Senate
10 May 1950

19^th Parliament · 1^st Session

QUESTION
- BUTTER
QUESTION
- MONOPOLIES
QUESTION
- POTATOES
QUESTION
- FLOUR
QUESTION
- FENCING MATERIALS
QUESTION
- SHIPPING
QUESTION
- CURRENCY
PARLIAMENT HOUSE
DISTINGUISHED VISITOR
QUESTION
- GARRISON BATTALIONS
QUESTION
- IMMIGRATION
QUESTION
- PRICES CONTROL
QUESTION
- PUBLIC SERVICE
QUESTION
- CIVIL AVIATION,
QUESTION
- HEALTH AND MEDICAL SERVICES
COMMUNIST PARTY DISSOLUTION BILL 1950
QUESTION
- THE PARLIAMENT
QUESTION
- TOURIST TRAFFIC
QUESTION
- UNIFORM DIVORCE LAW
QUESTION
- HOUSING
QUESTION
- WASHING MACHINES
QUESTION
- POST OFFICE AT ST. MARY’S
QUESTION
- POSTAL DEPARTMENT
QUESTION
- WOOL
QUESTION
- BUSH FIRES
QUESTION
- CANBERRA
QUESTION
- ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY
QUESTION
- REPATRIATION
QUESTION
- PROPRIETARY MEDICINES
QUESTION
- BROADCASTING
COMMONWEALTH BANK BILL 1950
- Second Reading
HOUR OF MEETING
PAPERS

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

“WAR NEUROSIS

Senator CRITCHLEY. - Has the Minister for Repatriation read the article in Smith’s Weekly of the 22nd April relating to certain ex-service personnel to which I have directed his attention ? If so, has he any comment to make upon it?

Senator COOPER. - I read the article to which the honorable Senator has referred. As his name was mentioned in it, I discussed the matter with him, and lie intimated that it was his intention to address a question to me upon it. Consequently, I am in a position to give a considered reply.

– Can the Minister for Fuel, Shipping and Transport say whether it is a fact, as reported in the Sydney Morning Herald, that a committee was set up to discover the reason for the slow turn-round of ships in Australian ports, and that it has submitted a report to the Minister? Is it true, as reported, that the committee consisted of representatives of the Department of Trade and Customs, the Marine Board, harbour authorities,

Overseas Shipping Representatives Association, Chambers of Commerce, carriers, importers, and the Australian Overseas Transport Association? Did the committee suggest that, in order to relieve the congestion of cargoes on wharfs, storage charges on wharfs should he heavily increased? Is it a fact that industrial firms in Sydney have been using wharfs as cheap storage places? Did the committee recommend a big reduction in the time allowed for the free storage of goods after a ship has berthed, and that for overseas vessels the time be reduced from six to three days? Did the committee recommend that two large stores be obtained, and that goods not cleared from the wharfs in the specified time, should be bonded and stored in those sheds at the owners’ expense? Is it a fact that the slow turnround of ships has been due mainly to the lack of storage space to receive cargo with the result that delays have occurred, leading to a reduction of cargo tonnage handled in a specified time?

Senator McLEAY:
LP

– Honorable senators will appreciate that that is a fairly difficult question to remember. One of the main reasons for the slow turn-round in Sydney has been the tactics adopted by the Communists known as the rolling strike. The other questions raised are receiving the consideration of the committee that was appointed for the purpose. The various authorities in most ports of Australia have increased the charges for goods on the wharfs over a certain period, but I am pleased to be able to inform the Senate that where these committees have been established, there has been a genuine effort to iron out the bottle-necks. The essential need is peace on the waterfront, co-operation and co-ordination. That is my objective in order to bring about a better position, particularly in Sydney.

Senator COLE:
TASMANIA

– As Tasmania is in a difficult position regarding shipping, will the Minister for Fuel, Shipping and Transport investigate the position at Strahan, on the west coast, where governmentowned vessels arrive weekly without any cargo, simply to load pyrites, whereas privately owned vessels carry general cargo? Can something be done to ensure that government-owned vessels carry cargo to Tasmania and then load pyrites at Strahan the same as private shipping lines, or is it another move to ensure that the government shipping line shall not pay ? As late as last Saturday the SS. Enfield arrived empty, as usual.

Senator McLEAY:

– I think the honorable senator is a little biased, judging from the tone of his question. I took the opportunity to visit Tasmania with the Director of the Australian Shipping Board, Mr. Hetherington, and Mr. “Williams, of the Department of Shipping, to investigate these problems at first hand.

I assure the honorable senator that everything that can be done is being done to give a better service to Tasmania becausof the importance of shipping to thar State. I shall have the position examined and let the honorable senator know the result.

Senator O’FLAHERTY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– As the Minister has stated that the major cause of the delays in shipping in the port of Sydney was the adoption of the rolling strike technique, I now ask him whether he can indicate any strike that has taken place on the Sydney waterfront that can be attributed to the rolling strike technique? If the honorable senator did not mean to confine his answer to strikes on the Sydney waterfront, did he intend to imply that strikes at other ports throughout Australia have been due to the rolling strike technique? If so, can he name the ports where that technique has been put into operation?

Senator McLEAY:

– I suggest that the honorable senator should spend some of his time looking up the answers to his questions. To any one who takes any interest in what is happening on the waterfront it is quite obvious what strikes have been caused by Communist tactics.

Senator WILLESEE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Will the Minister for Fuel, Shipping and Transport inform the Senate whether, since his recent visit to Albany in Western Australia, he has been able to make arrangements for ships to call at that port regularly in order to lift goods manufactured by the Albany woollen mills, and also primary produce from the hinterland?

Senator McLEAY:

– The matter raised by the honorable senator is at present being discussed not only by the Department of Shipping but also by the Australian ship-owners. I am hopeful that a regular service will be provided to that port in the near future.

page 2299

QUESTION

CURRENCY

Senator NASH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– A3 the basic wage in Western Australia is now £7 a week, an increase of 4s. Id. since the declaration of October last, and as the cost of living is still increasing, will the Minister for Trade and Customs indicate what real efforts have been made by the Government to replace value in the £1 as promise’1 during the election campaign? When replying, will the Minister please supply specific information and not merely state that progress has been made in restoring purchasing value because of greater industrial peace and better relationship between employer and employee?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– Much as I would like to do so, it would not be fair of me to take the time of the Senate for the whole afternoon to explain what this Government has done to carry out it<-‘ pledge to restore purchasing power to thiCI but what the Government has been doing can be accelerated and improved on with the co-operation of the Opposition. F trust that the Government will get it.

