House of Representatives
30 April 1968

26^th Parliament · 2^nd Session

DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
GOVERNOR-GENERAL’S SPEECH
TELEPHONE SERVICES
- Petition
VI MINISTERIAL ARRANGE.M ENTS
QUESTION
- AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY ADVISORY COUNCIL
QUESTION
- ABORIGINALS
QUESTION
- DEFENCE
QUESTION
- WATERFRONT EMPLOYMENT
QUESTION
- DR MARTIN LUTHER KING
QUESTION
- NORTHERN AND CENTRAL AUSTRALIAN RAILWAY SYSTEMS
QUESTION
- OIL
QUESTION
- NUCLEAR ENERGY FOR PEACEFUL PURPOSES
QUESTION
- ABORIGINALS
QUESTION
- CIVIL AVIATION
QUESTION
- NEW ZEALAND-AUSTRALIA FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
QUESTION
- FINANCE
QUESTION
- AUSTRALIAN ARMY
QUESTION
- NUCLEAR WEAPONS
QUESTION
- DECENTRALISATION
QUESTION
- LUNG CANCER
QUESTION
- AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY
QUESTION
- SUEZ CANAL
QUESTION
- AUSTRALIAN ARMY
QUESTION
- TRADE WITH JAPAN
QUESTION
- IMPORTS OF NEW ZEALAND LAMB
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY COMMITTEE
COMMONWEALTH OFFICES, BRISBANE
- Report of Public Works Committee
NEW SOUTH WALES GRANT (FLOOD MITIGATION) BILL 1968
NAVAL DEFENCE BILL 1968
- Second Reading
- Third Reading
INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS) BILL 1968
- Second Reading
- Third Reading
INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT BILL 1968
- Second Reading
- Third Reading
SCIENCE AND INDUSTRY RESEARCH BILL 1968
- Second Reading
- Third Reading
NATIVE MEMBERS OF THE FORCES BENEFITS BILL 1968
- Second Reading
- Third Reading
REMOVAL OF PRISONERS (TERRITORIES) BILL 1968
- Second Reading
- Third Reading
NORTHERN TERRITORY (ADMINISTRATION) BILL 1968
- Second Reading
- Third Reading
OFFICERS’ RIGHTS DECLARATION BILL 1968
- Second Reading
- Third Reading
NORTHERN TERRITORY REPRESENTATION BILL 1968
- Second Reading
- Third Reading
ADJOURNMENT
- Death of Air Vice-Marshal Bostock
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE
- Road Safety (Question No. 15)
- Social Services (Question No. 20)
- Social Services (Question No. 21)
- Papua and New Guinea (Question No. 39)
- Vietnam (Question No. 44)
- Vietnam (Question No. 46)
- Security (Question No. 76)
- Military Prisoners (Question No. 92)
- Telephone Services (Question No. 100)
- Darwin Airport (Question No. 102)
- Local Government Rates (Question No. 133)
- Vietnam (Question No. 150)
- Vietnam (Question No. 169)
- Aid to Developing Countries (Question No. 170)
- Geneva Protocol (Question No. 184)
- Iron Ore (Question No. 28)
- Minerals (Question No. 29)
- Education (Question No. 70)
- Civil Aviation (Question No. 95)
- Purchase of Aircraft (Question No. 104)
- Australian Army (Question No. 138)
- The Treasurer: Overseas Conferences (Question No. 175)

Mr SPEAKER (Hon. W. J. Aston) took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 885

DISTINGUISHED VISITORS

Mr SPEAKER:

-I desire to inform the House that a delegation of six members from the Sabah Branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, led by Dato Haji Kassim, Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, and including Mr Wong, Minister of Health, is at present in the gallery of the House. On behalf of the House and the Commonwealth of Australia Branch of the Association I extend to the members of the delegation a very cordial welcome.

Honourable Members - Hear, hear!

page 885

GOVERNOR-GENERAL’S SPEECH

Address-in-Reply: Acknowledgment by Her Majesty the Queen

Mr SPEAKER:

-I desire to inform the House that I have received from His Excellency the Governor-General the following communication in connection with the Address-in-Reply:

Mr Speaker,

I desire to acquaint you that the substance of the Address-in-Reply which you presented to me on the 4th April, 1968, has been communicated to Her Majesty The Queen. lt is The Queen’s wish that 1 convey to you and Honourable Members of the House of Representatives Her Majesty’s sincere thanks for the loyal message to which your Address gives expression.

CASEY

Governor-General 24th April, 1968

Mr GORTON:
LP

– This is a most unusual and perhaps an unprecedented request. This House as a general rule pays this kind of tribute to members of the House who have died and in certain circumstances to heads of state of foreign countries. I would hope that, unless the House at some future stage expresses a contrary opinion, departure from what has been a precedent would not in itself become, a precedent for future action. But, having said that, I think it is essential that’ it should not seem, and that by misrepresentation it should not be able to be made to seem, that the members of this House were not distressed by this senseless assassination of a great man who was a world figure and who was working to attain his ends in a peaceful and restraining way. Therefore, Mr Speaker, subject to your ruling, because you are the custodian of the rights of this House, speaking for myself I would bc prepared to accede to the request of the right honourable member for Melbourne.

Mr SPEAKER:

– 1. agree that this course should not at any stage bc thought to be a precedent in the Parliament. I ask all honourable members to stand. (Honourable members stood in their places.)

Mr SPEAKER:

– Thank you.

page 887

QUESTION

NORTHERN AND CENTRAL AUSTRALIAN RAILWAY SYSTEMS

Mr CALDER:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– -Is the Minister for Shipping and Transport aware that since his inspection of the Northern Territory and central Australian railway systems last week, the Alice Springs-Port Augusta line has again been cut in several places by recent rains? Can the Minister inform the House on the stage of planning for reconstruction of the line and whether the people of the inland can be assured of commencement of it within a definite time?

Mr SINCLAIR:
Minister Assisting the Minister for Trade and Industry · NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– Over the weekend I read in the newspapers that there have been substantial heavy falls of rain in central Australia, as a result of which the Ghan train service has been interrupted between Alice Springs and Marree. Having flown over the route of the railway ‘.nc and having seen how the construction involves crossing many creek beds that in times of flood are necessarily passages for water, I have no doubt, regrettably, that on the present basis of route construction interruptions will continue to occur to this train service while the centre enjoys a good season. It will be necessary to examine the route of this line carefully. Already the Commonwealth Railways has made a preliminary examination of possible alternative routes. Before any forward planning can be implemented it will be necessary, of course, to make a detailed examination of these alternative routes. Naturally the prospect of this being done will be accelerated because the line is constantly being put out of order. I assure the honourable member that this railway route is regarded as a vital lifeline for the people of the centre, and consequently it will receive close and urgent examination.

page 887

QUESTION

OIL

Mr HAYDEN:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

– In asking the Treasurer a question I refer to an announcement that the Esso corporation intends to raise $30m as a debenture loan on the Australian capital investment market. Does the Treasurer feel any concern about the fact that an overseas firm should bc about to soak up such a large amount of local investment capital so that it may substantially enlarge its value in Australia and the profits it can return overseas? Can we expect this sort of practice to increase as a result of restraints on investment outflows imposed by the United States Government? Finally, what guidelines does the Government propose to establish henceforth to regulate the practice of overseas investors who soak up large amounts of local capital, which practice will otherwise be at the expense and eventually the disadvantage of Australia’s own enterprise?

Mr McMAHON:
Treasurer · LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– Already the Esso corporation has made a statement on the problem raised by the honourable member, lt has announced that it has about $200m invested in Australia. Approximately $160m having been obtained from overseas sources. The company’s latest proposal comes well within our guidelines that have been established for several years, and there was no good reason why it should be refused permission to proceed. A few years ago this country was hungry for the production of oil, and it is as well to remind the honourable member that Esso has played a prominent part in the search for oil and has made a notable contribution to providing a solution for our balance of payments problem by means of import replacement. Of the sum of $30m mentioned, $10rn is to be used to reduce existing liabilities and a substantial part of the remainder is to be used by Australian companies rather than to finance Esso’s own Australian activities. So the amount involved, when compared with the $200m invested in Australia, was relatively small. As regards the guidelines, these have been in existence for some time and they have worked well.

Mr Uren:

– Worked well? In whose interests?

Mr McMAHON:

– They have worked well in Australia’s interests. The honourable member for Reid may be against the United States of America and foreign investment in Australia, but these companies are playing a real part in the development of Australian resources, in permitting us to maintain our full employment programme and in permitting our development growth at the rate of 5% per cent per annum, which is unequalled in most other countries. Consequently, they are helping us-

Mr Hayden:

– You are getting away from your original philosophy.

Mr McMAHON:

– I am not getting away from any philosophy that I have, because I am not a Socialist. I believe in the development of this country. I point out that 90% of the total investment in this country is provided from Australian sources. As regards the guidelines which were referred to in the last part of the honourable gentleman’s question, this loan was within the guidelines. As I have pointed out, a small proportion of the total assets involved is obtained from Australian sources. I do not think that a loan of this kind will inhibit Australian borrowing to any significant degree.

page 888

QUESTION

NUCLEAR ENERGY FOR PEACEFUL PURPOSES

Mr CHANEY:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question, which is directed to the Minister for National Development, refers to a Press statement which the Minister issued on 10th April concerning the visit of ‘Ploughshare’ experts to Australia. Can the Minister inform me whether the Western Australian itinerary will include a visit to the Gascoyne pastoral areas? Further, can he tell, me whether the use of nuclear explosives for mining, water conservation and other peaceful purposes contravenes any of the provisions of any nuclear treaty to which Australia is a signatory?

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

– To the best of my knowledge and memory, the authorities who are coming to Australia from the United States of America, that is, Mr Kelly, the head of the ‘Ploughshare’ operation and Dr Werthy, a senior officer in the operation, will not visit the north of Western Australia, but I am not certain of this point. I know that they will visit practically every mainland State and that in particular they will visit Mareenie in the Northern Territory where a large amount of oil is locked in some very tight rocks. They will be assessing this position to see whether it is similar to that dealt with by the operation known as ‘Gasbuggy’ which has been carried out in the United States in an attempt to release gas from tight rocks. The explosion has occurred, but testing to see whether it has increased the yield will not start until the end of the year.

As regards that part of the question concerning the possible contravention of any treaty, that is a matter for my colleague the

Minister for External Affairs rather than myself, but it is my impression that the limited test ban treaty prevents explosions which would produce radiation outside the territorial area concerned or which would vent to the atmosphere.

page 889

QUESTION

ABORIGINALS

Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for the Interior. What steps is it necessary to take to resume or detach portion of Wave Hill Station for the occupation and benefit of the Gurindji people, as promised on behalf of the Government by his colleague the Minister in Charge of Aboriginal Affairs? What steps have already been taken to carry out this promise?

Mr NIXON:
CP

– The administrative steps required are relatively simple. The proposal put forward by the Minister in Charge of Aboriginal Affairs is now under consideration by the Government. Until some decision is taken on that proposal there is not much point in my saying anything on it.

page 889

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Mr GRAHAM:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for Civil Aviation whether any information is yet available regarding the accidents which occurred to Boeing 707 aircraft recently at London Airport and in South Africa. Were these aircraft similar to the Boeing aircraft operated by Qantas Airways Ltd?

Mr SWARTZ:
Minister for Civil Aviation · DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND · LP

– My Department is keeping closely in touch with the investigating authorities both in the United Kingdom and in South Africa regarding the two accidents. Up to the present time, we have not received any final information; the investigations are still in progress. However, as soon as the investigations are completed information will be provided immediately to us and, of course, we will receive reports through the Council of the International Civil Aviation Organisation in the normal way. It appears from the investigations so far that the aircraft accident outside London Airport was due to a fire in the No. 2 engine which was caused by engine failure. The cause of the accident in South Africa is a little more difficult to find because it appears that there was no malfunction of an engine and there was no structural failure. So far no result has emerged which would give any useful information at this stage.

I turn to the question of the similarity between the aircraft concerned in the accidents and those operated by Qantas Airways Ltd. The BOAC aircraft that crashed at London Airport was fitted with engines that were quite different from those in any aircraft operated by Qantas. The Boeing aircraft that crashed outside Windhoek Airport in South Africa had engines which were somewhat similar to those fitted to our Boeing aircraft although they are of a later type with greater horsepower. As soon as some information is available, I will see that the House is notified.

page 889

QUESTION

NEW ZEALAND-AUSTRALIA FREE TRADE AGREEMENT

Mr HANSEN:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Acting Minister for Trade and Industry. Have Australian bean and pea growers and processors requested a deferment for 2 years of the second stage of the lifting of quotas on New Zealand peas and beans that may be imported into Australia under the New Zealand-Australia Free Trade Agreement because of added disadvantages to Australians engaged in those industries caused by devaluation of the New Zealand dollar? Has this matter been referred to the committee appointed to investigate problems and hardships caused to industry by that devaluation? Can the Minister reaffirm the assurance given by the Minister for Trade and Industry in May 1966 that if through unforeseen developments an Australian industry was threatened the Australian Government would suspend the relevant obligations under the New Zealand-Australia Free Trade Agreement?

Mr SINCLAIR:
CP

QUESTION

IMPORTS OF NEW ZEALAND LAMB

Mr TURNBULL:
MALLEE, VICTORIA

– I preface my question, which is addressed to the Acting Minister for Trade and Industry, by stating that the Victorian fat lamb producers are concerned at a report that there is likely to be an increase in the import of fat lamb from New Zealand and that this imported lamb can be sold at prices lower than can be considered to be a fair return to the Australian fat lamb producer. Can the Minister say whether there is any truth in this report? Will he supply any further information that is available on the subject?

Mr SINCLAIR:
CP

– I am advised that as from 1st January this year, under the New Zealand-Australia Free Trade Agreement, there has been a complete lifting of the duty originally imposed on imports of lamb from New Zealand into Australia. I have been given the figures relating to imports of lamb over the last 3 years. In 1966 the figure was about 5 tons; in 1967 it was 121 tons; and in 2 months of this year something like 44 tons of New Zealand lamb have been imported. As the total Australian production of lamb is of the order of 220,000 tons it will be seen that the quantity of New Zealand lamb imported into Australia is relatively insignificant.

However I can assure the honourable member, who has, I know, constituents who are concerned about the effect that this trade might have on their own production, that under the New Zealand-Australia Free Trade Agreement there is an opportunity for discussion and consultation between the Governments concerned where it is established that an industry is being adversely affected as a result of the reduction of duty under the Agreement. If this should occur in the case of lamb then the same protective devices would apply as they would in any other instance. At this stage, in view of the relatively insignificant quantities of New Zealand lamb that have come into Australia, it might be hard to establish damage to the Australian industry.

page 893

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY COMMITTEE

Motion (by Mr Nixon) - by leave - agreed to:

That the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory or any sub-committee thereof, when considering certain matters relating to the desirability of establishing a fruit and vegetable market in the Australian Capital Territory, which were referred to the Committee on 13th March 1968, have power to move from place to place.

That a message be sent to the Senate requesting its concurrence.

page 893

COMMONWEALTH OFFICES, BRISBANE

Report of Public Works Committee

Mr CHANEY:
Perth

– In accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1913-66 I present a report relating to the following proposed work:

Extensions to Commonwealth Offices, Brisbane.

Ordered that the report be printed.

page 893

NEW SOUTH WALES GRANT (FLOOD MITIGATION) BILL 1968

Assent reported.

page 893

NAVAL DEFENCE BILL 1968

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 13 March (vide page 44), on motion by Mr Kelly:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr KELLY:
Minister for the Navy · Wakefield · LP

– by leave - WhenI introduced the Bill I made it clear that it would not vary or extend the disciplinary powers that already exist under the Act. The Australian Council of Trade Unions and unions generally were informed to this effect by letter. However, I have found, after discussions with my friends of the Opposition, that anxiety on this score still persists. I understand that the anxiety arises from the wording of clause 7 of the Bill, which mentions the discipline of persons employed in a civil capacity. Clause 7 is really only a drafting amendment and its deletion will not weaken the Bill. So that the House will be under no doubt on the subject,I give notice that in the Committee stage the Government will agree to the deletion of clause 7 of the Bill.

Mr WEBB:
Stirling

– This is the second time that the amendments contained in the Bill have been submitted to the House. An. amending Bill was originally introduced in November last and was left to be considered during this sessional period. That Bill was allowed to lapse and the present Bill, known as the Naval Defence Bill 1968, has now been introduced. It amends the Naval Defence Act 1910-1966 and relates to the employment of persons in a civil capacity. The Minister for the Navy (Mr Kelly), in his second reading speech, said that the purpose of the Bill was to correct some unsatisfactory features of section 41. of the Act, so far as it relates to the employment of civil staff in the Department of the Navy. The Minister has now said that he will during the Committee stage delete clause 7 of the Bill. As he said, he agreed to do this after representations had been made to him by members of the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party’s Industrial Committee. I am very pleased that he has agreed to withdraw the clause. The unions representing the civilian employees of the Naval Board had grave misgivings especially about clause 7. They thought it was designed to give the Naval Board far wider disciplinary powers over civilian employees. It was capable of being interpreted in this way by people who should know what it meant.

During his second reading speech the Minister gave certain assurances. It is a long time since he spoke and I propose to quote from bis speech. He said:

The opportunity has been taken to include provision for the preservation of accrued and accruing rights in the occasional case of an officer of the Public Service who transfers to employment under the Naval Defence Act. When a measure amending this Act was previously before the Parliament it came to notice that there was considerable misunderstanding of its purpose. With this in mind, I assure honourable members that the present Bill, firstly, will not change the Department’s present employment policy and practices; secondly, will not affect employees and unions’ rights under the Public Service Arbitration Act; and thirdly, will not vary or extend existing disciplinary powers under the Act.

The Minister has now confirmed this by agreeing to the withdrawal of clause 7. We were concerned about it because it appeared to extend the disciplinary powers of section 45 of the Act. We can understand why the unions were suspicious, of the intention of clause 7. As we know, ..all has not been well between the Naval Board and the civilian employees. Two. recent decisions of a conciliation commissioner have questioned the power of the Naval Board to suspend certain civilian employees. The ‘Australian’ newspaper on 20th March of this year, under the heading ‘Arbitrator orders navy to pay strikers’, stated:

A Commonwealth arbitration commissioner said yesterday there had been too little liaison between the navy and civilian workers in a dispute which crippled the Williamstown, Melbourne, dockyard for three weeks.

The commissioner, Mr J. P. Horan, ordered the navy to pay about $200 which it had withheld from 56 workers and which began the strike, involving 950 men.

He said a similar situation in private enterprise would not have been allowed to grow into any significance.

The dispute began on February 18 when the newly commissioned frigate, the Swan, was moved by staff officers while the men were at lunch.

The union alleged that the men had been without adequate facilities all morning.

Next day, the men refused to work on the Swan before the alleged breach of the award was settled.

Filing his decision yesterday, Mr Horan said: Mr Mann - for the navy - has said the navy has a common law right. I can’t find anywhere at all where it permits the navy to suspend men provided they can be stood down for the day. “This was pointed out to the navy by my brother commissioner, Commissioner Matthews, in September last.

I have not been able to find any legal authority for the department to withhold payment,’ he said.

We can understand why the unions were suspicious about this. I would like to raise another matter and obtain some clarification of the Minister’s intention. First of all, I refer to proposed new sections 42a and 42e, in clause 6 of the Bill. Proposed new section 42a (1.) states:

The Naval Board may, by instrument in writing, determine the terms and conditions (including rates of pay and allowances) applicable to the employment of persons under the last preceding section.

Proposed new section 42e (1.) reads:

The Naval Board may, by instrument in writing, delegate to a person, either generally or otherwise as provided in the instrument of delegation, all or any of its powers or functions under this Part (except this power of delegation).

I draw the attention of the Minister to the wording of these sections. This ‘instrument in writing’ procedure is causing us some concern. 1 ask the Minister whether he is aware - I think he would be - that the instrument in writing’ procedure has been rejected in another place on a number of occasions in relation to other Bills. This is a matter that will no doubt be looked at closely in another place. I would like the Minister to clarify what is meant so that his intentions can be considered and the Bill amended, if necessary, to make the meaning quite clear.

I ask the Minister: Under the existing Act, cannot the conditions of employment be prescribed by regulations? Is not the exercise of that power subject to control by Parliament by way of disallowance of regulations? Would not proposed new section 42a permit the terms and conditions of employment to be determined by the Naval Board itself from day to day by any piece of writing without the parliamentary supervision provided for in regard to regulations? Furthermore, could not the power be exercised by anyone at all to whom the Board delegated authority? If the Board does not wish to prescribe a period of employment, why cannot the Bill be amended so as to provide simply for the deletion of the words in the existing section 41 of the Act?

Section 41 (3) of the Act reads as follows:

Persons employed in a civil capacity in pursuance of this section shall not be subject to the Commonwealth Public Service Act 1922-1948-

Of course it has been amended since 1948 - but shall be engaged for such periods and shall be subject to such conditions as are prescribed.

We say that the position would be met if the words ‘shall be engaged for such periods and shall be’ were deleted from the Act. Again looking at proposed new section 42a, which is referred to in clause 6 of the Bill, why cannot the provisions for the fixing of additional rates for special jobs be incorporated in the regulations, for example to permit the continuance of existing customs and practices? My final question is this: Is not the effect of the amendment to change the method of fixing general conditions of employment from prescribing them by regulation to allowing the Naval Board, or any delegate of the Board, to fix or change these simply in writing? Will the Minister answer this point? Although we do not intend to oppose the Bill, I felt duty bound to raise these points in regard to proposed sections 42a to 42e, which are set out in clause 6 of the Bill.

If the Minister is willing to do so, 1 should like him to reply to the questions I have posed. If he does not want to do so now, he might like to give those points further consideration and supply a reply in writing. If we think then that his reply does not answer the points that we have raised, or we still have some doubt about them, the matter could be raised in another place. If there is anything in the points that I have raised, the Minister might possibly agree to amending the Bill on the lines that have been suggested.

Mr JEFF BATE:
Macarthur

– Amendments in relation to this legislation have come before the House on various occasions. Honourable members will recall that when the Minister for the Navy (Mr Kelly) spoke on this Bill more than 3 weeks ago he said that its purpose was to assist in the administration of civil personnel engaged by the Department of the Navy. These are people employed at naval dockyards and other naval establishments, for the most part on technical, professional, skilled and unskilled work in regard to the design, construction, maintenance and logistic support of naval ships, aircraft and associated equipment. Members of Parliament are elected by the people to look to their needs. One simple need of the people of Australia is to have maximum possible security in the form of defence and military forces. The people of Australia are aware that this country has a coastline stretching for tens of thousands of miles that are largely unprotected except by our naval ships. The efficiency of those ships is therefore a matter of great moment. When our Navy personnel go aboard a ship they must be assured that the maximum of skill has gone into its organisation and maintenance. The civil personnel of our dockyards are charged, therefore, with almost a sacred duty.

When our men go down to the sea in ships, they must do so in the knowledge that those ships are in perfect condition. The magnificent officers and men of the Navy should have legislation of this sort introduced to ensure that the utmost can be expected of the dockyard mcn. who refit these ships to keep them afloat. This discussion reminds me of the days of Samuel Pepys when the dockyards on the Thames repaired the hearts of oak, the wooden ships that were tough enough to slay afloat in spite of the things that attacked them such as the death watch beetle. However, the modern ship, with all its electronic equipment, its radar gear, its ASDIC equipment used for the detection of other ships and underwater shoals and rocks, must be kept in perfect working order. Just as the officers and men of the Navy have always depended on the dockyard men, so in this technical, electronic age the men of the Navy rely upon the skill, dedication, to. duty and integrity of the dockyard personnel.

