Senate
9 December 1948

18th Parliament · 2nd Session



The President (Senator the Eon. Gordon Brown) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers. housing.

Senator FINLAY. - Can the Minister representing the Minister for Works and Housing advise me what amount of money has’ been made available to the State of South Australia under the CommonwealthState Housing Agreement? How many houses have been completed in that State, and how many are under course of construction?

Senator ARMSTRONG. - The figures that the honorable senator requires are not immediately available, but I shall ask the Minister for Works and Housing for an answer, which will be provided as soon as possible to the honorable senator.

Senator SHEEHAN. - I direct’ a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Works and Housing arising from a question which I asked previously with regard to the record production of houses in “Victoria. I asked the Minister what assistance the Commonwealth Government had rendered to the State Government to enable it to accomplish that feat. I now ask him whether he has seen a report that was published in the early edition of the Melbourne Herald yesterday, in which the State Minister for Housing, Mr. Warner, claimed that the record output was achieved in spite of the assistance rendered by the Common wealth Government. I mention the fact that the statement was published only in the early edition of the Herald.

Senator ARMSTRONG. - I saw the report mentioned by the honorable senator, and I have obtained some information from the Minister for Works and Housing regarding the assistance given by the Commonwealth to Victoria. In the first place, the Commonwealth removed the duty on house fittings, which were in short supply, on the condition that the Victorian Government’ would sponsor the fittings. In the second place, the Commonwealth provided nearly 270 displaced persons for timber-getting, 170 for the brick and clay industries, and 124 for building industries. In addition, the Commonwealth has trained about 9,000 ex-servicemen for skilled work in thebuilding industry .and has provided the State Government with £14,000,000 for home construction. The money has been used to finance the construction of all homes erected by the State Housing Commission as well as the manufacture of prefabricated homes at Homes - Glen. When the Hollway Government came to power in Victoria, the new Minister for Housing, Mr Warner, brought to an abrupt conclusion the production of Beaufort homes at the Commonwealth aircraft factory at Fishermen’s Bend. Had that programme not been interrupted, the factory would have been producing four Beaufort homes daily by now. Those homes have been lost to the Victorian housing programme as the result of the Hollway Government’s action.

page 4215

QUESTION

RE-ESTABLISHMENT

Reconstruction TRAINING SCHEME,

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

– Will the Minister representing the Minister for Postwar Reconstruction give some indication of how the scheme for assisting students attending universities under the Government’s civilian assistance scheme is progressing? Is that assistance available to the sons and daughters of pensioners and widows? Will the Minister give a comparison between the results achieved by assisted students and those achieved by non-assisted students?

Senator McKENNA:
Minister for Health · TASMANIA · ALP

– A few minutes before I came into the chamber the honorable senator informed me that he proposed to ask this question, and I was able to obtain the information he desires. The Minister for Post-war Reconstruction has informed me that the civilian assistance scheme has made excellent progress.Five thousand three hundred students have benefited by the scheme and the total cost up to the present is nearly £1,500,000. About 2,000 persons are at the moment in receipt of assistance, and this number includes approximately 600 who commenced receiving benefits this year.. Regarding the results achieved by assisted students I am happy to say that for the last university year approximately 80 per cent. of those in receipt of financial assistance passed their examinations compared with 65 per cent. of those who are not in receipt of assistance. The scheme provides assistance for the sons and daughters of people from many walks of life, including widows, pensioners, skilled and unskilled tradesmen, primary producers, &c. for instance, at the universities last year, nearly 300 sons and daughters of widows and approximately 100 whose parents were retired or invalid pensioners were in receipt of assistance.

page 4216

QUESTION

LAND SETTLEMENT OF EX-SERVICEMEN

Senator FINLAY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Will the Minister representing the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction say whether he is now in a position to give any further indication of the progress of the war service land settlement scheme in South Australia. In particular, I should like to know whether has he any information regarding the proposal to acquire what is known as the Overton Estate near Naracoote in South Australia ?

Senator McKENNA:
ALP

– Yesterday Senator Finlay asked me a question relating to the war service land settlement scheme in South Australia, with particular reference to the Overton Estate. The Minister for Post-war Reconstruction has advised me that the scheme is progressing very favorably in South Australia. More than 351,000 acres have been acquired, providing 950 farms for ex-servicemen, 450 of which are in irrigation areas. Furthermore, in South Australia, nearly 850 applications for loans of up to £1,000 have been approved, and about 1,700 ex-servicemen are in receipt of agricultural allowances. These two items alone cost more than £800,000.. Regarding the particular estate mentioned by the honorable senator, the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction has informed me that approval was recently given for the acquisition of that property which covers approximately 13,000 acres and is valued at more than £24,000.

page 4216

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Sydney “ Daily Telegraph “ Article

Senator O’BYRNE:

– Has the Minister _ representing the Minister for Civil Aviation seen an article in the Sydney Daily Telegraph, of Wednesday, the 8th December, written by a person known as Dudley Osborne, who is an authority on aviation matters writing for that paper, that appeared under the caption “Why Government Airlines Lose Money”? Did the Minister hear a statement made by the Minister for Civil Aviation that Qantas Empire Airways Limited would show a profit of between £50,000 and £100,000 for the last financial year? Did the Minister read the final paragraph of Osborne’s article and, if so, could he arrange to have this amazing spectacle of a noted authority on aviation eating his words, filmed and preserved for posterity?’

Senator CAMERON:
Postmaster-General · VICTORIA · ALP

– The honorable senator informed me before the sitting commenced that he intended to ask that question, and I discussed the matter with the Minister for Civil Aviation. In answer to the first portion of the honorable senator’s question, I inform him that I have read the article that appeared in yesterday’s issue ofthe Daily Telegraph, written by a person signing himself “ Dudley Osborne “. I have also read the leading articlein to-day’s DailyTelegraph, which is just a rehash - of the article written by Dudley Osborne, the editor evidently having been in a hurry when writing the leading article. In answer to the second portion of the honorable senator’s question the Minister for Civil Aviation informs me that he supplied the following answer in another place : -

I am given to understand by Qantas Empire Airways management, the directors of whom, including the managing director, have all been appointed by this Government, that they expect to show a profit of between £50,000 and £100,000 on the full year’s operations.

It willbe recollected that Qantas Empire Airways Limited was taken over by the Government in July last year. In answer to the third portion of the honorable senator’s question, referring to the final paragraph in the article written by Mr. Dudley Osborne, the Minister has authorized me to say -

In view of the statement that appeared in the final paragraph of the article of yesterday in the Sydney Daily Telegraph and again incorporated and emphasized in its leading article to-day states - “ The day that produces such a miracle as a profit from nationalized airlines this writer will sit down in Martin Place and eat the Daily Telegraph containing this article, page by page, cooked or Taw, without benefit of knife or fork. . . . “

Arrangements will be made, if Mr. Dudley Osborne will name a suitable date and time for the completion of his promise, to have this unique gastronomic performance of a specialist writer swallowing his own words, filmed and published. The public will be thus given the opportunity of witnessing the Daily Telegraph’s statement and the printed promise being fulfilled with some hope that its contents may be ultimately digested by one of its experts, who has a vivid if inaccurate and reckless imagination as well as a disregard for facts.

page 4217

QUESTION

SUGAR

Senator ASHLEY:
Minister for Shipping and Fuel · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– On the 7th December, Senator Sheehan asked the following questions : -

Will the Minister for Shipping and Fuel make a report to the Senate before the Parliament goes into recess about the supply of refined sugar for industrial and domestic use in Victoria? Has the situation in that State improved since he last reported to the Senate on the subject?

In reply, I advised the honorable senator that I would have inquiries made and I stated further that the fact that there had been no recent complaints indicated that the position had improved. There is little that I can add to previous statements made on this subject. Raw sugar stocks at Yarraville have improved by 3,000 tons during the last two months, and the

Yarraville refinery is now working steadily. The position has, therefore, already improved to some degree. One of the main causes of the inadequate supply of refined sugar in Victoria has been the shortage of labour at Yarraville refinery, which, it is estimated, results in about 700 tons of refined sugar being lost to production each week. The Minister for Immigration has advised me that he will make available between 80 and 100 Baits for work at the refinery, and these workers are expected to be accommodated at a hostel at Fishermen’s Bend within the next few days. The Colonial Sugar Refining Company Limited expects that this additional labour will greatly improve the the refined sugar supply position in Victoria in the near future.

page 4217

PRINTING COMMITTEE

Senator SANDFORD:
VICTORIA

– I present the first report of the Printing Committee.

Report - by leave - adopted.

page 4217

QUESTION

POWER ALCOHOL

Senator RANKIN:
QUEENSLAND

– In view of existing petrol restrictions and dollar difficulties, will the Minister for Shipping and Fuel inform the Senate whether there has been any expansion of the production of power alcohol? Because of the world demand for wheat, is it a fact that distilleries designed to use wheat as raw materia] are either incomplete or idle? If so, has any investigation been made of the possibility of using any form of raw material other than wheat in the idle distilleries in the southern States ? Is the Sarina distillery capable of processing the total output of molasses in Queensland, or could other distilleries be established in that State for the purpose?

Senator ASHLEY:
ALP

– There has been no further development of the production of power alcohol from wheat or any other commodity because the process is uneconomic. At present I cannot envisage any developments in that respect either in Queensland or elsewhere. The establishment of new distilleries would be of such small value in relation to Australia’s consumption of liquid fuels that I do not think that it would warrant the expense or the labour that would he involved.

page 4218

QUESTION

CANBERRA

Cost of Living

Senator LAMP:
through Senator Murray

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Is it a fact (a) that the cost of living in Canberra is higher than in any other city or town in Australia, and (6) that the Government is compelled to And the great majority of the funds for payment of wages and salaries “in this city; if so, will the Government set up a committee representing both Houses of the Parliament to devise ways and means of reducing the cost of living?

Senator ASHLEY:
ALP

– The Prime Minister has supplied the following answer : -

  1. No. Prices of commodities and services included in the regimen of the C series retail price index-numbers were higher in Broken Hill, Kalgoorlie and Geraldton than in Canberra for the September quarter of 1948. Comparative index-numbers were as follows: -
  1. The salaries and wages of a large majority of the employed population of Canberra are derived from Commonwealth Government employment. It is not considered that circumstances warrant the establishment of the joint house committee suggested by the honorable senator.

page 4218

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Senator MURRAY:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration, upon notice -

In view of the unfortunate position of European residents in China and the fact that three migrant ships, Wooster Victory, Derma and Castelbianco, have been diverted to China to effect an evacuation of many of these people, is it the intention of the Government to admit them to Australia; if so, under what conditions 1

Senator ARMSTRONG:
Minister for Supply and Development · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

The diversion of three International Refugee Organization ships to Shanghai to evacuate distressed Europeans follows on direct appeals to the Minister for Immigration by refugees in Shanghai, and representations by the Commonwealth Government to the United States Government, General MacArthur and the International Refugee Organization. Because of our commitment to accept large numbers of British migrants, as well as 100,000 displaced persons from Europe within the next eighteen months, Australia cannot undertake to provide refuge for all war evacuees from China. A special officer of the Department of Immigration was flown to Shanghai to expedite the screening of Europeans whose admission has been applied for by relatives or friends in Australia. He is now engaged on that work, and all those persons who satisfy the officer as to their general suitability as migrants will be accepted into Australia. The Government has also been in communication with General MacArthur and the United States Government with a view, if possible, to those refugees, who cannot be placed elsewhere, being given sanctuary in Japan.

page 4218

SHIPPING BILL 1948

Bill presented by Senator Ashley, and read a first time.

Motion (by Senator Ashley) put -

That so much of the Standing and. Sessional Orders be suspended as would prevent the bill being passed through its remaining stages without delay.

The PRESIDENT:

– There being an absolute majority of the whole number of senators present, and no dissentient voice, I declare the question resolved in the affirmative.

Second Reading

Senator ASHLEY:
Minister for Shipping and Fuel · New South Wales · ALP

.- I move-

That the bill be now read a second time.

In introducing this bill, I should like to assure the members of the Opposition, in anticipation of their usual protests in regard to socialization, that there is no provision in the bill for the nationalization of the shipping industry. The objectives of the Government in introducing the bill are, first, to provide for the maintenance of the Australian mercantile marine, secondly, to provide for the maintenance of the shipbuilding industry in Australia, and, thirdly, to provide for the establishment of a Commonwealth line of steamers. With regard to the maintenance of the mercantile marine, experience during the war stressed the necessity for an adequate merchant fleet. The exigencies of total war are such that a modern and up-to-date fleet is necessary, not only for carrying men and supplies for the fighting services, and providing auxiliary vessels for operation by the services, but also to carry strategic materials and essential civilian supplies both to and from this country and around the Australian coast. The mercantile marine is, in fact, an arm of the fighting services, and the existence of an adequate mercantile marine cannot be left to the accidents of commercial chance. At the outbreak of the recent war, the Australian coastal fleet was hardly adequate for the tasks which it was later called upon to face. That is no reflection on the men who sailed the ships, or on the Australian shipping companies, although it must be admitted that the latter were shortsighted as their failure to maintain their fleets in a modern condition and to support the Australian shipbuilding industry proved. It is realized that the state of the fleet at the outbreak of the war was to some degree the outcome of the depression years of the early ‘thirties, a state of affairs which the implementation of the policy of the Labour Government will not permit to recur. The fact is, however, that in 1939, of a total fleet of about 225 vessels totalling approximately 450,000 gross tons, 82 vessels of 107,000 gross tons were more than twenty years old. An additional 50 vessels totalling 102,000 gross tons were from sixteen to twenty years old. Thus, taking the average age of a ship at twenty years, almost half of the fleet was approaching, or had already passed, its normal span of useful life.