Senator MORROW:

– I ask the Minister representing the Prime Minister whether it is a fact that, prior to the 10th December, 1949, the members of the present Government said that, if they were returned, they would put the value back into the £1 ? Have the . prices 0/ consumer goods increased since then? Has the Government a formula for putting the value back into the £1? If so, will the Minister advise the Senate of the formula that is to be adopted?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– I have frequently pointed out to honorable senators, and particularly to Senator Morrow, that it is not the intention of the Government to disclose its policy in answer to questions.

page 2299

PARLIAMENT HOUSE

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon Gordon Brown:
QUEENSLAND

– On the 30th March. Senator Tangney asked how many women were employed in Parliament House, and what provision, if any, was made for a rest room, a lounge room, or other amenities for them.

I am now able to supply the honorable senator with the following information : -

There are approximately 140 women employed in Parliament House. The desired information regarding rest rooms and other amenities is set out in the following schedule: -

page 2300

DISTINGUISHED VISITOR

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon Gordon Brown:

– I desire to inform honorable senators that Lord Macdonald of Gwaenyagor, PaymasterGeneral of the Government of the United Kingdom, is within the precincts of the chamber. With the concurrence of honorable senators I shall invite him to take a seat on the floor of the Senate beside the President’s chair.

Honourable Senators. - Hear, hear!

Lord Macdonald thereupon entered the chamber and was seated accordingly.

page 2300

QUESTION

GARRISON BATTALIONS

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– On the 29th March, during the debate on the motion for the adjournment of the Senate, Senator Murray asked a question regarding recognition of the services of members of garrison battalions in Australia who rendered outstanding service during the last war. The Prime Minister has supplied the following information : -

The question of granting posthumous awards to certain members of the garrison battalion involved in the outbreak at Cowra prisoner of war camp has been under consideration for some time, and it is anticipated that a decision in regard to such recommendations as have already been submitted will be reached shortly. During the war years the Australian Government submitted recommendations to His Majesty the King for the bestowal of honours and awards, operational and nonoperational, to members of the Australian Military Forces, irrespective of the unit or formation to which they belonged, or the area in which they were serving, and it was not until early 1940 that the then Prime Minister announced that only awards for conduct in operational areas would be recommended for bestowal in future. Prior to this decision being made, members of the garrison forces were fully entitled to be cited for services of an outstanding nature, notwithstanding that they were serving in a non-operational area. They may also be awarded war medals, subject to their having the requisite qualifying service and being eligible in other respects.

page 2300

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Senator SPICER:
Attorney-General · VICTORIA · LP

– On the 27th April, Senator Fraser asked the following questions of the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration, upon notice : -

. In the event of a person who holds a passport that is valid for five years desiring again to leave Australia, is it a’ fact that he has to comply with the following requirements: - (i) to make application to the Immigration Department for vises to the countries that he intends to visit; (ii) if married, to obtain a declaration by his wife or by any person dependent on him; (iii) to obtain a clearance from the Taxation Branch ?
Will the Minister also say whether it is not a fact that in 1937 Mr. E. Thornton was granted a passport by the Lyons Government to proceed overseas in order to attend a Communist conference?
Will the Minister also say whether it is not a fact that the Government has the power to prohibit any undesirables from landing in Australia? 13 it not correct that such power was exercised by a former United Australia party Administration against Mrs. Freer, who, although she was a British subject with a British. passport, was refused admission to Australia and was subjected to a dictation test under the Immigration Act? Has not the Government still the power to exclude any one from landing if they fail to pass a dictation test?

I informed the honorable senator that I would direct the attention of the Minister for Immigration to the matter and obtain the information that he required. The following information has now been furnished by the Minister: -

Where a person, who holds a valid passport, wishes to leave Australia on a second or subsequent occasion it is not necessary for him to notify or present himself to the Australian passport authorities unless he is proceeding for the first time to Egypt, Ceylon or Burma, for which countries Australian Passport Officers act as vise issuing agencies, or unless vises .previously granted for those countries have expired and require renewal. A married man is not required to obtain his wife’s consent on every occasion which he wishes to leave Australia. The only occasion on which the wife’s consent is sought is when application is originally made for the grant of passport facilities. This is the practice that has .been followed by all previous Governments. The grant of passport facilities is not dependent on the production of a taxation clearance. 5
An exhaustive search has -been made ot the official records, but no trace can be found of the grant by the Australian Government of a passport to Mr. E. Thornton in 1937. The records show that Mr. Thornton was first granted a passport in April, 1944, when he was selected by the Australasian Council of Trade Unions to represent them at a World Trade Union Congress. On that occasion, Mr. Thornton’s expenses were paid by the Australian Government and he was granted a gratis passport endorsed to the effect that he was a Delegate from the Commonwealth of Australia to the World Trade Union Congress to be held during June. 1944 “.
Under the Constitution the immigration power vests in the Common wei 1th authority to prohibit the entry of undesirables who are immigrants, but the High Court in the WalshJohnson case decided that the Commonwealth had no power to exclude persons who had become a part of the Australian community. In the case of Slrs. Freer, to whom the honorable senator has referred, she had had no association or contact with this country and was clearly an immigrant to whom the provisions of the Immigration Act applied. The Government still has power to exclude a person who fails to 1)ass a dictation test if he is an immigrant, but not if he is part of the Austra”ian community.

Senator ANNABELLE RANKIN:
QUEENSLAND · LP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration, upon notice - 1 : Has his - department established preschool groups in holding centres so that the children of New Australians who are Living in these centres may have the assistance of this very valuable service?

If so, at what centres are they situated; if not, is consideration being given to establishing such pre-school groups?

Senator COOPER:
CP

– I shall ensure that, the honorable senator’s question is brought to the notice of the Minister for Health.

Senator NASH:

– Will the Minister representing the Minister for Health inform the Senate whether an agreement has yet been reached between the Government and the British Medical Association in relation to the provision of pharmaceutical benefits? If not, when is it expected that an agreement will be concluded ?

Senator COOPER:

– I understand that the Minister for Health is still negotiating with t«e British Medical Association, and that the result will be made known at an early date.

Senator FRASER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister representing .the Minister for Health, upon notice -

Will the Minister inform the Senate as to how far consultations have proceeded between the Pharmaceutical Guild and the Minister for Health?

Senator COOPER:

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

Consultations with various bodies, including the Pharmaceutical Guild, are proceeding but ‘ it is not proposed to make any statement regarding the progress of these negotiations for the time being.

page 2302

COMMUNIST PARTY DISSOLUTION BILL 1950

PRIME Minister’s Second-beading Speech.