– I went into the dockyard to test security. I did not have to sneak in, I just walked in. There was not even a wall around the place. The Labor Party has tried to imply that what I did was wrong - that it was wrong for a member of Parliament to take advantage of the privilege given to him to ascertain whether our naval ships were being sabotaged and also whether people were going into and coming out of the dockyards unchecked.

Of course you can walk straight into the dockyards without any problem arising. They are wide open. The former member for Kennedy, Mr Riordan, who was also a former Minister for the Navy, raised this matter because a member of Parliament went into a dockyard to see whether there was adequate security for the dockyard itself, whether it was possible for people to walk in at night or whether it was possible for a person with a bogus entry pass which had been given to him by someone else to go into the dockyard and sabotage the intricate electronic equipment on a ship. Because someone took it on himself to do something in a responsible way, he was attacked in this place.

Mr Griffiths:

– Whose fault is that?

– 1 hope that the Bill will provide the Naval Board and its representatives with a way of dealing quickly with such matters as they occur. Of course, honourable members on this side of the House support the proposal by the Government to transfer such power to the Naval Board. In case the honourable member for Gellibrand has forgotten, if he looks at the second reading speech of the Minister for the Navy (Mr Kelly) he will see that the Minister referred precisely to this question. He said: . . section 4] requires the regulations to prescribe all conditions of service, although certain conditions are not suitable for prescribing in regulations, being too variable or unpredictable.

The honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Whittorn) is having his memory refreshed on this matter. The Minister continued:

For example, when a ship is refitting, specific tasks may arise which entail particularly dirty work under very cramped conditions in small compartments. In such cases, unions claim additional rates of, say, 12 to 20c an hour-

Not very much money these days - and the management assesses such rates and eventually pays a special rate. Such special allowances arise on the average two or three times a week at each dockyard. It would be administratively impracticable to prescribe these variations in regulations. Similar provisions for determining variable allowances exist in the Public Service Act, which for example empowers the Public Service Board to determine all overseas allowances rather than prescribe them in regulations.

Then the Minister went on to say in typically adequate language:

Flexibility in determining conditions of service is essential in administering industrial undertakings such as the naval dockyards in Sydney and Melbourne, so that the ships of the Royal Australian Navy . . .

The words ‘Royal Australian Navy’ roll off the tongue. We do not hear these words used in some of the demonstrations which take place in certain quarters by people with long hair and earrings. 1 suspect that these people, if they suddenly became responsible in the community and had something to offer the community, would be the first people to send young men off to war. Also, they would be the people to protest if we did not have adequate defence. They would be the first people to squeal when they were hurt. The troops in Vietnam wonder what is wrong with Australia when they read headlines in the Press which refer to a group of stupid young idiots with no experience, and no knowledge of history who protest against our defence efforts. Further on in his speech the Minister stated:

Although this regulation has been in existence for many years, some doubt is now felt as to whether it is legally consistent with the present terms of the Act.

So we are now providing the Naval Board with this kind of flexibility. Our new Minister for the Navy, who has probably inherited this piece of legislation, is now proceeding to put it through the House.

Finally, I should like to say on behalf of this side of the House - perhaps I will be the only speaker on this side, other than the Minister - that there are still people who want Australia to be secure, who want it to have adequate defence forces, who vote for a significant amount of money to bc allocated to the Services and who want the dockyards to be run by people who are dedicated to Australia’s security. Sometimes members of Parliament have leisure to sit down in front of a television set. In spite of the things we see on programmes such as ‘This Day Tonight* and ‘Four Corners’, in which we see curious people who try to erode our resolution to defend ourselves, I want to say that there are still people who believe that Australia has gallant servicemen and magnificent naval personnel. Among the magnificent officers in our Navy are our admirals, our captains and our commanders. We are ashamed of those who attack them when they have no right to reply because they are bound by a vow of silence, loyalty and responsibility to their Minister. We still believe that we have a magnificent Navy and a magnificent Naval Board. When this Bill is passed, dockyard personnel will be given flexibility and authority so that the end will be achieved whereby our ships, when they go to sea, will be equipped to the maximum degree.

Mr MclVOR (Gellibrand) [3.51]- Mr Deputy Speaker, first 1 wish to say to the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Jeff Bute), who- is just walking out of the House after delivering his speech, that there is such a think as reciprocity. This is something that the naval management - I am not suggesting the Naval Board - should practise and practise very firmly if it is not to be regarded with suspicion when measures of this sort come before the House. It was enlightening to hear the honourable member say - and I do not think that it was with the permission of the Minister for the Navy (Mr Kelly) that he did so - that this Bill gives the Naval Board power over the wages and conditions of civilian personnel, in naval dockyards. Those are very damaging words, Mr Deputy Speaker. If this is the case, I will want this Bill to be given a lot more examination. 1 wish to make a number of observations about this legislation. The Naval Defence Bill was first presented to this. House on 26th October 1967 by the former Minister for the Navy, the honourable member for Higinbotham (Mr Chipp). I make no bones about saying that it was due to the disturbed and agitated minds of union officials and dockyard workers concerning this legislation that I took action to have the passage of that Bill held up until we could examine it properly, f grant that the former Minister for the Navy did me the service of saying: Yes, I am prepared to hold up the passage of the Bill’. The passage of the Bill was held up and, after discussions, it was presented by the present Minister for the Navy on 13th March 1968.

In the former Minister’s second reading speech, we were told that there were 7,500 civilian employees in naval dockyards. That number has been increased in the present Minister’s second reading speech to 7.600. But both the former Minister and the present Minister hastened to assure civilian employees in naval dockyards and naval establishments, and their unions, that their rights would not be affected under this legislation. As 1 said before, and subject to remarks that we have just heard, I can see that unions and civilian employees in naval dockyards will still be highly suspicious of this measure and what is to obtain under it in future.

I wish to pose a series of questions to the Minister. I ask this question of him: If the 7,600 civilian employees in naval establishments are not to be affected by this measure, what reason was there for referring to them in the second reading speech? The blame for the attitude of the men and the unions, as I will demonstrate later, can be placed fairly and squarely on the doorstep of naval management and is the result of its dictatorial, brass-hat attitudes. Officials clearly demonstrated in the recent disturbances at Garden Island and other naval dockyards the attitudes of naval management, and the effect of those attitudes on the minds and the actions of the civilian employees will be emphasised later in my remarks.

The first inconsistency that appears in this Bill - 1 hope that the Minister takes notice of this because J would like an answer to it - can be found by referring to the second reading speech of the former Minister. Referring to section 41 of the Naval Defence Act, the former Minister stated:

There are two main problems arising out ot section 41 of the Naval Defence Act as it now stands. In the first place, it requires the regulations lo prescribe the periods for which persons arc engaged. This is impracticable because the staff is not engaged for specified periods, but is employed either on a permanent ba-is wilh a specified retiring agc or on a purely temporary basis.

I agree that it would be difficult to prescribe periods of employment for persons engaged on a temporary basis. But neither I nor the unions and their civilian employees in the naval establishments can understand what is meant when it is stated that periods cannot be prescribed for those on a permanent basis with a specified retiring age. Surely the question of permanency is substantial enough to remove any question of impracticability concerning employment for specified periods?

The vagueness regarding the matter of permanent employees is an instance of the many things contained in this measure that are causing concern in the minds of the civilian employees in the Department of the Navy. Civilian employees of the Navy are of the opinion that this Bill has been born out of spite, resentment and frustration on the part of naval management to carry out intimidatory policies that were a direct contravention and a direct breach of awards. This is emphasised quite clearly in the decisions of Commissioner Matthews and Commissioner Horan concerning the recent disputes that have occurred at Garden Island and the Williamstown naval dockyards. So, the impression that civilian employees have is that this Bill is designed wholly and solely for one purpose, and that is to bring them directly under Defence regulations as they apply to enlisted personnel. Consequently, the civilian employees resent the measure and its implications. They seek to know why in the first instance when this Bill was presented to the House and prominence given to the fact that it affected 7,500, now 7,600, civilian naval employees the representatives of those workers were not consulted and why their views were not sought on the proposed amendments. They ask this question in view of the fact that wages and conditions, as the honourable member for Macarthur said, figure prominently in this legislation and will be more prominent in a separate Bill to be brought down later.

The attitude of the civilian workers under question is that they are not enlisted personnel and that therefore, before any regulations associating them with enlisted personnel are put into effect, they should have been fully informed and allowed to express their opinions. I agree with them. Their concern and grave suspicion are heightened by the fact that the Bill contains a clause - I will refer to this matter later - that cuts right across the accepted principles of the trade union movement and the Australian Labor Party. I refer to a p:nal clause. I congratulate the Minister on having informed us in the House today, before this debate proceeded, that that provision is to be withdrawn. I support the remarks of the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Webb) about proposed section 42a. and should like further clarification of it.

Section 45 of the Act, which is the penal provision, prescribes that the penalty for failing to obey an order may be imprisonment for 3 months with hard labour or a fine of $40. Why, in present conditions, are such powers needed in respect of civilian employees or, for that matter, any employees? Would this provision apply to the 7,600 civilian employees? It smacks of the dim dark ages when men were thrown into irons or chained to the mast for disobeying orders. It is an extraordinary state of affairs to suggest that men could be imprisoned for breaches of regulations. During discussions we were told that the provision referred to staff employees only. Have not staff employees democratic rights? Should they be subjected to 3 months hard labour? Surely such harsh penal provisions are not needed in our legislation. We have civilian laws that could be applied where necessary. 1 challenge the Minister to explain the reasons for penal provisions. Is it the desire of the Naval Board and of Navy management to rule with a rod of iron? Had this provision been retained it would have caused considerable strife in Australian dockyards because the men and their unions were seriously agitated by the proposal. It is understandable that the civilian employees in naval dockyards should take exception to the viciousness of the penal provisions.

It is interesting to hear honourable members opposite denigrating workers in naval establishments. At Williamstown alone there would be probably 200 men who left Australia to fight on the ground, in the air and on the sea against oppression and injustice. They and their workmates, many of whom would be sons of returned servicemen, have reason to feel grossly insulted by the desire of the Naval Board to have penal provisions incorporated in the legislation. Many of these men were heroes when they went overseas (o fight against oppression and injustice but when they fight for justice for themselves and their families they are termed Communists and it is suggested that for disobeying regulations they should be imprisoned for 3 months and fined $40. ft is no wonder that the Minister and the Naval Board hastened to say to the civilian workers: ‘Do not be alarmed; we mean no harm. After all, if we do shove you in gaol it will be for only 3 months on the stone heap.’ Most probably they would allow wives and families to write to the imprisoned workers. It is amazing that both Ministers for the Navy had the temerity to say that this legislation would not affect the rights of employees and unions under the Public Service Arbitration Act and would not vary or extend existing disciplinary powers. We have been assured by the present Minister that the penal provision will be withdrawn, but if that provision were not an extension of penal provisions then I do not know what would be.

When managements of naval establishments, by brass hat dictatorial action, breach awards that prescribe minimum conditions of work and when they provoke unwarranted disputes, how can the men have any faith in the assurances in the Minister’s speech or in the Board that he represents? Threats of imprisonment with hard labour and fines will not restore faith in naval management. Another provision that concerns me and the trade unions is that clause which states that civilian employees can be taken from the naval dockyards or the naval establishments at which they are employed and sent to other areas of employment on naval work and that their wages and conditions can be prescribed by Naval Board regulations. The honourable member for Stirling has referred to this provision. Is this another instance of attempting to obtain the power to interfere with awards? To satisfy the concern and suspicion of civilian employees this provision needs clarification by the Minister.

Recent events at the Williamstown dockyards in Victoria and at Garden Island were not designed to influence the workers in these establishments to put their trust blindly in the hands- of naval management or to accept assurances that their wages, conditions and rights would not be interfered with by this measure. On the contrary, such has been the resentment arising from intimidatory and provoked industrial disturbances that I am prepared to say that any matters referring to or directed at the conditions and awards of civilians employed by the Navy will be put through a fine tooth comb by the trade unions concerned. Navy management has only itself to blame. I remarked earlier that civilian employees viewed this Bill with much suspicion. I hope that the Minister in his reply will allay that suspicion.

I have referred to the reasons for distrust and concern. There has been a dispute at Garden Island and at Williamstown recently. Mr Commissioner Matthews found that the managements of those establishments had no legal authority to take the action that they took. This was emphasised forcibly by Mr Commissioner Horan subsequently. Following the decision by Commissioner Matthews this Bill was hurried into the House on 27th October 1967 when we were told that there was nothing in it to be concerned about and that it was merely a defence measure. However, when the truth was revealed, what a different story it was. It is clear that this Bill resulted directly from the Matthews decision. It would seem that the Minister has been as badly misinformed about this Bill as he was concerning the dispute at the Williamstown dockyards. A Press report on that dispute reads:

The Williamstown and Garden Island naval dockyard strikes were seriously affecting the Navy’s operation commitments, the Navy Minister, Mr Kelly, said last night.

He said he was seriously concerned about the strikes.

If Williamstown is to be an effective Navy dockyard it is essential that mcn and management co-operate,’ he said.

The men must be prepared to accept management’s reasonable requests which affect their normal work.’-

Mr Kelly said the Williamstown strike ; now in its third week and affecting more than 900 workers - was by far the most serious.

I would agree with him but, as the men asked, what was left for them but to strike when they were confronted with repeated refusals to make working conditions safe? They asked also:

What is left when employees’ approaches are met with brass-hat dictatorial breaches of award conditions that are in law only minimum standard;?

Dockyard management admits to breaching the award.

Dockyard management admits provocation by using stait as labour.

Dockyard management admits to bad working conditions.

Yet we have been told that the men were at fault. In an article in the ‘Australian’ on 20th March 1968 the following appeared:

A Commonwealth arbitration commissioner said yesterday there had been too little liaison between the Navy and civilian workers in a dispute which crippled the Williamstown, Melbourne, dockyard for 3 weeks.

The Commissioner, Mr J. P. Horan, ordered the Navy to pay about $200 which it had withheld from 56 workers and which began the strike, involving 930 mcn.

Mr Horan said: Mr Mann; for the Navy ; has said the Navy has a common law right. I can’t find anywhere at all where it permits the Navy to suspend men provided they can be stood down for the day.

This was pointed out to the Navy by my brother commissioner, Commissioner Matthews, in September last.

I have not been able to find any legal authority for the department to withhold payments,’ he said.

The Department knew all this, yet it went ahead with the action which resulted in 950 men being thrown out of work for 3 weeks. In other words the Navy management at Williamstown grossly exceeded its authority and by so doing wilfully caused 3 weeks delay in valuable defence production. I mention these facts to show the Minister quite clearly why the civilian employees are distrustful of this Bill. This feeling is growing as the Navy management, by interrupting continuity of service for purposes of annual leave, sick leave and long service leave, is now victimising the men for the 3 weeks delay wilfully caused by the management itself. This action is being taken after an undertaking had been given that there would be no victimisation.

It is reasonable, I submit, to ask the Minister whether this Bill has been drafted because of the decision given originally by Commissioner Matthews and later confirmed by Commissioner Horan. Is the legislation to be used by the Navy management to belt the civilian employees? Is it to be used as an instrument for breaching awards in the future as the award was breached at Williamstown? Will the Minister instruct the Navy management to pay the men for the 3 weeks in which they were deprived of work? Are civilian employees to be treated in the same manner as enlisted personnel?

Will the position be that all orders must be obeyed even when they endanger the life and limb of civilian employees and are in direct contravention of safety regulations? Is the Minister aware that in the case recently heard by Commissioner Horan the Navy advocate said that he was interested only in orders? Is the Minister aware that the safety committee that operated at the Williamstown dockyard has been abolished? 1 mention these questions that are being asked by civilian employees to show the lack of faith that they have in this measure and in the Navy management. All these questions and many more must be answered by the Minister if faith is to be restored. If the Minister wishes to promote better relations between men and management and achieve the co-operation to which he has referred, he can help to do so by answering my questions clearly and concisely and by removing - as he has suggested he will - the vicious penal provisions of the Bill. I suggest he should also remove the provision for making regulations simply by the use of a piece of paper. 1 think the Minister is aware of what I am referring to. He could also help the situation by informing the Navy management that the technique and the power of the captain on the bridge may not be used in relation to industrial awards, and that their use does little to promote good relations between men and management.

The Minister should also acquaint himself more fully with the special allowances that are paid. In his second reading speech he said:

Such special allowances arise on the average two or three times a week at each dockyard.

Let me inform the Minister that it would be more correct to say that special allowances arise two or three times a year. The manner in which this Bill has been brought forward has cloaked it with suspicion and distrust. I hope that after this debate the distrust and suspicion can be removed. The whole measure reeks of remote control and I trust that the Minister will resolve the doubts about it.

A good deal of resentment is felt by the employees at the Williamstown dockyard. The honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Jeff Bate) has talked about dedicated men.

These men are dedicated to their employment. I invite anybody to go to the Williamstown dockyard and decide for himself whether or not they are dedicated. Two hundred of them fought to keep this country free from oppression, yet we heard the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Jess) calling workers at Garden Island and Williamstown, Communists, weevils, white ants and termites. The men resent the injustice of such implications. The honourable member had no knowledge of the cause of the dispute. It has been amply demonstrated on two occasions that the fault was that of the management and not of the men. Nevertheless the honourable member for La Trobe has called these men, 200 of whom went away to protect his safety, Communists, weevils, white ants and termites. I commend the honourable member on his success in obtaining justice for Captain Robertson and on his attempt to obtain justice for the Army officer to whom he referred today, but apparently he is not concerned about justice for the underdog.

The Minister has already said that he will remove the penal clause from the Bill, but there are still many provisions regarding pay and allowances which are highly suspect. I hope he will give a complete answer to questions on these matters before the debate is finished. The trade unions involved want a complete clarification of the clause relating to work performed for the Navy outside naval establishments. They take the view that if the Navy management had no scruples about breaching an award which held up work of great national importance for 3 weeks in the Navy dockyards, there is no knowing what it may do under this Bill. The men also object strongly to having their conditions and allowances covered by the same regulations as apply to enlisted Naval personnel. That this is the intention of the legislation is clear from the Minister’s concluding remarks of his second reading speech, when he said:

It will be necessary to validate certain payments of pay and allowances made under the existing section. This will be provided for in a separate Bill, to be brought down later, which will provide also for the validation of certain payments made to members of the defence force.

In other words this Bill is a blank cheque for the introduction later of much harsher measures, and, as the Minister himself has said, it affects 7,600 civilian employees. If the Bill has no relation to those 7,600 employees, why did the Minister think it necessary to mention them?

It is not hard to understand the reason for the distrust and suspicion which are being entertained in connection with this Bill. The men and their union representatives are entitled to ask: ‘If the Bill is designed to improve conditions at naval establishments, and if the Minister and the Naval Board seek co-operation, why was this Bill brought forward as a matter of urgency and without consultation with us?’ Intimidation, arrogance and intolerance are not compatible with co-operation. Commonsense and tolerance make co-operation. I recommend these ingredients to the Minister and the Navy management. They were used by the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) when he was Minister for the Navy, and I recommend them to the present Minister. If he follows these principles I am sure he will achieve much better results for the Navy, for the civilian employees and for the nation as a whole.

Mr KELLY:
Minister for the Navy · Wakefield · LP

– in reply - When introducing this Bill some weeks ago 1 did the best I could to make certain things clear. Evidently I did not succeed and no doubt the fault was mine. In introducing the Bill I made it clear that the intention of the legislation was simply to make certain that the legality of the practices that the Navy is now and has been following were put beyond doubt. I assured the House that there was no intention to do more than legalise our present employment policies and practices. In restating this intention at this stage I wish to avoid any misunderstanding, so I shall mention the two minor changes which will be made to present procedures. I want to make these crystal clear so that everybody will know. We have nothing to hide in this regard.

Firstly, all1 appointments, promotions, retirements and resignations of permanent salaried staff have in the past been submitted to the Governor-General in Executive Council. This provides unnecessary extra work for the Governor-General and many other people. This practice will be discontinued, and I know that this will cause no resentment on anybody’s account.

Secondly, although a big majority of pay rates and allowances for the salaried staff employed under the Naval Defence Act are now provided in determinations of the Public Service Arbitrator, it has been the practice to specify by regulation the latest salary rates and some allowances. This practice also will be discontinued. In those few cases where a rate of salary is not specified in a determination of the Public Service Arbitrator it will be included in a determination of the Naval Board. No-one will object to this because it will enable alterations to take place more efficiently and more speedily.

I now turn to some of the matters which were raised in a very responsible way by the honourable member for Sterling (Mr Webb). 1 shall answer his various questions in bulk and I believe that my answer will cover the matters raised in his questions as J noted them. Under the existing Act conditions must be prescribed by regulation. These regulations are subject to disallowance by the Parliament. The sheer volume of such a task renders this impracticable. Furthermore, as I mentioned in my second reading speech, some conditions cannot suitably be prescribed by regulation, being too variable or- unpredictable. I have here two large volumes entitled ‘Public Service General Orders’ and “Determinations Relating to Overseas Allowances’. The detail of conditions included in these volumes does not appear in Public Service Regulations but is determined by the Public Service Board. Detail of a similar sort is needed for persons, salaried staff in particular, who are employed under the Naval Defence Act. 1 am sure that honourable members will appreciate that it is not practicable to require a large part of the matters determined in these two large volumes to be drafted in the form of regulations to be made under the Naval Defence Act.

Regulation 5 of the Naval Establishments Regulations made under the existing Act recognises this and empowers the Naval Board to determine conditions. These determinations, of course, are not subject to disallowance by Parliament. This means, therefore, that there is a conflict between what the Act provides and what regulation 5 provides. This point is not affected by the deletion from section 41 (3.) of the words shall bc engaged for such periods and shall be’ which were mentioned by the honourable member for Stirling, although the deletion of these words would remove the difficulty of prescribing periods of service. My Department and I believe that the proper and efficient way for this conflict between the Act and regulation 5 to be resolved is for the Naval Board to be empowered to determine conditions, as it does now. These determinations would be in the form of properly drawn up formal documents. The Naval Board in its own interest must be selective in its choice of officers to whom the power is delegated and it will impose suitable limitations of power. Delegation of a power by the Naval Board does not affect the Board’s responsibility for the actions of the officer making the determination

I wish to make it quite clear that the Naval Board has neither the desire nor the intention to set itself up as an independent wage or condition fixing authority. The civil employees under the Naval Defence Act are engaged in a specialised type of industry within Commonwealth employment. Gathered together in the Department of the Navy is a very diverse group of skills, trades, occupations and professions in a Public Service setting. The rates of pay and conditions for these people stem historically from an equally diverse group of Federal and State awards, Public Service Regulations and Public Service Arbitrator’s determinations. The basic rates of pay and conditions have been incorporated in Public Service Arbitrator’s determinations which have been made especially to apply to most Navy employees. Nevertheless it is necessary to have some authority to apply appropriate basic rates and conditions to other Navy employees, who are small in number, and to apply ancillary rates and conditions to all employees. Just as importantly, it is necessary to apply desirable variations as soon as possible after they are made in awards, regulations, etc., with which alignment is kept. There are very few rates of pay oi conditions under the Naval Defence Act which do nol have an authoritative source of this nature, although there are some special circumstances in naval work not met elsewhere and for which special rates or allowances of a minor nature are provided. Overall the situation is not unlike that of a Commonwealth statutory authority such as the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, the Australian Broadcasting Commission and the Australian Atomic Energy Commission.

Although these determinations of the Naval Board, as in the past, will not be subject to direct parliamentary supervision, there are other safeguards which are considered adequate in the circumstances in which they will be made. These safeguards are: Firstly, in common with other Commonwealth authorities, the Department of the Navy will be required by Government direction to consult with the Public Service Board and the Department of Labour and National Service as co-ordinating authorities with regard to conditions of service for salaried and wages staff. Secondly, under proposed new section 42a (2.) the Public Service Board will exercise a power of direction over the salaries which the Naval Board may determine. There is a similar provision in the existing Act. Thirdly, a staff association or trade union may apply at present to the Public Service Arbitrator for a new or varied determination if it is not satisfied with the Naval Board’s determination. This right will be protected by proposed new section 42a (7.). Furthermore, a determination of the Naval Board will not be able to override a determination of the Public Service Arbitrator, but it will be able to confer an additional benefit.