Although before the war the mercantile marine had been able to meet the needs of coastal carriage reasonably adequately, deficiencies were disclosed when Australia felt the full impact of war. Many vessels were released from civilian employment for use as hospital ships, troop carriers, mine sweepers, auxiliary vessels, and for similar purposes. Others were diverted to supplying the services in the operational areas. The number of ships available for civilian requirements was thus seriously depleted, and grave difficulties were encountered in meeting those needs, including the carriage of strategic materials and essential civilian supplies. The difficulties of maintaining essential services were accentuated by the condition of many of the ships, and the necessity, on account of their age, for many of them to undergo frequent repairs. Further difficulties were experienced on account of shortages of certain types of ships particularly of the smaller classes of vessels. These were needed in large numbers by the services, and the demand for them on the coast to serve the smaller ports was also considerable. This type of ship is still in short supply.

At the present time the Commonwealth is operating on the coast the “ River “ class vessels built to the order of the Government, which were designed for overseas trading, and also has on charter eighteen British ships also of the larger overseas type. These vessels are suitable for bulk cargoes, but generally speaking are not suitable, on account of their size, for general coastal work and are uneconomical for this purpose. On account of the general shortage of shipping, the Government has no option but to continue to use those ships until such time as sufficient vessels designed for coastal trading can be constructed.

The present legislation is intended to provide a remedy for the weaknesses that have been disclosed. In the first place, ships will not be licensed to trade after they have reached the age of 24 years, thus ensuring that the fleet shall be maintained in a reasonably modern and uptodate condition. Secondly, the building of ships will be subject to licence, and by means of this provision, it is intended to ensure that types which are most needed on the coast shall be built first, and, when the immediate urgent needs have been met, that vessels will be built to provide a balanced fleet consisting of vessels of the types and in the numbers necessary to serve the needs of the Commonwealth. The shipping companies will have freedom of choice of vessels they may wish to acquire, particularly vessels needed for special trades, the fitting of special gear and equipment, and the general fitting-out of the ships. It is hoped, however, that in the interests of economy and speed of construction, some degree of standardization will be possible, and that the vessels constructed will be confined to a relatively few sizes and types which will be determined after consultation with the shipping companies, having in mind the classes of vessels most suitable for the coastal trade. As has been indicated, a large proportion of the vessels now on the coast are over age, and until it is possible to replace them with new ships built in Australian yards, it is intended that such vessels shall be permitted to continue operating. Also, vessels at present licensed under the Navigation Act will continue to operate until they reach the age of 24 years and are due for replacement.

The second objective, which is closely linked with the first, is the maintenance of the shipbuilding industry in Australia. Notwithstanding the dependence of the Commonwealth on seaborne trade both for the carriage of goods on the coast and for the shipment of goods to and from Australia, from which, one would have expected that this country would have developed a strong mercantile marine, backed up by a flourishing shipbuilding industry, the history of shipbuilding in this country has been disappointing. During and following the 1914-18 war, there was some development of the industry, and a number of vessels were built, some of which indeed are still in operation. After the war, in the absence of any positive steps by the government of the day, the industry was allowed to die out. That result was contributed to by factors such as the easing of the post-war shipping shortage and the fall in overseas construction costs. By about 1924, activity in the industry had virtually ceased, and no merchant shipbuilding of any significance took place until World War II. Efforts were made from time to time to assist the industry by means of tariff measures, but those were found to be ineffective as a means of helping this industry. Later, in 1939, the Ship Bounty Act was passed, but it also failed to have any effect in stimulating the industry. As a consequence of those years of neglect, the only major shipyard in operation in the Commonwealth at the outbreak of the war in 1939 was the Cockatoo Island Dockyard. Further, with the decline of the industry, the labour force which had been engaged in shipbuilding, had been dissipated and there was consequently a shortage of skilled personnel to reestablish the industry. By 1940, it had become apparent that there was a shortage of shipping for Allied war needs. Losses by enemy action had increased, and there were growing demands upon the available shipping for war .purposes. At that stage, the government then in power took belated steps to meet the position. I give it credit for what was done, even if, as I have said, the action was tardy and should have been taken years earlier. The Australian Shipbuilding Board was set up in 1941 and orders were placed for the building of the “ River “ class vessels. Those ships were designed for overseas trade and the intention at the time was that they would be used for the carriage of exports from and imports into Australia. Only limited use was made of the ships for that purpose owing to the necessity to use them on the coast.

Under the Labour Government, the programme of shipbuilding was vigorously pressed forward. In addition to naval vessels constructed, and the large numbers of small craft built for the use of the various services during the war, a substantial tonnage of merchant ships was also built. The programme of thirteen “ River “ class ships was completed, and the last vessel was put into commission in .September, 1947. Two B class 6,000-ton vessels are in commission. Eight further ships approximating in size the B class vessels are to be constructed. Some of them will be fitted with diesel engines which will be the largest engines of this type ever constructed in this country. Eight D class- 2,500-ton vessels are in commission with a further two to be completed, one of which will ‘be fitted for the carriage of passengers. Of five small vessels of 550’ tons on the programme, two are in commission. In addition to the above vesselswhich were built to the order of the Australian Government, three ore-carrying vessels have been built on privateaccount, and further vessels of this typeare under construction. Plans for the construction of more vessels are in courseof preparation by the Australian ‘Shipbuilding Board, and orders for additional ships will be placed by the Australian Government in due course. Shipping companies have been consulted oil the design and types of ships to be built to ensure that the vessels shall be of the types most suitable for use in the coastal trade. Discussions are also proceeding with private shipping interests desirous of having vessels built in Australian yards.

The brief outline that I have given indicates the substantial achievements of the Australian shipbuilding industry in a comparatively few years. The industry was ‘built up virtually from the beginning during the war years, with the attendant difficulties of material and labour shortages, and the real success which has been achieved is a tribute to the workers in the various trades associated with shipbuilding, the shipyard managements and the officials concerned with the administration of the Government’s policy in regard to shipbuilding. It would be a tragedy if, as happened after the last war, the industry were allowed once again to die out. Shipbuilding is not only a valuable industry in time of war, but its retention during years of peace is essential to the defence of the Commonwealth. The mercantile marine must be maintained so that it will be equipped to meet the demands which war would impose on it, and the shipbuilding industry must be kept in existence so that in time of war its output may he readily and immediately expanded instead of having to be built up with consequent wasteful expenditure of time and resources.

The Government is determined that the industry shall be maintained in a flourishing condition, and this bill provides the means for that to be done. The bill provides that ships for the coastal trade must be built in Australian yards. Provision is made for exceptions to meet special cases, hut these, it is anticipated, will be few. Thus there will be an assured market for the output of the yards, and the requirement that vessels shall he replaced when they reach the age of 24 years ensures that the market shall he a permanent one. In the early stages, the cost of constructions in Australia can be expected to be somewhat higher than in British yards, which previously supplied most of the vessels used by Australian companies. Tariff protection for the industry has, in the past, proved to be ineffective, and there are difficulties in the way of providing for assistance by means of bounty payments. The Government proposes, therefore, that companies desiring to purchase vessels shall approach the Minister for Shipping and Fuel, who will arrange for the placing of an order with an Australian shipyard for the type of ship the company requires. The order will be placed by the Commonwealth through the Australian Shipbuilding Board and not by the company. On completion of the ship it will be resold to the company at a price lower than the purchase price paid by the Commonwealth, the difference representing the amount of subsidy met by the Commonwealth. It is proposed that the resale of vessels will be at a price approximating that of a similar vessel built in a British yard with a proviso that the difference shall not exceed 25 per cent, of the Australian cost. Australian costs are already less than in some overseas countries and as the Australian yards gain in experience it is expected that the difference in costs will be reduced and will eventually disappear. This method of subsidy to the industry has many advantages. It is flexible in operation and will permit the amount of assistance to be varied, if necessary, as between the different yards. It ensures that the shipping companies shall obtain ships at approximately the same cost as if they had purchased them in the United Kingdom, and it avoids the necessity of passing on to the community excess costs in the form of higher freights as would be the case if the industry were assisted by means of a tariff. I am confident that with the assistance accorded by the Government on the lines I have indicated, the shipbuilding industry will be maintained in a flourishing condition as a permanent and important part of Australian industry.

The third objective of the Government in introducing this bill is to provide for the establishment of a Commonwealth shipping line. The Australian Commonwealth Line of Steamers was inaugurated in 1916 by the purchase in England of fifteen second-hand cargo steamers. It was later enlarged by further purchases from overseas including the five “Bay” steamers and by a number of cargo ships built in Australia, until in 1923 over 50 vessels were owned by the Commonwealth. For some years the line showed substantial profits, but later, as a world surplus of tonnage developed, losses were incurred. This state of affairs was general throughout the shipping industry and was not confined to the Commonwealth line of steamers. In 1928 the government of the day obsessed with the profit motive, ignoring the substantial benefits which had accrued to the Commonwealth through the influence of the line in reducing freights, particularly on primary products, and disregarding the importance of maintaining the mercantile marine particularly in the overseas trades, sold the remaining ships of the Commonwealth line. The vessels were sold at an absurdly low figure to the White Star Line, a unit of the British shipping ‘ combine. The full purchase price, low as it was, was not received by the Commonwealth and the company subsequently went into liquidation still owing the Commonwealth over £400,000 in principal and interest.

The Commonwealth line which it is now proposed to establish will not experience disadvantages similar to those with which the previous line was confronted. The Australian Shipping Board and its predecessor, the Shipping Control Board, have during the war been responsible for the control of all Australian shipping and for the operation of the vessels owned and chartered by the Commonwealth. During this period an experienced organization has been developed which will be in a position to undertake readily the operation of the Commonwealth line. The line will not be equipped with old and out-of-date vessels but with new ships suitable for the trades in which they are to operate, subject to the reservation that for some time it will be necessary to continue to operate overseas vessels on the coast. It is intended that at the outset the line will operate in the Australian coastal trade and in the islands trade.

At present, the pressure on our coastal shipping resources continues and, in order to meet the position, it has been necessary as stated above to continue the chartering of overseas vessels. As new ships are delivered from the Australian yards, these chartered ships will be gradually replaced by Australian-built vessels. It is obvious that there is at present, and that there will continue in the foreseeable future, ample cargo offering on the coast for the existing Australian registered vessels, both private and Commonwealth-owned, and there also exists what might be . termed a reserve equal to the tonnage of chartered vessels now being operated, within which locally owned vessels might expand as ships become available. Thus even if there were some possible future reduction in cargo after the present pressure has eased, it is clear that scope exists for the existing companies and the Commonwealth line to operate together in the Australian coastal trade and that there will in fact be opportunities for the private companies to expand their fleets if they so desire.

Criticism will no doubt be levelled at ‘ the Government for its action in setting up a Commonwealth-owned line of ships. It will doubtless be alleged that, this venture will result in financial losses, and the experience of the Australian Commonwealth Line of steamers will be freely quoted. It is true that for some years prior to its winding up, the old line did show losses but that was a state of affairs which existed in the shipping industry generally. In deciding to wind up the line, the government of the day overlooked the previous high profits which had been made and also the indirect financial advantages which accrued to the Commonwealth, particularly to the export trades through the influence of the line in keeping down overseas freight rates. Furthermore, the old line to a great extent operated with old and unsuitable ships, and, as I have stated, this will not be the policy for the new line. Reference, I have no doubt, will also be made to losses which occurred as the result of the operation of Australian coastal shipping by the Government during the period of requisitioning. It is true that the freights received did not meet the full costs of operating the vessels, but that was due to the fact that, in pursuance of the Government’s prices and subsidy policy during the war, freights were purposely kept low and the loss which thereby accrued was met by the Government as part of its policy of price stabilization. If the Government had adopted the normal policy in commercial circles of charging what the traffic would bear, Commonwealth coastal war-time shipping operations could have shown profits reckoned in millions of pounds. Large profits were in fact made on overseas shipping operations of Commonwealth Government owned and chartered ships. Increases of freights were approved by the Commonwealth Prices Commissioner when the vessels were derequisitioned and returned to their owners, and further increases have since taken place. The Government is confident that with freights at an economic level, the operation of the board will not result in financial losses. One reservation must be kept in mind, however, which is that the board, during the present shortage of shipping, is virtually acting as an underwriter to the private companies in the Australian coastal trade. The board is operating a number of overseas chartered vessels which are not altogether suitable for coastal trading and for which a high charter rate is being paid. In these circumstances the operation of such vessels cannot be financially successful, and no private company, with freights at their present level, could operate these ships. The Australian Shipping Board, however, operates the vessels in the public interest in view of the necessity for maintaining shipments of essential commodities such as coal, ironstone, timber, sugar, &c. A further point is that the Australian Shipping Board is operating vessels in what might be termed “ developmental routes “ and to ports which are not served, or are not adequately served, by the vessels owned by the private companies owing to the fact that the cargoes available are not sufficient to enable ships to call there on a profitable basis. The Australian Government considers, however, that shipping should be provided for those centres and, although it is not financially profitable so to do, it intends to continue to serve those ports to the best extent possible with Commonwealth-owned ships.