Senator GRANT:

– I preface my question, which is addressed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, by saying that during his second-reading speech on the Communist Party Dissolution Bill, on the 27th April last, the Prime Minister read a list of 53 alleged leading Communists, and that it has now been discovered that five of the persons who were mentioned by him are not now

Communists. In view of the great fear of persons who are not Communists that they will be declared to beCommunists, and bearing in mind that the five persons to whom I have referred were leading trade unionists of whom we would expect the Government to have at least some knowledge, will the Minister assure the people of this country that when the next list is published greaterprecautions will be taken to ensure that innocent people will not suffer in thesame way as those five trade unionists have undoubtedly suffered?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– It should’ be quite unnecessary for me to point out that in matters of parliamentary procedure, deportment and courtesy, the Prime Minister, by his own example, sets a very high standard. It is not my duty, audi indeed it would be presumptuous of meto do so, to attempt in ‘any way either, to explain or defend what the right honorable gentleman has done. He is quite capable of doing that himself, and I am sure that he will do it to the intense satisfaction, not only of members of the Parliament, but also of the people- of Australia.

Senator GRANT:

- -Mr. President-

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I point out that questions dealing with somethingthat occurred in another place are not in order. If a senator read a report in a newspaper, he could base a question upon it, but questions that relate todebates that have occurred in anotherplace are not in order.

page 2302

QUESTION

THE PARLIAMENT

Senator GRANT:

– I direct a question to you, Mr. President. Reference has been made to the courtesy of a certain gentleman. I direct your attention tothe fact that last evening, with some friends of mine, I tried to listen to the Right Honorable J. B. Chifley speaking in the House of Representatives. During his speech sotto voce conversations were carried on-

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QUEENSLAND · LP

– I rise to order. Standing Order 416 reads as follows: -

No senator shall allude to any debate of thecurrent session in the House of Representativesor to any measure impending therein.

I submit that that is what Senator Grant is attempting to do.

The PRESIDENT:

– I have already pointed out that honorable senators must not refer to debates in another place. Questions that refer to proceedings during the current session in another place are not in order.

Senator GRANT:

– I should like your assurance, Mr. President, that in future, during debates in this chamber, continued conversation, to the inconvenience of members of the public who are listening to the broadcast of the proceedings, shall not be permitted.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! I think that the debates in this chamber have been carried out on a very high plane. As President, I have always endeavoured to ensure that when an honorable senator was speaking he could be heard distinctly not only by other honorable senators, but also, I hope, by members of the outside public when the proceedings were broadcast.

page 2303

QUESTION

TOURIST TRAFFIC

Senator CRITCHLEY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Will the Minister representing the Minister for Supply inform the Senate what steps are being taken by the Government to overcome the great shortage of accommodation for visitors and tourists to Australia from overseas? Are State governments co-operating with the Commonwealth in this matter, in order to ensure that this very important method of showing the world what Australia has to offer can be proceeded with without undue delay?

Senator COOPER:
CP

– I understand that my colleague, the Minister for Supply, has already requested the various States to consider methods of promoting tourist traffic in Australia. It has only recently been possible for him to arrange such investigations. I shall inform the honorable senator of developments as soon as they become known to me.

page 2303

QUESTION

UNIFORM DIVORCE LAW

Senator TANGNEY:

– In view of the lack of uniformity throughout Australian States in the matter of divorce and other matrimonial causes such as maintenance proceedings, will the AttorneyGeneral consider endeavouring to induce

State Premiers to decide upon common action, particularly in instances in which wives are deserted in one State and are unable to obtain maintenance from their husbands in another State unless they incur the expense of travelling to that State in order to institute police action ?

Senator SPICER:
LP

– I appreciate that difficulties such as the honorable senator has referred do arise through the existence of different laws in relation to these matters. However, I doubt very much whether anything could be done to overcome some of the difficulties to which she has referred. For instance, if a wife is deserted by her husband and it becomes necessary for her to sue for maintenance in the State where she resides, she has tce bring the proceedings before a court and have the papers served on her husband. After all he is entitled to be heard. Those difficulties are almost insuperable in a legal system that is designed to ensure that justice shall be done. I shall have a look at the matters that have been raised by the honorable senator, and if I can provide her with any useful information on the subject I shall do so.

page 2303

QUESTION

HOUSING

Senator LAMP:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice -

Will the Government take up with tha States the question of using the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement to build homes for postmasters in all States where the agreement is operating?
What progress has been made in the erection of a home for the Postmaster at New Norfolk, Tasmania?

Senator COOPER:
CP

– The PostmasterGeneral has supplied the following answer : -

The Department of Works and Housing is the constituted authority to construct official residences for Commonwealth employees, and it does not appear necessary to arrange for the States to build homes for postmasters. The Postal Department is prepared to purchase suitable houses in country centres from the State authorities, and already a number has been bought from the State Housing Authority in South Australia.
It is proposed to erect a new residence /or the Postmaster at New Norfolk, and a suitable block of land is being purchased. Plans for the building will be prepared immediately the site is secured, and the residence will be erected as soon as possible.

Senator CRITCHLEY:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Works and Housing, upon notice -

How many war service homes were built, ready for occupation, in South Australia during the years 1947-48 and 1948-49?
How many are expected to be built in South Australia during the year 1949-50 ?
Is the number of eligible applicants for these homes greater now than in 1947-48?
If so, and in view of the demand, will the Government consider advances to applicants for timber framed homes in South Australia under the War Service Homes Commission?

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for Social Services · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The Minister for Works and Housing has supplied the following information: -

1947-48-309 built; in addition 354 applicants were financed in respect of existing properties. 1948-49 - 774 built; in addition 563 were financed in respect of existing properties.
Nine hundred to be built. In addition it is estimated that 730 will he financed in respect of existing properties.
Yes.
Advances are made to applicants under the War Service Homes Act in respect of timber framed homes providing they are soundly built and represent a reasonable security. Many such advances have already been made over the years since the inception of the War Service Homes Act and the only applications which have been refused have been in respect of homes which were faultily constructed or which contained faulty timbers.

page 2304

QUESTION

WASHING MACHINES

Senator ROBERTSON:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Works and Housing, upon notice - 1. (a) Is it a fact that, owing to the scarcity of labour and materials, the cost of the erection of a laundry is approximately £200? (6) Is it a fact that an up-to-date washing machine, which could be placed on a back verandah, costs less than £200?

If so, will the Minister consider the elimination of laundries when building houses, and the installation of washing machines in their place?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– The Minister for Works and Housing has advised as follows : -

Steps are being taken to examine the aspects involved in the proposal put forward by the honorable senator, and a reply will be prepared as soon as possible.

page 2304

QUESTION

POST OFFICE AT ST. MARY’S

Senator LAMP:

asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice -

What decision has been arrived at in regard to the site for a new post office at St. Mary’s, Tasmania?