In amplification of this third safeguard, there are determinations of the Public Service Arbitrator directly applying main conditions and rates of pay to more than 90% of Naval Defence Act employees. Nevertheless, delays in payments will occur if the Naval Board by its own determination cannot apply to its employees benefits granted elsewhere, or approved additional rates, to meet special circumstances and must await formal amendment of the Arbitrator’s determination. To await formal amendment of regulations will take even longer because many weeks are usually needed to take the several steps necessary to draft and make a statutory rule. These difficulties have been overcome to an extent in the past, with our wages employees particularly, by the making of Naval Board determinations under Regulation 5. However, as the Act stands at present the legality of this course is open to doubt and the main purpose of this Bill is to authorise properly and legally the continuance of this practice.

I hope that what I have said has been a careful and full examination of the questions raised by the honourable member for Stirling. He had the courtesy to send me a copy of his questions beforehand. I also hope what I have said will clear the minds of Opposition members and the people in the union. I hope they realise that we are not trying to do anything other than regularise our present procedures. This brings me with a feeling of hopelessness to the questions raised by the honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Mclvor). I have great regard for him but in this case I must admit that I find his reasoning, or lack of it, perplexing. He continually referred to a penal clause, clause 7, which the Government has agreed to take out of the Bill in Committee. I thought it was rather hard to be criticised about a clause we intend to delete. I think it is important that the House realise that clause 7 is not a penal clause. It was never intended to be such and could never be described as such. I will read section 45 of the existing Act for the benefit of the honourable member for Gellibrand. It states: (1.) The Governor-General may make regulations for or in relation to -

the discipline of persons receiving instruction or training in or employed in or in connexion with naval establishments;

That is what is stated in the existing legislation. We wanted to change the existing provision because we felt there might be some need to cover people who were not working in a naval establishment. For example, there may be people who are overseas to look at some work taking place. We inserted clause 7 in the Bill but have since agreed to withdraw it. I am sorry we are being criticised for something we have agreed to take out. I want to make it clear that there was no attempt to insert a penal clause.

Mr Curtin:

– Why did the Government put it in the Bill?

Mr KELLY:

– We put it in because we did not think it would make any difference. In fact it would not make any difference. Because this clause has been referred to specifically I must reply to the matter specifically. We have agreed to omit clause 7, which amends section 45 of the principal

Act. That section provides that the Governor-General may make regulations for:

the discipline of persons who -
are receiving instruction or training in a naval establishment;

That is the same as the existing legislation - or

are employed in a civil capacity in or in connexion with a naval establishment -

That is in the existing legislation - or otherwise in connexion with the Naval Forces;

I want to disabuse the mind of the honourable member for Gellibrand, for whom I have a great personal regard, by saying that we were not trying to introduce any penal clauses and never attempted to do so. Because we found upon examination that this was only a drafting alteration, in order to set at rest the minds of the honourable members for Stirling and Gellibrand, and those of the hard-working people on the industrial relations committee, we have decided to take this clause out of the Bill. I do not want anybody to think that there was any suggestion of this being a penal clause.

Mr Curtin:

– Why is the Government taking it out?

Mr KELLY:

– We tried to explain this clause to the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith and people like him but found it too difficult to do so. I do not think the honourable member for Gellibrand meant some of the things he said but I believe that I, as Minister for the Navy, should say that I do not pretend that the industrial relations within the Navy are all that they should be. I have been most concerned about some of the actions that have occurred. ButI say this, and say it with all sincerity: I have every confidence in the work done by my officers in the Department of the Navy; with the care that they take to see that the voice of the men is properly heard. I reject completely the comments made about intimidation and arrogance. I have complete confidence in the way that my officers are trying to make these naval establishments work.

Mr McIVOR:
GELLIBRAND, VICTORIA · ALP

– Would the Minister pay employees the 3 weeks wages that they have lost?

Mr KELLY:

– Regarding the particular case which the honourable member for Gellibrand has raised, he must know that under the law we have no legal right to pay men for time which has not been worked.

This debate has been an interesting exercise. It has been interesting for me particularly because I have had to deal with rather a technical field. I do appreciate the cooperation that I have received from the Opposition which voiced its concern about something which, I think, I have been able to explain. I think I have been able to assure most members of the Opposition that their fears were quite unjustified. However, to put the matter beyond doubt, the Government will agree to the deletion of clause 7.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee.

Clauses 1 to 6 - by leave - taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 7:

Section 45 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting paragraph (b) of sub-section (1.) and inserting in its stead the following paragraph:

the discipline of persons who -

are receiving instruction or training in a naval establishment; or

are employed in a civil capacity in or in connection with a naval establishment or otherwise in connection with the Naval Forces’.

Amendment (by Mr Kelly) agreed to:

That the clause be omitted.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported with an amendment; report - by leave - adopted.

Third Reading

Bill (on motion by Mr Kelly) - by leave - read a third time.

page 905

INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS) BILL 1968

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 27 March (vide page 513), on motion by Mr McMahon:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury:
RYAN, QUEENSLAND

Is it the wish of the House to debate the subject matter of the two measures together as suggested by the Minister? As there is no objection, I will allow that1 course to be followed.

Mr CREAN:
Melbourne Ports

– The purpose of these measures is to renew what is known as the double taxation agreement with the United Kingdom and to clarify for the purpose of income tax generally the definition of the term ‘royalty’. The Treasurer (Mr McMahon), when introducing the Bill to renew the double taxation agreement, circulated an extensive explanatory memorandum of some 67 photostated pages containing a lot of technical detail. I do not want to go into the detail but I draw the attention of the House to page 27 of the memorandum. Under the heading Introductory Note’ the following passage appears:

The agreement adopts two methods of relieving double taxation.

Under the first method, certain income is exempt from tax in the country of origin, the sole right to tax that income being reserved to the country of residence of the recipient.

Under the second method, the country of origin of income levies its tax and, if the country of residence of the recipient also taxes the income, that country (under article 19) allows against its tax a credit for the tax paid in the country of origin. As explained on page 9 of this memorandum Australia, under its general law, exempts its residents from tax on certain income derived from the United Kingdom and subject to tax there.

In association with the second method, certain income may not be taxed in the country of origin to any greater extent than is specified in the agreement.

The introductory note then gives several specific examples of income that is taxed and the conditions under which it is taxed. A double taxation agreement at least recognises that where there is investment by residents of one country in another, so that in essence the source of income becomes domiciled in a country different from the country of residence of the owner, there are and can be considerable problems of complexity in deciding who should tax, how the income should be taxed and, when anything is remitted from the country of source to the country of residence, what happens to the residue in the hands of the resident. Of course, there is some diversity of treatment.

I would like to take a general definition that appears in the report on the Draft Double Taxation Convention on Income and Capital of the Fiscal Committee of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in 1963. In paragraph 3 at page 9, the report states:

The phenomenon of international double taxation, which can be generally defined as the imposition of comparable taxes in two (or more) States on the same taxpayer in respect of the same subject matter and for identical periods, and its harmful effects on the exchange of goods and services and movements of capital and persons, are so well known that it is superfluous to stress the urgency of the need to remove the obstacles that double taxation presents to the development of economic relations between the member countries of the OECD.

Whilst that may be an admirable definition of double taxation it is not a very complete description of the circumstances that apply in countries other than those of the OECD. The OECD relates mainly to European countries, such as France, Germany and Italy, where there is probably as much investment from, say, Germany into France as there is from France into Germany. That is not the position with foreign investment in Australia. By and large Australian residents are not big investors in other countries, but there is a considerable amount of foreign investment, principally from the United States of America and the United Kingdom, in Australia. In round figures the magnitude of the total investment by the United Kingdom and the United States of America in Australia is about $5,000m! On the other hand, the investment by Australians, whether they toe individuals or companies, in other places, with the possible exception of New Zealand, is comparatively small and may not aggregate much more than $100m. Though it is easy to suggest that, as between equals, there may be some equity in double taxation agreements, I suggest that, when the agreements are not between equals, they should be scrutinised.

It can be said that in some respects the agreement with the United Kingdom, which is now before us, is an improvement on the earlier arrangement that had existed between Australia and the United Kingdom from 1946. The treatment of dividends is improved. Let me take the instance of a dividend paid by a company with a permanent establishment in Australia but owned in the United Kingdom. Previously any dividend remitted from the Australian source to the United Kingdom parent was not the subject of taxation. In the future it will bear tax at a maximum rate of 15%. Previously royalties were not subject to taxation as between Australia and the United Kingdom. A royalty paid from an Australian source to a United Kingdom company that supplied the know-how or the skill was exempt from taxation in Australia. It will now bear tax at 10%. Interest payments from an Australian source to a United Kingdom resident which previously tended to escape the Australian tax net will now be subject to a deduction of 10%. At least to that extent the agreement is an improvement on what operated previously. However. T think it is timely, on an occasion such as this, to consider the context of foreign investment in Australia. We should consider not only, what is taxed but what seems in many respects to escape tax and what is taxed perhaps not as heavily as it ought to be.

I draw the attention of the House to some important observations that were made as far back as. 1955 in the Royal Commission on the Taxation of Profits and Income established by the House of Commons. The final report presented to Parliament by command of Her Majesty in June 1955, and bearing the imprint ‘Command Paper 9474’, refers to a considerable number of matters. I sometimes think it would be a good thing if a somewhat similar comprehensive examination of the taxation structure in Australia in 1968 were made, particularly in relation to the taxing of profits and income. Not that one should go into the ideological argument about how heavily profits and income ought to be taxed; but, accepting that profits and income are proper subjects for taxation, the Australian system has grown up in such a piecemeal manner as to be in many respects riddled with anomalies and inequities. This is an unfortunate situation in our tax structure.

One of the chapters in the report of the Royal Commission deals with doubled taxation in reference to United Kingdom investment in other parts of the world. The

United Kingdom traditionally has been one of the heaviest investors of capital in developing areas of the world. Australia can be ranked as being historically one of these areas, and a considerable flow of capital investment from Britain still comes into Australia annually. At paragraph 658, the report states:

It is suggested that there is something which is inevitably unsatisfactory in the idea of any single fund of profit being at one and the same time a taxable subject of two different taxing jurisdictions. The fact that one claims tax as the country in which the profit arises and the other as the country of residence of the maker explains the basis of the conflict, but does nothing to reconcile the claims. The tax which a country imposes, both the level of tax and the form of tax, is only one branch of all the regulations which it makes in pursuance of its fiscal, social and economic policy. How then can two separate countries, pursuing independent policies, both regulate the level and form of tax upon one single fund of profit?

I submit it is that kind of fundamental examination of double taxation that has not been made by the Australian Government. The Government has tended to regard such agreements about double taxation as being between equals though in essence they are not agreements between equals as far as the relative levels of investment here and in the United Kingdom are concerned. I suggest that the Government has overlooked the effects on Australia of some fiscal, social and economic policies. The report, in the next paragraph, goes on to refer to two particular matters and states:

It has been said before that no system of double taxation relief offers a solution to the difficulty, for the principle upon which relief is given does not seek to reconcile the two taxing policies with each other. Two examples can be drawn from the more obvious cases of overseas ventures, the public utility and the mining business.

I want to direct attention particularly to the mining business in a moment. These observations about the British situation were written almost 13 years ago. I consider that they are timely for Australia in 1968. At the moment Australia seems to be on the verge of what might be called a mining development boom. The report continues:

A public utility is necessarily a special concern of the country in which it operates. It is likely to work under franchise or concession and to be subject to some control in respect of its charges. Its efficiency of operation, its expansion, the level of ils tariffs, are all matters of intrinsic importunes to the local government.

That is a reference to the government of the country in which the investment is made, not the country from which the investment comes. The report continues:

They can all be weighed in any decision as to the rate and form of any tax which it is required to pay. From this point of view, as we have said, the amount of profit that is left with it may be of as much importance as the amount of profit that is taken from it. But if another taxation jurisdiction, the country of residence, exacts a levy on the profits which only becomes the larger as the local tax is the smaller, the local government, is likely to feel with some resentment that it is not master in its own house and that there is no good reason why the United Kingdom Exchequer should be fed with tax out of profits provided by the local consumer. 1 suggest that in regard to investment in Australia by the United Kingdom, which is the subject of debate, and by the United States of America, the exchequers of those countries are in some respects being fed with tax out of profits made in Australia. In my view there are still substantial loopholes. This is more so perhaps in the American example. Probably these loopholes are rather more prevalent in that country. There is a considerable amount of investment in Australia. This investment may be direct; it may be by way of royalty and I no who w; or it could be by way of interest payment as in the case of the Esso-BHP arrangement. It may be portfolio investment in which the criterion is not necessarily the welfare situation of the Australian economy; but whether or not from a tax point of view these things are of advantage to the United Kingdom, I submit that this is a matter that is not covered in these taxation agreements.

I draw attention to what is, in my view, a very important book. Written by Dr Donald T. Brash, it is entitled ‘American Investment in Australian Industry’. The only reason why I quote from this book is that, as far as I know no similar documentation has been made about United Kingdom investment in Australian industry. But I suspect the same sort of arguments that he raises could be applied with equal force to a great deal of investment in this country. I will begin by quoting from page 146 of this rather compendious volume. I certainly do not have time to quote from it as extensively as I would like.

The author deals mainly with what are described as engineering fees or payments for technical knowhow, which might be described as royalties. I doubt whether the definition of royalty is adequate. Certainly the explanations that have been given about royalties do 30t seem adequate. However, this is what Mr Brash has to say:

One reason why some wholly American firms pay technical assistance fees of substantial proportions appears to be a desire to improve their public image in a society traditionally suspicious of ‘exorbitant profits’. The writer is aware of at least two companies-

They are American companies - which commenced payment of a substantial service fee in 1962 after the Australian Uniform Companies Act compelled many foreign companies to disclose their profits for the first time, and payments of large service fees is certainly one reason why American-owned companies can sometimes appear to pursue conservative dividend policies. One firm, for example, with an admittedly conservative dividend policy, pays ‘engineering fees’ equal to 7i% on the sale of all Americandesigned products . . .

Some of these firms have annual sales aggregating many millions of dollars. These engineering fees amount to 7i% not of the net profit but of the value of sales of all the American designed products. The writer of the book, who is quoting from information given to him, goes on to say that these fees are ‘annually more than five times the size of the biggest dividend ever remitted by us to the US’. He continues:

Another firm refrained from declaring any dividend for more than a decade after it commenced manufacture in Australia, but has paid a service fee, now equivalent to about 7% of sales revenue, since establishment. In 1962 the American parent of this company received substantially more from this fee than it did from the dividend of the Australian firm.

Perhaps the point is not quite clearly seen for what it is - that this item, which is really a payment to the parent company, appears in the profit and loss transactions of the local organisation as though it were an expense. If it were not there, the profit would be greater by the amount of the fee and would attract Australian tax at the rate of 42±%. This is now evaded, and I suggest that it is evaded in both cases. At least the writer documents it so far as the American companies are concerned. To some extent the position with the United Kingdom will be relieved by this agreement, because if that sort of payment can be defined as a royalty it will attract tax at the rate of 10%. At least there will still be a big outflow representing the difference between the 10% rate and the 42i% charge.

The learned writer of the book suggests that in some of the American examples payments that are so made are as great as the profit that is ultimately revealed. Of course, we all know, without necessarily suggesting that it is better or worse than others although it is certainly bigger than any of them, about General MotorsHolden’s Ltd, which has a declared profit in the region of S45m to S50m a year. Nobody knows how much the profit would he if the curious items called technical or engineering fees that are paid direct to the company back home, were nor so regarded. Perhaps the additional profit would be $15m or $20m a year, but at least such sums give an idea of what is potentially excluded. Later in his book Mr Brash suggests that there are more ways than taxation to make some of these companies play their proper social role in the Australian economy. At page 274 he says:

At the same time, it is plain that Australia can increase the net benefit it receives from foreign investment, anil ways in which this might be done have been suggested by inference al various points. One such might be the enactment of legislation similar to that in force in the US to deal with restrictive trade practices and monopolies . . . 1 suppose someone will suggest that we have legislation dealing with restrictive trade practices and monopolies. It has been on our statute book for more than a year, so it might conceivably be asked: ‘What has it done in the 12 months or so that it has been on the statute book to mitigate the sort of circumstances that it was put there for?’ Mr Brash goes on to say: for if a foreign company (or a domestic company, for that matter) is able to secure a monopolistic position in a previously competitive industry and raise prices to the ‘import-parity’ Iev-1 there may well be a net loss to the capitalimporting country from its operation. Another way might be a more rigorous approach by the Taxation Commissioner to avoid tax avoidance, both through the pricing of imports and exports and through the payment of arbitrary ‘service charges’ and ‘engineering fees’. lt would seem to me that in the case of a foreign company operating in Australia with permanent establishment in Australia, there is always difficulty in determining what are equitable prices for the imports that come directly from the parent company. In other words, it is possible to inflate the profit of the parent company and deflate the profit of the local company, or do the reverse, according to the relative tax rates in the two countries. The United Kingdom suggests that it is rather silly to enter into a double taxation agreement that lessens the amount of tax that you can collect from the foreign investor if when something is remitted home, the home government takes as much as you would have taken yourself. I suggest that this can occur here. Mr Brash goes on to list a number of other things that can be done, but I do not have enough time to refer to them this afternoon. Monopoly control is one. There is no reason why a differential taxation rate could not be applied in respect of profits. Whether the differential rate should apply to wholly foreign owned companies or whether the graduation should be higher if profits are at a greater level, which would generally net the foreign companies that tend to be the biggest, is open to question. In the House this afternoon a question was raised on this point. In reply the Treasurer (Mr McMahon) said rather plausibly that only 10% of annual investment in Australia comes from foreign sources. Of course he glossed over the fact that total investment in Australia might be running at the rate of $6,000m. He seemed to think that as foreign investment is about $600m, it is only marginal. This statement distorted the real position, because of that total of $6,000m, about $2,000m, or probably nearer to $2,400m, is public investment and the remainder, $3, 600m, would be characterised as private investment. However the greater part, that called private investment or fixed private investment in Australia, is covered by the two big items, housing and motor cars. If we exclude housing and motor cars from the figure for fixed private investment in Australia each year there is not a great deal left. The $600m of foreign investment is then more than marginally significant, because it is this money which is going into the understructure of Australian industry.

Mr Peters:

– It is going to the ownership of industry.

Mr CREAN:

– It is going to the ownership of industry, as my colleague the honourable member for Scullin suggests. In the aggregate, foreign investment represents approximately 25% to 334% of ownership of Australian industry, and in some particular fields of industry it is as high as 100%. To my mind, the sort of slick analysis we have had is the reason why we receive Bills, such as the one we are discussing now, which, whilst they might remedy deficiencies in a very narrow field, do not look to the wider fields into which one should go. I know that in due course my colleague the honourable member for Scullin (Mr Peters) will enlighten the House with details concerning particular industries. The point I make is that if we look at the structure of company activity as it can be deduced from the informative statistics published each year by the Commissioner of Taxation in his annual report we find that approximately 600 companies in Australia are responsible for more than two-thirds of the aggregate profits earned by all companies in Australia. I think the statistics show that approximately 30,000 public and private companies earn profits annually in Australia, but between SOO and 600 of them earn about two-thirds of the total amount of profit that is derived by all companies operating in Australia. It would be an easy task to isolate the biggest of them and to conduct a very comprehensive inquiry to ascertain whether or not these companies are evading taxation by the device of engineering fees or royalties. It seems to rae to be a pretty half-hearted compromise to suggest that if you reveal something you pay tax at the rate of 10% instead of 42i%. That seems to me to be a very niggardly sort of approach to what I think - and to what Mr Brash at least indicates as American experience - to be quite a substantial net. It is not tax evasion, because it is legitimate for the companies to do this. Certainly they are paying less in taxation than is consonant with Australian circumstances. -

When I quoted the extract from the Brash report I referred to the question of mining investment in Australia. It is suggested that in the years ahead - say in the next 5 to 10 years - Australia’s export earnings from the sale of minerals overseas could increase by $700m or $800m. I have seen this figure conservatively given in estimates. The alarming feature is that although the ore itself may yield us foreign exchange earnings, equally, of course, the extraction of the ore will earn very large profits for the companies which operate the mines.

Again, the distressing circumstance is that so many of these mining ventures are owned entirely from outside Australia or there is only a minor share of Australian participation in them- or we have the position that is arising at the moment, where companies are buying into these concerns by way of portfolio investment.

In yesterday’s ‘Financial Review’, which I had time to read amongst some other things which concerned me, I noted a quite extensive article headed ‘Interest grows in portfolio share buying’. The article appears on the front page and it continues on page 8. Tt states:

Continental European and Common Market countries are showing greatly increased interest in Australian portfolio investment.

This was emphasised at the end of the last week, probably more than ever before.

Apart from sound indications that a solid flow of portfolio capital will continue from the UK, evidence is mounting that interest throughout Western Europe is greater than ever.

While it is not certain that this interest will be turned into hard cash in terms of comparable capital inflow, take these four factors:

About 100 representatives gathered in Brussels for a conference, mainly directed at portfolio investment in Australia, from the leading banks, broking houses and institutions from Belgium, France, Germany, Holland, Luxemburg, South Africa, Switzerland, the UK and the US. lt was learned that a major non-resident investment trust devoted to Australian stocks and geared to Continental investors will be launched within a few weeks.

I suggest that this is a rather alarming situation at a time when we in this country do not tax capital gains. We all know the soaring level of capital gains that has occurred in recent times to the large company, Broken Hil] Pty Co. Ltd. Many people are investing in this sort of security because when a non-taxed capital gain is taken into consideration, plus ‘rights’, they are lightly taxed in terms of taxation in their country of residence. I think that the Treasurer (Mr McMahon) should give further explanation to this House concerning the setting up of a non-resident investment trust devoted to Australian stocks and geared to continental investors.

We are told that there are all sorts of guidelines in force which govern the question as to whether foreign companies can borrow certain funds internally on the Australian market, yet it seems that it is possible to create outside Australia an organisation to reap Australian dividends.

If these dividends were received by Australian recipients, and if the income were great enough, they could be taxed at a rate as high as 66i%; but under the double taxation agreement apparently they can be taxed at only 15%. If the dividends are received by people in countries which have no double taxation agreement with us they are taxed at a maximum of 30%. This seems to me to be a serious loophole which is being exploited not because these people think only that Australia is a safe place for investment but because they seem to think that we are suckers so far as our own internal taxation arrangements are concerned. At a time when our dairying industry is in decline these people think that the milking cow of Australia is the mining industry.

In another article in yesterday’s ‘Financial Review’, on page 2 under the heading ‘The International Investment’, the following paragraph appears:

The senior partner in Ian Potter and Co. and chairman of the Melbourne Stock Exchange, Mr C. T. Looker, also spoke at the conference, mainly orientated towards explaining to Europeans the potential rewards of Australian investment.

The conference was given a list of five or six companies, the first three of which were mining companies. In order to make the list up to six the Myer Emporium Ltd and the Herald and Weekly Times Ltd were added to it. There is a rather contemptuous reference in the article to the fact that these companies might as well have been omitted because people were concerned primarily with mining shares because of the capital gains that are attached to them.

My side of the House looks at this kind of thing with concern. This double taxation agreement in itself represents an improvement on the position. The agreement with the United States of America has yet to come up for renewal. I have endeavoured to point to some difficulties in the existing taxation structure particularly regarding what are called royalties. I hope that the definition is wide enough. Perhaps the Minister for Air (Mr Freeth), who is at the Table, will explain later whether the term royalty’ is wide enough to embrace these items that were formerly escaping taxation. But even if they are brought within the net now, they will bear taxation at a rate of only 10% and not at the more general rate of 42*%.