Having dealt in general terms with the reasons actuating the Government in introducing this bill, I shall now deal in more detail with the main provisions of the bill itself.

The bill provides for the setting up of an Australian Shipping Board con sisting of five members appointed by the Governor-General, vested with the necessary powers and functions, and charged with the performance of the duties and obligations imposed upon it. The usual provisions for the remuneration of members, leave of absence, delegations of powers, &c. are included. The hoard is to be empowered to operate shipping services within Australia, between Australia and the territories and between Australia and overseas countries, and generally to carry on the business of shipowner m relation to any shipping services established by the board. Incidental to its operation of shipping services the board may, subject to the approval of the Minister, purchase or charter ships and dispose of any ship owned by it, purchase or lease and dispose of land, buildings or wharfs and purchase or hire and dispose of equipment or stocks necessary for the carrying on of its business. It may sub-charter ships and may appoint agents or act as agents for shipowners. In addition, the board will be empowered to train or arrange for the training of officers and seamen, this power being necessary to enable it to carry apprentices and cadets on its own ships. The board will also be responsible for advising the Minister about the basic design of ships to be constructed in Australian shipyards and will be empowered further to design ships and to advise the Minister as to the design of ships to be built, and also regarding action necessary to maintain and develop the shipping and shipbuilding industries. The board will take over the vessels which were operated by the Government during and since the war years by the board set up under the National Security Regulations in the board to be set up under this bill. The property in these ships is to be vested. Provision is made in the bill for the board to appoint staff necessary to enable it to carry out its functions both on a permanent and temporary basis. Engagement of ships’ officers and seamen on the board’s vessels will normally be made on a temporary basis, but when the line has become fully established, it is hoped that it may be possible for the board to engage officers and seamen on a permanent basis. At the outset, however, the board will engage crews on articles in the same manner as applies throughout the shipping industry at the present time.

The board will be empowered to borrow money on overdraft from the Commonwealth Bank, but advances may be made to the board by the Treasurer. The board may not borrow money otherwise except with the consent of the Treasurer. Provisions are included relating to bank accounts, application of moneys and keeping of accounts which are subject to audit by the Auditor-General. The board will not be subject to taxation other than income tax under the laws of the Commonwealth, hut will not be subject to any State taxation law to which the Commonwealth is not subject. Provision is also made for the application of profits made by the board. The board is charged with the duty of issuing an annual report with financial accounts which are to be tabled in the Parliament. The provisions of the bill designed to protect and develop the shipping and shipbuilding industries of the Commonwealth are contained in Part III. - Licences. It is provided that no person shall, except under a licence granted by the Minister, commence, or continue the construction of, a merchant ship of a gross tonnage exceeding 200 tons. The purpose of this provision is to ensure that orders for vessels shall be spread, as necessary, among the various Australian shipbuilding yards; to ensure that vessels constructed shall be of the size and type most necessary for use on the Australian coast, and to enable a planned shipbuilding programme to be maintained on a permanent basis.

So as to maintain a continuing demand for the output of Australian shipbuilding yards a further provision is made that ships may not engage in trade on the coast except under a licence which shall be granted on application if the ship is less than 24 years old at the date of application and was built in an Australian shipyard, or was, at any time prior to the commencement of the act, engaged in trade exclusively between ports in Australia. The effect of this provision will be, subject to such exceptions as .the Minister may approve, that at some future date all vessels engaging in the’ coastal trade, both interstate and intrastate, will be built in Australian yards. Ships at present trading will be permitted to continue, but, as they become due for replacement, they will be replaced by Australian-built vessels. Provision is made for exception from the above provisions to meet special cases. Owing to the present shipping position, it will not be possible for all vessels over 24 years cif age to be replaced for a considerable period, and this state of affairs may continue for some years, until the construction rate of Australian yards can cope with the volume of work involved in replacing over-age ships ‘ and ships lost during the war. It may be ten years before this stage is reached. Exceptions may also be granted to allow the importation of vessels which are needed very urgently for. a particular trade, or for the building of vessels which Australian yards are not able to undertake. It is expected that exceptions in such cases will be few, and will diminish as experience is gained by Australian shipbuilders.

As a necessary corollary to the licensing provisions, the Minister is empowered to prevent the transfer of vessels from the Australian registry and the mortgage of ships, or shares in ships, to persons resident outside Australia.

The Government has decided thai financial assistance shall be given to firms purchasing Australian-built ships, and that the purchase of such vessels shall be subsidized so as to bring the cost of the Austraiian-built ships to approximately the same cost as vessels built in British shipyards with the proviso that the subsidy should not exceed 25 per cent, of Australian cost. Very careful consideration has been given to the best means of giving effect to the Government’s decision in this connexion. The possibility of providing for the payment of a bounty was examined but it was apparent that there were many difficulties attached to that method of subsidizing vessels. The principal objection lies in the fact that a bounty must be payable uniformly throughout the Commonwealth whereas in assisting the shipbuilding industry, it may be that in some instances no subsidy payments will be necessary and, on the other hand, the subsidy payable may vary as between the different classes of ship and as between the different shipyards. A provision has, therefore, been included in the bill that the Minister may, on behalf of the Commonwealth, with the concurrence of the Treasurer, purchase ships and dispose of ships so purchased, to the board or to any other person. The method of operating would then be that a shipping company wishing to purchase a vessel would come to the Minister for Shipping and Fuel and, after its requirements had been discussed and the size and type of ship decided upon, a contract would be placed by the Commonwealth with an Australian shipyard, and on completion the ship would be resold to the shipping company at a lower price than the contract price, the difference representing the subsidy payment in respect of that particular ship. This method, it is considered, will provide the necessary degree of flexibility in subsidizing shipbuilding operations. It will also have the effect of reducing the price paid for vessels by shipping companies. It will thus assist in keeping down freight rates on the Australian coast and in enabling the companies to provide replacement tonnage for their over-age ships and other ships lost during the war.

To sum up, this bill will provide the measures needed for the maintenance and development, on sound lines, of the Australian shipping and shipbuilding industries. Experience has fully demonstrated that the fostering of these industries is necessary, first, from the point of view of the defence of Australia, and, secondly, to ensure that those industries shall continue as sound and prosperous parts of the Australian industrial economy. That the maintenance of an adequate up-to-date mercantile marine and an efficient shipbuilding industry is vital for the defence of Australia cannot be disputed, and from the commercial and economic viewpoint it would be a tragedy if full advantage were not taken of the gains that have been made during the war. The bill has been drafted with these objectives in view and I commend it to honorable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator O’Sullivan) adjourned.

page 4225

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE BILL 1948

Bill returned from the House of Representatives without amendment.

page 4225

IMMIGRATION BILL, 1948

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 7th December (vide page 3992), on motion by Senator Armstrong -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QueenslandDeputy Leader of the Opposition

– I do not propose to impede or delay the passage of this bill. Unfortunately, there are in the world some harpies who take a fiendish delight in trafficking in the souls and bodies of other people. Apparently, from the remedial provisions of this bill, there are classes of persons who have not hesitated to profit from the fear and misery of unfortunate people who have been displaced from the places they once called home. The provisions of the bill are very desirable, and I give my support to it.

Senator MURRAY:
Tasmania

– I am very pleased indeed to witness the change of front by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Senator O’Sullivan). He has consistently opposed measures that the Government has introduced, and it is refreshing to hear him commend a measure of this kind. The bill in fact needs no commendation. The necessity for preventing further injustices of the kind that have been perpetrated upon many unfortunate people in Europe and other countries who wish to come to Australia is obvious. Such people, in their anxiety to come to a better land, have fallen prey to unscrupulous persons. The bill will prevent such impositions. Recently instances have come to light in which agencies established for the purpose of assisting migrants to enter Australia have extracted from applicants exorbitant commissions and other charges. One agency informed applicants that it had to send representatives to Canberra in order to interview politicians and officers of the Department of Immigration before it could obtain permits. I am glad to say that up to date no public servant has accepted payments from any such agency. The Department of Immigration has officers in all States who are happy to assist immigrants to enter the country. It has been reported that one agency, in addition to charging the cost of passages to Australia, also levied a fee of £5 for each immigrant plus an amount of 10s. for postage. The company for which the agency acted had no control over shipping accommodation and could not guarantee to transport migrants to Australia. Nevertheless, the agency was able to persuade applicants to pay its charges. The conditions under which many immigrants have been brought to Australia have left much to be desired. We should endeavour to create a good first impression with all immigrants, but the worst possible impression must have been gained by those who came to Australia recently on a 42-year old 4619-ton Panamanian steamer called Rena. I have here a photograph of the vessel depicting the conditions under which the passengers travelled. I have had considerable experience of ships at sea in all sorts of conditions, and it is obvious to me that passengers on Rena travelled under the most deplorable conditions. The photograph shows the forecastle of the ship with three tiers of bunks, without any other furniture, and without conveniences. Passengers complained that it was a “ hell ship “, and the whole business was described as a swindle. This bill is designed to prevent such things. I commend it to the Senate.

Senator ARMSTRONG:
Minister for Supply and Development · New South Wales · ALP

in reply - I thank the Senate for the manner in which it has received the bill. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Senator O’Sullivan) has said, it is unfortunate that certain people are always anxious to take advantage of the misfortunes of others. Hundreds of thousands of people experienced terrible hardships in Europe during the war, and, naturally, they are ready to grasp at any opportunity to seek homes in new and happier lands. Therefore, they are liable to become the victims of imposters who promise to obtain passages for them. I suppose that we must expect certain people to take advantage of that potential market for exploitation. The Government is anxious to control immigration and to ensure that migrants shall be completely protected. Under this bill, it will be able to enforce refunds of money paid to agents if tangible results are not produced within a reasonable time. If agencies fail to make refunds when directed to do so, penalties will be inflicted upon them. It is regrettable that such legislation is necessary, but in the light of the evidence of malpractice, the Government has no alternative but to proceed with the bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 -

Section three of the Principal Act is amended -

  1. by adding at the end of paragraph (gd) the words “An intending migrant shall be required to sign a declaration in the prescribed form thathe is not a person as described in th is paragraph;”:

Amendment (by Senator Armstrong) agreed to-

That paragraph (a) be left out.

Senator ARMSTRONG:
Minister for Supply and Development · New South Wales · ALP

– I move -

That, after paragraph (d), the following paragraph be added: - “and (e) by adding at the end thereof the following sub-section : - (2.) An intending immigrant shall be required to make, in the prescribed form, a declaration as to whether he is such a person as is described in paragraph (gd) of the last preceding subsection, and, unless he makes a declaration that he is not such a person, his immigration into the Commonwealth shall be prohibited and he shall be a prohibited immigrant within the meaning of this Act.’ “.

This amendment arises from a motion submitted in the House of Representatives by the honorable member for Balaclava (Mr. White), who asked that the bill be amended so as to provide that every immigrant shall make a declaration that he does not advocate the overthrow by force or violence of the established government of the Commonwealth or of any State of the Commonwealth or the abolition of any form of law or organized government.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QueenslandDeputy Leader of the Opposition

– I am sure that you, Mr. Chairman, will appreciate my amazement at the Government’s acceptance of an amendment proposed by a member of the Opposition in this Parliament. I am delighted. Beyond that, words fail me.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 5 to 8 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 4227

WOOL REALIZATION

(DISTRIBUTION OF PROFITS)

page 4227

BILL 1948

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 7th December (vide page 4010), on motion by Senator Ashley -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 4227

DEFENCE (TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS) BILL 1948

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 8th December (vide page 4096), on motion by Senator McKenna -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QueenslandDeputy Leader of the Opposition

– I do not intend to oppose the passage of the bill, but I shall make certain criticisms of it. As honorable senators are aware, a great deal of expense and worry would have been saved the community if the Government had not held the recent referendum on the control of rents and prices. The result of that referendum eloquently expressed the people’s distrust of the present Government, but there was no necessity to hold the referendum, because the Opposition in this chamber and in the House of Representatives had assured the Government that the requisite powers could be extended, with its consent, until the end of 1949, or such further period as the circumstances warranted. That assurance was not sufficient for the Government, which wanted the powers for all time, but the people said “ No “ most emphatically. In pursuance of the promise which the Opposition parties made to the Government before the referendum was held that they would not oppose the continuation of the powers sought, the Opposition does not now oppose this measure. We deplore that public money was wasted and public opinion unnecessarily aroused by the recent referendum, and the only gratifying feature of the Government’s decision to hold the referendum was that it gave the people an opportunity to tell the present “ power-drunk “ Government, where it got off.