Senator COOPER:
CP

– The PostmasterGeneral has supplied the following answers : -

After consulting the town and country planning commissioner in Tasmania, action is proceeding to purchase a suitable site in the main street, St. Mary’s, for a new post office building.

page 2304

QUESTION

POSTAL DEPARTMENT

Senator LAMP:

asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice -

What progress has been made with the establishment of new line yards at Wynyard, Smithton, Deloraine, Devonport and Burnie in Tasmania ?

Senator COOPER:
CP

– The PostmasterGeneral has supplied the following answer : -

Devonport. - A suitable building for line depot purposes has been obtained and is already occupied by the line staff attached to this district. Steps are being taken to provide the building with standard amenities.

Smithton. - A requisition for the erection of a new line depot at this centre has been placed with the Department of Works and Housing. Working drawings and specifications are being prepared, and it is expected that the construction of the building will be commenced at the latter end of this year.

Wynyard and Deloraine. - Sketch plans and estimate of the proposed new line depots have been prepared and requisitions will be placed immediately with the Department of Works and Housing.

Burnie. - Preliminary plans have been developed and approved and work upon sketch plans and estimate is proceeding.

Senator MURRAY:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General. upon notice -

As evidence of the Government’s sincerity in implementing its policy of putting more value into the fi, will the Postmaster-General take immediate steps to reduce the letter rate of postage by id. for the first ounce and thus give a benefit to all sections of the community?

Senator COOPER:

– The PostmasterGeneral has supplied the following information : -

The reduction of present letter rates by 1/2d would lower postal revenue by over £1,250,000 per annum. Therefore, if charges were reduced, . either the Postal Service would have to be seriously restricted, or the loss would have to be made up out of Consolidated Revenue, as the increased tariffs imposed on other postal articles are not expected to cover more than portion of the deficit incurred in the postal ranch in the financial year 1948-49.

page 2305

QUESTION

WOOL

Senator BEERWORTH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -

Has he seen a report appearing in the Advertiser, South Australia, of the 15th April, 1950, that practically all subsidized wool has been used up and the public are now feeling the full blast of prices from unsubsidized wool?
Owing to the big increase in the prices of woollen goods during the past twelve months, especially English blankets, which have risen in price from £4 4s. to £9 6s. a pair, will the Government consider the further subsidizing of wool so as to keep woollen goods within the purchasing power of the people?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– The answers to the honorable senator’s questions are -

Yes.
The whole question of price trends and subsidy policy has been the subject of exhaustive consideration by the Government, which has decided in principle that a general extension of subsidy payments would not be a satisfactory or workable solution to the problem of arresting the rise in the cost of living. In accordance with this decision, it is not proposed to pay a subsidy on wool.

page 2305

QUESTION

BUSH FIRES

Senator COOKE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Has the Government received a request from the Government of the State of Western Australia for a grant of money to relieve distress brought about by the devastating bushfires, extending over large areas, that caused severe loss and suffering to settlers, many of them soldier settlers, whose fencing, fodder, plant and homesteads have been razed or partly destroyed?
If so, will the Government give urgent and favorable consideration to the request?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– The Prime Minister has supplied the following answers : -

No.
See answer to question 1.

page 2305

QUESTION

CANBERRA

Senator LAMP:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Works and

Housing the following question, upon notice: -

Does the Government intend to hold an international architectural competition for plans for a new Parliament House, and if so, when?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– The Minister for Works and Housing has supplied the following answer: -

Priorities accorded to other large-scale Commonwealth construction commitments at Canberra (including housing) preclude, for a considerable period, any possibility of proceeding with the project mentioned. No governmental consideration has yet been given to the desirability of holding a competition such as that suggested by the honorable senator. The proposal will receive further attention at the appropriate time.

page 2305

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY

Senator LAMP:

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

Will the Government give consideration to the question of providing a more modern uniform for naval personnel?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

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

There is no intention at present of altering the traditional dress of the Navy. Steps have been taken to bring naval uniforms up to peace-time standards as to the quality of material and fit, as supplies become available. Certain war-time improvements in the formal uniform and a better working dress for use on board have been introduced.

page 2305

QUESTION

REPATRIATION

Senator TANGNEY:

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

Is it a fact that the widows of Navy men killed in the Tarakan explosion in January last are not classed as “ war widows “ for purpose of pensions and other rights such as repatriation, medical and educational benefits; if so, why?
Is it a fact that the death certificates state that such men died on war service?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

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

Yes. The widows arc not eligible for benefits under the Australian Soldiers’ Repatriation Act, which provides for payment of fortnightly pensions. That act applied to members of the naval forces until the 3rd January, 1949, when to meet peace-time conditions, they were brought under the provisions of the Commonwealth Employees’ Compensation Act. Under that act the amount of compensation payable to a widow is £1,000, and in addition, £50 in respect of each child under sixteen years of age wholly or mainly dependent upon the employee. The lump sum compensation is paid in lieu of a pension.
Yes. The National Security (War Deaths) Regulations, Statutory Rule No. 473 of 1942, remain in force by virtue of the Defence (Transitional Provisions) Act 1940- 1949 until the 31st December, 1950 or until the Proclamation declaring a state of war is repealed, and the death certificates are issued under those regulations in the interests of the widows of the deceased to permit of immediate application for probate, payments to nextofkin, and distribution of property belonging to the deceased.

page 2306

QUESTION

PROPRIETARY MEDICINES

Senator ARNOLD:
through Senator Nash

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

In view of the press allegations regarding a “racket” in patent medicines, will the Minister consider the setting up of a royal’ commission to investigate this matter?

Senator COOPER:
CP

– The Minister for Health has supplied the following information : - _ In view of the Australian Government’s limited jurisdiction in relation to the sale of patent medicines, it is not considered that any good purpose would be served by the appointment of a royal commission.

“WATERFRONT EMPLOYMENT.

Senator MORROW:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Is it a fact that several ships were worked by waterside workers in Brisbane under what is known as the rotary system during this month ; if so, why were not the remaining ships in Brisbane also worked on the rotary system?
Will the Prime Minister revoke the proclamation invoking the Crimes Act?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

– The Prime Minister has supplied the following information : -

L The Australian Stevedoring Industry advises that shipowners deny that ships were deliberately worked under the rotation of batches system as alleged. The Waterside Workers Federation has now lodged an application for an extension to Port Brisbane of the system of rotation of hatches, and the hearing has been fixed for the 20th April. As such, the whole question is now sub judice.