I have gone on in my speech to suggest that there are still very lush fields in Australia that are being exploited by foreign investors, mainly because of the relative level of our taxation scale in relation to their own taxation scales. I commend to all honourable members of the House and to the Government in particular the very sage argument advanced in the Royal Commission on the Taxation of Profits and Income held in Great Britain in 1955 which said primarily that the country in which the money does its work is the country that should have the greatest say in the nature and degree of the taxation applied to the earnings of that money. We have all sorts of taxation concessions in this country to encourage mining by local endeavour. To my mind, this is a much more preferable way than to leave the field open to foreign investors. Whereas in the past Australia has relied upon primary production to a great extent for export earnings, the tendency in the future will be a change in the direction of minerals. We submit that even more of the extractive processes should be carried out in this country than is the case at the moment.

As has been said by the Leader of my Party (Mr Whitlam) and the Leader of the Country Party (Mr McEwen), the tendency has been to regard Australia as a mine or a quarry from which exploiters should get all their requirements of iron ore, bauxite, nickel and tin - leaving behind an unsightly gash - in order to build up someone else’s industry. I hope that one day Australia will venture into another steel industry bearing in mind the potential market that there is in countries such as Indonesia, if that country is ever to improve the lowly kind of economic development that it has at the moment.

To my mind this is the kind of forward development that we ought to be thinking of. To some extent, the whole progress of this country may well be hindered because of the kinds of easy concessions that have been given to foreign investors by State and Commonwealth governments in recent years. I refer to taxing and social policy, monopoly control and tariffs. There are ways apart from taxation of legislating and affecting the position. But it is taxation we are talking about at the moment. It seems to me that even though this measure may be an improvement on previous legislation, very wide loopholes still exist and that these could well be closed for the better economic development of Australia in the future and in particular in the fields of secondary industry and mineral development.

Mr WHITTORN:
Balaclava

- Mr Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean). He, together with his friends on the Opposition side, seems to retain this phobia about overseas investment in industry in Australia. I thought that it had been proved time and time again that investment in a country by overseas concerns helped to generate in the country itself not only industrial activity but also new employment and new endeavours and in time capital. In fact, Great Britain and to a lesser extent the United States of America have built their greatness on the fact that investment from other countries was made initially in them and enabled them to build up their activity in manufacturing, mining and other industries. In turn, Great Britain and the United States of America became exporters of capital. This applies particularly to mining interests. It was mining activity that the honourable member for Melbourne Ports mentioned. It is fortuitous that in this morning’s ‘Australian’ Sir George Fisher makes one or two remarks about the fact that mining needs foreign cash. I will come to that matter a little later. To me the figures are quite enlightening and illuminating. They illustrate what I am trying to say.

This Bill, as the Treasurer (Mr McMahon) said initially, refers to a new double taxation agreement between Australia and the United Kingdom. He pointed out - and I reiterate - that there was an earlier agreement between the United Kingdom and Australia on double taxation, which was signed in October 1946. It is unusual to find that this agreement was negotiated and signed by the Australian Labor Party. It was in government at the time and apparently felt then, although obviously it does not feel now, that double taxation agreements between the United Kingdom and Australia were useful tools to be used by investors between

Australia and the United Kingdom. I think that it was Mr Chifley who negotiated the original agreement which has operated fairly successfully in the intervening years. But the Department of the Treasury has told me that it has found one or two administrative difficulties over the years. No doubt this new agreement overcomes those difficulties.

The Treasurer has said that the new agreement is far better balanced than the original agreement. With this, I agree. I feel that the honourable member for Melbourne Ports also agrees that the new agreement has some advantages over the old agreement. Later, I will refer to a debate held in the House of Commons on 8th February of this year, connected with this double taxation agreement. I read that Mr Patrick Jenkin and also Mr Harold Lever felt that Australia was the gainer as a result of this new agreement. Frankly, I think it is good that Australia should formalise bi-lateral taxation arrangements between the United Kingdom and itself because investors obviously will withdraw their capital if both treasuries usurp their right of taxing up to 50% or more from the share of the profits.

As the honourable member for Melbourne Ports has said, our Treasury officials have used the devices originally set out by the Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development, which is known as OECD. OECD has produced many reports regarding economic co-operation between member countries of the Organisation. Its reports apply particularly to Australia and to investors who use their money in Australia. The Organisation has indicated that not only trade between member countries is built up as a result of the standards or the devices that it has established but also international trade is built up as a result of the reports that the Organisation submits and the services that it provides to its own members and other parties.

In 1963, OECD set out the guidelines for double taxation agreements. I should like to state to the House the aims of OECD. Simply expressed these aims are, first, to achieve the sustainable economic growth and employment and a rising standard of living in member countries, while maintaining financial stability and thus to contribute to the development of the world economy; secondly, to contribute to sound economic expansion in member as well as non-member countries in the process of economic development; and thirdly, to contribute to the expansion of world trade on a multi-lateral non-discriminatory basis in accordance with international obligations.

This Organisation has done much study and research on these matters and I feel sure that even the honourable member for Melbourne Ports, and possibly the honourable member for Scullin (Mr Peters), would agree with me that its reports have been made by sound judges of investment and finance throughout the world and therefore should be given some consideration. From the three objectives that I have quoted it can be seen that this international body has had, as its main aim, the development of international trade. If ever a country were desirous of increasing its trade with other countries, that country is Australia. The Organisation has found that this can be done best, as T. have said, by bilateral taxing arrangements or multi-lateral double taxation agreements with other countries. Its reports prove that the retention of taxing rights by the Treasury of each country gradually causes a restriction of investment from one country to another. These bilateral agreements which we are about to ratify in this Parliament have been important in Australia’s history since 1921, although agreements were not signed in that year. The first agreement was negotiated in 1946 when the Labor Party was in government. The agreement signed then worked reasonably satisfactorily and it is now being brought up to date. In other words, the Labour Party in those days found that unless there were double taxation arrangements between the United Kingdom and Australia it was possible for the inland revenue organisation in the United Kingdom on the one hand and Treasury officials in Australia on the other so to tax the profit earned from investment in Australia that the investor would have no return at all for his investment. In other words, without these agreements there could be a restriction of investment from one country to another and Australia could easily be isolated in respect of trade with other countries.

The view of the OECD was that it was superfluous to remove the obstacle of double taxation as between one government and another - because governments can be changed - and that it was far better to negotiate double taxation agreements. The honourable member for Melbourne Ports referred the House to the OECD report of 1963 entitled ‘Draft Double Taxation Convention on Income and Capital’. I suggest that honourable members who are interested in this subject should examine the findings in this draft report because they can be useful when referring to overseas investment.

The intention of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development is the same as that of the Australian Government. lt is to open up the development of Australia itself and the trade that Australia has with other countries, particularly those north of Australia. No country needs development more than Australia, particularly having regard to the Asian countries to our north. We should negotiate these agreements with sophisticated countries like New Zealand, the United States of America, Canada and the United Kingdom to make sure that we know how to handle this type of arrangement when the time comes for greater trade and co-operation and more financial associations with the countries to our north. It is true that debates on taxation are dull and dreary affairs. I found it difficult to understand the honourable member for Melbourne Ports because he used certain information that was not available to me. No doubt I have used some information that will not be available to the honourable member for Scullin who is, I know, particularly interested in foreign investment in Australia. I have read his book, which he has circulated to all honourable members and sent to the Press, but I do not know whether or not it is a best seller.

Investors in Australia, and in any other country for that matter, are always disturbed when changes take place that affect their investments because they see the possibility of the government of the country of investment or the government of their own country making changes that will entirely nullify their investment. Of course the natural reaction is for them to withdraw their capital from the country of investment. In such a case no flow of income will result between the two countries concerned and overseas investment will cease. Interchange of industrial knowledge and industrial skills will cease if we do not halt investment from countries like the United Kingdom or the United States of America. The whole manufacturing set-up in Australia and the mining interests would become greatly inhibited if overseas investment were limited to the small amounts that the Opposition would like to see; ultimately business would close down entirely and we would become hewers of wood and drawers of water. Therefore I suggest that we make sure that these double taxation agreements are extended beyond the four countries with which . we now have them to other countries with which we have tremendous trade,

We on this side of the House believe that these agreements stimulate trade and investment between the countries that, sign the agreements. In the overall, they stimulate international trade as well. Surely it can be said truly that Australia is a capital hungry country. We have so many avenues for stimulation of investment and energies that whatever capital can come here under reasonable conditions should be used by the Australian community. Australia has always pursued its original concept of the use of capital in this country, namely, that we have a prior right to taxation where an investment is made in Australia. This has been a fair concept for Australia. When overseas establishments set up branches in Australia they enjoy the advantages of stable government, a sound economy and a solid monetary system. This has been brought about because this Government has been in power since 1.949 or early 1550. A sound economy, has been built up in the intervening- years. An overseas investor also has access to the many facilities that we take for granted, such as the courts, police protection, transport arrangements, social services, hospitals and many other favourable conditions that make him want to increase his investment from time to time. The Treasurer and the Treasury have adopted the principle that we are free to collect tax and to make bilateral arrangements with the country of residence of the investor. In other words, we maintain a taxing priority over the original dividends to be paid. But at the same time good sense prevails and when an overseas businessman comes to Australia he can stay here and make profits, provided he does not stay longer than 183 days or 6 months, without having a tax load upon those profits.

Mr Peters:

– Does that apply to Englishmen?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Scullin will cease interjecting. 1 understand he is the next speaker so he will have the right to reply. I suggest he refrain from continually interjecting.

Mr WHITTORN:

– It is possible that under double taxation agreements inequities can arise in cases in which the bulk of dividends goes to companies holding shares in Australian public companies. The Treasury has advised me that most of the dividends exported do go to companies in England holding shares in Australian companies and not to individuals, and these dividends are taxed four times before the shareholder receives his final cheque. The first tax is that which is taken from the profit made by the Australian company before any dividend is paid. Then the dividend itself is taxed in. Australia. This is the 15% withholding tax mentioned by the Minister in his second reading speech and also by the honourable member for Melbourne Ports. When the dividend is remitted overseas to the company which had invested in the Australian company it is taxed a third time. Finally, when the dividend is paid to the original investor it is taxed again by the British Government. It is most desirable, therefore, that not only our Treasury officials but also honourable members should realise that the tax burden is quite considerable in such cases.

When double taxation agreements do not operate the total amount of tax that is applied to the dividends earned in an Australian company can be as high as 59.75%. If the profit is SI 00 the Australian company tax. at 42.5%. takes $42.50. The amount then available for dividend is $57.50. Withholding tax at the original rate of 30% takes another SI 7.25, leaving a balance, out of the original profit of $100, of $40.25. So the governments concerned receive between them a fair share of the profit earned by an Australian subsidiary. With a double taxation agreement the total tax, in the case I have just cited, is reduced from $59.75 to $51.12. Very few honourable members realise that the tax burden on the profit earned by an Australian subsidiary will still be a little more than 51%, but without the double taxation agreement the total tax would be just under 60%. This reduction in the tax burden conforms to the real desire of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which has found that double taxation agreements result in sustainable economic growth, rising standards of living and financial stability in the country of investment.

The honourable member for Melbourne Ports, when discussing the New Zealand agreement in 1960, acknowledged that this form of agreement was useful in the case of that country. He said that we were trying to arrive ‘at an equitable system of avoiding some of the ill effects of double taxation’. This is contrary to the views of the honourable member for Soullin who always says that overseas investment in Australia is useless anyway. The honourable member for Melbourne Ports said later, however, that i overseas investment is contrary to the r interests of Australia. Of course people will * invest in this country while we have our present stable government and while we have k private enterprise working for the good of I Australia and of Australians and also working for the good of the investor overseas. Members of the Opposition do appear to harbour a phobia about overseas investment in this country and I fail to understand why. It was a Labor government that arranged for

I General Motors-Holden’s Pty Ltd to establish its industry in Australia in 1946 or 1947 - and what a good job that company has done, not only for itself, not only for its employees, not only for the automotive industry but for the whole of Australia. The company now is part of the second largest manufacturing industry in Australia. It commenced operations during the reign of a Labor government in 1946, using overseas capital, overseas investment, overseas knowt ledge and skills.

Mr Chipp:

– The Labor Party was a different party then.

Mr WHITTORN:

– As the honourable member for Higinbotham says, it was a different party then. We have seen the Labor Party in operation during the last week. It seems to be so torn with personal interest that its members cannot tell the sheep from the goats. The motor manufacturing industry in Australia provides excellent jobs for thousands of Australians who in turn support thousands and thousands more. It is truly my impression that the Labor Party believes it would be a good thing if overseas capital were no longer to flow to this country because, as the members of the Labor Party say, no dividends would then be exported from this country. They fail to recognise that men would become unemployed, families would have to be supported by social service payments and stagnation of the economy would result. They complain of companies supported by overseas capital prospering and remitting dividends overseas, but they fail to realise that those companies give steady employment, at good wages and with over award payments, and with excellent superannuation conditions, to thousands of Australians. They enable their employees to send their children to high schools and universities and generally to live good lives. This is why we support investment in manufacturing industries in Australia - Australian investment as well as overseas investment.

I know that the honourable member for Scullin will tell the House all about his little book, ‘A Financial Invasion’, but even that book discloses that nearly 50% of dividends remitted overseas are reinvested in Australian industry. This reinvestment results in more jobs for more Australians and keeps Australian families happier than they have ever been before.

I have no doubt that if the Labor Party came to power it would place an embargo on overseas investment in Australia. In due time it would then have to discontinue tha immigration programme and restrict and isolate the whole country. This is how tha dead hand of Socialism works. I was fortunate enough to visit England last year and I saw just what a Socialist government can do to a people and a country.

Mr Bosman:

– It has made a mess- of Great Britain.

Mr WHITTORN:

– As my friend says, the Socialist Government has made a mess of Great Britain. There is no need to go to Communist countries to see what can happen under a Socialist government. Some honourable members opposite have ViSit-C Communist countries and come back amazed at the dreary, dingy attitude of the people living in those countries. One has only to go to Britain to see what Socialism in a very short time has done to our own kith and kin.

I said earlier that the British Parliament debated its legislation on 8th February this year. The second reading speech on the Bill was delivered by Mr Harold Lever, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. As I understood the Hansard report, this gentleman made two points. The first was that due to internal changes to corporation tax in the United Kingdom the double taxation agreement had to be altered. I thought that this had very little to do with our agreement with the United Kingdom. The second point made by Mr Harold Lever was that the United Kingdom Government was trying to bring the agreement into accord with the OECD report of 1963 to which I referred earlier.

I thought that the remarks made by Mr Patrick Jenkin were important. He made the point that the original agreement was signed in October 1946 and that the financial circumstances of Australia then were quite different from what they are today. He said that then the United Kingdom had insisted that tax derived from shipping companies should accrue to the United Kingdom Treasury and that it had insisted that all dividends paid by wholly owned subsidiaries in Australia should suffer no tax burden in Australia. We know from the agreement that dividends now attract a 15% withholding tax. We know that interest paid to investors investing in Australia will now be taxed by our Treasury to the extent of 10% and we know, as has been said by the honourable member for Melbourne Ports and as appears in the Minister’s second reading speech, that royalties paid to British companies will now be loaded with a 10% tax burden. Mr Patrick Jenkin, as reported in Hansard of 8lh February, stated that the new agreement marked a shift from the original pattern. He said:

Perhaps the most noteworthy feature of the new agreement is the extent to which the Australian Treasury benefits to an extent vastly greater than does its UK counterpart.

This contradicts entirely most of what was said in the 45 minutes during which the honourable member for Melbourne Ports spoke. It is quite evident from what the British parliamentarians have said that they think that our Treasury negotiators have done a very good job in this matter, not only for Australia but for the Government also. Mr Patrick Jenkin finalised his remarks by saying that the extent to which the Australian Treasury and Government benefit would justify an inquiry and he itemised three or four matters which I have mentioned, including taxation on royalties and interest payments.

I said earlier that 1 would mention one or two things that Sir George Fisher was reported to have said about the mining industry. The honourable member for Melbourne Ports, for the last 10 minutes of his speech, talked about investment in mining in Australia and he said that Australia loses as a result of this overseas investment. Sir George Fisher is reported in today’s ‘Australian’ as having said:

Sixty years ago the ownership of Australia’s leading mines was more in overseas hands than it was today.

Australian ownership of North Broken Hill increased from 34% in 1913 to 84% today.

In the Western Mining Corporation, which was once owned by overseas capital, 90% of the shares were now held in Australia.

More interesting still is one point which comes to all our minds. He said:

When Broken Hill Pty Ltd decided in 1911 to set up a steel industry in Australia, 74% of its shares were held overseas and the company was classified as an overseas-controlled company. Today only 16% of its shares were held overseas.

From that it is evident that capital invested by overseas people and companies in Australia generates new capital. 1 look forward to the time when, as a result of these agreements and as a result of stable government in this country, we will be able to export capital to South East Asian countries and even to Britain and the United States of America.

Sitting suspended from 5.55 to 8 p.m.

Mr PETERS:
Scullin

– The honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Whittorn), who spoke this afternoon, said that members of the Labor Party, and particularly myself, were opposed to the use of overseas capital to develop Australia. This is incorrect. I made that clear in the booklet I issued and to which he referred. In the foreword of that booklet Senator Cohen said:

The Australian Labor Party is not opposed to overseas investment as such; but we do expect such investment should contribute to Australia’s growth and development.

– I say that. There is no reason why we should buy from Britain or from any other country goods for which we can pay not with the products of our factories, farms and mines but only with the factories, farms and mines themselves. The British commission of experts has reported on this. So has an Australian committee of experts. The Vernon Committee of Economic Inquiry was appointed by the Menzies Government. It consisted of leading business men, economists and public servants. It submitted a voluminous report to the Menzies Government in May 1965 The report cost the Australian taxpayers the best part of $500,000. One of the subjects on which it reported was the flow of capital to Australia. When dealing with this subject it considered the double taxation agreements between Australia and other countries. Honourable members on the

Government side allege that these agreements are necessary to promote the flow of capital to Australia to aid in its development. The Vernon Committee in its report said:

In our view there is no justification for the promotion of overseas investment either by the Commonwealth or State Governments.

It follows as night follows day that, if there is no justification for the promotion of overseas investment, there is no justification for double taxation agreements that give immense taxation concessions to people in other countries.

The Vernon Committee pointed out that the Canadian Government in order to discourage the takeover of industrial companies in Canada was discriminating by way of withholding tax and depreciation allowances against companies having less than a 25% Canadian equity. The double taxation agreements contracted by our Government are designed to have exactly the opposite result, and they are very successful. They encourage the unrestricted and unregulated investment of overseas capital in Australia. They have resulted in the wholesale and complete takeover of Australian companies, factories, farms and mines. The policy of the Canadian Government is: ‘Canada for the Canadians’. The slogan of our Government is: ‘Australia for anybody but the Australians’. Already more than 25% of Australian companies are owned overseas. In 1965 the Vernon Committee said that, if there was an annual investment of $300m, 46% of all Australian company assets would be owned by overseas interests by 1975. Since 1965 the annual investment of overseas capital in Australia has been at the rate of some $600m a year and it is increasing. During the first 8 months of this financial year it was $700m. The immense flow of capital to Australia has promoted floods of motor cars, textiles, footwear and all kinds of unnecessary and unneeded imports that have retarded the development of Australian industries. Some industries have been promoted at the expense of those that have been retarded, but Australia is the loser.

The investment income payable overseas by Australia in 1967 was S321m. In addition more than $70m was payable on Commonwealth and State securities held in other lands. It appears that if all the interest payable overseas was annually invested in Australia the whole of Australian company assets could pass into overseas ownership without the flow to Australia of an additional cent of overseas capital. I repeat that Australia has now reached the position where all Australian company assets could be foreign owned without an additional cent of capital coming from other countries. Double taxation agreements have brought about this undesirable state of affairs. There are those who talk of the reciprocity of the advantages of double taxation agreements as though there were some kind of equality in the benefits obtained by both parties to double taxation agreements. This does happen wilh some such agreements, but it does not happen with those to which Australia is a party. The small amount of Australian investment overseas compared with the overseas investment in Australia means that the taxation advantages are with other countries. Both countries can, however, at the same time suffer from the operation of a double taxation agreement, as Britain and Australia are at present.

The Vernon Committee stated:

There are grounds for considering the renegotiation of double taxation agreements from the point of view of the cost to the Commonwealth revenue resulting from the much greater flow of investment Income from than to Australia.

The investment income payable overseas by Australia in 1966-67, as I have said, was more than $390m. In the same year the interest payable to Australia from overseas was about $40m. The amount payable to the United Kingdom was about $200m. An Australian with a taxable annual income of $20,000 would pay in taxation more than $9,000. An investor in Britain or the United States of America would pay $3,000. An Australian resident with $50,000 income would pay $29,000 in taxation, but the overseas investor with this income would pay $7,500. Investors in Australian companies living in countries with which Australia has no double taxation agreements would pay twice as much. On $20,000 they would pay $o,000 and on $50,000 they would pay $13,000. It can easily be estimated that the overseas investors in countries with which Australia has double taxation agreements would pay over S50m a year less in Australia than they would if Australia was not a party to any double taxation agreements. We are the losers. Australia would get reciprocal taxation benefits of about $7m. Australia’s loss is about $43 m a year. Is there any Australian whose interests are only Australian, whatever his economic circumstances may be, who favours this generosity to those whose only interest in Australia is the extraction of profits?

I support the renegotiation of the double taxation agreement with the United Kingdom; it will increase the amount of taxation coming to Australia. But I favour the early termination of the agreement. The present proposal is only a step in the right direction. The Government is taking only a small step in the right direction as a prelude to a much bigger step in the wrong direction. The Australian Government is amending the agreement with the United Kingdom because economic difficulties have caused Britain to discourage the flow of British capital to Australia and because the Australian Government is eager to maintain and increase the capital flow by contracting a double taxation agreement with Japan. In other words, the Australian Government is not concerned. It realises that we must now do without a proportion of the capital inflow from Britain. But it wants Japanese capital and therefore it wants to contract a double taxation agreement with Japan. Such an agreement would encourage the flow of more and more goods from Japan to Australia. Australian overseas balance of payments deficits would be increased and these deficits would be paid for with Australian company assets, factories, farms and mines. Foreign ownership of Australian industries has already restricted the Australian export market. There exist hundreds of agreements between overseas firms and their subsidiaries in Australia determining the areas to which the Australian subsidiaries may export and also the quantity and value of goods that they may export. Overseas ownership not only enables overseas firms to decide what will be supplied to the overseas markets but, when foreign ownership is big enough, it will be able to decide what will be supplied by Australian industries to the Australian market.

At a seminar of the Australian Institute of Management, a leading Japanese businessman, Mr Nara, said that Australian manufactured goods could not compete on the world’s markets with goods made in Japan. He said the minimum wage for labourers in Australia is roughly 2.5 to three times the level in Japan. He advised Australia to concentrate on its rural exports and keep out of manufacturing. I suggest that this is a general Japanese view and that if the Japanese gained control of Australian industries the objective would be not merely to restrict exports but also to replace goods manufactured in Australia and sold in Australia with goods manufactured in Japan. This is not an attack on the Japanese but a statement of what would be done by any businessmen who are not concerned with promoting the development of Australia and its people but only with extracting from this country as much profit as possible. Any businessmen, whether from Japan, America or elsewhere, if they had a place where they could manufacture goods more cheaply than in Australia, and if they owned industries in Australia, would transfer their factories and production to the place where production could be achieved more cheaply. The Government would help to build the power and the influence of Japan.