Supporters of the Government in this chamber and in the House of Representatives have made a great fuss about the increase of the cost of living which has taken place, and which they attribute to the refusal of the people to confer certain powers on the Government. Of course, that is completely untrue, because the Opposition never refused the powers sought to the Government, and the Government could have enjoyed those powers without let or hindrance as long as the circumstances warranted the existence of those powers. If honorable senators opposite would only confront the facts fairly they would realize that the greatest factors in contributing to the increase of costs have been the withdrawal of government subsidies and the slackening of production.

In the House of Representatives, the Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) made if. quite clear that he would weather the storm of criticism which has followed his Government’s decision not to obtain a loan of dollars. The Government was pressed to obtain such a loan, not for the purpose of squandering the money, but to purchase machinery and capital goods which would enable our industries to produce essential goods, which could, in turn be sold for dollars, and enable us to acquire, develop and expand markets overseas. The return from the export of such goods would enable the loan to be repaid in a short time. The Government has been obdurate in its refusal to obtain a loan, but I trust that before long wiser counsels will prevail.

The present measure proposes to continue the defence powers vested in the National Government. As the High Court pointed out, when the Government’s power was challenged on one occasion, the Government has as much right to exercise its defence powers in the unwinding of the war effort as it had in preparing for the war effort. In times of national emergency, when the security of the country is threatened, people will gladly and uncomplainingly surrender to the Government very special powers, some of which may be exercised by regulations, because at such times it is necessary for the Executive to be able to act swiftly, and there is not sufficient time for observance of all the prescribed forms of legislation. Nevertheless, as members of the Parliament we should be most hesitant about handing over the power to legislate by regulation. When a law can be enacted by Parliament it should not be made by regulation. Legislation by regulation is vicious in principle, and, unfortunately, it has characterized all political parties when they have been in office. I emphasize that the trend is not peculiar to the present Labour’ Government,, but is typical of all governments in modern times.

Senator Large:

– The power to legislate by regulation is absolutely necessary in time of war.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– But there is no reason whatever for legislation by regulation in the piping times of peace, and we shall be recreant to our duties if we hand over to the Executive the power to legislate by regulation. It is a growing evil, and I urge the Senate to exercise the greatest caution to discourage that practice. One example which is particularly applicable to the present debate is to be found in the provisions of the Reestablishment and Employment Act 1945. Included in that legislation is a provision whereby the act itself may be amended, altered or added to by regulation. It is true, of course, that the regulations must be laid on the table, but who sees them? How long is it since a regulation has been debated by the Parliament? In many instances, the regulations become accomplished facts before any one knows anything about them. I consider it to be a breach of trust for members of the Parliament to hand over to officials their power to legislate. I propose to read to honorable senators a very apt quotation from a. work entitled The New Despotism, which was written by Lord Hewart, a former Chief Justice of England, whowas a most erudite and public spirited man. As honorable senators are aware, I have referred to that book on numerous occasions. On page 43, the following passages occur: -

It is not, but it ought to be, common knowledge that there is in this country a considerable number of statutes, most of them passed during the last twenty years, which, have vested in public officials, to the exclusion of the jurisdiction of the Courts of Law, the power of deciding questions of a judicial nature. Usually the power is given nominally to the Minister or other head of a Government department, sometimes to the department itself, and it is commonly provided that his or its decision shall bc final and conclusive.

When it is provided that the matter is to be decided by the Minister, the provision really means that it is to be decided by some official, of more or less standing in the department, who has no responsibility except to his official superiors. The Minister himself in too many cases, it is to be feared, does not hear of the matter or the decision, unless he finds it necessary to make inquiries in consequence of some question in Parliament. The official who comes to the decision is anonymous, and, so far as interested parties and the public are concerned, is unascertainable. He is not bound by any particular course of procedure, unlessa course of procedure is prescribed by the department, nor is he bound by any rules of evidence, and, indeed, he is not obliged toreceive any evidence at all before coming to a conclusion. If he does admit evidence, he may wholly disregard it without diminishing thevalidity of his decision. There is not, except in comparatively few cases, any oral hearing, so that there is no opportunity to test by crossexamination such evidence as may be received, nor for the parties to controvert or comment on the case put forward by their opponents. It is, apparently, quite unusual for interested parties even to be permitted to have an interview with any one in the department. When there is any oral hearing, the public and thepress are invariably excluded. Finally, it isnot usual for the official to give any reasons for his decision.

Supported by such an eminent authority as Lord Hewart, I say that we are walking out on our legislative duties and’ responsibilities by handing over to the Executive the power to legislate by regulation. We give absolute power toofficials who have no responsibility, which is a most unsound and unsatisfactory practice in any democracy.

Senator McKENNA:
TasmaniaMinister for Health and Minister for Social Services · ALP

in reply - As amember of the sub-committee of Cabinet which was concerned with the revision of all regulations made under the National Security Act, I can assure honorable senators that the greatest care was exercised in deciding what powers should be continued under this bill. Each Minister in charge of a department was required to examine criticially the regulations administered by his department and had to justify the continuance of any regulations which he considered should be retained. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Senator O’sullivan) spoke of a government that was “ powerdrunk “. Like many other assertions of the honorable senator, that was nothing more than a bald statement which cannot be substantiated. It is easy to make assertions of . that kind, hut extremely difficult to substantiate them by proof. Not only did the Cabinet sub-committee to which I have referred examine critically the powers which the departments proposed to continue in operation, but the Cabinet itself also took the greatest care to ensure that no unnecessary extant powers were retained. If the honorable senator points to continuance of the regulations as evidence in support of his assertion that the Government is “ powerdrunk “, I draw his attention, as a lawyer of wide general experience, to the fact that the physical content of national security regulations and orders has been reduced to approximately one-sixth of its previous bulk. During the recent war two volumes of considerable size were required to set out the regulations and orders made under the National Security Act, but the orders and regulations which now remain in force are contained in a slender volume. The content of the regulations and orders proposed to be retained will be reduced still further by the passage of the bill. Most of the regulations which it is proposed to continue in operation relate to ordinary defence activities which, in view of the development of modern methods of making war, will be incorporated in permanent legislation. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition must be aware, from the volume of legislation with which he has had to deal since the 1st December, of the enormous demands that are being made upon the parliamentary draftsmen at present. Just as it is physically impossible for members of the Opposition to study and assimilate the principles and details of all the measures which have been introduced in this chamber recently, so it is physically impossible for the small staff of the parliamentary draftsman’s office to prepare legislation to incorporate in permanent form many of the national security regulations that are proposed to be continued. I venture to say that the content of the regulations in both scope and importance will be negligible. In my second-reading speech, I dealt with the various types of regulations that are retained. Some apply only to the territories. Others are being retained because the .States have asked us to continue them temporarily. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition referred to the need for economic controls in relation to dollars. He suggested that a solution to the problem of establishing equilibrium between imports and exports in relation to “ hard “ currency countries would be a loan from America. As he said, the Government completely rejects that suggestion. That leaves still posed the currency problem, which has to be covered by some form of emergency legislation.

I do not propose to review the various other types of regulations that I dealt with in my second-reading speech, but I shall, say a word or two about two other comments made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. The honorable senator referred to the recent referendum. He said that during the referendum campaign the Opposition parties had indicated their willingness to extend, if necessary, certain war-time powers of the Commonwealth for a further period. I point out, however, that the Government, both prior to and after the last elections, was not at any time dependent upon the support of the Opposition to pass measures through this Parliament. In any case, even if the Government had the fullest co-operation of the Opposition, the decision as to the validity or otherwise of such regulations would rest not with the Government or with the Opposition, or with the Government and the Opposition in combination, but with the High Court.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition also said that during the war the people of Australia had handed over certain powers to the Commonwealth Parliament. He has not stated the position correctly. The people did not do anything of the kind. They rejected the 1943 referendum proposals. There was no grant of power from the people in relation to defence security, or any other matter, apart from social services in 1946. The war-time powers that were exercised by the Commonwealth were developed by a government formed by the present Opposition parties under the National Security Act in 1939, and the authority for that act derived entirely from the defence power. I venture to say that if the matter had rested with the people themselves, who had no understanding of the issues, all the powers necessary, not only to wage war effectively and to safeguard our people, but also to suppress and control the numerous horrors that followed in the wake of war, would have been withheld. War breeds disease, disability and lust, but above all it breeds greed. Many of the regulations that were brought into force were designed to preserve our economy on a stable basis, not only to help the war effort, but also to control those elements of racketeering and avarice which invariably follow in the wake of war. The need for such control is still apparent in some directions.

I come now to the general observations made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition on regulations. He directed his criticism generally against regulations that are issued by the Executive. He claimed that although those regulations could be disallowed by resolution of either House of the Parliament, they were not seen. My comment on that point is that it is the duty of His Majesty’s Opposition in the Parliament to examine regulations.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– the Government.

Senator McKENNA:

– The Government produces the regulations, and is fully aware of them. Their production is borne of a need, and once the Executive has passed them there is a duty upon the Opposition to review them thoroughly. In addition, there is a Regulations Committee, which scans regulations constantly. Machinery is established for that purpose.

Senator LARGE:

– It is a joint committee, too.

Senator McKENNA:

– Tes. In recent years there have been sixteen motions in the Senate for the disallowance of regulations and one motion for the disallowance of an order. Five of those motions were carried, and three were either discharged or withdrawn. In the House of Representatives, there have been thirteen motions for the disallowance of regulations, but three of them were similar to motions moved in the Senate. Three others were agreed to. Therefore, not only is the machinery available, but it has been used on a number of occasions. I can understand an objection to a particular instance, and the honorable senator supplied one under the Reestablishment and Employment Act. That was h purely emergency provision, and I believe that the honorable senator had very good grounds for his criticism. But to raise a complete objection to the regulationmaking power is not sound. It is impossible to include in acts of Parliament all details of administration, and it is to these details that the regulation-making power i3 normally confined. It is not for the enactment of substantive principles or the implementation of new thoughts. It i3 merely to implement in a detailed form the broader principles which are contained in acts of Parliament. Therefore, I cannot agree with the honorable senator’s general criticism of the regulation-making power. There are complete checks and counter checks on its exercise. I realize that it would be completely impossible for the Opposition in this chamber as at present constituted, and with the present flow of legislation, to address their minds to every regulation that is passed. Almost every day the Clerk of the Senate reads a tabulated list of papers to draw the attention of honorable senators to regulations.

It pleases me that the Opposition has not levelled any criticism at the regulations which this measure will continue. I can assure the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that it is the intention of the Government to abdicate the extraordinary controls which rest on the defence power as soon as possible, and to translate into permanent legislation all matters that should be contained in that form.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 4231

ELECTORAL REDISTRIBUTION

Motions (by Senator Courtice, through Senator Ashley) agreed to -

That the Senate approves of the distribution of the State of Queensland into Electoral Divisions as proposed by Messrs. J. E. Stewart, J. P. Harvey and J. C. Stewart, the Commissioners appointed for the purpose of distributing the said State into Divisions, in their report laid before the Senate on the 27th day of October, 1948, and that the names of the Divisions suggested in the report and indicated on the maps referred to therein, be adopted, except that the name “ Bowman “ be substituted for “ Mowbray “ ; the name “Leichhardt” for “Dalrymple”; the name “Oxley” for “Somerset”; and the name “ Ryan “ for “ Wilson “.

That the Senate approves of the distribution of the State of New South Wales into Electoral Divisions as proposed by Messrs. V. F. Turner, D. S. Mulley and E. W. Evans, the Commissioners appointed for the purpose of distributing the said State into Divisions, in their report laid before the Senate on the 27th day of October, 1948, and that the names of the Divisions suggested in the report and indicated on the maps referred to therein, be adopted, except that the name “ Bennelong “ be substituted for “ Lane Cove “ ; the name “Cook” for “McGowen”; the name “Cunningham” for “Werriwa”; the name “Evans” for “Parkes”; the name “Farrer” for “Hume”; the name “Grayndler” for “Cook”; the name “Hume” for “Farrer”; the name “Kingsford-Smith” for “Watson”; the name “Lawson” for “Bligh”; the name “Lowe” for “Strathfield”; the name “ Lyne “ for “ Kendall “ ; the name “Mackellar” for “Warringah”; the name “ Parkes “ for “ Evans “; the name “ Phillip “ for “ Nelson “ ; the name “ Warringah “ for “ Rawson “ ; the name “ Watson “ for “ Kingsford”; the name “Werriwa” for “Cunningham”; and the name “West Sydney” for Sydney “.

page 4231

NATIONALITY AND CITIZENSHIP BILL 1948

Message received from the House of Representatives intimating that it had agreed to the amendment made by the Senate in this bill.

page 4231

ALIENS DEPORTATION BILL 1948

Message received from the House of Representatives intimating that it had agreed to the amendment made by the Senate in this bill.

page 4231

PARLIAMENTARY RETIRING ALLOWANCES BILL 1948

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Ashley) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator ASHLEY:
Minister for Shipping and Fuel · New South Wales · ALP

.- I move-

That the bill be now read a second time.