The proclamation under the Crimes Act has been revoked.

page 2306

QUESTION

BROADCASTING

Senator COOPER:
CP

– On the 27th April, Senator O’Byrne addressed a question to me concerning football broadcasts from Hobart. I have now to advise that the Australian Broadcasting Commission has informed my colleague, the PostmasterGeneral, that the commission and other broadcasting organizations consider that in view of the extensive publicity given to sporting bodies, no payment, should be made for broadcasting rights, and that broadcasters should be accorded the same facilities as the press enjoys. The commissioner states that many sporting bodies have accepted this principle, and that it therefore finds itself unable to agree to making any additional payment to the Tasmanian-Australian National Football League at Hobart. However, in order to keep faith with the public, the commission has offered to make the same payment as previously to that body which has refused this offer, although the Northern Tasmanian Football Association at Launceston has agreed to accept the same payment as was made last year. The commission has informed the Postmaster-General that if it is unable to reach agreement with the Hobart league, it will substitute other sporting descriptions.

page 2306

COMMONWEALTH BANK BILL 1950

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for Social Services · New South Wales · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

In 1945 and 1947, banking bills of major importance were introduced into this Parliament and, on each occasion, the views of the present Government were clearly stated. In 1945, we foreshadowed that, when re-elected to the treasury bench we would regard ourselves as being obliged to review the working of the 1945 banking legislation and that we would reconstitute a Commonwealth

Bank Board. In 1947, we left no doubt whatever of our intention to defeat the nationalization proposals by every constitutional means at our command. Not only did we announce in this Parliament our proposals with respect’ to banking, but the policy speech delivered by the Prime Minister, on behalf of the Liberal party and the Australian Country party, made specific reference to our intention to repeal the 1947 act and to our proposals regarding the Commonwealth Bank. The bill now before the Senate gives effect to that policy. So far as the 1947 act is concerned, there is little that need be said. The act is a violation of the principles for which this Government stands, and we gave an undertaking to the people of Australia that we would repeal the act if we were returned to office. In accordance with the mandate which the people have given to us, the bill provides for the repeal of the 1947 act. Moreover, the High Court of Australia and the Privy Council have declared this act to be invalid in major respects.

In reviewing the 1945 banking legislation, and in the preparation of this bill, the Government has been deeply conscious of its responsibilities to the people, and particularly of the fact that these responsibilities require -

that measures of such great importance should not be approached in a partisan spirit ; and
that the administration of the Bank should not, be subject to frequent and violent change.

In respect of central banking operations and otherwise, the Commonwealth Bank and the other banks have achieved a. considerable measure of harmony and co-operation, and the Government is satisfied that the broad purposes of monetary and banking policy are being achieved. For this reason and the fact that it would be undesirable to make frequent changes in legislative requirements affecting the banking system, the Government has decided to preserve the general pattern of control by the Commonwealth Bank over the banking system and the broad structure of the Commonwealth Bank.

I remind honorable senators that there are few countries in the world with banking systems as highly organized and efficient as the Australian banking system. Moreover, it is, I feel, appropriate to recall that the essential features of the 1945 banking legislation were based upon the war-time banking control regulations, which themselves were based upon an agreement arranged between the Commonwealth Bank and the private banks in 1941, during the term of office of the present Treasurer (Mr. Fadden).

At that time we were faced with the danger that secondary expansion of credit and excessive private bank profits might occur as a result of the use of treasury-bill finance for war purposes. To meet this danger the present Treasurer secured from the private banks a firm undertaking that they would cooperate in the institution of arrangements which included -

depositing of their surplus investable funds with the Commonwealth Bank;
steps to ensure that excessive profits were not made by the private banks; and
compliance with an advance policy laid down by the Commonwealth Bank.

When the Labour party came into office, the basic elements of this agreement were embodied in the war-time banking control regulations under the National Security Act, and the substance of those regulations was subsequently incorporated in the banking legislation of 1945. The pattern of central bankprivate bank relationships at present embodied in legislation does not differ in essentials from the arrangements which were instituted in 1941. The importance of monetary policy has frequently been stressed in Parliament and the fact that it has a significant effect upon the welfare of the people has been fully recognized. Although it is easy to fall into the error of thinking that monetary policy can cure all economic ills, it is nevertheless true, as the Prime Minister pointed out in his policy speech, that great financial decisions, if they are wrong, are wrong on so vast a scale as to injure many thousands of people.We therefore believe that such decisions should not be made by one man either in the bank or in the Government. We are convinced that responsibility for the determination of monetary and hanking policy should be a collective responsibility, and the bill now before the Senate is designed to give effect to this principle by setting up a Commonwealth Bank Board under the chairmanship of the Governor and by restoring to the elected representatives of the people the ultimate responsibility for monetary and banking policy. The same principle was embodied in the Commonwealth Bank Bill which was introduced by the right honorable member for Cowper (Sir Earle Page) as Treasurer, in 1924. By that act, the control of the note issue was vested in the bank and provision made for a board of eight directors.

When the board was established in 1924, the technique of central banking had not been developed in Australia. Even among the older central banks in Europe, centra] banking policy and technique had not been fully developed, and, in any case, their experience was hardly applicable to Australian conditions. In these circumstances, the board, of necessity, had to feel its way and no doubt, on looking back, it is possible to see how the work of the board could have been improved. To some extent, its difficulties arose from the fact that the Governor of the bank was not chairman of the board. This tended to divide responsibility. With the passage of time, however, many of the board’s difficulties were overcome. The members developed knowledge and understanding of the problems with which they had to deal. Knowledge in relation to these problems in Australia had been built up. and a growing body of expert technical advice was available from the bank’s staff, and by 1939, the bank, under the board, was operating efficiently both in its cen.tr p’ banking and trading banking activities and a satisfactory co-ordination of the bank’s policy with that of the Government had been achieved.

During the war years, the responsibilities devolving upon the bank and the board were greatly increased. War-time control of banking, exchange control, loan raisings and the financing of various commodity schemes, involved problems of considerable magnitude, and there welmany other requirements in the financial field for which it was necessary for the board to make provision. Many of th problems encountered were new to Australia, but under the direction of the board, the bank undertook the tremendous responsibilities of war-time finance with outstanding success. The record of the bank during those difficult years is a tribute to the effectiveness of the system of board management as then developed.

There is wide recognition overseas of the principle that the management of a central bank should be vested in a board of directors. Taking other Commonwealth countries, for example, I would point out that the Bank of Canada and the reserve banks of South Africa, India and New Zealand are in each case managed by a board of directors. Moreover, when the Bank of England was nationalized in 1946 it is significant that the system of management by a board was retained. However, in 1945 the Commonwealth Bank Board was abolished under the legislation of that year and the management of the bank was vested solely in the Governor, who was assisted, in the determination of monetary and banking policy, by an Advisory Council. In the determination of monetary and banking policy, there is a great advantage in maintaining continuity. Furthermore, the Government recognizes that the monetary and banking policy of the bank is closely interwoven with the financial and economic policy of the Government and that, therefore, the board must include men familiar with these matters. Accordingly, the Government has decided that some members of the board will be drawn from the -present Advisory Council, all of whom have had wide experience of the relationship between banking policy and governmental financial and economic policy and administration.