I have already stated that the double taxation agreement with Britain was not in all respects as generous as the agreement with the United States of America. The Treasurer told me in answer to a question in this House that American theatrical or performing artists working in Australia are not liable to Australian tax if they are in Australia for less than 184 days during the year of income. In other words, if they are not here for more than 6 months American performing artists, television stars or people of that description pay no taxation whatsoever.

Mr Katter:

– What about the Russian circus?

Mr PETERS:

– The Treasurer told me in answer to another question that an English artist would pay tax comparable with the Australian tax paid by an Australian artist. So would a Russian. An Australian artist who received $100,000 would pay $60,000 in. tax to the Australian Government. However, an American artist who earned $100,000 would pay nothing to the Australian Government. Even double taxation agreements differ in their incidence. There is a difference between the treatment of performers and artists from Britain on the one hand and from the United States on the other. For the information of the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter), I point out that there is a difference between the treatment of artists in the Russian circus on the one hand and American artists on the other. Of course, it is said that the arrangement with the United States is reciprocal and that Australian artists operating in America do not have to pay American tax. That is right. But there are more American artists in Australia performing - and performing is the appropriate word - than there are Australian artists in America or English artists in Australia.

Article (IX) of the Agreement with the United Kingdom specifically excludes the profits, remuneration or other income of public entertainers such as stage, motion picture or radio artists, musicians and athletes, from any exemption from Australian tax. Article (IX) of the Agreement with the United States of America makes it clear that American entertainers are not liable to any tax. This exemption would also include the so called wrestlers. This means that wrestlers and all kinds of performers receive fabulous sums free of tax for appearing in Australia. Why is this so? Is it because they promote Australian industries? They do exactly the opposite. They prevent Australians from obtaining jobs. How can anyone justify the differentiation in the treatment of English and American performers? There is no doubt that the double taxation agreement with the United Kingdom should be re-negotiated to reduce the advantages it gives to British investors. But the agreement should, as soon as practicable, be eliminated altogether. There are more and greater reasons why the agreement with the United States of America should be cancelled. There are overwhelming reasons why the agreement with the British should not be amended as a prelude to Australia contracting a double taxation agreement with Japan. Australia is like a drug taker. The policies of our Government have made the economic health of our nation depend more and more upon bigger and bigger intakes of overseas capital. The flow cannot immediately be cut off without grave dangers. There must, however, be no increased dependence promoted by double taxation agreements with other countries and the existing dependence must be eliminated gradually but rapidly.

A government commissioned team of economists reported to the Canadian Government on 16th February 1968 that Canada must embrace a bold new policy to protect its sovereignty from erosion by foreign economic control. Statistics for 1963 showed that foreign interests controlled 60% of Canadian manufacturing industries, 59% of mining and smelting and 74% of petroleum and natural gas. Canada is fighting - against odds - to get back to its own people ownership of its industries in order to prevent the erosion of its political sovereignty. Australia does exactly the opposite. Here is an example of the rate at which Australian industry has passed into overseas ownership. A special report released in Canberra on 1st February of this year stated that by 1965 the overseas ownership of companies engaged in Australian metal production had climbed to 43.5%. Two years earlier it had been 39%. During the same period, the proportion of overseas owned companies in fuel mining production rose from 11.2% to 19.4%. In the non-metal mining section, overseas ownership climbed to 17.2% from 14.8% in 1963. Total mining production in 1965 was valued at $358m. Of this amount, $120m was apportioned to overseas ownership. Since 1965 the position has rapidly worsened. Should there be more double taxation agreements to accelerate the rate of takeover of Australia by foreign interests, or should there be re-negotiation or elimination of existing double taxation agreements to reduce the rate of takeover? This generation of Australians owes it to those who fought and worked for Australia in the past, to those who are working for Australia at present, and to those who are fighting or are being forced to fight allegedly to prevent foreign domination of Australia to prevent outside domination resulting from foreign economic control of Australia. Government of Australia by Australians for Australians must not be destroyed by the economic erosion of Australia’s sovereignty.

Mr UREN:
Reid

– The Income Tax (Internationa] Agreements) Bill 1968 deals with what is commonly known as the double taxation agreement with the United

Kingdom. The first double taxation agreement with the United Kingdom was entered into by the Chifley Labor Administration in 1946. The right honourable J. B. Chifley realised in the early postwar years that it was necessary to get as much British know how and investment as possible into this country to establish industry and to maintain full employment. Thus he agreed to a most generous agreement with the United Kingdom. The review of that double taxation agreement is long overdue. Although Mr Chifley’s decision can be argued, it was the correct one at the time. At this stage in our history, however, I am totally opposed to any double taxation agreement with any country. Honourable members might ask: Why do you not oppose this Bill?’ My reply is that the party to which I belong thinks that this measure represents a step in the right direction; it does not believe in opposing progress. Indeed progress should be supported. I regard this measure as a progressive move and a definite improvement on the old double taxation agreement.

It is as well to mention the differences between the two agreements and the improvements that are being made in the new one. Under the former scheme a branch of a British company that was established in Australia was not required to pay income tax. Dividends declared after profit were distributed to the British parent company and taxation was not payable on them. Even though Australian dividend holders pay up to 66c in the $1 on their investment, the British companies do not pay anything on their dividends. Of course it is pointed out that the British companies pay 42i% or, to use the old formula, 8s 6d in the £1 in company taxation. But we know that the monopolies - the British monopolies as well as other foreign concerns - always include company taxation in their cost structure. Most foreign companies work on a restrictive franchise; they sell only to the Australian community. Therefore company taxation of 42±% is included in their cost structure and consequently the Australian customer pays the tax, not the overseas company. Over the years the old agreement has obviously been a good one for those overseas concerns.

Another point of interest is that lawyers found a way of overcoming a legal difficulty concerning taxation payable in respect of debenture capital. Because a contract had been entered into on foreign soil it was found possible to evade taxation. By this device the overseas companies did not pay taxation on money earned on debenture or interest capital. Another forward move in the legislation now before the House is concerned with taxation payable on royalties. Under this Bill overseas companies will have to pay 10% withholding tax on interest on debentures and on royalties. On 29th July 1966 Maximilian Walsh made this most interesting comment in the ‘Australian Financial Review”:

Disclosure by the Chairman of the Melbourne Stock Exchange, Mr A. B. Mellor, that an Australian company had missed out on a $60m loan from US sources because of Australia’s harsh tax laws suggests that the unnamed company should look again at its tax advice.

He went on to say:

Mr Mellor lias claimed that the 42i% withholding tax chargeable on interest remitted overseas is one of the main barriers to the flow of funds across the Pacific.

While it is true there is a theoretical tax levied on interest paid for funds lent in Australia from overseas sources there is an escape loophole half a mile wide in Australia’s taxation laws.

Section 125 of the Income Tax Assessment Act permits the remission of interest payment without any deduction for taxation where a contract is enforceable outside Australia.

There is no doubt that this loophole in our taxation laws has been found by most companies trading with fixed interest capital overseas. The article in the ‘Australian Financial Review’ continued:

Providing their lawyers include a clause setting out the rate of interest to be charged and include the provision that ‘no deduction for taxes is to be made therefrom’ the Australian taxation authorities can take no action.

The interesting point is that this situation has been pointed to since as far back as 1934. In that1 year a Royal Commission strongly recommended, without success, that this aspect of the law be tightened. It has taken until 1968 to do it. There is no doubt that this Government moves fast. However, this measure is a step forward and this is one reason why my party is not opposing the legislation.

Why are double taxation agreements entered into? It is argued that it is to encourage the investment of new foreign capital in this country. As a result of indiscriminate foreign investment since the early postwar years more than $5,000m has flowed into this country. On 2nd April 1 963 the Right Honourable John McEwen, speaking in his capacity as Leader of the Australian Country Party, said:

We in this room are mostly established farmers. If we earn enough annual income we live comfortably. If we do not we could still live comfortably by selling a bit of the farm every year, and that is pretty much the Australian situation - we are not earning enough and we are selling a bit of our heritage every year.

That was said by the Leader of the Australian Country Party who is also the Deputy Prime Minister. We know that year after year he has expressed criticisms of the Government’s policy of allowing unplanned and uncontrolled foreign investment to flow into this country to take over established companies, industries and our natural resources. It is strange that the Deputy Prime Minister seems only to use words and not actions.

The Government of Australia has to govern. It is its responsibility to govern. It is its responsibility to bring down legislation to control foreign investment. We have every right to control and plan our economy. The Australian Labor Party has never said that we do not need foreign investment. It has said that we must determine our priorities, plan our economy and determine what we need and what we do not need. Unfortunately, this Government during its administration from 1950-51 to 1966-67 ran up a deficit on the balance of current accounts of $6,215m. We have a deficit with the United Kingdom, which is the country we are discussing under this double taxation agreement, and we have a deficit with our great and powerful friend, the United States of America. We have a deficit of $4,900m with the United Kingdom and a deficit of $4,600m with the United States. We have a combined total deficit of $9,500m with those two countries. We have credits with some of’ the Asian coun-tries, such as Japan and China. It is respectable to trade with China but it is not respectable to recognise that country. We have trade credits of $3,400m with these Asian countries and some of the European countries and with Common Market countries. There remains a deficit of $6,200m. This position has arisen because of a lack of economic planning and we have had to rely on indiscriminate inflow of foreign investment into Australia. My two colleagues the honourable member for Melbourne Forts (Mr Crean) and the honourable member for Scullin (Mr Peters) have pointed out that there has been no economic planning and no determination of priorities or of the type of foreign investment we need.

These are instances of foreign capital invested in this country earning approximately 600% on the original investment. This is greater than the exploitation that occurred in the old colonial days. Imagine in these days any company earning 600% on its original investment. I remind the House of what John Foster Dulles said in the early 1950s. He said:

There are two ways of conquering a nation. One is to gain control of its people by force of arms. The other h to gain control of its economy by financial means.

That is exactly what is happening in this country. We are losing more and more of our national heritage every day.

This afternoon during question time the Treasurer (Mr McMahon) said that 90% of private investment in this country was Australian investment. I was able to point out that although 90% of private investment in Australia was Australian investment, it has been estimated conservatively that one-third of Australia’s manufacturing industries and natural resources is already owned by foreign capital. We have many historical precedents from which we can draw in order to deal with this question of foreign investment in Australia. For example, we could study the difficulties experienced in Canada. Certainly we should do something in regard to the planning of foreign investment in Australia. This Government has been in office since 1949, yet not one piece of legislation has been introduced to control or plan foreign investment. I repeat that, as John Foster Dulles said, there are two ways of conquering a nation. One is by military means and the other is by economic means. I am not dealing with racialism in this question because I do not differentiate between colour and creed. Although we fought against Fascist Japan in the Second World War, I do not discriminate as between Japanese capital and British or United States capital. We fought Fascist Japan which was supported by the Mitsubishis and the Mitsuis These Mitsubishis and Mitsuis are buying Australia today for 5c per ton. They do not need to send armies here. They are buying Australia by paying 5c per ton. We are not exporting processed material. We are sending out raw material. It is about time this Government stopped selling a little bit of our heritage every year. It is about time it took legislative action to stop the takeover of Australia by foreign investment. It is about time it stopped selling Australian real estate in the cities and in the country. It is about time it took action to deal with the food processing companies.

I shall quote some figures for the Treasurer, who spoke this afternoon. I shall quote from a conservative publication, the Melbourne ‘Age’ of 18th February 1965 - 3 years ago - which contained a report of a paper delivered at a stock exchange symposium - a stock exchange seems to me to be a very respectable and conservative establishment - by Mr J. G. Wilson of Australian Paper Manufacturers Ltd, in which he dealt with the question of foreign ownership in Australia. He listed the position of certain industries as follows:

Just imagine that, in 1968, 50% of Australia’s food industry is owned by foreign investment. I remind the Country Party of what its Leader said on 2nd April 1963. He said that we are selling a bit of the farm and a bit of our heritage every year. He said that 5 years ago. How long have we to wait before something is done? Mr Wilson added that between 45% and 50% of Australia’s lead, zinc, copper and mineral sands industries was owned by overseas investors. Overseas investment in heavy engineering was 334-%. He said in fact that all manufacturing industries were owned at least to a minimum of 334% by overseas interests.

The Income Tax (International Agreements) Bill 1968 which we are now discussing concerns a double taxation agreement. It is a reciprocal agreement. It gives the British investor in Australia certain taxation concessions. It also gives the Australian investor with financial interests in Great Britain certain taxation concessions. Let me give to the House the relative dividends repatriated by each country to the agreement during the period from 1949 to 1965-66. The dividends sent from Great Britain to Australia were $35m. Australian investors in Great Britain, as I have said, receive certain taxation concessions. The amount of dividends sent from Australia to the United Kingdom in this period was $l,006m. This was under the reciprocal agreement. It seems a little lopsided.

Let me examine further the question of the double taxation agreement. Prior to 1946, when Australia first entered into this agreement, income tax on British companies was 7s in the £1. Apart from those countries with which Australia had double taxation agreements, the taxation was only 6s in the £1. So, for the purposes of my argument, I will work on the figure of 30c in the Si taxation. It is my conservative estimate that this Government would have received $300m from income tax during that period. This is what would have been normally paid by overseas investors if they had paid taxation at the level of 30c in the $1. I refer now to the withholding tax of 15c in the $1.1 am being conservative in this calculation also. I pointed out earlier that some companies which have wholly owned British branches in Australia do not fall within the category that pays this taxation. I have worked my calculations out on the basis that everybody pays this 1 5c withholding tax. It seems to me therefore that United Kingdom investors would have paid $I50m and they have thus made a saving of $150m during the period that this reciprocal agreement has been in operation. Yet, Australia is still to continue with this proposition, except that the branches of United Kingdom companies will now have to pay 15c in the $1 withholding tax.

I turn now to look at the figures in relation to royalties. It has taken many years to introduce the withholding tax of 10% on royalties. In the year 1947-48, Australia paid out S2m in royalties. In return it received no income at all from royalties or, if it did, the amount did not reach the $lm mark. Last year, Australia’s payout on royalties was S55m. During the 18-year period Australia paid out $420m. It has taken nearly 18 years to introduce any taxation measure concerning royalties. In fact, in the period of time I have mentioned, $420m has been sent out of this country by way of royalties. I would like to see a worker in Australian industry try to evade income tax of just a few shillings a week. Yet, regarding the taxation of royalties we have seen evidence of the utter stupidity of the Government and the snail’s pace at which our national Government has worked. It has taken 18 years to introduce taxation on royalties.

Perhaps I have been -a little harsh in my references to the figure of $420m. That relates to all countries; it does not apply only to the United Kingdom. But during the same period that Australia has paid out $420m in royalties, all we have received from overseas in this regard is $25m. I would say that a big proportion of that amount came from the United Kingdom.

Mr Bosman:

– The honourable member is only speculating.

Mr- UREN- If the knowledge from which I speak is inadequate, this is because the Government will not make the relevant statistics available to members of this House. I have asked the Treasurer time and time again to tell me the amount of dividends that has been repatriated by wholly owned British companies in Australia. This question was on the notice paper last year. In reply the Treasurer said that he was unable to give me the information that I sought. This is how inadequate the Government is. It cannot give an honourable member the information that he seeks.

The House is discussing a matter concerning income tax. I remind honourable members that up to 1951, following the practice adopted by the Chifley administration which was continued by Sir Arthur Fadden, taxation at the rate of 10c in the $1 was paid on all undistributed profits. It was called the undistributed profits tax. During the period that I have mentioned, there has been approximately $900m in undistributed profits by British companies. If taxation is assessed on that amount at 10c in the $1 we find that approximately $90m should have been paid by way of taxation. I have estimated already - conservatively - that under the double taxation agreement British investors have saved $150m. I estimate that they have saved another $90m in undistributed profits tax. Australia is a gravy train to them. It is an El Dorado. Australia is a land of milk and honey for foreign investors.

I join with the honourable member for Scullin in saying that we need certain types of foreign investment. But we must plan what types of foreign investment we need. We must determine our matters of priority. Until such time as we determine these priorities, more and more of Australia’s national heritage will be sold. As John Foster Dulles said, there are two ways of conquering a nation. This should be kept in mind by honourable members opposite who are so concerned about the great threat to Australia from the North. They must be concerned also about the economic threat to this country.

I close on this point: The only reason why I do not oppose this legislation is that it represents a step forward. But I believe, as the honourable member for Scullin said, that it is about time the Australian Government did away with all double taxation agreements. It would be better if Australia did away with not only its double taxation agreement with the United Kingdom but also its double taxation agreements with the United States of America, Canada and New Zealand. Australia has no double taxation agreement with any other country. But the writing is on the wall. Pretty soon Japan will be seeking a double taxation agreement with Australia. The general public may ask: What is the difference between the countries that have double taxation agreements with us and the countries that do not have such agreements? The countries with which we have a double taxation agreement pay a withholding tax of approximately 15c in the $1. The countries with which we do not have an agreement pay the tax of 30c in the $1. It is about time Australia ceased to discriminate between countries. It is about time Australia levied a minimum tax of 30c in the $1 on all overseas interests with investments in Australia. After all, the Australian investor pays taxation up to 66% on his investment. If it is good enough for the Australian to pay 66%, or 66c in the $1, in taxation I do not see why foreign investors protected by double taxation agreements should get off cheaply by paying only 15c in the$1. The majority of foreign investment in Australia is from Britain and the United States. Australia has had a raw deal. We have achieved a deficit with Britain and America totalling over $9, 000m during this Government’s administration. It is time the Government took legislative action, that we stopped talking and started to act.

Mr FREETH:
Minister for Air · Forrest · LP

– in reply - I am grateful that the Opposition is not opposing this Bill. The honourable member for Scullin (Mr Peters) and the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) are poles apart from the Government in their approach to this legislation. From the start, they do not want any foreign investment in Australia or, if they do, they are going about getting it in a way which would discourage foreign investment. My only comment on what was said by the honourable member for Reid is that he seemed to be hopelessly confused between the 30% income lax which was paid on net income after the deduction of expenses and a withholding tax on interest and royalties, which is a tax on gross payments - a very substantial difference. I suggest that the honourable member did not get that sorted out in his own mind. 1 rose primarily to answer a question raised by the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean). He was in some doubt as to whether the Government’s taxation of royalties would cover the whole situation that he thought should be covered. He asked whether such payments as engineering fees and technical service fees would be regarded as royalties under the definition in this Bill. I am happy to assure him that as far as we can tell these payments are covered. The definition of royalties has been designed specifically to include all payments of an income nature that are made by way of engineering fees, technical service fees, fees for special know-how and the like. I will not detain the House further. I thank honourable members for their consideration of the Bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 926

INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT BILL 1968

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 27 March (vide page515), on motion by Mr Freeth:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 926

SCIENCE AND INDUSTRY RESEARCH BILL 1968

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 20 March (vide page 261), on motion by Mr Snedden:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Dr PATTERSON:
Dawson

– This Bill is simply a machinery measure arising out of the creation of the portfolio of External Territories. The Bill transfers to the Minister for External Territories the functional responsibilities formerly carried out by the Minister of State for Territories. It is interesting to note that under the original Act of 1949 the Minister for External Territories was charged with the responsibility to administer this legislation but that in 1959 the legislation was amended when the Minister became known as the Minister for Territories. Now we are changing back to the original situation; the legislation will be administered by the Minister for External Territories. As the amendment is specific and relates simply to this change the Opposition is unable to debate the principal Act. It does not oppose the Bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 926

NATIVE MEMBERS OF THE FORCES BENEFITS BILL 1968

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 20 March (vide page 261), on motion by Mr Snedden:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Dr PATTERSON:
Dawson

– This Bill seeks to amend section 3 of the principal Act by transferring to the Minister of State for External Territories responsibility formerly exercised by the Minister of State for Territories. This is a machinery change arising from the creation of the Department of External Territories and the Opposition does not oppose it.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 926

REMOVAL OF PRISONERS (TERRITORIES) BILL 1968

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 20 March (vide page 261), on motion by Mr Snedden:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Dr PATTERSON:
Dawson

– This is a machinery measure which seeks to transfer to the Minister for External Territories functional responsibilities that were formerly exercised by the Minister for Territories. The Opposition does not oppose the Bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 927

NORTHERN TERRITORY (ADMINISTRATION) BILL 1968

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 13 March (vide page 44), on motion by Mr Nixon:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Bosman:
ST GEORGE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– There being no objection, that course will be followed.

Dr PATTERSON:
Dawson

– As the Minister for the Interior (Mr Nixon) said in his second reading speech, there is no particular significance in these Bills. The Northern Territory (Administration) Bill proposes the insertion in the Northern Territory (Administration) Act of provisions which will allow any officer of the Commonwealth Public Service who is appointed Administrator of the Northern Territory to retain all the rights accruing to him as an officer of the Public Service. These include the right to sick leave, superannuation rights and so on. This will bring any officer appointed to the position of Administrator of the Northern Territory into line with officers appointed to posts such as that of Administrator of the Territory of Papua and New Guinea and similar positions in the Territories of Cocos Islands and Christmas Island. The Opposition has no argument with this proposal. It believes that a public servant capable of carrying out the duties of Administrator of the Northern Territory should be given every opportunity and encouragement to do so. We do not oppose the Bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 927

OFFICERS’ RIGHTS DECLARATION BILL 1968

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 13 March (vide page 44), on motion by Mr Nixon:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 927

NORTHERN TERRITORY REPRESENTATION BILL 1968

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 13 March (vide page 45), on motion by Mr Nixon:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Dr PATTERSON:
Dawson

– The long delayed and reluctant decision of the Government to give the member for the Northern Territory full voting rights in the Parliament will be applauded not only by residents of the Northern Territory but also by all other sound thinking. Australians. The Hansard reports of this Parliament contain voluminous records of the verbal fight for full voting rights put up over the years not only by elected members of this Parliament but also by many responsible citizens of the Northern Territory. The Parliament will recall the many constructive arguments advanced by the members of the Nelson family who represented the Northern Territory in this House for many years. These men lost no opportunity to campaign for an unrestricted vote, just as the present member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder) has done and in the same way as the member for the Australian Capital Territory (Mr J. R. Fraser) never gave up his fight for full voting rights in the Parliament.

Why has the Government taken so long to give the Northern Territory the full political justice it deserves? There can be and there is only one answer. The Government will fight tooth and nail to hold on to every bit of power it possesses over the Northern Territory. It does not wish to ease in the slightest degree the stranglehold it has on the Territory, which has continuously affected adversely its economic development, its legislative processes and its supply of finance. The Government believes in government of the Northern Territory from Canberra, by departmental persons, many of whom, I regret to say, have never been in the Territory. Those who have been there have a knowledge of the Territory restricted to the streets, hotels and motels of Darwin or the air route from Canberra to that city.

The stranglehold which this Government maintains on the Northern Territory is vividly shown in the workings of the Legislative Council. As it now operates under the Northern Territory (Administration) Act this Council is toothless and clawless It is devoid of any real constructive power. The claim that the Legislative Council is an effective body is humbug.

Mr Nixon:

– This is getting away from the Bill, is it not?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Bosman:

– Order! I remind the honourable member that the scope of this measure is restricted. We are discussing only the voting power in this House of the member for the Northern Territory.

Dr PATTERSON:

– With due respect, Mt Deputy Speaker, I have not yet got off that subject. I have been speaking about the position in this House of the member for the Northern Territory, and this Parliament has, of course, a direct relationship with the Legislative Council for the Territory. On 8th November 1966 and 14th February 1967 the elected members of that Council stated that unless the Commonwealth Government was prepared to do something to restore the Council to its proper and clearly intended position as the legislative body for the Northern Territory they would have to consider their responsibilities and decide whether they should accept the positions they held merely for the convenience of the Department of Territories. These statements have a direct bearing on the measure that we are discussing, because the functions of the member for the Northern Territory are not confined to representing the people of the Territory in this House. He must maintain effective liaison with the Legislative Council because it is supposed to be responsible for the enactment of legislation aimed at improving the peace, order and government of the Northern Territory. This stated objective is no more than a farce. As the honourable member for the Northern Territory knows, and as he acknowledged in the speech that he made in this place only recently, the Legislative Council can operate only when the Government allows it to do so because under the present Northern Territory (Administration) Act the Government has power to disallow ordinances and also to refuse assent to bills or to reserve bills. This puts the Legislative Council completely at the mercy of the Government.