The object of the bill is to establish a scheme for the payment of pensions or other allowances to senators and member.of the House of Representatives upon their ceasing to be members of. either House of Parliament after the 30th November, 1948. The scheme will be on a contributory and compulsory basis. In its general purpose the scheme aims to meet the situation, long recognized by members of all parties, that men or women who serve in the Parliament often sacrifice opportunities to provide for the day when their parliamentary careers come to an end. It has frequently happened that members who have made great contributions to the work of the Parliament have, upon retirement, faced a condition of hardship. Very many others have had to contemplate the results of interrupted careers, earning power lost and private means reduced through, and in the course of, their service in the Parliament. The longer and better the service that has been given, the more often has this been the case.

There are various reasons why this has been so. Service in the Parliament has become more exacting as the years have gone by. Unlike the more leisurely conditions of, perhaps, 50 years ago, parliamentary life now makes heavy and increasing demands upon the time and capacities of all who take part in it. Attendance through parliamentary sessions, the work incidental thereto, the severance of business and professional connexions, the responsibilities of electorates, all combine to render it almost impossible for members to maintain connexion with any other activity, and, as time goes on, make it more and more difficult for them to re-establish themselves when their term in Parliament is ended..

It has frequently been said that the loss and insecurity which attend upon service in the Parliament deter men and women, capable of making a worthwhile contribution to the service of the Commonwealth, from offering themselves for election. It is hoped that this measure will help in overcoming difficulties of that nature. The problem of making provision for those people who give long service to the State is not new. It has, I believe, received the attention of previous governments, but no action has previously been taken. The Commonwealth has, in fact, lagged behind Great Britain and the States of the Commonwealth in this regard. Limited parliamentary pensions schemes were introduced in the British Parliament in 1939, and in Western Australia in 1941. New South Wales and Victoria adopted their schemes in 1946, and South Australia followed suit in 194S.

The underlying principle adopted in most pensions schemes is that there shall be two contributing parties. That principle has been followed in this measure. To some extent the bill has been framed, as regards its financial provisions, on the lines of the Commonwealth Superannuation Act for public servants. It provides for the payment of contributions by potential beneficiaries and for the payment by the Commonwealth of a proportion of the cost of benefits as they arise. The contributions by members are substantial, namely, £3 a week, whilst the benefits are limited to £8 a week, an amount which is much less than the maximum pension provided under many private and public superannuation schemes. It should also be borne in mind that the people who are to receive the pensions are, for the most part, not drawn from the wealthy classes of the community and have no substantial private means. The Government considered, but rejected, the idea of increasing the pensions benefit according to age and duration of parliamentary service. It is of the opinion that the scheme should provide the full benefit for all those who cease to be members whilst still carrying family respon- sibilities and may be unable readily to find re-employment in their own. particular trade or profession. The Government has, therefore, accepted the principle of pooling the risks involved and considers that some part of the cost of providing adequate benefits for those whose parliamentary careers are abruptly and prematurely terminated should be met by their more fortunate associates, who will pay contributions for long periods and for whom the value of any benefits they can hope to receive will be little more, or even less, than what their own contributions would provide.

I shall summarize the main provisions of the bill. They apply solely to persons who are at present members of the Parliament and to those who in future will become members. In return for a compulsory contribution of £3 a week, a member will, upon his enforced retirement from the Parliament after more than eight years’ service, be entitled to a pension of £8 a week, commencing immediately on retirement or on his attainment of the age of 45. If his retirement is voluntary, a pension will not be payable unless the member has served for at least twelve years and has attained the age of 45. In all other cases of voluntary retirement, a member will receive no more than a refund of his. contributions. All service in the Parliament, whether before or after the commencement of the act, will count for pension, and this concession will apply to both present members and those who, having served in the Parliament before the commencement of the act, again re-enter the Parliament Ex-members who have served in the Parliament prior to the commencement of the act will not be. entitled to any benefits unless they are again elected to either House and again retire.

In the case of members who are compelled to retire with less than eight years’ service, the bill provides for a refund of contributions together with a supplement of one and one-half times the amount of the member’s own contributions. This, in effect, means that 40 per cent, of the cost of the early retirement benefit will be provided, by the member himself. For existing members of the Parliament, this provision has been extended to enable them to draw tie Government supplement in respect of periods of non-contributory service. The Commonwealth supplement and refund of contributions are, at the option -of the member, payable in lieu of pension. In such cases the amount of the supplement is limited to the amount payable in respect of eight years’ contributions. The bill defines the circumstances in which retirement from the Parliament shall be deemed to be voluntary, and, as a safeguard against abuse, it gives to the trustees a discretion to determine -whether in other doubtful cases the retirement should be held to be voluntary.

An important clause in the bill is that providing a pension of £5 a week? to the widow of an ex-member who, before his death, was in receipt of a parliamentary pension. A similar pension will also be paid to the widow of a member who, in future, dies in service. In such a case the bill does not stipulate a minimum period of qualifying service. In the case of a female member, a pension not exceeding £5 a week will, at the discretion of the trustees, be payable to her surviving husband if, because of mental or physical incapacity, he was totally dependent upon her. The benefit payable to the estate of a deceased member who was unmarried at the time of his death, is limited to a refund of contributions.

The bill provides that where a person has received a refund of contributions and subsequently again becomes a member, the period of his service as a member may be deemed to include the period in respect of which those contributions were paid, provided that he contracts to repay to the fund within a period of three years the amount of the contributions and government supplement previously paid to him. “Where a person in receipt of a parliamentary pension again becomes a member he will be required to contribute to the fund and his pension will be suspended until he again ceases to be a member. The bill provides for the establishment of a body to be called “ The Parliamentary Retiring Allowances Trust “, constituted by five trustees, namely, the Treasurer, who will be chairman, two senators and two members of the Rouse of Representatives. The trustees, other than the Treasurer, will be appointed by the House of which they are members.

The Government has given careful consideration to the financial basis on which a scheme of parliamentary pensions should be based. With this end in view, it recently obtained, with the approval of the Chief Judge of the Arbitration Court, the advice of His Honour Mr. Justice Kirby, who expressed himself as in agreement with the approach to the problem made by the two actuaries, Mr. W. C. Balmford, F.I.A., the Commonwealth Actuary, and Mr. L. G. Oxby, F.I.A., of the Australian Mutual Provident Society. The actuaries have reported that, on the assumption that all members contributed to the fund at the rate of £3 a week throughout the whole of their parliamentary life, it would be necessary for the Government to provide 56 per cent, of the cost of the benefits outlined in the bill. They point out, however, that an initial deficiency would arise in the fund unless the benefits of members with non-contributory past service were suitably reduced. Their estimate of the proportion of the cost of benefits to be borne by the Commonwealth is based on the average experience of parliamentary membership during recent years and represents the best method of estimating the Commonwealth liability, as it is quite impossible for any one to estimate the rate at which pensions will emerge in individual years. The actuarial calculations are affected, in the first place, by the fact that many of the existing members, although their past service qualifies them for immediate benefit, have not yet paid any contributions. In their cases, therefore, the percentage payment by the Commonwealth should be greater than 56 per cent. On the other hand, following the enlargement of the Parliament and the alteration in the mode of election of the Senate, the retirements in the early years of the scheme may not be so heavy as would normally be expected ; and this may result in a temporary saving. The bill provides that the Commonwealth Government shall provide 60 per cent, of the cost of the benefits, which is somewhat greater than the amount considered necessary by the actuaries, if the scheme commenced without any liabilities in respect of past service. This margin will be available towards meeting the anticipated initial deficiency. Some further offset to this deficiency will arise if, as the result of the recent amendments to the Representation Act and to the Commonwealth Electoral Act, the retirement rate in future should prove to be lower than has been the case in the past. In all the circumstances, therefore, the Government has decided to defer any definite estimate of this initial deficiency until the completion of the first actuarial investigation to be made after the scheme has been in operation for seven years. The actuarial report by Messrs. Balmford and Oxby, both of whom are Fellows of the Institute of Actuaries, will be made available to members. I commend the measure to the Senate as a sincere effort on the part of the Government to remove some of the disabilities attaching to parliamentary service.

Sitting suspended from 5.k to 8 p.m.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QueenslandDeputy Leader of the Opposition

– At the outset I should like to make it perfectly clear that I support the principle of a retiring allowance to be provided by legislation, for a retiring or defeated member of the Parliament. I consider that the people, whom we try to serve, regardless of which side of the political fence we are on, base their appreciation of us to a large degree, not only on the work we do as their representatives in the National Parliament, but also on the estimate that we have of ourselves. On the first occasion on which I had the privilege of speaking in this chamber I said that no greater compliment could be paid to an Australian by his fellow Australians than that of being elected by them to represent them in this, our National Parliament. That throws upon us a very heavy duty, a very heavy responsibility, which confers upon us a very high dignity. But, human and frail as we are we do, on the whole, serve our people well and faithfully. The people of other countries would be very happy and fortunate if their wishes and requirements were attended to as faithfully, honestly and sincerely as are. the interests of the Australian people by their ‘elected representatives.

Senator LARGE:

– It is good to hear the honorable senator say that.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– The responsibility to which I have referred is a matter that we must keep very carefully and very fully in mind. It is a most deplorable prospect that a man who has served his country well in this National Parliament, or any other parliament, should have to consider the possibility that, after he has spent the best years of his life in serving his fellow Australians, he will be thrown out into the world, through either sickness, mischance or defeat at an election, having lost contact with his previous avocation or occupation, and be supernumerary to the life of the community, tossed around on a very cold wave of the world. By reason of the years of service that he has given he has more or less cut himself adrift from even the possibility of re-establishing contact with the particular avocation for which, in earlier years, he was trained. I understand that in Great Britain, although I do not know whether it applies to members of Parliament, men who have occupied the very high, dignified, and responsible position of Lord Chancellor, no matter for what period, receive, upon retirement, defeat, or vacation of office, a pension of £5,000 a year. The position of Lord Chancellor is a very high political position. That pension of £5,000 a year was determined many years ago when, in terms of purchasing power, that sum would be worth as much as £20,000 now. There is another aspect which strikes me, and which applies, not only to this side of the House or the other, but would apply even if we had a cross-bench. There are many desirable types of young Australians occupying positions of security and with prospects, who might enter parliamentary life if it could offer them some measure of security. But these young Australians have responsibilities, and, knowing the uncertainty of parliamentary life, they consider that they cannot take the risk of severing their associations with occupations in which they are guaranteed lucrative salaries and security of tenure. People say that in time of war most of our young men gave up everything; that they gave up security and risked even their lives. That is quite true. But we shall not always live in the shadow of war and we should not have, in times of peace, the same frame of mind that we had in war when this country was threatened by invasion, ff we throw more widely open the doors of our Parliament to the most desirable of our young Australians, we at least must be able to assure them that they will have some security; that if they serve for a prescribed period they will not be thrown on to the dump-heap. If they have served for a reasonable period, or for even a oneterm period, having separated themselves from the prospect of returning to their previous avocation, and having the responsibility of supporting their families and discharging their other responsibilities something must be done for them should they suffer political defeatPeople in private industry, occupying positions carrying salaries equal to the allowances of honorable senators, cannot be sacked overnight without clue compensation. It depends, of course, upon particular circumstances, but some honorable senators may recollect instances in which persons occupying important executive positions have been dismissed, and, considering themselves badly treated, have sued their employers and have been awarded damages equivalent to six months’ or twelve months’ salary. My remarks would probably apply more to honorable senators opposite than to those on this side. Some honorable senators opposite may be sacked at the next elections, and I should say that, in view of the responsible positions that they have occupied - although I consider that the people would be quite justified in sacking them - they would be entitled to reasonable compensation in lieu of notice, because, after all, honorable senators do not receive much notice when the people decide to sack them. A legislator, as I indicated earlier, occupies one of the highest, most responsible and dignified positions that any man could occupy. The important question is whether the scheme that has been submitted to the Parliament is a reasonable one or not. That is, and always will be, a matter of opinion, but I consider that the contributions to he made by the beneficiaries under the scheme should at least be on a £l-for-£l basis. I have had a certain amount of experience in drawing up documents for the purposes of initiating provident funds in various companies, and I know that in all schemes of this kind some regard must be paid to length .of service. There must be a certain amount of retrospective effect, because a. man who has served for 30 years should be more kindly regarded than one who has served for only two or three years. But where the balance lies is a matter foi’ an actuary.

Senator Sheehan:

– Actuaries are a’bout the worst people you could call in.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– Two and two still make four. No matter how intolerable that fact may be to some people, two and two will not make four and a fraction even for the best of friends. Any such scheme as this should be sound although not necessarily self-supporting. The Government should by all means contribute, but in my opinion it should do so on a 50-50 basis.