As provided for in the bill, the board is to consist of the Governor of the bank, who shall be chairman, the Deputy Governor of the bank, who shall be deputy chairman, the Secretary to the Department of the Treasury and seven other members, of whom two may be officials of the bank or of the Public Service. The Government proposes to appoint the following officials to the board: Mr. L. G. Melville, who has been Economic Adviser to the Commonwealth Bank for some twenty years, and Dr. Boland Wilson, the Commonwealth Statistician and Economic Adviser to the Government. Both these men are of outstanding capacity and are members of the present Advisory Council. The board will have five other members. In appointing these members, who will not be representative of any sectional interests within the community, and will not have any association with other banks, the Government will be fully conscious of the need for men of wide knowledge and experience. The inclusion of such men will bring to the board’s deliberations the views of men who are not directly associated with government administration and policy. The periods of the original appointments of these members will range from one to five years and thereafter each appointment will be for a period of five years. This arrangement will result in one member retiring each year, thus ensuring a proper measure of continuity in the personnel of the board. In the event of an equality of votes upon any question, the chairman will have a casting vote.

It is the Government’s view that the proposed composition of the board will result in balanced judgments by a body of men appropriately chosen for their various abilities and knowledge: due integration with the Government’s general financial and economic policy is likely to result and, at the same time, the board is given an appropriate measure of independence. The board’s functions will be to determine the policy of the Commonwealth Bank in its central banking and trading activities. The policy of the Commonwealth Savings Bank will also be a matter for determination by the board. In short, the bill provides that the board’s power over policy matters will extend to the performance of all functions of the bank, including those entrusted to it under the Banking Act 1945. It will be the function of the Governor to administer the bank in accordance with the policy laid down by the board. The Government does not contemplate that the board will concern itself with matters of day-to-day administration such as applications for advances or detailed staff management.

In respect of the monetary and banking policy of the bank, the legislation provides that the bank shall keep the

Government informed. If the Government and the bank differ on a policy matter, the Treasurer and the board are to endeavour to reach agreement. If the Treasurer and the board are unable to reach agreement, the board is to furnish a statement of its views and the Treasurer may submit a recommendation to the Governor-General who, acting with the advice of the Federal Executive Council, may determine the policy to be adopted by the bank. This procedure will ensure that any submission to the Governor-General on this matter will be made after full consideration by the Government.

Where in such circumstances the Government determines the policy to be adopted by the bank, the legislation requires the Treasurer to inform the bank accordingly, and to have a statement of the policy, together with a statement of the views of the Government and of the bank, laid before each House of the Parliament within fifteen sitting days after the policy has been communicated to the bank. The relevant provisions of the bill are framed to meet administrative requirements and to give effect to the principle that great financial issues shall be the ultimate responsibility of the elected representatives of the people. In the opinion of the Government, the amended section will give the fullest possible effect to the principles underlying the views expressed in 1937 by the Royal Commission on Monetary and Banking Systems, on the relationship between Parliament, the Government and the Commonwealth Bank.

So far as the Note Issue is concerned, the Government, in preparing this bill, considered whether statutory provision should be made for a limitation upon the amount of notes that could be issued, but, having made provision for the Government to bring policy issues before Parliament where the bank is required to adopt a policy determined by the Government, it has decided that further statutory provision in respect of the Note Issue is not necessary. It is clear that in Australia to-day, as in other modern communities, the note issue is an indicator of the general credit situation rather than a means of controlling credit and, to reverse trends in the note issue, it may be necessary to modify the whole credit policy. The policy of the bank in relation to the note issue is thus part of the monetary and banking policy of the bank, and is a matter upon which the bank is required to keep the Government informed and one which the Government may, if necessary, bring to the notice of the Parliament. It is also covered by the provisions relating to a disagreement between the bank and the Government on monetary and banking policy. With the establishment of a board to determine the policy of the bank, it is necessary to make consequential alterations in certain provisions of the existing act under which the Governor is given power to determine various matters. These amendments are set out in the schedule to the bill.

So far, I have been dealing with the Commonwealth Bank “primarily ‘in its capacity as a central bank. With respect t£ the trading sections of the Commonwealth Bank, the policy of the Government, as announced by the Prime Minister, is that the bank’s trading activities will be continued in fair competition with the private banks. The Government is of opinion that such a policy will serve the public interest by ensuring an adequate development of Australian banking services. In the light of this policy, the Government has given consideration to the position of the General Banking Division and of the several departments of the bank. The General Banking Division of the Commonwealth Bank operates in competition with the private banks and has made a valuable contribution to the welfare of the community, particularly in relation to housing finance. The Rural Credits Department, which was established under a bill introduced in 1925 by the right honorable member for Cowper has facilitated the production and orderly marketing of a wide range of basic foodstaffs and other primary products on a scale that has increased tremendously in recent years. The Mortgage Bank Department provides long-term loans to primary producers, and the Industrial Finance Department, which has only been in operation for a little over four years, has been of great benefit to industry. In order to ensure that these sections of the bank will be able to continue to offer to the community the facilities now available, the bill provides a means for the board, within specified limits, to add to their capital resources as such additional resources are needed. The additional resources will come from the profits derived from central banking business and from profits of the note issue. It is from these sources that the capital of the Mortgage Bank Department is being built up at present. Under existing legislation it is provided that until the capital of the Mortgage Bank Department has reached £4,000,000, one-quarter of the annual profits of the central bank and £150,000 per annum from the profits derived from the note issue shall be paid to that department. These provisions will be replaced by the proposals in the bill.

Although the Central Banking Division operates in competition with the private banks, the Government, having regard to its policy of continuing the trading activities of the Commonwealth Bank in fair competition with the private banks, has examined the activities of the General Banking Division and has found that the main pressure upon the division’s resources is for housing, especially from co-operative building societies. In this field the responsibility is falling heavily and to an increasing extent upon the Commonwealth Bank. The Rural Credits and Mortgage Bank Departments of the Commonwealth Bank were established to meet special needs, and competition between these departments and the private banks is of a limited kind. In the case of the Industrial Finance Department, there is a particularly heavy demand for hire-purchase facilities to finance the purchase of industrial and farm equipment, trucks and other motor vehicles. The private banks do not provide these facilities for the public. The additional resources which are being provided, whilst permitting reasonable development in the trading sections of the Commonwealth Bank, will, thus, not be used as a basis for unfair competition with the private banks.