Because of the lack of interest of the Minister for Territories as he was formerly known and who, correctly or incorrectly, has often been described by many people in the Northern Territory as being incompetent, the Legislative Council has been restricted. It has been ruled by the Department of Territories from Canberra. This increased the problems of the honourable member for the Northern Territory because, as I said earlier, the Council was ruled by men whose only contact with the Territory was through official files, over the telephone or by flying visits to the Territory. Is it any wonder that responsibility for the Northern Territory has been taken from the Department of External Territories and the Minister for External Territories (Mr Barnes) and given to the Minister for the Interior (Mr Nixon), who is now at the table. I remind the House that responsibility for development in the Northern Territory rested with the Minister for the Interior many years ago. My recollection is that the present Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr McEwen), when he was the Minister for the Interior, was responsible to this Parliament for the development of the Territory.

The Department of Territories in Canberra has ceased to exist as such, but will the position in the Northern Territory be any better merely because personnel of the

Department will have transferred to the Department of the Interior? In effect these officers will be working exclusively and extensively on matters concerning the Northern Territory- However, I note with great interest the views of the member for the Northern Territory and of the Australian Country Party with regard to legislative improvement in the Territory. The transfer of responsibility to which I have referred is one of these improvements. I propose to quote from an official statement made by elected members of the Northern Territory Legislative Council on 14th February 1967. They said:

The people of the Northern Territory elected Mr S. Calder as a Country Parly candidate upon the Country Party’s expressed policy that liberal reform of the Legislative Council and the Administrator’s Council should be granted.

The Labor Party intends to see how sincere the honourable member for the Northern Territory and the Country Party are in this matter. The measure does not make provision for full voting rights for the member for the Northern Territory but I understand that the Minister will move an amendment to that effect. The second part of this electoral reform can be achieved only in the Legislative Council. Once the honourable member for the Northern Territory is given a full vote his responsibilities cannot be divorced from those of the Council. He will have to liaise with it and to work with it.

I have been given authority to introduce a Bill with the object of abolishing the appointment of the three non-official members of the Legislative Council. The Labor Party will move to replace the non-official members with three fully elected members. This is what the Council wants, and 1 understand from Hansard that this is what the honourable member for the Northern Territory wants. It seems to me that when the Bill which I propose to introduce goes to a vote the honourable member for the Northern Territory will have to support it as will also the Country Party as a whole. Otherwise those honourable members will simply be going back on their promises to the people of the Northern Territory during the last election campaign. As an alternative the Government can, before my measure is introduced, introduce a Bill to provide for the repeal of the requirement that three non-official members be appointed.

If the honourable member for the Northern Territory and the Country Party do not support this proposal I regret to say that they will be guilty of gross hypocrisy in the eyes of people in the Northern Territory. They cannot ignore their unqualified promise during the last general election campaign that there would be legislative reform in the Territory and that the non-official members of the Council would be replaced.

– The point I am making is that the Government is adopting highly questionable tactics and practices in using these calculations in support of its claim that the Northern Territory should have no control of and no say in the collection or spending of moneys in the Northern Territory. Under section 122 of the Constitution the Commonwealth Government could legally give to the people of the Northern Territory, through their Legislative Council, a far greater say in policies relating to the collection of money raised as a result of the Territory’s activities and in the disbursement of those funds within the Territory. In its calculations of these very dubious figures on which it bases its statement that the Northern Territory can have no say as to the collection and disbursement of funds, the Government makes no mention of the present or potential earning capacity of the Northern Territory in respect of export income. This must improve and must affect any financial analysis. Separate executive power for the Legislative Council could be enacted and such action would be a sound progressive move. It would represent an act of faith and a recognition of the fight by citizens of the Northern Territory and members of the Legislative Council for the extension of political justice and political rights.

I want to deal briefly with some of the points mentioned by the honourable member for the Northern Territory in his speech to the House on 13th March 1968. He pleaded for what this Bill provides - a full and unrestricted vote for the member for the Northern Territory in this Parliament. I want to refer to some of the arguments he then put forward. The speech of the honourable member for the Northern Territory on 13th March was a good speech. It was excellent. The only thing is that he is in the wrong party. In three pages of Hansard he did nothing but criticise the Government. I have no argument with the honourable member for the Northern Territory on this criticism of the Government. I support him. My point is that I want him and the Government to be fully aware of the statements that he made as the representative of the Northern Territory, which is Australia’s front door. The honourable member said that the Northern Territory: is so leg-roped by lack ot communications that many of the people 1 represent will not know of this occasion for days or possibly weeks.

That is fair enough but what has the Minister for the Interior done about it? What has the Government done about it? For almost 20 years this Government has been in power. The honourable member for the Northern Territory went on to state:

Nowhere is there greater scope for immediate growth than m the Northern Territory.

I assume that statement was qualified. He said further on:

Such fundamental means of communication as reliable railways do not exist in the Northern Territory.

That is true. They do not exist. I hope that now he is to have a full vote in this Parliament he will continue in this fashion and criticise this Government which has been so negative towards the development of the Northern Territory.

Mr Nixon:

– For many years.

Dr PATTERSON:

– If the Minister wants to have a say then let him speak afterwards. Members of the Opposition do not interject when he is speaking. The honourable member for the Northern Territory also said:

Two railways of sorts were built without much thought for the future.

How right he is. 1 vividly remember the Minister for Air and Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Freeth), as he is now - the portfolios have changed so quickly that I am not sure what position he holds - saying some time ago that there had not been a derailment for 2 weeks. But the point was that the trains had not run for 2 weeks. The honourable member for the Northern Territory, still referring to the two railways, said:

They have both let the people of the north down badly in the last twelve months.

There are not enough efficient railways. AH these things are obviously faults. The honourable member went on to say:

Why has there been a lack of planning? It is because my constituents have no real influence in this place.

He was right in that statement too because so arrogant is this Government towards the Northern Territory that the people there have had absolutely no influence in the past. The honourable member continued:

The turn round of shipping in the Northern Territory is one of the worst in Australia.

These are the words of the honourable member for the Northern Territory. Perhaps now that a Country Party member is in charge of the Department of Shipping and Transport the situation will improve. The honourabe member went on:

The roads in my electorate often hinder communication rather than facilitate it.

He is certainly right there.

The key road, from Alice Springs to Port Augusta, ls more often than not a nightmare.

Honourable members should travel over it today and see what it is like. They would not get very far in its present wet condition. Then the honourable member for the Northern Territory said this:

It is imperative that the Legislative Council be transformed and given more of the character of a State Parliament. It must have more responsibility and more opportunity; it must have a majority of elected members.

We of the Opposition agree with this.

Mr Curtin:

– Who said that?

Dr PATTERSON:

– The honourable member for the Northern Territory. We agree with him 100% but does the Minister for the Interior or the Government? No. The honourable member for the Northern Territory said:

I repeat that there must be a government of elected members within the Legislative Council and this must be provided for soon.

We will give the honourable member a chance to vote on this matter after the next Budget session. The honourable member for the Northern Territory continued in this vein:

Water conservation is one of our greatest national concerns but in the north countless millions of gallons of soft, precious water flow each week wasted into the sea.

Then listen to this next statement, one with which I agree:

I sincerely hope that the Snowy Mountains Authority will be long retained to plan further development in the north as well as other parts of Australia and abroad.

We of the Opposition agree with this, but what is the Government doing? It is abandoning the Snowy Mountains Hydroelectric Authority. The honourable member said:

Water conservation must be recognised as the key to future development, both industrial and agricultural, in the north.

Exactly. Then the honourable member for the Northern Territory, again correctly, made nothing more or less than a trenchant criticism of this Government when he said:

Intensive agricultural operations in our tropics are north Queensland’s highly efficient sugar and tobacco growing industries and Western Australia’s irrigation scheme on the Ord River. These are all in the north; but none are in the Northern Territory.

What did the Country Party Ministers do about the Ord? They voted against it in this House time and time again. The Minister for External Territories (Mr Barnes), who was previously the Minister for Territories, has never seen that part of the Ord River project which is in the Northern Territory. He has never seen the catchment area in the Negri and the Keep areas. He does not know that one-third of the area that can be commanded by the Ord River project is in the Northern Territory. The whole case for the Ord River project relates not only to Western Australia but also to the Northern Territory. Technical officers in the Northern Territory Administration know that the Minister for External Territories and his Department, and now the Minister for the Interior, are bitterly opposed to the Ord River project.

Mr Jess:

– I reckon the honourable member will be back in the Department soon.

Dr PATTERSON:

Mr Jeff Bate:

– I give notice that I will continue my remarks at the Committee stage.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Mr CALDER:

– I would like to thank the honourable member for Macarthur for his encouraging remarks to me on behalf of the Government and for the support he gave to me with regard to this Bill. The honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) seemed to be speaking more in favour of his private member’s Bill for the replacement of elected members on the Legislative Council for the Northern Territory than in support of this Bill. He must remember that this principle of full voting rights was on my platform when I was elected, and still is on it. In regard to his remarks about the Aboriginals, I suggest that he visit the places where they are and have a closer look at the position instead of relying on opinions that obviously he has read in papers written by people who do not know what they are talking about.

I thank the honourable member for his recognition of my speech on the AddressinReply to the Governor-General’s Speech. I thought my contribution was quite good and I am very pleased to see that the honourable member also thinks so. I agree that the remarks that he read from my speech were very relevant. I had not intended to mention my predecessor as member for the Northern Territory, but the honourable member for Dawson has forced me to do so. I am forced to say that during the 17 years for which a member of the Australian Labor Party represented the Northern Territory nothing was done.

Dr Patterson:

– Which government was in office for 17 years?

Mr CALDER:

– I admit that Labor was representing the Territory for that period. I support the Bill and congratulate the Government on taking this forward step. I will be charitable in admitting that this representation has been fought for by the Nelsons - Harold and Jock, whom I know personally - and others, including me. I have been fighting for it continuously. It was part of my platform, as was the demand for full voting rights. I have been assisted by all sections of the community of the Northern Territory. Let me give an example of the assistance I have received. On 27th May last year, referendum day, we organised a protest march in Alice Springs from what is now the Civic Centre to what would have been the polling booth had we the right to vote. All sections of the community attended this march - Liberal thinkers, church men and Aboriginals. I mink even the Labor representative for Alice Springs was there. Indeed there were 200 or 300 people present and the event was covered by television. Hundreds of placards were on show and a pipe band led us down the street. We were protesting about having no vote in Parliament and no vote at referendums. Now we have a vote here, and I hope that shortly we shall have the right to vote at referendums.

In my maiden speech I demanded full voting rights for the member for the Northern Territory. I demanded also Senate representation. On that very day the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) gave notice of a private member’s bill to remove the restriction on voting rights in the Northern Territory. This was a cheap, political gimmick to embarrass the Government and me. It was sheer hypocrisy and was quite typical of the Leader of the Opposition. Now that the Government has recognised the worth and potential wealth of the Northern Territory, it has granted full voting rights to the representative for the area.

Mr Armstrong:

– It has recognised the worth of its member too.

Mr CALDER:

– Yes, and of its member. On behalf of all genuine citizens of the Northern Territory I thank the Government. These people are overjoyed and have congratulated me on the efforts that have been made on their behalf. Mind you, there were quite a few people whom one would have expected to offer congratulations but who did not. Only one member of the Northern Territory Legislative Council did. That is why I said ‘genuine citizens of the Northern Territory’. Anyhow, full voting rights having been achieved, what has the Leader of the Opposition done? He has used a similar political gimmick to the one be employed previously. Out of sheer pique, hypocritically he has given notice of another private member’s bill, having been forestalled with his previous one. What does he now seek? He now wants the Northern Territory to have representation in the Senate. In my maiden speech I made a plea for it, but now the Leader of the Opposition says that the Territory must have Senate representation and he has given notice of a Bill to provide for such representation. Does he see this as a round about way of increasing numbers in the Senate? Is he* genuine? Is he sincere?

Mr Nixon:

– Ask Jim Cairns.

Mr CALDER:

– Ask the honourable member for Yarra by all means, and many others who sit behind the Leader of the Opposition. I certainly doubt his sincerity. In spite of stated Labor policy at both State and Federal levels, for abolition of upper houses, the Leader of the Opposition has given notice of a Bill to increase the size of the Senate. Why did he take this action? He did it to embarrass the Government and the member for the Northern Territory. Is he giving his money another run? He is seeking to have an each-way bet. This action is typical of the Leader of the Opposition; it is yet another example of sheer hypocritical insincerity.

We should concentrate on the development of the north, not on playing politics at its expense. Much has been done by the Government in the Northern Territory. For example Darwin has been given some fine new city buildings, schools and roads. Indeed the whole city is much improved on what it was when I first saw it more than 20 years ago. Beef roads have opened up a new era in primary production. Cattle come from over by the Ord into Katherine on the beef roads and up to the Darwin meat works. Beef production in the area has been transformed. There is confidence in the air. Why has this happened? It has happened because the Government has pursued its beef road policy. Agriculture in the Territory is about to boom following the introduction of new grasses and seeds and other measures sponsored by the Government. Mining has been greatly assisted by the road and rail facilities and by loading facilities in the Port of Darwin. In regard to Aboriginal affairs we are fortunate to have an Aboriginal council and a new Minister with a different outlook. All these things have been done by the Government for the Northern Territory. This is my answer to the honourable member for Dawson, who has stated that nothing has been done.

We must make better, use of the tremendous potential of this part of Australia. Its wealth must be harnessed and used to good effect to help Australia take her rightful place as a leader in the Pacific and Indian Ocean areas. Let us put the productive capacity of the north to the best possible use so that we. may assist our neighbours. I shall run through a few of the many things that are needed urgently. The honourable member for Dawson mentioned a number of the things that I said needed to be done during my speech on the motion for the adoption of the Address-in-Reply. I still say they should be done, although I realise that many of them are being considered by the Government. For instance, it is essential to expand the Port’ of Darwin to handle the increasing flow of imports and exports. After all, the north is growing and it will give Australia a better chance to become a leader in this region. Today I asked a question in this House about making the Port Augusta to Alice Springs railway serviceable in any weather. The Darwin to Alice Springs road can cause quite some bother. The Port Augusta to Alice Springs road needs sealing. Furthermore, there is scope for improvement in tertiary education in the Northern Territory. I am certain that the Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser) will give this matter very serious consideration. In fact, I think when he was in the Northern Territory that he mentioned to me that he would look at the possibility of establishing a technical school in this area. Also, work is required to be carried out on the Katherine school and the Katherine hospital. The Minister for Health (Dr Forbes) was in the Northern Territory recently. One very fine wing has been built on the Katherine hospital, but the rest of the hospital requires attention. Honourable members opposite cannot say (hat nothing has been done. The Northern Territory is developing very fast and a strong programme is needed to keep pace with this development.

The honourable member for Dawson spent most of his time dealing with the Legislative Council. As I have always said, I am in favour of reform of the Legislative Council. Previously I have said that the nominated members of the Council should be replaced by elected members. These members have said this themselves. The honourable member for Dawson and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) have not come up with anything new. They are jumping on the band wagon by merely repeating what people in the Northern Territory have been saying for a long time. The only difference is that the honourable member for Dawson and the Leader of the Opposition are saying these things down here, but I live in the Northern Territory and I have been saying these things in the Northern Territory. Why does not the honourable member for Dawson say something about his own electorate? He would probably do better if he did so. The members of the Legislative Council are entitled to a reasonable return for their efforts. There needs to be some redistribution. This will come in time.

I shall now deal with some of the more urgent matters. Mataranka requires a water supply, electricity and normal facilities. As the town grows all of these facilities will be provided. Tennant Creek requires an adequate water supply. This will be provided. At the Kelly Well project south of Tennant Creek they have tapped quite a sufficient supply of water which is now being pumped into the town, but the project needs another pump. These things will be provided in good time. Schools must be built to keep pace with the population. Beef and mining roads should continue to be constructed, and pastoral roads, which in the past have been graded flat and have finished up as creeks, should be graded with a camber so that the water runs off them. This is the type of project that must be carried out in the Northern Territory. The tourist industry must be developed. I turn now to the question of land reform.

Mr SPEAKER (Hon. W. J. Aston)Order! I suggest that the honourable member come back to the contents of the Bill. It is a very narrow Bill, and although the statements of the honourable member may be most interesting he is getting wide of the Bill.

Mr CALDER:

– Mr Speaker, I was referring to these matters in order to show that this type of development in the Northern Territory is a great deal more important than the matter raised by the Leader of the Opposition, namely, the need for senators in the Northern Territory. That is why I have referred to these matters. There are a few more-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I remind the honourable member that the Bill deals with the voting rights of the honourable member for the Northern Territory in this House.

Mr CALDER:

– With the passing of this Bill we shall be working towards Statehood. This would automatically bring Senate representation, which was mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition. I say that the Leader of the Opposition, in giving notice of an amendment, has demonstrated political hypocrisy and a complete lack of understanding of the north and its people. He is transparently insincere. The Bill before us is a tremendous first step forward in social reform for the Northern Territory. The fact that the Government has recognised the rapid growth in the importance of the Northern Territory is very significant, lt is an awareness on the part of the Government that the Northern Territory has arrived. From now on, step by step, the Northern Territory and the Government should be working towards more and more responsibility being undertaken by the people of the north in the north. In supporting the Bill I say it is a major step in the great advance being made by Australia by way of the north. I call for less hypocrisy and for more genuine effort to carry this country to its rightful place in the world today.

Mr DALY:
Grayndler

- Mr Speaker, 1 was pleased that immediately after you resumed the chair you brought the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder) back to the Bill. I think that he showed a significant lack of appreciation of the reform envisaged in the Bill under discussion. Whilst the development of the Northern Territory is a matter of great interest to honourable members, and whilst projects at Alice Springs and the other towns to which the honourable member referred are important matters, they have very little to do with the actual question of representation dealt with in this legislation. This is another instance where the Government, after almost 20 years in office, has realised that Labor’s efforts to bring full representation to the Northern Territory were worthy of consideration. This is another example of the plundering of Labor policy in the interests of political expediency. It is being done to try to save the one term member for the Northern Territory who has just resumed his seat.

Mr Speaker, you must recollect the numerous occasions on which the former member for the Northern Territory, Mr Jock Nelson, stood up in this Parliament and moved that the Parliament give expression to the wishes of the people of the Northern Territory, namely, that (he Northern Territory have representation in this Parliament with all the rights that are enjoyed by other members. The members of the Australian Country Party who sit in their corner of the chamber consistently voted against those proposals because they said that the member for the Northern Territory was not entitled to these rights. Tonight the present honourable member for the Northern Territory rose and in a quavering voice said: ‘Let us get away from hypocrisy and think of what the people in the Northern Territory are entitled to.’ The greatest hypocrisy in this Parliament is the Government’s decision to introduce this measure because of political expediency. If the people of the Northern Territory had not temporarily elected a Country Party member the member for the Northern Territory would not be getting the full voting rights which are proposed under this measure. When the Bill was first introduced sub-clause (2.) of clause 2 stated:

Section 4 of this Act shall come into operation on the day on which the House of Representatives first meets after the general election of members of the House of Representatives next held after this Act receives the Royal Assent.

In any ordinary man’s language, that means after the next election. But after almost 20 years of thought and careful consideration the Government has adopted Labor’s policy and is giving full rights in this Parliament to the member for the Northern Territory. The Labor Party indicated that it would move an amendment to provide that full voting rights be given immediately to the member for the Northern Territory. The Government, after a great delay, decided that it must do something to take Labor’s policy out of the hands of the Labor Party. So the Government moved an amendment to the Bill to provide that the Act shall come into operation on the day on which it receives Royal Assent. In other words, the Government capitulated to the Opposition again and decided to give immediate full representation to the people in the Northern Territory who for 20 years under LiberalCountry Party governments had been denied such representation.

The honourable member for the Northern Territory said that while the former member for the Northern Territory was in this Parliament the Labor Party did nothing about this matter. But for the whole time that the former member for the Northern Territory was in this Parliament one or other Liberal-Country Party government was in office. These governments would not listen to his claims for full representation. Although Jock Nelson, the former member, did his utmost to secure full representation these governments would not consider his requests until such time as the Northern Territory elected a member of the Government parties. When the Labor Party was in Opposition it introduced a Bill to give full voting rights to the member for the Australian Capital Territory. For years after the Labor Party was defeated on this proposal, that member was denied full voting rights. But it was the Australian Labor Party that forced this Government eventually to give full voting rights to the honourable member for the Australian Capital Territory just as it has forced the Government to give similar rights to the honourable member for the Northern Territory. The honourable member has said that advocacy of the granting of full voting rights for the member for the Northern Territory was included in his policy at the last election. This happened to be part of the platform of Jock Nelson, the former member for the Northern Territory, for years before the Country Party thought of it. I say again that if it had not been for Labor demands and Labor pressure this legislation would never have been introduced into the Parliament.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Rubbish.

Mr DALY:

– The honourable member does not know what he is talking about. This Bill was introduced into the Parliament on Wednesday, 13th March 1968. On the same day, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam), gave notice of a motion for general business Thursday No. 6. This is how the notice of motion appears in the notice paper:

Notice given for general business Thursday No. 6.

Mr Whitlam: To present a Bill for an Act to remove the Disabilities imposed on the Member of the House of Representatives representing the N.T.

This was a Labor motion. To counteract that demand and to save the present, temporary occupant of the Northern Territory seat the Government has introduced this legislation. There is nothing sincere in the efforts by the Government. The Government would not give the people of the Northern Territory a thought tonight if a Labor supporter held that seat. The Government knows that the present occupant cannot succeed again. He cannot win the seat again. The Government is trying in vain to bolster his falling stocks on the pretext of doing something for the people of the Northern Territory. The real purpose of this political gesture is to save the present member for the Northern Territory by trying to show that he has done something for the people of the Northern Territory. Why, Mr Speaker I know that you - fair and impartial man that you are - will agree with me when I say that no member ever worked harder for the people of the Northern Territory than did the former member for that electorate, Mr Jock Nelson. No member fought more sincerely to give full representation to his electors. No member was more disappointed as successive Ministers for the Interior said that the people of the Northern Territory were not entitled to have a member with full voting rights and that there was not enough of them for their member to be given those rights. Former Ministers asked why they should worry about a number of Aboriginals and a few white people - not nearly enough to justify giving a member full voting rights.

The fact of the matter is that this Government plays politics, be this in the national interest or in any other interest. I repeat that the only reason at all for giving full voting rights to the member for the Northern Territory is political expediency. It is not done in justice to the people living there. Let us have a look at the remark of the honourable member for the Northern Territory, who has just resumed his seat. The honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson), in a brilliant speech in this Parliament tonight-

Government supporters - Oh!

Mr DALY:

– Honourable members opposite may laugh. The honourable member for Dawson continually gets under their skins. Take the Minister for the Interior (Mr Nixon), who is sitting at the Table. He does not like the honourable member for Dawson, who is a nephew of the former Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Adermann, and in addition to that he has taken a seat from the Country Party. What is more, he looks like holding it forever. So honourable members opposite try to discredit him in this Parliament. That brings me back to the Bill. In the course of the discussion, Mr Speaker, the honourable member said that the Aboriginal problem was a national problem. The honourable member for the Northern Territory evidently disagreed with that view. He believes that it is not a national problem and that electoral reform or anything associated, with the Northern Territory is not to be contemplated if the rights of Aboriginals are to be taken into consideration.