Senator Nash:

– As against a 60-40 basis ?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– Yes. But why should those who have not contributed for more than twelve months be in the same position as others who contribute for 25 or 30 years? It is quite conceivable that either the members of this chamber or of the House of Representatives who enjoy what are regarded as “ safe seats “ - that is to say, safe either for the representatives of progress or of the Labour party-

Senator O’Byrne:

– Or for the reactionaries or Liberals.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– Unless they are defeated by some process of preselection they will occupy those parliamentary seats for life, and it is quite conceivable that, if this measure comes into effect, a comparative youngster like Senator O’Byrne, who is a mere youth, may pay into the fund for 40 years and get from it only a mere fraction of his contribution.

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA · ALP

– It is good insurance.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– That reminds me of the steeple on the cathedral that was supposed to be somebody’s fire insurance. But this is political insurance. Whatever is done, there will inevitably be anomalies. I think that it is a little unfair, to expect the people, whose appreciation we like to command, to believe that we are doing the right thing in asking them to pay us a pension for life if we contribute to the fund only for one year. That proposal does not strike me as being ideal.

Senator Sandford:

– That will apply only in the initial stages of the scheme.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– That may be so, but I should like the plan to be further examined.

Comparisons have been made, and it has been suggested that we contemplate treating ourselves more generously than regular public servants are treated. With all due respect to those who make that suggestion, I say that there is no basis for comparison. A public servant has security of tenure during his good behaviour. He may join the Public Service at the age of sixteen years aud spend a lifetime in complete, placid security in the Service. He is not required to face the hazards of meeting a sometimes very unreasonable electorate. Parliamentarians are in office only during the whim of the electors. Many casualties amongst members of this. Parliament can be enumerated to support the truth of that statement. Therefore, I consider that it is unfair and unreal to compare our position with that of public servants. Suggestions have also been made that the pensions for which we shall. become eligible under this or an amended scheme are fantastic in comparison with the pensions received by war widows and war pensioners. Again I say that there is no reasonable basis for comparison. All of us, irrespective of party affiliations, are very cordially inclined towards improving age, service, widows’ and other pensions. However, such pensions cannot be appropriately used for comparative purposes in relation to this measure.

Another matter to which I draw attention is the compensation, as distinct from pension, to be paid to an ex-member of this Parliament who has served for a period less than that contemplated in the bill.

Senator Ward:

– He will get his money back..

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– He will get more than that. He will receive one and a half times the amount of his contributions to the fund. It is necessary that such a citizen should be in a position to rehabilitate himself in a civil occupation. Such payments will not be pensions as I understand the meaning of the term. They will be rehabilitation payments to enable the recipients to re-adapt themselves to the civil avocations which they would have pursued but for the interruption occasioned by their parliamentary service. There are other aspects of the measure worthy of further examination. For instance, it is questionable whether eight years is a reasonable length of time to specify. Perhaps it should be ten years or twelve years. I am not in a position to express a reliable opinion upon that at the moment. This matter is eminently one for consideration by a joint committee of all parties. Such a committee should have the opportunity to discuss the scheme with men of actuarial experience. There is no violent hurry to implement the plan. I do not want to try to read the mind of the Government, but obviously the next general election will not be held before June of next year. There is time to consider the scheme further and to enact it next year. It could be made effective from the 1st January, 1949.

I do not think that it is fair or reasonable that the Labour Government should have either the entire credit or the complete obloquy attached to the enactment of a measure such as this. Members of the Opposition will share in the scheme; they should also share the responsibility for its introduction.

Senator Large:

– Does not the honorable senator consider that the bill is belated ?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– Yes. I think that it should have been introduced long ago. I have a rough idea though, that one of my party colleagues in the House of Representatives, a former Prime Minister, would have “ Buckley’s chance “ of getting back even the interest on his contributions had the scheme been brought into effect in 1901. Inevitably. many people will contribute to the fund considerably more than they will ever draw out of it. Unfortunately, that fact has not been mentioned in the press and the public is not aware of it. After all, it is not contemplated that our contributions to the fund shall be deductible for taxation purposes. There is no provision that the pension ultimately received shall be free of tax. An ex-member of the Parliament in receipt of other income will not benefit from the pension to the full amount of £8 a week, because the amount will be taxed at a rate based on the total income received. I guarantee that, in some instances, contributors to this fund will not draw out of it, in the net result, anything like the amount that they will pay into it.

I hope that I have made my position clear. I am willing to share with the Government the responsibility for the introduction of a pension scheme. To use that horrible expression that I heard from the Minister for Shipping and Fuel (Senator Ashley) earlier, I do not want to “ get out from under “. I am quite prepared to accept the responsibility for supporting the principle of the measure. However, I am not satisfied with certain of its details. I think that they could be improved upon and that the possibility of anomalies could be minimized. For that reason, I formally move -

That all words after “That” be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following words: - “the bill be withdrawn and referred to an all-party committee to investigate and make recommendations to provide for an equitable scheme of retiring allowances for persons who have served as members of Parliament. Such committee shall take into consideration the desirability of readjusting the benefits payable to a member where such benefits wholly or partly depend on periods of non-contributory service by either -

suitably reducing the benefits; or

allowing full benefits but subject to payment of suitable amounts of arrears of contribution “.

Senator Rankin:

– I second the amend- ment.

Senator MURRAY:
Tasmania

– I support the bill, not the amendment. An analysis of the measure shows that honorable sena tors will be required to make a major contribution to the benefits which they may derive from it. That is only fair. Any scheme of this nature should be in the interests of the majority of members of the Parliament. This bill satisfies that requirement. I have secured figures which show that senators will contribute to the fund £97,890, exclusive of interest, over a period dating from the 1st December, 1948, to the 30th June, 1953. Therefore we shall contribute considerably for the benefit of those members of the Parliament who may be so unfortunate as to be defeated at the next general election, or even unsuccessful at some preselection ballot of the Australian Country party, the Liberal party or the Labour party. If we are to attract to this Parliament men of high calibre who are prepared to sacrifice their personal interests in the service of the nation, we must offer them some prospect of security. That is the object of this bill. It contains nothing which any life insurance actuary or other person who is not politically biased will condemn. I was very pleased to hear the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Senator O’Sullivan) commend certain portions of the bill. This matter requires team work. Without team work we can never achieve anything. We must co-operate, irrespective of party policies, in order to ensure that honorable senators shall have some measure of security should the electors decide that their services are no longer required in this Parliament. There may be better schemes, but the scheme embodied in the present measure has been approved by members of a committee and by institutions which are experienced in assessing the expectation of life and other uncertain factors associated with pension and superannuation schemes. ‘ As the scheme has the blessing of those bodies I am satisfied that it is fair, and since members of the Parliament are prepared to make substantial contributions to the scheme and to take their chance of drawing anything from the fund, they are entitled to draw a pension. Of course, if members of the Parliament are not prepared to assert their own rights, they cannot be expected to assert the rights of those whom they are elected to represent.

I believe that members of the Opposition parties have approved the principles of the present measure for years, but when they were in office, they lacked the courage to introduce a similar measure. They did not have the temerity to encounter what they believed to be the political risks associated with the introduction of such a measure. Quite frankly, if I were not prepared to assert my own rights, then I should not consider myself fit to assert the rights of others. I say that as the result of a fairly wide experience. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has whole-heartedly supported the measure, and I take this opportunity to offer to him and his colleague a meed of praise for the contributions which they have made over a period of months to the discussions in this chamber, where they are outnumbered politically by more than ten to one. They realize that the bill has considerable merit, but they lack the courage to say openly that it is a sound measure. I shall not further delay the passage of the measure, which I commend to the Senate.

Senator LARGE:
New South Wales

– I regret to disappoint Senator Murray, who expressed the hope that the measure would be passed without further debate. However, I shall not delay the passage of the measure by making a lengthy speech. On this occasion, as on previous occasions, I was impressed by the speech of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Senator O’sullivan), and I repeat what I have said previously, that T believe he is in the wrong political camp.

Senator Sheehan:

– The honorable senator forgets that this is a house of review.

Senator LARGE:

– Since this is a house of review, I propose to review the background of the introduction of the present measure. I was reliably informed that members of the Australian Country party were opposed to the passage of the bill in its present form, but that members of the Liberal party were heartily in favour of it. I understand that there have been some meetings between members of the two parties in the last few days, as the result of which they have composed their differences. Some sort of compromise has apparently been reached, which is represented in the amendment moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– Sh Holmes is resurrected !

Senator LARGE:

– I qualify my statement by saying that I have been “ reliably informed “ about these things. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition did not really attack the principle of the measure. He adopted the attitude that the present is not an opportune time to introduce such legislation. However, I do not believe that the time is inopportune. I recall that when the old-age pensions scheme was introduced in 1905 it was criticized as being actuarially unsound. Its basis was alleged to violate all the known principles of economics and finance. However, the protagonists of the scheme pointed to the success of the pension fund established by the Amalgamated Society of Engineers, which 40 years previously, had introduced a scheme that functioned most effectively. The members of that society had experienced considerable victimization because of their advocacy of trade unionism and the improvement of social conditions. My father had to travel from one end of England to the other because he had been “black-listed” for being a trade unionist. The Amalgamated Society of Engineers was the first body to introduce superannuation. When the society introduced its scheme in 1850, 10s. a week was sufficient to sustain a man, and the basis of the scheme evolved by the society was that for a small contribution its members would be entitled to draw pensions of up to 10s. a week. For a contribution of 2s. a quarter, or Ss. a year, they received, after contributing for 25 years, a pension of 8s. a week. If they contributed for 30 years they received 9s. a week, and if they contributed for 35 years they received 10s. a week. After 40 years’ operation the fund had accumulated a considerable sum of money, and the scheme was copied by other bodies in England. To-day that fund has a reserve of more than £10,000,000. The success of that scheme was, as I have said, a very strong argument for the advocates of the introduction of old-age pensions in this country.

In considering the basis of the present scheme, we should recollect that if no such scheme were in operation a retired member of the Parliament who was in indigent circumstances would be entitled, on attaining the age of 65 years, to participate in the age pension scheme, to which he would have made no special contribution. The present scheme proposes that members of the Parliament shall contribute £3 a week, and, in return, shall be entitled to a pension of £8 a week. Because of the very substantial contributions which they will make to the proposed fund, I think that it is obvious that the return which they will receive will not be proportionately greater than a man who draws the age pension after having made the ordinary social service contributions. I do not believe that there is any similar scheme in existence in the world, in which those who hope to receive pensions contribute so much. In that respect I agree with the remarks of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. It is quite possible that some fortunate member of the Parliament may become a beneficiary of the scheme in twelve months’ time, but one swallow does not make a summer. It may easily happen that members of the Parliament who contribute to the proposed fund for fifteen years, and are then retired from the Parliament, may live only a few weeks to draw a pension. Contingencies of that kind make such a scheme actuarially sound.

I do not see any reason why the introduction of the scheme should be delayed. Members of the Parliament have conversed about this matter, and we are aware of the views held by members of all political parties in this chamber and in the House of Representatives. Wo know, therefore, that even the members of the Opposition parties are in agreement with us on the principle of this measure, and that it is only because of political considerations that they have decided to criticize it. Of course, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition did not assert that the proposal is not actuarially sound. I believe that the Government has gone as far as it is possible to go to make the scheme actuarially sound. Furthermore, I believe that when the fund has been operating for some time it will become self-supporting and will accumulate a reserve. Indeed, in future years it may very well be decided to increase the payments without increasing the contributions. Since the scheme will be self-supporting, we do not need to apologize for its introduction. Rather, we can be proud of having come out into the open to declare that we believe that we are entitled to a certain reward for services rendered. By introducing this measure members of the Australian Labour party are doing what members of the opposing parties had not the courage to do when they were in power. Labour can therefore take credit for having initiated the scheme. I shall not delay the passage of the measure by speaking at any greater length, but shall content myself with giving the bill my blessing.

Senator ASHLEY:
Minister for Shipping and Fuel · New South Wales · ALP

in reply - I was pleased at the reception given to the bill by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Senator O’sullivan), but somewhat disappointed when he moved an amendment to the motion for the second reading. Apparently there is some difference of opinion on this measure between the two parties which compose the Opposition in this Parliament. I sincerely hope that this difference is not as serious as that which exists in Victoria. The speech made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition on the bill was appreciated not only by me, but also, I am sure, by every other member of the chamber. He expressed his honest opinion without party bias. He said that he did not agree with the basis of the scheme, hut I remind him that the apportionment of the contributions between the Treasury and the recipients of the benefit is the same as that of the Public Service superannuation scheme.

Senator O’sullivan:

– Is that on a 60-40 basis?