The detailed provision regarding capital is that the board will have discretion to transfer an amount not exceeding £500,000 a year to the bank’s trading sections out of the half share of the profits from central banking business which are now retained by the bank as reserves of the central bank or as capital of the Mortgage Bank Department. The other half of the profits from this source is paid to the National Debt Sinking Fund, and the bill maintains this provision. In addition, the bill provides that the amount transferred from the profits of the central bank shall be supplemented by an equal sum, but not exceeding £500,000, from the profits of the Note Issue Department. The maximum amount transferable in any year is, therefore, £1,000,000, and as the arrangement is to be limited to a period of five years the maximum amount which can be added to the capital of the trading sections of the bank under the provisions of the bill is £5,000,000. The additional capital is to be divided among the trading sections of the bank in proportion to their present nominal capitals, but the board may vary the proportions with the consent of the Treasurer. Assuming that over the five year period the maximum addition of £5,000,000 is made to the capital of the trading sections by the board in the proportions shown in the bill, the present capital of the various sections of the bank would be increased as follows : -

In conclusion, I invite the attention of honorable senators particularly to the following points : -

The general pattern of control by the Central Bank over the banking system is being preserved;
The broad structure of the Commonwealth Bank will remain unchanged, but the bank will be strengthened in all its departments ;
Collective responsibility for the determination of policy will be restored by the re-establishment of a board comprising men of wide knowledge and experience, which will ensure the integration of the policy of the bank with economic and financial policy generally without impairing the independence of the bank; (4)Whilst policy will be determined by the board, the day-to-day administration of the bank will be in the hands of the Governor ;
The bill gives recognition to the principle that the ultimate responsibility for monetary and banking policy lies with the Parliament, while preserving an effective working relationship between the Government and the bank; and (6) Further capital resources are being provided for the trading sections of the bank, thus enabling them to continue to offer the community the services now available and to develop with Australian economy.

The Government is convinced that the primary responsibility of the Commonwealth Bank is its responsibility as a central bank for the continued health and progress of the banking system as a whole. Part of the strength of the Commonwealth Bank as a central bank is, however, derived from the direct contact with the financial and industrial system which it maintains through its trading sections. The proposals of the Government are designed to strengthen the Commonwealth Bank both as Australia’s central bank and a? an essential part of the commercial banking structure of the country. I commend the bill to honorable senators.

Senator ASHLEY:
Leader of the Opposition · New South Wales

– The second-reading speech delivered by the Minister for Social Services (Senator Spooner) was in part a recital of the activities of the Commonwealth Bank. He referred to the administration and the banking operations of that institution. He said that there are few countries in the world that have such a highly organized and efficient banking system as has Australia. Some credit for that satisfactory position must be given to the Commonwealth Bank for the part that it has played in the banking and financial affairs of this nation.

The bill proposes to repeal the Banking Act of 1947 and to amend the Commonwealth Bank Act of 1945. One question to be considered is the effect that the legislation will have upon the future control of the Commonwealth Bank. It must be borne in mind that the Commonwealth Bank is owned completely by the people of Australia. That remark applies to all departments of the bank.

It rendered a service of untold value to this nation during two wars, and it will continue to make a contribution to the welfare and development of Australia provided there is no alteration of or impediment to the present system of control.

The Commonwealth Bank, as a central bank, possesses two very important powers in relation to private trading banks. An indication of the control that it exercises over private banks is that at the present time it holds the huge sum of ?460,000,000 on their behalf. The purpose of depositing that huge sum, which represents the surplus investible funds of the private trading banks, with the Commonwealth Bank, is to assist in preventing inflation. Control of banking business in Australia is exercised with a view to promoting general prosperity and, particularly, to maintaining full employment and preventing depressions. It cannot be claimed that private banking organizations have always contributed to the prosperity of this country. When the Royal Commission on Monetary and Banking Systems of Australia was taking evidence from Mr. O. L. Isaachsen, who was at that time the assistant general manager of the Bank of Adelaide, the chairman of the commission said -

It has been put to us that the amalgamation of banks with separate territories and different classes of business has enabled banks to spread their risks and thereby employ their resources to greater advantage.

Mr. Isaachsen replied ;

There is the opposite view, that it enables banks to transfer their risks; in other words, if there is a bad time in one State-

I emphasize those words -

. it enables them to place their money to advantage in a State which is prosperous.

Therefore, as I have claimed before, the private banks of this country have not given as much assistance to Australia’s economy or industry as has the Commonwealth Bank. Mr. Isaacsen continued -

A bank dealing in a State which is having a bad time is not going to put its money into that State, but into a State where the bank is going to have a better chance of success.

I shall deal fully with this phase of the matter in due course. It is very evident that private banks are interested only in the earning of profit. The transcription of Mr. Isaacsen’s evidence continues -

Hie CHAIRMAN. - You say there is a danger that the people in a State needing assistance are going to be left without it? - A. That is for other people to say.

The CHAIRMAN:

– This is a matter for us to infer? - A. What you infer is your own business.

From 1910 until June, 1949, the Commonwealth Bank earned a profit of ?85,000,000, which has been utilized for the benefit of the nation. The Commonwealth Bank also embraces the Commonwealth Savings Bank, with which practically all of the savings of the people of Australia are deposited. For the year ended June, 1948, the Commonwealth Bank earned a profit of approximately ?1,250,000 in respect of general banking business. The profits of the private banks during the same period amounted to approximately ?2,500,000. Greater service has been rendered to the country by the Commonwealth Bank than by the private trading banks. I shall also cite a portion of the transcript of evidence of Mr. P. F. G. Gordon, general manager. Commercial Bank of Australia Limited, before the royal commission. It reads-

The CHAIRMAN:

– Take a case such as this: A man comes to you with first-class security which will amply secure the advance he asks for. Would you, merely because you knew some other bank had been charging more than that, refuse business that you were in the habit of doing with other clients? - A. In the first place he is the customer of another bank. I presume that is the question you are referring to, Mr. Chairman?

The CHAIRMAN:

– He happens to be dealing with another bank, and in the ordinary course he is a customer. Do you think that your understanding would carry you as far as that? - A. My strict interpretation of it is that I would not quote him a lower rate.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Although the rate which the other bank is charging appeared to you to he utterly extravagant and unfair ? - A. Yes.

Yet the Government consistently supports private enterprise, and claims that competition is beneficial to this country!

The evidence that I have cited proves that there is no real competition between the trading hanks in this country.

Clause 3 of the bill proposes to repeal the Banking Act 1947.

Senator Wright:

– Hear, hear !