What a monstrous state of affairs, when a member who should represent the Aboriginal point of view-

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I rise to order. I direct your attention to the fact, Mr Speaker, that the honourable member for Grayndler is not speaking to the subject matter of the Bill.

Mr SPEAKER:

– There is no substance in the point of order.

Mr DALY:

– I thank you, Mr Speaker, for your fair and wise judgment. The honourable member for the Northern Territory evidently does not agree that the Aboriginal population of the Northern Territory is entitled to reasonable consideration in electoral reform-

Mr Katter:

– I rise to order. Never at any stage during the address by the honourable member for the Northern Territory did the-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. There is no substance in his point of order.

Mr DALY:

– I would suggest that the honourable member for the Northern Territory is more concerned probably with retaining the Aboriginal population there on a cheap labour basis, such as has been adopted by graziers in that community for a long time, in preference to giving Aboriginals voting rights as is their just due in this day and age. The honourable member for the Northern Territory challenged the honourable member for Dawson on this question. This is the only reason why I raise it. He misconstrued the attempt by my colleague to present a fair and just case for the granting to this section of the population rights in keeping with the rights of the white Australian population of that area. Therefore, tonight, when this matter is under discussion, it is worth airing this subject in order that honourable members may recognise the hypocrisy behind the move by the Government with respect to the granting of full voting members for the member for the Northern Territory.

I do not wish to say much more on this question, but I could not let pass unchallenged the great claim that this reform is the brainchild of members of the Government Parties. Everybody knows that members of the Government never get bright ideas unless an election is looming or except when they steal Labor policies from time to time. This applies to everything from Aboriginals and voting rights to social services. But in this day and age, after being in office for approximately 20 years, the Government introduces legislation to give full voting rights to the member for the Northern Territory. I believe that the claim by the Government that this is a desirable and wonderful reform is something that should not go unchallenged. I repeat that the former member for the Northern Territory, now in a far distant place, may take pride in the fact that this legislation is introduced because of bis efforts in this Parliament and because of his attempts to get electoral justice for the Aboriginal population and the white population of the Northern Territory. I say to the Minister for the .Interior, a Country Party Minister, who is sitting at the Table, that this Bill would not have been introduced unless the political future of the member for the Northern Territory was threatened and unless that member was also a member of the Country Party today.

Members of the Government are not concerned about what is happening in the Northern Territory. The former member for the Northern Territory, Mr Jock Nelson, brought more members there in a week than this Government brought there in the 20 years before he was elected. I doubt whether the Northern Territory had seen a dozen members of this Parliament in the 12 years or 15 years before Jock Nelson was elected as member for the Northern Territory. He took as many members there in a week on numerous occasions. The people of the Northern Territory became aware of how this Government was neglecting their rights and failing to give them the things to which they were entitled.

Tonight, I welcome this legislation. Although the Government takes credit for introducing it, I take pride in the fact that it is Labor legislation that the Government has plundered. I congratulate the Government on seeing the light and recognising that it can get great reforms from this side of the Parliament if it is prepared to take them. It is unfortunate that the Government does not take these policies all the time. The only time it thinks of plundering our policies is when it is threatened or when the seats of certain Government members are in danger. On this occasion the Government has introduced a reform affecting the people of the Northern Territory. Their representative in this place is to become entitled to full voting rights. As I speak tonight, I feel that I can say with some confidence that we on this side of the Parliament are happy to think that the rights given under this Bill will be exercised for the first time by a Labor member after the next Federal election when Labor wins the Northern Territory electorate again.

Mr JARMAN:
Deakin

- Mr Speaker, for the people of the Northern Territory, this is quite an historic day. Yet, when I listened some time ago in this House to the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) I could have been excused for feeling that I was listening to the recital of an obituary at a funeral. I must say that the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Daly) was much more cheery in his approach. He made quite a point of saying that full voting rights would not have been given to the honourable member for the Northern Territory if the member for that electorate had been a Labor supporter. I wish to point out to the honourable member for Grayndler that we on this side of the House do not need one additional vote. Unlike the warring factions in the Labor Party, one vote, one way or the other, does not matter very much to the Government. The country returned this Government with the biggest majority that any government has ever had in this House. If we were one vote less, it certainly would not worry us. This dispels the argument advanced by the honourable member for Grayndler that our motive in introducing this legislation was to get one extra vote. As honourable members well know, the campaign to give full voting rights to the people of the Northern Territory started in the 1920s and it has continued for some 47 years, including periods of Labor governments when the vote was not given to that area. It sounds rather hollow to hear Labor members complaining tonight that the vote has never been given to the Northern Territory, because when they sat on the government benches they did not do anything about it.

Mr Duthie:

– That was over 20 years ago and before you were born.

Mr JARMAN:

– That is a flattering remark. I am glad to know that the honourable member thinks I look so young. The Northern Territory did have a member in the South Australian Parliament until 1911, but in that year the Territory was taken over by the Commonwealth and the people thenceforth had no direct representation. In 1922, however, after twenty Darwin men had been sent to gaol for 28 days for refusing to pay income tax, the Territory was given one member with limited voting rights. Like the people of Boston many years before, these men had maintained that there should be no taxation without representation. The demand for a full vote was one of the issues which caused all members of the Northern Territory Legislative Council to resign in 1958.

As has been said previously tonight, much of the credit for the introduction of this legisation must go to the present member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder). He has pressed continuously for this provision and honourable members will remember how strongly he stressed the importance of this matter in his maiden speech here. He has spoken about it many times since. He has made personal representations to Ministers and he has presented a petition to the Parliament. He even led a protest march through Alice Springs with a gag over his mouth. I am quite sure that many honourable members opposite would like to gag him on the numerous occasions when he so successfully refutes their arguments. In one year he has achieved what Labor members failed to achieve in the 20-odd years that they represented the Territory in this House. The Government has intimated that some day in the future the Northern Territory will become our seventh State. The fact that as a result of this Bill the member for the Northern Territory will be placed on the same footing as all other members of the House is one mark of the growing recognition by this Government of the Territory’s importance. Only 17,800 electors are enrolled so far from its 524,000 square miles, but this is not the place for rigidly applying the one man one vote principle to which the Labor Party so glibly gives lip service. The tiny Federal electorate of Melbourne, represented by Mr Calwell, the Labor

Party’s former Leader, now has only 29,000 electors. Even he could cross it on foot before breakfast.

Dr Patterson:

– That is more than you could do.

Mr JARMAN:

– The honourable member would be surprised. The honourable member for Dawson seems to see some evil motive in any measure that is brought forward by the Government. 1 remember when J was in Kununurra last year picking up a local newspaper and reading a report ot a speech he had made there in which he complained bitterly that the south was milking the north. 1 have said before, and 1 say again, that this idea of setting the south against the north and the north against the south is not in the best interests ot Australia generally. This Government looks to the good ot all Australia and to the future of all Australia and it does not sectionalise one part or the other. I expected the honourable member for Dawson to have quite a deal to say about the desire of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) that the Northern Territory should send senators to Canberra. This proposition is neither realistic nor practical at present. I imagine that this would require a constitutional amendment, because the Constitution provides for only ten senators from each of the six original States, lt is extremely doubtful whether the Australian people would agree to this at the present stage of the Territory’s development. In fact, the Australian people showed clearly at last year’s referendum that they did not want more politicians in Canberra. But then, the Labor Party takes very little notice of what the people think, which is why it has spent the last 18 years wandering in the wilderness of opposition and why it will probably still be doing so for the next 18 years. If its performance in the last fortnight is any criterion there will be no doubt about it. Wanting extra senators is just a political gimmick by the Opposition to hide their pique because a Country Party member has achieved what a Labor Party member failed to do.

Last year, as a member of the Government Parties Mining Committee and the National Development Committee, with other Government members I was invited by the honourable member for the Northern Territory to visit his constituency. I was most impressed with the vast development that has taken place there. No one would doubt that the Territory has a great future. I was impressed by the high esteem in which the honourable member is held by his constituents. The Northern Territory is fortunate to be represented by such a man who has at all times worked tirelessly in the interests of his electorate.

Originally the Government announced that this legislation would take effect after the next election, but recently in this Parliament the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) stated that the Government was so impressed by the representations of the honourable member that it decided that there was no need for further delay. So this amendment will be passed tonight. The honourable member for the Northern Territory is a fine member of the Parliament. I congratulate him on the success of his efforts and on becoming the first member for the Northern Territory with full voting rights. I hope, in the interests of this Parliament and of the people of the Territory, that he will continue to represent them for many years to come.

Mr STREET:
Corangamite

– Very briefly I express my approval of the progressive step which this Bill represents in giving the honourable member for the Northern Territory full voting rights. I believe this is particularly apt because of the present representation which is afforded to electors of the Northern Territory. This area is destined to become, and is rapidly becoming, one of the most dynamic parts of Australia, with dramatic expansion in mineral and primary production. Regarding the latter, I refer particularly to the development of tropical legumes and to large scale grain growing. It is only just that at this stage the member for the area should have full voting rights and be free from the restrictions which were previously placed on bis activities in this place.

Like the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Jarman), I was fortunate to accompany the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder) through some of his enormous electorate last winter. I, too, was impressed by the universal recognition accorded to the honourable member and the appreciation expressed everywhere of his efforts on behalf of the electors. The Northern Territory has always been renowned for its characters. In the present member it has a representative who is a character in his own right, with a long personal association with the Territory. I congratulate him on his performance so far in this place and wish him a long and successful parliamentary career.

Mr KATTER:
Kennedy

– I feel I should not let this occasion pass without adding my few comments on what I believe to be a momentous step not only for the Northern Territory but for Northern Australia generally. I represent an electorate which borders on the Northern Territory and the two electorates have very much in common. I believe the people of my constituency will be almost as jubilant as the people of the Northern Territory at the extension of full voting rights to the member for the Northern Territory. I would like to pay a particular tribute to the present member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder). Through actually living in the Territory he has gained a profound knowledge of the conditions of the Aboriginals there. It was deplorable tonight to hear him completely and utterly misquoted - to hear a statement to the effect that he had said that responsibility for the Aboriginal people of the Northern Territory was not of national importance. He made no such statement at any stage, and the allegation that he had done so was a complete fabrication. I stress his profound knowledge and understanding of the Aboriginal people and his realistic approach to their problems. I also take the opportunity to congratulate the people of the Northern Territory on the fine choice they made in electing this man and on their obvious determination to retain him as their representative.

Mr NIXON:
Minister for the Interior · Gippsland · CP

– in reply - There is an age old axiom that I think I might appropriately quote: ‘Success has a thousand fathers and failure has none’. We have before us legislation that the members of the Australian Labor Party claim to have been seeking for years; yet the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Daly) and the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) both had the sheer effrontery to suggest that this measure represented an act of political expediency. First, they say we took too long to produce the legislation, and then they say it is an act of political expediency. I know it is a great disappointment to the honourable member for Dawson and other members of the Labor Party that the Government has made this forward move, but the claim that we are stealing Labor’s policy is just as hollow as similar claims that the Opposition has made about other legislation that the Government has introduced. It has made the same kind of claim about social legislation and many other matters which have been brought before the Parliament. The fact is that the members of the Opposition are the best give-away merchants that Australia has ever seen. Pity help Australia if they ever attain the treasury bench and remain in this give-away mood.

I want to make fleeting references to one or two other things that have been said. The honourable member for Dawson attacked my colleague, the Minister for External Territories (Mr Barnes) who formerly was responsible for the Northern Territory, on the ground that development had been neglected. Having visited the Northern Territory since it came under my administration, I can assure the House that the Territory came a long way while the present Minister for External Territories was responsible for it. There is one matter above all others that will bear out my claim in this regard. The honourable member for Dawson obviously does not read the Northern Territory newspapers. I have before me an 88-page supplement to the Darwin ‘News’ which is absolutely full of information about development taking place in the Territory. The heading on the first page of the supplement is:

What’s that rumbling sound . . . It’s development in the Territory.

Then follows a list of projects that show the Territory to be one of the fastest developing areas of Australia. For the information of the honourable member for Dawson let me say that the city of Darwin is now one of the fastest growing cities of Australia. It may even be the fastest growing. The newspaper supplement contains many interesting items. At the outset, it states:

The detectable shaking of the ground underfoot in Darwin and outback centres throughout the Northern Territory does not stem from some distant underground upheaval. It’s the earthy vibrations of the near-volcanic activity taking place in all major industries: mining, cattle, agriculture and building.

Then there are 88 pages devoted to Northern Territory development. Yet the honourable member has the effrontery to suggest that the previous Minister was not interested in developing the Northern Territory.

I would like to congratulate the present member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder) because although success has a thousand fathers and the Labor Party has tried to claim some credit for this legislation, the simple fact is that it has been the pressure exerted by the honourable member for the Northern Territory since he has been in the Parliament that has produced this legislation. There is no question about this, and the people of the Territory will bear it out. The honourable member has been very active in his electorate. He certainly keeps me busy, as he does all other Ministers responsible for matters affecting the Northern Territory. He is constantly bringing forward proposals for the development of his electorate. As the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Jarman) rightly said, the honourable member is a very worthy member of the Parliament.

In opening his speech the honourable member for Dawson referred to what he called a long delayed and reluctant decision of the Government. I repeat that, as the honourable member for Deakin said, there were Labour members for the Northern Territory in this Parliament for about 40 years, and during that time there were Labor governments, but never once did a Labor government bring in a Bill to give the member for the Northern Territory full voting rights. It is sheer hypocrisy for the honourable member for Grayndler to make the claims he has made tonight. He knows that they have no substance, and I think they should be properly rebutted. It is a simple fact that when Labor was in power it made no attempt to give the member for the Northern Territory full voting rights. The sincerity of this Government is apparent from the fact that it gave the member for the Australian Capital Territory full voting rights. I do not intend to delay the House further. I thought I should take the opportunity to point out those facts.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Mr NIXON:
Minister for the Interior · Gippsland · CP

– On 19th March the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) announced that it was proposed that the member for the Northern Territory in this House should have full voting rights as soon as possible. The Bill now before the House proposes in clause 2 that the member should have full voting rights after the general election next held after the Act receives the royal assent. The amendment which I have circulated proposes that this clause be deleted and that the Act shall come into operation on the day on which it receives the royal assent. I move:

Omit the clause, insert the following clause:- 2. This Act shall come into operation on the day on which it receives the Royal Assent.’.

Dr PATTERSON:
Dawson

– The Opposition, of course, welcomes the amendment. As the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Daly) has pointed out, it is simply a colossal pinch from the Australian Labor Party’s policy with respect to the Northern Territory. On 19th March it was announced that a Bill would be introduced to give the member for the Northern Territory full voting rights after the next election. Within one week, after it became known that the Labor Party intended to move an amendment along the lines of the one now before us, the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) said in answer to a Dorothy Dix question that the member for the Northern Territory would be given full voting rights immediately the legislation was passed. There is no way of avoiding the conclusion that the Government is either guilty of colossal inefficiency or cannot draft a Bill properly. It should not take 20 years to arrive at a decision to give a vote to the honourable member for the Northern Territory, only to find out that it has omitted a most important clause from the Bill. Within 3 or 4 days of the Bill being introduced the Government suddenly discovered that this provision had been omitted, that is, if the views that have been put forward by the Minister for the Interior (Mr Nixon) are authentic. I suppose that he will say that it was because of representations made by the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder).

Mr Snedden:

– No, it was because of your representation.

Dr PATTERSON:
DAWSON, QUEENSLAND · ALP

– The Minister for Immigration is quite right when he says that this was one of Labor’s propositions. Under Labor it would have been in the original Bill. Nevertheless, we support the amendment and agree with it.

I take this opportunity to reply to the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Jarman), who raised an important point with regard to the Constitution and the Northern Territory having a senator. His remarks were relevant to this amendment. I suggest to the honourable member for Deakin that he should read section 122 of the Constitution which states quite clearly:

The Parliament may make laws for the government of any Territory surrendered by any State to and accepted by the Commonwealth, or of any Territory placed by the Queen under the authority of and accepted by the Commonwealth, or otherwise acquired by the Commonwealth, and may allow the representation of such Territory in either House of the Parliament to the extent and on the terms which it thinks fit.

The term ‘either House of the Parliament’ includes the Senate. So there is nothing in the Constitution to stop the Government making provision for 1 senator, 2 senators or 50 senators. The statement by the honourable member for Deakin that an amendment to the Constitution would be required because of a reference in the Constitution to ten senators is quite wrong. I suggest to the honourable member that he should read section 122.

The Opposition wholeheartedly agrees with the principal subject of the amendment but deplores the fact that it was not included in the original Bill. It is quite obvious that this is another example of ineptitude and inefficiency on the part of the Government.

Mr JEFF BATE:
Macarthur

Amendment agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with an amendment; report - by leave - adopted.

Third Reading

Bill (on motion by Mr Nixon) - by leave - read a third time.

page 946

ADJOURNMENT

Death of Air Vice-Marshal Bostock

Motion (by Mr Snedden) proposed:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr CHANEY:
Perth

– I know that it is not customary for the House to debate the adjournment motion on Tuesday nights. Normally I do not speak on adjournment motions on Wednesday or Thursday nights. I hope that the House will understand why I am speaking tonight. I wish to place on the record of this chamber the passing of a very gallant gentleman who served in this Parliament from 1949 to 1958 as the member for Indi. I refer, of course, to

William Dowling Bostock. Since he left the Parliament in 1958 a number of new members have entered it. On a rough calculation, I believe that since that time sixty-three people have entered this House. So, many honourable members would not have known Bill Bostock in his capacity as a member of this House. Quite a number of members knew him not particuarly as a member of Parliament but as a very gallant Air Force officer. He was buried in Melbourne this afternoon with full Air Force honours.

He rose to the rank of Air Vice-Marshal. His Majesty King George VI made him a Companion of the Order of the Bath, a Companion of the Distinguished Service Order and an Officer of the Order of the British Empire. He served in the Australian Imperial Forces in the early part of the war in Europe in 1914 and 1915. He transferred to the Royal Flying Corps and served in the Royal Air Force between 1916 and 1919. During his service in the European theatre he was awarded the Belgian Croix de Guerre. He continued his Air Force service in Australia and became Deputy Chief of the Air Staff of the Royal Australian Air Force from 1939 to 1942, which were years of rapid extension of the RAAF. He was Chief of Staff, Allied Air Forces, South

West Pacific Area, in 1942. He was Air Officer Commanding, RAAF Command, Allied Air Forces, South West Pacific Area, in 1943. During that period he was awarded the American Medal of Freedom (Silver Palm). He was one of Australia’s foremost servicemen in World War II.

I know that honourable members will join with me in expressing sympathy to his widow and family on his passing. Although I know it is quite unusual on an occasion such as this, I wish to include some colleagues who have left this place recently, who are ex-members of the RAAF and who would like to be associated with this expression of sympathy. I refer particularly to the former member for Franklin, William Falkinder. I know that we have a new system in respect of condolence motions. But I thought that the occasion should not pass without our placing on the record of this House our appreciation of the service of Air Vice-Marshal William Bostock, not particularly while he was a member of the Parliament but while Australia was engaged in one of the great wars in which he served with such very great distinction.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 11.9 p.m.

page 948

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Education (Question No.11)

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– The following answers are now supplied:

The number of applications is given in the followingtable:

Of 1968 awards, nine were offered to students on the basis of recent matriculation examination results. These awards were distributed as follows:

(i) In general students who were offered awards had obtained better than pass standard results.

Road Safety (Question No. 15)

Mr Webb:

asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

Will he consider giving greater financial aid for road accident prevention?

Mr Sinclair:
CP

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

The Commonwealth Government provides substantial financial assistance for road safety, and each year makes a substantial grant for public education in this field. This grant was increased in 1966.

One acknowledged means of reducing road accidents is by provision of better roads. In this regard the Commonwealth has been making available ever increasing amounts to the States under the Commonwealth Aid Reads Act to help them provide better and safer roads.In the last financial year$150m was provided, while in the current year $160m is being made available.

The Commonwealth also contributes directly or indirectly substantial and increasing amounts to the funds of various institutions concerned with the conduct or organisation of research, including the research relevant to road safety. These include the Australian Road Research Board, the National Health and Medical Research Council and the various universities and hospitals.

Road accident prevention is, ot course, the direct concern of State governments which are responsible for roads, road laws, and the policing of those laws. Nevertheless the Government is always prepared to consider specific proposals for assistance which offer any real promise of reducing the road toil, and which are properly the concern of the Commonwealth.

Social Services (Question No. 19)

Mr Webb:

asked the Minister for Social

Services, upon notice:

What action does he propose to abolish the mens lest as affecting pensioners?

Mr Wentworth:
LP

– The answer is as follows:

The Government has already indicated that it will review all aspects of social services and the matter raised by the honourable member will receive careful consideration. Any decisions to broaden the conditions of eligibility for pensions will be taken and announced in the usual way.

Social Services (Question No. 20)

Mr Webb:

asked the Minister for Social Services, upon notice:

Will he consider granting a full pension to a wife, who is no! aged 60, of an age or invalid pensioner?

Mr Wentworth:
LP

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

The Government has already indicated that it will review all aspects of social services and the mutter raised by (he honourable member will receive careful consideration. Any decision to broaden the conditions of eligibility for pensions will be taken and announced in the usual way.

Social Services (Question No. 21)

Mr Webb:

asked the Minister for Social Services, upon notice:

Will he consider granting supplementary assistance to pensioners owning their own homes to meet such items as maintenance?

Mr Wentworth:
LP

– The answer to the honourable members question is as follows:

The Government has already indicated that it will review all aspects of social services and the matter raised by the honourable member will receive careful consideration. Any decision to broaden the conditions of eligibility for supplementary assistance will be taken and announced in the usual way.

Papua and New Guinea (Question No. 39)

Mr Barnard:

asked the Minister for External Territories, upon notice:

Does (he published 1967 Budget speech on page 52 contain the statement that provision has been made in the Budget for a grant to the Administration of Papua and New Guinea of $77.5 million and that, in addition, various Commonwealth departments and instrumentalities incurred in the Territory expenditures of an economic character which were currently running at an annual rate of about $14 million?
If so, will he provide a breakdown of how this S77.6 million is spent?
Will he also provide a breakdown of how expenditure of $14 million by Commonwealth departments and instrumentalities is incurred?
How much of this sum is comprised of salaries, allowances, and superannuation payments for non-indigenous civil servants?
In the calculation of the Organisation for European Co operation and Development figures cited in the Budget papers, were the salaries, allowances and superannuation payments of staff and colonial dependents included in the French, English and United States figures?
What are the annual total amounts of transfers and remittances to Australia made by non-indigenous public servants?
What are the annual total amounts of transfers and remittances to Australia by public companies operating in the Territory?
If these figures arc nol available, will the Government, in the steps of sound economic planning, lake measures to ensure they are made available?

Mr Barnes:
Minister for External Territories · MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · CP

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

Yes.
There is no breakdown of expenditure from the Commonwealth grant of $77.6 million which is accumulated with Territory internal revenue and borrowings in the Papua and New Guinea budget for 1967-68 of $140.6 million. The functional breakdown of total Administration expenditure estimated for 1967-68 is as follows:
The Administration budget of $140.6 million includes provision for salaries (excluding overtime which is not readily apportionable between expatriate and local officers), allowances and superannuation pensions for expatriate officers of the Territory Public Service of about $32.5 million. What proportion of the $14 million estimated expenditure by Commonwealth Departments is attributable to salaries and wages for expatriate civil servants is not available but steps are being taken to obtain this information which will be communicated to the honourable member when available.
The O.E.C.D. figures cited in the Budget papers are calculated on the basis of confidential returns made by each country to the Development Assistance Committee of O.E.C.D. These returns are not made in a form requiring salary, etc., payments to be distinguished. It is believed that all such returns include these payments but only the countries concerned can state definitely that this is so. 6 and 7. Information in relation to questions 6 and 7 is not available.
The complex statistical investigations necessary to establish the extent of the repatriation of funds from Papua and New Guinea to Australia will not be completed for some considerable time.