Senator ASHLEY:

– Yes. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition said that this scheme should be independent of the Public Service superannuation fund and with that I quite agree. Members of the Parliament who serve their country well are entitled to the same consideration as that given to public servants. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition pointed out, public servants are employed permanently, whereas political life is by no means so certain. The Government accepts full responsibility for this scheme. No government is worth its salt if it evades responsibility in matters of this kind. There is no need for an all-party committee to consider a pension scheme. Extensive investigations have been made by capable members of the Government. In addition, the scheme has been subjected to actuarial scrutiny. It has also been referred to a justice of the High Court for an opinion. The Government made all the necessary inquiries before formulating this plan. I am sure that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition will agree that the Commonwealth Actuary, Mr. W. C. Balmford, and Mr. L. G. Oxby, of the Australian Mutual Provident Society, can be regarded as eminent authorities on schemes of this kind. Obviously, although the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is doing his best in the interests of his party, he sincerely believes that the scheme is fair. Otherwise, he would not have spoken as he did. I commend him for his contribution to the debate. I hope that the bill will be passed in its present form. There is no need for further investigation. The Government is prepared to accept full responsibility for the scheme.

Question put -

That the words proposed to be left out (Senator O’Sullivan’s amendment), be left out.

The Senate divided. (The President - Senator the Hon.

GORDON Brown.)

AYES: 2

NOES: 20

Majority . . . . 18

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clauses 1 to 6 agreed to.

Clause 7 -

If a vacancy occurs in the office of a trustee, theGovernor-General may appoint a trustee to hold office until the vacancy is otherwise filled.

Senator ASHLEY:
Minister for Shipping and Fuel · New South Wales · ALP

.- I move-

That, at the end of the clause, the following sub-clause be added: - “ (2.) The Governor-General may appoint two senators and two members of the House of Representatives to hold office as trustees until the first appointment as trustees of two senators and two members of the House of Representatives, respectively, under the last preceding section.”.

The bill provides for the appointment of two trustees by each House of the Parliament. In the event of a vacancy occurring while the Parliament is not sitting, the Governor-General may appoint a member to fill the vacancy temporarily. As the bill will not receive the assent of the Governor-General until the Parliament has risen for the Christmas recess and as the legislation will operate from the 1st December, the amendment permits the Governor-General to appoint temporary trustees until the Parliament meets again. The Opposition parties have been invited to submit two names for submission to the Governor-General.

Senator Murray:

– Can the Minister say who the trustees will be and under what conditions they will be appointed?

Senator ASHLEY:

– That has not yet been determined. The object of the amendment is to provide for the appointment of temporary trustees until the permanent appointments are made.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses8 to 28 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported with an amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 4241

RIVER MURRAY WATERS BILL 1948

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Armstrong) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator ARMSTRONG:
Minister for .Supply and Development · New South Wales · ALP

– I move -

That the bill he now read a second time. The main purpose of the bill is to ratify an agreement which has been reached by the Australian Government and the Governments of New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia to complete the Hume reservoir to its total designed capacity of 2,000,000 acre-feet and to undertake works to improve the Lake Victoria storage. Under the original agreement of the 9th September, 1914, and subsequent amendments of the 10th August, 1923, and the 23rd July, 1934, works to the amount of £11,891,058 have been completed comprising the construction of the Hume dam, thirteen weirs and locks on the river Murray, two weirs on the river Mumimbidgee, a diversion weir on the river Murray at Yarrawonga and barrages at Murray Mouth. The Hume dam was built to impound 1,250,000 acrefeet, but of such dimensions and height as to permit of the future extension of the storage to 2,000,000 acre-feet. The droughts which have occurred since the dam was built and the enormous developments in irrigation have demonstrated the need for still further storage on the Murray, not only at the Hume Reservoir but at other suitable areas along the Murray.

Early in 1944, negotiations were opened between the Commonwealth and the three State governments with the object of raising the capacity of the Hume reservoir to 2,000,000 acre-feet and at a conference of Commonwealth and State Ministers, representing the four contracting governments, held on the 19th January, 1944, it was unanimously decided to recommend to the four governments that the work should be undertaken as a joint venture, each contributing a quarter share of the cost involved, which is estimated at £1,000,000; also, with the object of making better use of the storage of Lake Victoria, it was decided that the inlet channel to the lake should be widened and improved at a cost of approximately £150,000. One of the guiding principles adopted at that conference of Ministers was that the additional water should be used to meet the present allocation obligations under the River Murray Agreement and as a reserve for dry years, such reserve to be used at the discretion of the River Murray Commission. The discussion; which have taken place between the four governments in the ensuing years have been .strongly influenced by a growing consciousness of the need to protect a national asset of such paramount importance from destruction by the erosion of the catchment and consequent siltation of the reservoir. The amending agreement provides for better protection of the catchment.

The need for further storage has received special consideration and the River Murray Agreement is to be amended ir. give to the River Murray Commission authority to investigate and report upon proposals for storage and measures to provide better conservation and regulation of the Murray waters. The contracting governments have also agreed that additional works may be carried out from time to time by any one or more of such governments, such works to be controlled as required by the River Murray Commission. The River Murray Coinmission is also given power to stipulate conditions for any other works to be carried out on the river Murray by State governments, and if they affect the storage, flow, discharge or control of the waters of the river Murray the Commission is to be responsible for the manner in which the State government or governments operate or control such works. The governments have been impressed with the need for making the utmost use of the storage for the generation of electricity as far as is consistent with the functioning of the scheme for irrigation purposes. The execution of the amending

River Murray Agreement will open the way for the electricity undertakings in New South Wales and Victoria to bring to completion a scheme which will link up with the New South Wales and Victorian networks and put to profitable use water power at present running to waste.

In the existing agreement a basis of distribution of the waters of the river Murray is set out as a direction to the River Murray Commission in carrying out its duty of regulating the flow and declaring quantities of, and times for, deliveries of water. In the light of experience since the basis was formulated in 1914, it has been found that there is need for clarification and the establishment of a more satisfactory basis of distribution, but without departing from the original intentions of the agreement. The proposals on which the amending agreement has been formed have been the subject of a conference of Ministers representing the four contracting governments held on the 18th October, 1948, whose recommendations happily brought to conclusion the problems under discussion for nearly five years. Briefly summarized the amending agreement provides for - (a) the increase of the storage capacity of the Hume reservoir from 1,250,000 to 2,000,000 acre-feet; (6) the widening of the inlet channel to Lake Victoria; (c) a new clause under which the contracting States of New South Wales and Victoria undertake to take effective measures to protect the catchment of the upper Murray storage within their States and which requires the River Murray Commission to inspect, and the States to report annually upon, the condition of the catchment and to take any special action authorized or required by the commission. The commission must also include in its annual report a report on the condition of the catchment; (d) a new clause empowering the commission to initiate proposals for the better conservation and regulation of the river Murray waters and flows and have investigations and surveys made respecting additional storage works which may be carried out by one or more of the contracting governments subject to the control of the commission; (e) a new clause empowering the commission to approve with or without amendment any proposed works affecting the use, control, flow, or storage of water in the river Murray, and to stipulate conditions of operation or control insofar as the regulation of the flow of the river Murray may be affected; (/) an increase of the total cost of the scheme from £12,000,000 to an estimate of £14,000,000; g) a clearer definition of the method of distribution of the waters of the river Murray, particularly to ensure a more definite working basis for the commission should restrictions become necessary in time of drought ; and (h) other amendments of a minor character.

In submitting the bill, it is appropriate to say that the successful conclusion of the negotiations has in a large measure been brought about by the advice and assistance of the River Murray Commission. This body has established a splendid record of achievement during the last 30 years in bringing the river Murray scheme into actuality and in operating it as one of the most vital national projects in Australia. The confidence in the River Murray Commission is well placed and the governments have recognized this by their willingness to impose further duties on the commission as provided in the new agreement.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

Sitting suspended from 9.1H to 11 p.m.

page 4242

COMMONWEALTH AID ROADS AND WORKS BILL 1948

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Ashley) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator ASHLEY:
New South WalesMinister for Shipping and Fuel · ALP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

This bill provides for the payment to the States of an additional £1,000,000 a year for the construction and maintenance of roads through sparsely populated areas, timber country and rural areas, or, if the State thinks fit, upon the purchase of road-making plant for use in areas “where the cost of such plant is beyond the financial resources of local authorities. In the last financial year the provision for this purpose was £1,000,000, so that the present bill, in effect, doubles last year’s outlay. It is hoped by means of this grant to assist State and local governing authorities to improve roads other than the main highways, which are already well provided for, and so intensify the developmental areas hitherto difficult of access. Representations from many quarters have made it apparent that many local authorities are unable to afford modern road-making machinery such as is necessary to keep serviceable the long stretches of road to serve their scattered populations. This condition in itself militates against the influx of more settlers and more intensive and more economic use of local resources. Tt is already apparent that the £1,000,000 provided last year met such a real need that the Government has no hesitation in submitting the increased provision for the approval of the Parliament.

The increased grant will be retrospective to the 1st July last, and will con.tinue to the 30th June, 1950, when the present grant under the Commonwealth Aid Roads and Works Act expires. The matter of Commonwealth assistance on roads will then come up for review.

In submitting this bill, I point out that the total of Commonwealth aid roads and works assistance this year is £7,300,000. This is almost double the average amount provided by the Commonwealth in the three years preceding the war. This is a recognition by the Commonwealth, not only of the increased cost of labour and materials used in road works, but also of the fact that the States were unable to give proper maintenance to roads during the war. The bill is commended to the Senate for favorable consideration.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QueenslandDeputy Leader of the Opposition

amount of satisfaction may be derived from the fact that in the current financial year, the Commonwealth is prepared to expend an additional £1,000,000 on roads. Last year, I understand, the expenditure was approximately £6,000,000. As most people are aware, during the trying days of the war, country roads were used extensively for defence purposes. It is true that, since the war ended, assistance has been given to local governing authorities who are charged with the responsibility of repairing war damage and with carrying out road maintenance and construction generally, but that assistance has not been nearly sufficient. This bill cannot be properly understood unless we cast our minds back to the days of the Bruce-Page Government when the then Treasurer, Sir Earle Page, introduced the original legislation. It was then intended that the revenue from the petrol tax should be expended entirely upon the construction and maintenance of roads, particularly in country areas. Until recently, when a reduction of one penny a gallon was made, the petrol tax was 11 ½d. a gallon. This is a sectional tax, and is a severe impost on owners of motor vehicles. During the war, they were prepared to shoulder this burden, but the war exigency has passed. There is a certain amount of unctuouness in the final paragraph of the Minister’s second-reading speech which reads -

In submitting this bill, I point out that the total of Commonwealth aid roads and works assistance this year is £7,300,000. This is almost double the average amount provided by the Commonwealth in the three years preceding the war.

Senator Murray:

– What is wrong with that?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– I am glad that the honorable senator has asked that question. This tax was levied originally for a specific purpose. The revenue from it is now approximately £15,000,000 annually; but is that’ £15,000,000 being devoted to the purposes for which the tax was originally imposed? It is not. The Government which is now saying, in effect, “ we shall provide an extra £1,000,000 for the improvement of country roads “ is like a man who robs a bank of £5,000 and then returns £1,000. Of the £15,000,000 that is collected annually from the petrol tax, only one half is being expended upon the construction and maintenance of roads. This measure is aimed at benefiting the outlying portions of the Commonwealth. E remind the Senate that the only source of revenue available to local governing authorities is the taxing of land within their jurisdiction. All other sources are tapped dry by the Commonwealth. To be fair, the Commonwealth should remit half of the petrol tax or it should, increase its allocation for1 road work. I realize of. course that the Government will not: accept any amendment to this measure. That is the Government’s policy. It never accepts amendments from the Opposition side of the chamber. For that reason, this, is indeed a serious day for democracy. The Government’s attitude is. “ You can talk as long as you like but we shall not accept any amendments “.

Senator Large:

– Where did the honorable senator hear that said?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– It has- been 3aid repeatedly. In fact, there is- a suggestion that a. neon sign should be erected outside this building stating “ no amendments accepted here”. The Government’s diversion to Consolidated Revenue of so much of the money yielded by the petrol tax is a serious matter. Motorists and other users of petrol are bearing a sectional tax. They are having £15,000,000 a year taken from them and of that sum, £7,000,000 is being paid into Consolidated Revenue. The Government could, with equal fairness, tax lemonade, haircuts or shoe-shines. Those who pay the petrol tax should be able to enjoy the full benefit of improved roads. This is a most disgraceful imposition. In effect, the Government is obtaining money from one section of the community under false pretences.

Senator CLOTHIER:
Western Australia

– I cannot let the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Senator O’sullivan) get away with what lie has said on this measure. He eulogized the Bruce-Page Government for enacting the principal act, and complained that the Government should allocate all revenue collected in the. form of petrol tax for the construction and maintenance of roads. I remind him that the amount of £7,300,000 being made available to the States under this measure- ex ceeds the total contributions made te the States under the Federal Aids Roads Agreement by anti-Labour governments during the three years immediately preceding the recent, war. Therefore,, it cannot be said that this Government is ungenerous to the States. At the same time, it is approaching this problem on a long-range basis. It has an eye to the future and, accordingly, is planning well ahead.. I agree with the Deputy Leader of. the Opposition that during the war many roads were seriously damaged by military traffic. The Government is well aware, of that fact.. For instance, ii readily agreed to my request to assisi road boards in the Waroona and Northam districts in Western Australia to repair roads damaged in. that way. I commend the Government for introducing the measure.

