace, Perth.
Horky, Wilhelm Stanislaw, 43 Monger Street, Perth.
Ioannopoulos, Pericles (known as Peter Nopolis), 60 James Street, Perth.
James, Peter Donald, 99 Brede Street, Geraldton.
Jenour, Charles Evedon (trading as Eastman & Jenour), 99 VictoriaStreet, Bunbury.
Jolley, Richard Bernard, P.O. Box 227, Fremantle.
Kellow, Stephen Martin, 36 Queen’s Crescent, Mount Lawley.
Koce, Jure, 196 William Street, Perth.
Kingma, Jakob (known as James), Austral Tourist & Travel Service, 36 Subiaco Road, Subiaco.
Lane & Son, R. D., 47 Federal Street, Narrogin.
Lodge, Henry Souther, c/o Parker & Parker, Perth.
Mackay, A. D. (of Haynes Robinson Seymour & Mackay), P.O. Box 84, Albany.
Marchesi, Giovanni, 238 William Street, Perth.
Marchesi, Lloyd, 169 High Street, Fremantle.
Marian, Dr. J. S., 117 Barrack Street, Perth.
Marich, N., P.O. Box 151, Fremantle.
Masotto, Augenio Ross, 150 Eleanor Street, Geraldton.
Merizzi, Giuseppe Gianfranco, 210 William Street, Perth.
McGregor, Kevin, c/o Ball & Co., Ued Road, Harvey.
Naughton, Thomas Brian, Throssell Street, Collie.
Ratto, Americo, 977 Albany Highway, Victoria Park.
Rispoli, Cosimo Pasquale Giuseppe, 174 James Street, Perth.
Sidoti, Giuseppe, 45 Market Street, Fremantle.
Silvestri, Paul, 225 William Street, Perth.
Simpson, Samson, 29 Throssell Street, Collie.
Slee, Frank Dilloway, 12 Stephen Street, Bunbury.
Stazzonelli, Frank, 56 South Terrace, Fremantle.
Strano, Alfredo, 222 William Street, Perth.
Tabaczynski, Ludwik, ‘Echo Co., 167 William Street, Perth.
Teahan, John Denis, M.L.C., 87 Burt Street, Boulder.
Tresler, Ludwik, c/o Cargeeg Bros. (Estate Agents), 62 St. George’s Terrace, Perth.
Truman, Vernon Kenneth, 181 Hannan Street, Kalgoorlie.
Van De Meer, John, c/o Wesfarmers Travel Service, 569 Wellington Street, Perth.
Warden, William Stewart, Hocking & Co. Pty. Ltd., 125-127 Hannan Street, Kalgoorlie
Watkins, Ian Gray Longworth Burkett & Gostelow, Marine Chambers, Carnarvon.
Wyndham, Frank Codringham, Secretary, Geraldton Tourist Bureau, Geraldton.
Bini, Elzio, 203 Elizabeth Street,Hobart.
Kostka, Jaromir Jan, Dashwood Crescent, Darwin.
Australian Capital Territory.
Augimeri, Domenico, Box 295, Canberra City.
Canberra Travel ServicesPty. Ltd., 177 London Circuit, Canberra City.
Damiano, Pasquale, Box 696 P.O., Canberra City.
Swan, Harold T., 22 Donaldson Street, Braddon Canberra City.
n asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice -
– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows -
Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 30 September 1964, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1964/19640930_reps_25_hor44/>.