Vietnam (Question No. 44)

Mr Daly:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

What is the total number of (a) United States, (b) Australian and (c) South Vietnamese armed forces serving in Vietnam at this date?

Mr Fairhall:
LP

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

The approximate numbers as at the end of March were:

Vietnam (Question No. 46)

Mr Daly:

asked the Minister for the Army, upon notice:

What are the comparative percentages of national servicemen and regular soldiers in Vietnam at this date?
What were the percentages in each year since national servicemen were first posted to Vietnam?

Mr Lynch:
LP

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

Security (Question No. 76)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice:

Does the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation still maintain a check on the names and addresses of people who receive overseas’ journals in the mail from Communist countries?
How many agents are used on this form of surveillance, and what was the cost of maintaining the agents on this sort of work for each of the past 10 years?
Does the Organisation regard a recipient of such a journal ipso facto a justifiable subject for security surveillance?

Mr Bowen:
Attorney-General · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The answer is as follows:

These questions relate to the operations of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation and, as I have stated on a number of occasions, I do not propose to depart from the long-established practice of not answering questions of this nature.

Military Prisoners (Question No. 92)

Dr Everingham:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice: ls he able to say what aims with regard to just and humane attitudes towards their military prisoners are officially claimed by (a) North Vietnam, (b) the National Liberation Front of South Vietnam, (c) the Republic of Vietnam, (d) the United States of America and (e) Australia during indoctrination of their respective armed forces?

Mr Fairhall:
LP

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

It is not known what indoctrination relating to prisoners of war is given to North Vietnamese and National Liberation Front Forces. North Vietnam acceded, with reservations, to the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War on 28th June 1957, but the National Liberation Front of South Vietnam does not hold itself bound oy the Convention. Neither North Vietnam nor the National Liberation Front allows neutral governments or humanitarian agencies to visit prisoners or inspect their places of detention.

The Republic of Vietnam, the United States and Australia all adhere to the Geneva Convention. On 25th October 1966 at Manila and again on 21st April 1967 at Washington, they reiterated their determination to apply the Convention. All three countries instruct and train their troops to treat prisoners humanely and to apply the terms of the Convention. Prisoner of war camps in South Vietnam are inspected by the International Red Cross from time to time.

Telephone Services (Question No. 100)

Mr Scholes:
CORIO, VICTORIA

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice:

What is the cause of the delay in providing multi-coin equipment for new public telephone installations?
What is the average time between the approval of a new public telephone and its actual installation?
Has his Department the technical capacity to manufacture this equipment?

Mr Hulme:
Postmaster-General · PETRIE, QUEENSLAND · LP

– The answers are as follows:

Because of a serious increase in vandalism and thefts from public telephones, it was decided some months ago to suspend the installation of multi-coin equipment in most areas until additional safeguards had been designed and incorporated in the equipment. This work has now been completed and the normal installation rate of new public telephones resumed.
It is necessary for the selection and approval of new public telephone sites to be carried out well in advance of the actual installations and at present there are some 1,200 approved new public telephones awaiting installation. The average time between approval and installation has recently ranged from 4 months in Tasmania to 18 months in certain areas of New South Wales. Some installations have to be deferred for lengthy periods until additional underground cable plant and/or exchange equipment is provided in the locality concerned.
Yes. Nevertheless, it is the practice to purchase multi-coin equipment from overseas manufacturers because the quantity required is comparatively small and the Department’s limited design facilities are better employed in areas where a greater return for its efforts is available. Because of the costly tooling which would be involved, no Australian manufacturer has tendered in recent years for the supply of public telephone instruments.

Darwin Airport (Question No. 102)

Mr Calder:

asked the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice:

When will a start be made on the improvements announced last year to the Darwin airport terminal?
What form will these improvements take?

Mr Swartz:
LP

– The answers are as follows: 1 and 2. As from 1st April the existing air.conditioned lounge at Darwin has been opened to domestic passengers, as well as international transit passengers.

Plans are now being prepared for improvements to the existing facilities by way of an extension to the public lounge on the first floor and to the airline company offices and traffic handling facilities on the ground floor. The exact starting date of these works cannot be determined until plans have been completed and arrangements made lot the work to be instituted, lt is hoped, however, that the works will be included in the development programme for the 1968-69 financial year. on (Question No. 129)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice:.

Will he supply the following statistical details for each year from and including 1960: (a) the quantity and percentage of gasoline (i) imported and (ii) refined locally; (b) the quantity and percentage of furnace fuel (i) imported and (ii) refined locally, and (c) the percentage of local refinery production as (i) gasoline and (ii) furnace fuel?
Has the Government indicated that it would or that it might give consideration to steps to encourage production in Australian refineries of a greater proportion of the more valuable products?
If so, has it any measures under consideration?
If it has measures under consideration, what are they?
If the Government has given no such indication, is it satisfied that an adequate percentage of the more valuable products is being produced in Australian refineries?
If it is so satisfied, will he give the trend figures for such production upon which the Government bases its satisfaction?

Mr Fairbairn:
LP

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

The statistical details required are set out in the attached table.
In releasing the Tariff Board’s report on crude oil to the Press on 8th September 1965, the Minister for Trade and Industry, commenting on the recommendation for a deferred duty on petroleum products, said:

The Government does not propose to act upon this recommendation at this stage and further consideration will be given to measures to encourage production of a higher proportion of the more valuable products in Australian refineries. 3 and 4. As shown in the answer to 6 there has been a marked improvement in the proportion of high products refined locally since the Tariff Board made its report in July 1965.

Indigenous crude oils so far discovered are of a type that will yield high percentages of gasoline components and little residuals. These crudes are expected to constitute over 60% of our crude oil requirements by the end of 1970 and as most refineries will then have excess capacity for conversion of the heavier oils to gasoline, there is therefore little incentive at the present time to take any further steps to encourage refineries to change their product patterns.

Since 1965 the refinery out-turn of the more valuable products has increased at a more rapid rate than the growth in local consumption and in 1967 satisfied very nearly all the local market.
The following table shows the refinery out turn as a percentage of local consumption for three of the more important high value products:

The excess of aviation turbine fuel and lubricants was exported.

Local Government Rates (Question No. 133)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for Social Services, upon notice:

Will he press for funds to recompense State and local authorities for remission of rates to pensioners, especially remissions to age pensioners, in respect of rises in valuations on the unimproved value of their home sites, at least as long as their means are less than equivalent to a minimum wage?

Mr Sinclair:
CP

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

The Commonwealth makes grants to the States to assist them to carry out their overall responsi- bilities. The priorities accorded different avenues of expenditure are matters for decision by each individual State. The position of pensioner home owners will be examined as part of the general review of social services now being undertaken by the Government Any decisions reached will be taken and announced by the Government in the usual way.

Vietnam (Question No. 150)

Mr Uren:

asked the Minister for the Army, upon notice:

Has his attention been directed to Mr John Laws’ programme ‘Party Line* broadcast over Station 2GB on Sunday, 17th March 1968, at 2.15 p.m. wherein an Australian soldier stated (a) that he had served 18 years in the Army, had served two terms in Vietnam and was one of very few who had done so, (b) that he defended the action of an Australian soldier of using water torture on a Vietnamese girl because they had to be treated the same as if they were men, (c) that he had witnessed Vietcong prisoners being interrogated and that water torture was the most common procedure used, and (d) that, in regard to other procedures used, one was to tie up Vietcong soldiers for up to 6 hours without food or water until they talked?
If so, will he investigate all aspects of these allegations and the other examples of torture cited to ascertain their truth.

Mr LYNCH:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA · LP

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

No.
No. I do not consider it feasible to investigate every allegation made which is based merely on generalities. If specific allegations are forthcoming, I will consider whether, on that basis, an investigation appears justified.

Vietnam (Question No. 169)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for External Affairs, upon notice:

Has his attention been drawn to a statement by Senator Robert V. Kennedy reported in the Brisbane ‘Courier-Mail’ of 27th March that the Vietcong, despite brutal acts of terrorism, must be granted a role in Vietnam’s political life if the war was to be settled?
If so, is this contrary to South Vetnam policy which has led to imprisonment of neutralists?
Will he publicly make clear the Government’s intentions, as Senator Kennedy and South Viet nam have made clear their intentions, in regard to non-military approaches to the Vietcong?
Will he clarify these intentions in statements to South Vietnam and, before its prospective party leaders are selected, to the United States?

Mr Hasluck:
LP

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

Yes.
The Government of the Republic of Vietnam has announced its policy to be that all those who decide to leave the ranks of the Communists and become part of the national community will b: warmly welcomed as citizens with full citizenship.
The Australian Government, together with its allies in Vietnam, declared at Manila in October 1966, that it would pursue any avenue which could lead to a secure and just peace.
The Governments of the Republic of Vietnam and of the United States are aware of the position as stated at Manila, and the Australian Government continues to exchange views with them.

Aid to Developing Countries (Question No. 170)

Mr Webb:

asked the Minister for External Affairs, upon notice:

ls it his intention to form a pool of technical assistance to help developing countries?
If so, are Australian teachers being trained to fulfil Australia’s obligations of aid to developing countries?
Are sufficient teachers forthcoming from existing courses?
Will he state (a) what teachers are in developing countries, (b) what type of assistance they are giving, and (c) from what departments they are drawn?

Mr Hasluck:
LP

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

Australian technical assistance is already being extended to developing countries under a number of aid programmes such as the Colombo Plan. It has not been found necessary or practical to establish a technical assistance pool to meet all our aid obligations, but last year Australia agreed to set up a register of expert services as part of its participation in ASPAC. The administrative arrangements to operate the register are being worked out at present.
Teachers are not trained specifically for assignments under Australian aid programmes.
Although the Government from time to time has found difficulty in obtaining the services of as many teachers as it needs, it has been possible to make a substantial contribution to education in the developing countries.

Teachers serving under Australia’s external aid programmes are generally recruited from State government departments of education and technical education with the exception of secondary teachers for Zambia and East Africa who are recruited under the Scheme for Commonwealth Co-operation in Education. The latter teachers are engaged directly upon successful completion of university degree courses.

Papua and New Guinea (Question No. 183)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for

External Territories, upon notice:

In view of the success of the developing legislative reference service which the Parliamentary

Library provides to this Parliament and the recommendation made by Professor Meller of the University of Hawaii, who has great knowledge of colonial legislatures throughout the Pacific, will he reconsider the possibility of providing a legislative reference service, including legally and statistically qualified officers, for the House of Assembly for the Territory of Papua and New Guinea, such service to be under the control of the Speaker of that House?

Mr Barnes:
CP

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

In accordance with established parliamentary practice proposals in connection with the staff of the House of Assembly are made by the Speaker of that House. Any proposals the new Speaker may make designed to assist indigenous members who do not speak English to understand the procedures of the House will receive immediate consideration.

Geneva Protocol (Question No. 184)

Mr Uren:

asked the Minister for External Affairs, upon notice:

Did the Australian Government on 22nd January 1930 ratify the Geneva Protocol of 17th June 1925 which prohibited the use in war of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases and the use of bacteriological methods of warfare?
Is the Geneva Protocol still in force?

Mr Hasluck:
LP

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

Australia acceded to the Protocol referred to in the honourable member’s question on 22nd January 1930 subject to the reservations that His Majesty is bound by the said Protocol only towards those Powers and States which have both signed and ratified the Protocol or acceded thereto, and that His Majesty shall cease to be bound by the Protocol towards any Power at emnity with Him whose armed forces, or the armed forces of whose allies, do not respect the protocol.
The Protocol is still in force.

Iron Ore (Question No. 28)

Mr Collard:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice:

Which companies operating in the Northern Territory are producing and exporting iron ore?
To which countries are they selling ore, and at what price?
What rate of royalty is payable?
Have the companies committed themselves to supply any particular tonnage to the buyers at regular intervals? If so, what are the tonnages and intervals of delivery?

Mr Fairbairn:
LP

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

Both Frances-Creek Iron Mining Corporation Pty Ltd, and Morgan Mining and Industrial Company Pty Ltd, are producing iron ore in the Northern Territory for export The former company commenced exports of ore in June 1967 and Morgan Mining and Industrial Company Pty Ltd, is expected to begin exports shortly.
Both companies have contracts to cell iron ore to Japanese steel mills at an f.o.b. price which has been publicly reported to be equivalent to $US8.90 per ton for ore mined by Frances-Creek Iron Mining Corporation Pty Ltd, and SUS9.10 per ton for ore mined by Morgan Mining and Industrial Company Pty Ltd.
Royalties are to be paid by both companies at a rate of U per cent of the f.o.b. value of direct-shipping ore less deductions for treatment and transport costs.
Frances-Creek Iron Mining Corporation Pty Ltd, has contracts providing for the delivery to Japanese steel mills of four million tons of iron ore over 8 years and Morgan Mining and Industrial Company Pty Ltd, has contracts for the supply to Japanese mills of 1.4 million tons of iron ore over 7 years. It has recently been reported that Frances-Creek Iron Mining Corporation Pty Ltd has obtained a contract for the supply of a further three million tons of iron ore to Japan, for shipment when the current contract expires. Any arrangements the companies make with the Japanese mills regarding the quantity and rate of individual shipments would be to accord with these basic delivery requirements.

Minerals (Question No. 29)

Mr Collard:

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice:

Does the discovery of any particular mineral carry a Commonwealth reward?
If so, which are those minerals, what are the rewards offered in each case, and to what extent does each deposit have to be proved?

Mr Fairbairn:
LP

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

There are no minerals for which the Commonwealth currently offers a reward.
Not applicable.

Education (Question No. 70)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:

Is he able to give the estimated cost to the education departments of each of the States, the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory of training a teacher?
How many teachers have left the education departments of each of the States since January 1966 of their own volition, excluding those who reached the retiring age or resigned through ill health?
How many of these teachers bad service of (a) one year, (b) two years, (c) three years, (d) four years, (e) five years and (f) more than five years with their respective education departments at the time of resignation?

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

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

Teachers for Commonwealth schools in the Australian Capital Territory and for all Commonwealth schools, other than the special schools provided for aborigines in the Northern Territory, are provided by the New South Wales and South Australian education authorities respectively, under arrangements which include reimbursement by the Commonwealth of the salary costs of the teachers. The honourable member’s question therefore b seeking information on matters which are the responsibility of State Ministers for Education, and not matters on which the Commonwealth Minister is responsible to the Parliament.

Civil Aviation (Question No. 95)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice:

Is it a fact that a well known public figure in South Australia recently passed through two doors marked ‘private’ ‘no admittance’ or words to that effect and entered the control . tower at the West Beach Airport without permission?
If so, when asked to leave did this person announce his name and rank and refuse to leave the control tower until threatened with forceful ejection?
Did the person carry out his threat to inform on the officer-in-charge by reporting his ejection to the Regional Director for South AustraliaNorthern Territory?
If the position is as stated, what was the name of this person and what was the Regional officer’s reply to the informant?

Mr Swartz:
LP

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

A thorough inquiry by the Regional Director of my Department has failed to establish that an occurrence of the type outlined by the honourable member for Hindmarsh took place recently, or for that matter in the last few years, at Adelaide Airport. As a matter of interest, however, the honourable member may wish to be informed that entry by members of the public to operations areas, such as control towers, is permitted on the authority of the Airport Manager or OfficerinCharge of the particular section, either in connection wilh a conducted tour of the airport or as an individual visit. The honourable member will understand that entry may be refused if the presence of a visit, or visitors, is likely to distract an officer on duty during normal or emergency conditions. The utmost discretion is used in these conditions to explain the situation to visitors, and experience has shown that members of the public readily appreciate the reason for a refusal of entry or a request to leave an operations area, and they invariably respond accordingly. In the case of a person insisting on entry or refusing to leave the premises under the conditions referred to above, measures may be taken to call upon State or Commonwealth police for assistance, and this course would normally only be followed during the imminence or existence of an emergency situation.
3 and 4. Since the answer lo the first question is in the negative, the other questions are not applicable.

Purchase of Aircraft (Question No. 104)

Mr Devine:
EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Customs and Excise, upon notice:

Did the Government levy customs duty on Boeing 727 aircraft purchased by Ansett-ANA and Trans-Australia Airlines?
Was this duty paid by both operators prior to the aircraft being put into operation in Australia?
Has this duty now been refunded to the companies concerned? If so, what was the amount involved in each case?
What was the reason for the Government’s change of policy in this matter?
Was the decision made at Cabinet level?

Mr Nixon:
CP

– The Minister for Customs and Excise has supplied the following information:

Yes.
Not in respect of the first two aircraft for each airline, which arrived in October and November 1964, when the question of by-law admission was still under consideration. Securities equal to the duty payable in the absence of bylaw were taken and the actual duty was paid in April 1965, when it was decided to refuse by-law entry.

A further two aircraft for each airline arrived in August 1965, and August 1966, and duty was paid on arrival.

Yes. Ansett-ANA $1,239,749, Trans-Australia Airlines $1,226,446.
When the airlines appealed recently on the ground that actual experience with the Boeing 727 under Australian conditions compared with operation of the British Trident IE in other countries demonstrated that the two aircraft were not equivalent, the Government accepted that their argument had been sustained.
Yes.

Australian Army (Question No. 138)

Dr Patterson:

asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice:

How many potential national servicemen have been allowed to join the Citizen Military Forces or its equivalent after their names have been drawn by means of the marble?

Mr Bury:
LP

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

At 15th March 1968, 295 men. They comprise:

those registrants whose liability to render service has been deferred by a court on the ground of exceptional hardship, subject to the condition that the applicant serves efficiently in the Citizen Forces; and

those who registered in one of the first three registrations and had been granted deferment by a court on the ground of exceptional hardship for twelve months or more and to whom the opportunity for service in the Citizen Forces was not available prior to the establishment of the C.M.F. Special Units.

The Treasurer: Overseas Conferences (Question No. 175)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

What overseas conferences has he attended as Treasurer?
Is he able to say which of these conferences was attended by Mr Maxwell Newton? If so, which.

Mr McMahon:
LP

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

I attended- the Finance Ministers Meeting in Montreal in September 1966 and the Fund and Bank Annual Meeting in Washington in the same month; the Finance Ministers Meeting in Port of Spain in September 1967 and the Fund and Bank Annual Meeting in Rio de Janeiro in the same month; and the Asian Development Bank Annual Meeting in Manila in April 1968.
I draw the attention of the Leader of the Opposition to paragraph 3 of my answer to Question No. 137 referred to in Hansard of Wednesday, 3 April 1968. As the Leader of the Opposition knows I have no responsibility for independent journalists or those who are not attached to delegations under my control.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 30 April 1968, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1968/19680430_reps_26_hor58/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives30 April 1968

DISTINGUISHED VISITORS

Mr SPEAKER:

GOVERNOR-GENERAL’S SPEECH

Mr SPEAKER:

TELEPHONE SERVICES

Petition

VI MINISTERIAL ARRANGE.M ENTS

Mr GORTON:Prime Minister · Higgins · LP

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY ADVISORY COUNCIL

Mr J R Fraser:ALP

Mr NIXON:Minister for the Interior · GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · CP

QUESTION

ABORIGINALS

Mr JARMAN:DEAKIN, VICTORIA

Mr WENTWORTH:Minister for Social Services · MACKELLAR, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

QUESTION

DEFENCE

Mr BARNARD:BASS, TASMANIA

Mr FAIRHALL:Minister for Defence · PATERSON, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

QUESTION

WATERFRONT EMPLOYMENT

Mr HAWORTH:ISAACS, VICTORIA

Mr BURY:Minister for Labour and National Service · WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

QUESTION

DR MARTIN LUTHER KING

Mr CALWELL:MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

Mr GORTON:LP

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr SPEAKER:

QUESTION

NORTHERN AND CENTRAL AUSTRALIAN RAILWAY SYSTEMS

Mr CALDER:NORTHERN TERRITORY

Mr SINCLAIR:Minister Assisting the Minister for Trade and Industry · NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

QUESTION

OIL

Mr HAYDEN:OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

Mr McMAHON:Treasurer · LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

Mr Uren:

Mr McMAHON:

Mr Hayden:

Mr McMAHON:

QUESTION

NUCLEAR ENERGY FOR PEACEFUL PURPOSES

Mr CHANEY:PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

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

QUESTION

ABORIGINALS

Mr WHITLAM:WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr NIXON:CP

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Mr GRAHAM:NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr SWARTZ:Minister for Civil Aviation · DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND · LP

QUESTION

NEW ZEALAND-AUSTRALIA FREE TRADE AGREEMENT

Mr HANSEN:WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

Mr SINCLAIR:CP

QUESTION

FINANCE

Mr UREN:

Mr McMAHON:LP

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ARMY

Mr JESS:LA TROBE, VICTORIA

Mr LYNCH:Minister for the Army · FLINDERS, VICTORIA · LP

QUESTION

NUCLEAR WEAPONS

Mr COSTA:BANKS, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr HASLUCK:Minister for External Affairs · CURTIN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

QUESTION

DECENTRALISATION

Mr HOLTEN:INDI, VICTORIA

Mr GORTON:LP

Mr Beaton:

Mr GORTON:

QUESTION

LUNG CANCER

Dr J F Cairns:YARRA, VICTORIA · ALP

House of Representatives
30 April 1968

Mr GORTON:
Prime Minister · Higgins · LP

Mr J R Fraser:
ALP

Mr NIXON:
Minister for the Interior · GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · CP

Mr JARMAN:
DEAKIN, VICTORIA

Mr WENTWORTH:
Minister for Social Services · MACKELLAR, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

Mr BARNARD:
BASS, TASMANIA

Mr FAIRHALL:
Minister for Defence · PATERSON, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

Mr HAWORTH:
ISAACS, VICTORIA

Mr BURY:
Minister for Labour and National Service · WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

Mr CALWELL:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

Mr GORTON:
LP

Mr CALDER:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

Mr SINCLAIR:
Minister Assisting the Minister for Trade and Industry · NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

Mr HAYDEN:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

Mr McMAHON:
Treasurer · LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

Mr CHANEY:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

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

Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr NIXON:
CP

Mr GRAHAM:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr SWARTZ:
Minister for Civil Aviation · DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND · LP

Mr HANSEN:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

Mr SINCLAIR:
CP

Mr McMAHON:
LP

Mr JESS:
LA TROBE, VICTORIA

Mr LYNCH:
Minister for the Army · FLINDERS, VICTORIA · LP

Mr COSTA:
BANKS, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr HASLUCK:
Minister for External Affairs · CURTIN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

Mr HOLTEN:
INDI, VICTORIA

Mr GORTON:
LP

Dr J F Cairns:
YARRA, VICTORIA · ALP

Dr FORBES:
Minister for Health · BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

Dr MACKAY:
EVANS, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr McMAHON:
LP

Mr DUTHIE:
WILMOT, TASMANIA

Mr ANTHONY:
Minister for Primary Industry · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

Sir Wilfrid Kent Hughes:
CHISHOLM, VICTORIA · LP

Mr LYNCH:
LP

Mr PETERS:
SCULLIN, VICTORIA

Mr SINCLAIR:
CP

Mr TURNBULL:
MALLEE, VICTORIA

Mr SINCLAIR:
CP

Mr CHANEY:
Perth

Mr KELLY:
Minister for the Navy · Wakefield · LP

Mr WEBB:
Stirling

Mr JEFF BATE:
Macarthur

Mr McIVOR:
GELLIBRAND, VICTORIA · ALP

Mr KELLY:
Minister for the Navy · Wakefield · LP

Mr McIVOR:
GELLIBRAND, VICTORIA · ALP

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury:
RYAN, QUEENSLAND

Mr CREAN:
Melbourne Ports

Mr WHITTORN:
Balaclava

Mr PETERS:
Scullin