Senator MURRAY:
Tasmania

.: - The object of this measure is to assist the States financially in the construction and maintenance of roads. The work will be carried out mainly by local government authorities. Therefore, this assistance will be of great benefit to people living in outback areas upon whom we depend, for the maintenance of a prosperous economy. In that task one of their first requirements is the provision of good roads. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Senator O’Sullivan) complained that no guarantee was provided that thi? money would be expended for the purpose for which it is being made available. However, I have no doubt that the States will make full use of these moneys in. constructing and improving their roads. As. I have said, the work will be carried out mainly through local government authorities who are conversant with conditions in their respective localities. Th, complaint made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that the Government is not allocating all the revenue it derives from petrol tax for road purposes is irrelevant. The purpose of the bill is to assist the States to construct and maintain roads and. the assistance being made- in thi? instance is most generous. Because much of Tasmania’s terrain is so mountainous and varied the provision of good roads represents a. serious problem in that State… Tasmania will benefit very greatly under this measure.

Senator ASHLEY:
New South WalesMinister for Shipping and Fuel · ALP

. - in reply - The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Senator O’Sullivan) practically worked himself into a frenzy when addressing himself to the measure. I can see no cause for the attitude he adopted. It is true, as he said, that during the recent war military traffic caused considerable damage to roads in outback areas. At the same time, however, the Australian Government constructed thousands of miles of up-to-date roads throughout the Commonwealth from which people living in outback areas are deriving considerable benefit to-day. In that respect, I need refer only to the up to date roads constructed in northern Queensland. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition pointed out that under the original Federal Aids Roads Agreement all revenue derived from petrol tax was made available for the construction and maintenance of roads. Subsequently, however, anti-Labour governments departed from that policy and allocated only a proportion of such revenues for rhat purpose and paid the remainder into t he Consolidated Revenue Fund. However, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has no complaint to make against such action on the part of those governments. He also overlooks the fact that the Government is making available to the States sufficient money to meet the needs of local government authorities having regard to the fact that roads programmes must be limited because of the shortage of man-power and equipment. Indeed, some local government authorities at present are holding surpluses from funds previously made available to them for road purposes.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee :

The bill.

Senator FINLAY:
South Australia

– The principal act provides that the States may allocate a proportion of the money made available to them under the Federal Aid Roads Agreement for the purpose of constructing, improving and maintaining boat harbours for the protection of vessels engaged in the fishing industry. I should like to know whether portion of the money being voted under this measure can be used by the States for that purpose.

Senator ASHLEY:
New South WalesMinister for Shipping and Fuel · ALP

– This financial assistance is being granted specifically to the States, and the ultimate allocation of the money is the responsibility of the State governments.

Senator Finlay:

– Will the States have power to expend a proportion of this money on harbours for the protection of vessels engaged in the fishing industry?

Senator ASHLEY:

– Yes, if they desire to do so.

Senator Large:

– There is nothing in the measure to prevent the States from expending this money for whatever purpose they deem desirable under the Federal Aid Roads and Works Agreement?

Senator ASHLEY:

– That is so.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 4245

HOSPITAL BENEFITS BILL 1948

Bill returned from the House of Representatives without amendment.

page 4245

IMMIGRATION BILL 1948

Message received from the House of

Representatives intimating that it had agreed to the amendments made by the Senate in this bill.

page 4245

PARLIAMENTARY RETIRING ALLOWANCES BILL 1948

Message received from the House of Representatives intimating that it had agreed to the amendments made by the Senate in this bill.

page 4245

CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL (No. 5) 1948

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Ashley) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator ASHLEY:
Minister for Shipping and Fuel · New South Wales · ALP

– I move-

That the bill be now read a second time.

The tariff schedule to which this bill relates was introduced on the 8th September, 194S, and the memorandum which has been distributed to honorable senators shows a comparison between the rates of duty under each item appearing in the bill and those operating under the Customs Tariff 1933-1948. Several items in the schedule were first introduced into the Parliament on the 2nd June, 194S, but an opportunity to enact those items did not arise during that session. In accordance with normal procedure legislation was passed validating the collection of duties for six months and the amendments were reintroduced in September. The memorandum of alterations indicates the items so affected.

The items in the bill may for convenience be considered as falling into three main groups, namely, protective, revenue and administrative. The goods on which protective rates of duty have been imposed are gloves, hand and breast drills, carpenters’ braces and vacuum cleaners. In each case the duties were recommended by the Tariff Board following a public inquiry into all aspects of the industry. The various Tariff Board reports were tabled in the Parliament and contain a summary of the evidence submitted and the comments and recommendations of the Tariff Board. The only revenue amendment is of a comparatively minor nature. The duty on imported matches has been reduced to maintain parity with the excise rate. The latter rate has been reduced to offset increased costs in this industry and to obviate an increase in the price of matches. This amendment will come up for consideration when the Excise Tariff Bill (No. 4) 1948 is before the Senate.

The remaining amendments are of an administrative nature and do not represent any effective variation in rates of duty. Some minor anomalies have been eliminated and changes made in the wording of items to bring the tariff into line with commercial practice. The most important alteration in this group is the consolidation of the principal general by-law items under one item, 499, which will considerably simplify tariff by-law administration without affecting, in any way, the rates of duties or the general principles on which by-law concessions are granted. The remaining items of significance are those relating to the grant of tariff concessions to United Nationsrepresentatives in accordance with our obligations as a member of the United: Nations Organization. As the individual items come up for consideration I will,, as far as it is possible, supply honorable senators with any detailed information that they may require. I commend the bill for favorable consideration.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QueenslandDeputy Leader of the Opposition

– Recently we had before this chamber a bill for the ratification of the International Trade Organization Agreement. I ask the Minister who has introduced the present measure to explain precisely what impact, if any, it will nave upon that agreement?

Senator ASHLEY:
New South WalesMinister for Shipping and Fuel · ALP

. - in reply - I am informed that this legislation will have no bearing on the agreement referred to.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without requests or debate.

page 4246

EXCISE TARIFF BILL (No. 4) 1948

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Ashley ) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator ASHLEY:
New South WalesMinister for Shipping and Fuel · ALP

– I move -

That the hill be now read a second time.

As with the Customs Tariff bill which the Senate has just dealt with, the Tariff Schedule to which this bill relates was introduced on 8th September last. The bill contains several items which were first introduced in June but were not enacted during that session of the Parliament. A comparison of the alterations effected by this bill with the Excise Tariff Act 1921-1948 is contained in the explanatory memorandum which was circulated earlier. None of the excise alterations can be considered highly important. The excise rate on matches has been reduced to offset increased costs in the industry and thereby to obviate an increase of the price of matches. As indicated in the Prime Minister’s budget speech, excise duty is removed from liquid fuels produced from shale and coal mined in Australia. Items have also been included in the schedule which extend concessional excise treatment to officials of the United Nations organization on lines similar to those contained in the Customs Tariff bill. The remaining amendments have the effect of establishing a special excise item for liqueurs, with no variation of duties, so as to control their production more effectively. I shall endeavour to supply any further information which honorable senators may require during the course of the debate.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QueenslandDeputy Leader of the Opposition

– A copy of the bill has just come to my hand. I have no comment to offer at this stage but I do not wish my silence on the matter to be taken as acquiescence. I wish that in future when the Minister, in introducing a bill, starts to read his second-reading speech, we should at least have in our hands a copy of the bill because it is most difficult for me to debate the speech when I do not know what the contents of the bill are. On the last few occasions that the honorable senator has introduced a bill he has been half way through his second-reading speech before I have had a copy of the bill in my hands, and it is quite impracticable for me to take part in the debate.

Senator ASHLEY:
Minister for Shipping and Fuel · New South Wales · ALP

in reply - I regret that the honorable senator was not furnished with a copy of the second-reading speech. It is rather difficult to supply such copies owing to the late hour and the fact that both chambers are sitting. I shall endeavour in future to ensure that the honorable senator shall be supplied early with copies of second-reading speeches.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without requests or debate.

page 4247

LEAVE OF ABSENCE TO ALL SENATORS

Motion (by Senator Ashley) - by leave - agreed to -

That leave of absence be granted to every member of the Senate from the termination of the sitting this day to the day on which the Senate next meets.

page 4247

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Senator Ashley) agreed to -

That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn to a date and hour to be fixed by the President, which time of meeting shall be notified to each senator by telegram or letter.

page 4247

ADJOURNMENT

Valedictory - Rationing : Meat - PRICES Control.

Senator ASHLEY:
Minister for Shipping and Fuel · New South Wales · ALP

.- I move-

That the Senate do now adjourn.

I take this opportunity to extend to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Senator O’sullivan) my thanks and appreciation for the assistance he has given during this session. I greatly appreciate also the assistance of my colleagues and also of the staff of Hansard and all the officers of the House. I hope that during the recess and the festive season they will enjoy themselves and come back with renewed vigour to carry on their work.

Some time ago Senator Amour asked the Minister for Trade and Customs the following questions, upon notice: -

  1. Is it a. fact that on the 31st August, 1947, the Deputy Commissioner of Rationing in New South Wales pegged all coupon debits owing by retail butchers to wholesalers in the butchering trade?
  2. How many wholesale butchers owed ration coupons to the Rationing Commission at this date?
  3. If any coupons were owing, what were the names of the wholesale butchers who owed the coupons?
  4. What was the number of coupons owed by such butchers?
  5. Did the Rationing Commission give to the wholesale ‘butchers a number of meat ration coupons to enable them to balance their returns; if so, will the Minister supply the names of the wholesalers who received such coupons and the number of coupons received in each instance?

The Minister for Trade and Customs has furnished the following reply: -

During the course of meat rationing the coupon position of traders was kept constantly under review. Factors such as inability on account of seasonal conditions to obtain full coupon recovery caused coupon shortages by butchers on certain occasions. The writing-off of coupon debts in these and other instances was adopted as the most practicable course, but only after examination of the position of the individual traders involved.

Consequent upon the abolition of meat rationing in June,1948, the record in detail of such adjustments is not now available, and the staff formerly engaged on meat rationing has been disbanded. In these circumstances it is regretted that it is not possible to furnish the information sought by the honorable senator.

On the 11th November Senator Grant asked me without notice whether the Government would give consideration to the holding of another referendum in regard to prices control.

As promised, I have discussed this matter with the Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) and I now desire to inform the honorable senator that, whilst any substantial increase in prices is to be deplored, in view of the fact that the desire of the people that prices control should function under the State governments was made quite clear in the recent referendum the Government does not propose to conduct a further referendum on this subject.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
Speaking on behalf of my colleague and myself I appreciate very deeply the expressions made by the Minister for Shipping andFuel (Senator Ashley · QueenslandDeputy Leader of the Opposition; [11.43].

. We have had, sir, as you know, a very heavy session. Much legislation has been passed. We have dealt with some rather difficult, controversial matters, but I appreciate the courtesy that has been extended to me by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, by you, sir, Ivy the chairman of committees and by my colleagues on the Government side generally. I appreciate the spirit in which we have worked. I am sorry, of course, that I have not been able to win every division that I have called but I trust that the country will benefit by the work that we have done and I again thank the Leader of the Government for his kind remarks.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 4248

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Air Force Act - Regulations - Statutory Rules 1948, No. 152.

Arbitration (Public Service) Act - Determinations by the Arbitrator, &c. - 1948 -

No. 87 - Federated Clerks’ Union of Australia.

No. 88 - Fourth Division Officers’ Association of the Department of Trade and Customs and Commonwealth Public Service Artisans’ Association.

No. 89 - Federated Clerks’ Union of Australia and Federated Ironworkers’ Association of Australia.

No. 90 - Amalgamated Engineering Union.

No. 91 - Federated Clerks’ Union of Australia.

Canned Fruits Export Control Act - Twentysecond Annual Report of the Australian Canned Fruits Board, for year 1947-48. together with Statement by Minister regarding the operation of the Act.

Defence Act - Regulations - Statutory Rules 1948, No. 153.

Defence (Transitional Provisions) Act - National Security (Maritime Industry) Regulations - Order - No.66.

Dried Fruits Export Control Act - Twentyfourth Annual Report of the Dried Fruits Control Board, for year 1947-48. together with Statement by Minister regarding the operation of the Act.

International Affairs - Statement by the Minister acting for the Minister for External Affairs, 2nd December, 1948.

International Monetary Agreements Act - Annual Report by the Treasurer regarding the operations of the Act and of the operations, in so far as they relate to Australia, of the International Monetary Fund Agreement and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development Agreement, for year 1947-48.

Lands Acquisition Act - Land acquired for Postal purposes - Bald Hills, Queensland.

Stevedoring Industry Act - Orders - 1948. Nos. 37, 39.

Senate adjourned at 11.43 p.m. to a date and hour to be fixed by the President.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 9 December 1948, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1948/19481209_senate_18_200/>.