Senator ASHLEY:

– The honorable senator who has just interjected is a bit late. He should have exclaimed “ Hear, hear ! “ some months ago when both the High Court of Australia and the Privy Council announced their decisions. That act, with the exception of some minor aspects of little consequence, has been declared invalid. Clause 7 of the measure before the Senate provides for the repeal of section 9 of the Commonwealth Bank Act 1945-48, and for the insertion of the following section in its stead : - “9. - (1.) There shall be a Commonwealth Bank Board, which shall be constituted in accordance with Part V. of this Act. “(2.) Subject to this Part, the Board shall have power to determine the policy of the Bank or of the Savings Bank in relation to any matter and to take such action as is necessary to ensure that effect is given by the Bank or the Savings Bank to the policy so determined.

It is proposed not only to alter the control and management of the Commonwealth Bank, but also to alter the management and control of the savings of the people of this country. The proposed new section greatly concerns the Opposition, and it is also of paramount importance to the people of Australia. It will account for the main opposition to the bill from this side of the chamber. I should be glad if the Minister would review the management of the Commonwealth Bank since the 1945 legislation became operative, and inform honorable senators of the actions of the management to which exception could be taken. Has any action contrary to the national interest been taken by successive governors of the bank since 1945? Has any such action been contrary to the welfare of the Australian people and not in the interests of efficient control of the bank in relation to the finances of the nation? The joint policy speech of the parties opposite which was delivered by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) has been subjected to variation and amendment when given legislative effect.

I have before me a booklet that purports to contain an authentic copy of that policy speech.

Senator O’Sullivan:

– The honorable senator should study it.

Senator ASHLEY:

– The fact that the Prime Minister’s photograph adorns the front cover should be some guarantee that it is authentic.

Senator Wright:

– Apparently the honorable senator has not yet got past looking only at the pictures.

Senator ASHLEY:

– It contains the following paragraphs in relation to banking : -

We therefore propose -

To set up under control by Parliament, a small Board of Directors of the Commonwealth Bank, on which the Governor shall be Chairman;

I draw the attention of honorable senators particularly to the phrase “ small board of directors “. The bill provides that the proposed board shall comprise ten directors -

To provide that if the Treasurer disagrees with the Board’s policy, he shall refer the matter to Parliament for its decision. That is, we shall restore the sound principle that great financial decisions shall not be secret, and that the elected representatives in Parliament shall be able to control them.

That is very interesting. It means that the Government, quite apart from the Treasurer, will now control the bank board and direct the monetary policy of all departments of the Commonwealth Bank.

Senator O’Sullivan:

– Who directed it previously?

Senator ASHLEY:

– Until now the Treasurer has directed it. I did not interrupt the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’Sullivan) when he was speaking, and I should be glad if he would permit me to continue in my own way.

Senator O’Sullivan:

– I am sorry.

Senator ASHLEY:

– The Opposition has been unable to find any provision in this measure that Parliament shall have the right to disagree with, or nullify, a decision by the board. The joint policy statement issued by the Government parties contains this passage -

To provide some much-needed check to inflation of the currency we shall restore Parliamentary control over the Commonwealth note issue.

I am astonished that a statement of that kind should have been published by responsible political parties. I “wish to be fair to the Treasurer (Mr. Fadden), who, when speaking on this measure in the House of Representatives, repudiated that part of the joint policy statement of the Government parties. He said that the note issue was only an indicator, and in actual fact had nothing to do with control of inflationary tendencies. That confession by the Treasurer is further proof of the deception practised by Government parties during the recent election campaign. The Treasurer was humiliated by having to repudiate publicly in the House cf Representatives a portion of the election platform of the Government parties, f give credit to the Treasurer for having corrected a false statement on banking policy, and I hope that the Minister, when replying, will explain the reason for the change of policy that is evident in the bill.

The Minister said that the bill effected little alteration of the Commonwealth Bank Act of 1945, except that it proposed to substitute control of the bank by a board for control by the Governor. The Minister claimed that the 1945 act was based on an agreement reached between the Commonwealth Bank and the trading banks in 1941, and I do not deny it. The 1945 act gives the Commonwealth Bank general jurisdiction over the policy of advances by the private banks, inasmuch as it decides whether, in the public interest, their lending is to be restricted or encouraged, and the rates of interest they should pay and receive. Under the 1945 act, the Commonwealth Bank is also empowered to regulate the investible funds of the private banks.

It will be claimed by the Government that the 1945 act will not be materially altered by this legislation; that its essential features are being retained. I agree that some of the features of the 1945 legislation have been retained, but the Opposition is concerned over the proposal to substitute control by a board for control by a governor. By such an alteration, the administrative machinery of the bank will be changed, and that, in turn, can lead to a change of policy iri regard to bank advances. It is proposed that the bank shall be placed under the control of a board of ten directors. There is no need for a move of that kind unless it has for its object a change in the policy of the Commonwealth Bank in relation to the private banks. Under the present act, the Governor administers the Commonwealth Bank as a central bank, as a trading bank, and as a savings bank. To assist him, there is an. Advisory Council, consisting of men of great financial experience. The Minister for Social Services (Senator Spooner) referred to them as men of great capacity, and they undoubtedly are. The Secretary to the Treasury, and other distinguished officials, advise the Governor of the bank in the exercise of his important duties.

This bill proposes to transfer responsibility for monetary policy from the Governor of the bank to a board of ten members, some of whom, I admit, have had experience of banking, and are men of great capacity, but five other members are to be appointed to the board, and of them we know nothing. “When it is proposed to change so drastically the method of control of the bank, and place responsibility for financial policy-making in the hands of a board, we should be told at this stage the name of every member of the board whom it is proposed to appoint. That information should be given, not just for the benefit of honorable senators, but primarily for the benefit of the Australian people. It is proposed to abolish the present Advisory Council, although some of its members will be included in the new board. Under the new arrangement, responsibility for administering the monetary policy of the nation will rest with the board. The Royal Commission on Banking and Monetary Systems, which was appointed by a government of .the same political faith as the present Government, stated in paragraph 528 of its report, at page 205 -

RELATIONS with Governments.

There are limitations on the power of a central hank tu reduce fluctuations and to maintain reasonable stability in the internal economy. Too much should not be expected, even from the most enlightened policy of an all-powerful central bank. Much will’ depend upon the relations established between the Commonwealth Bank and the Commonwealth Government, which is responsible for monetary policy. In Australia the Federal Parliament is given, by section SI of the Constitution, “’“‘power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to: (xii) Currency, coinage and legal tender: and (xiii) banking, other than State banking; also State banking extending beyond the limits of the State concerned, the incorporation of banks, and the issue of paper money “. In part, the responsibility for monetary policy is delegated to the Commonwealth Bank by the Federal Parliament in the legislation under this section establishing the Bank and conferring upon it certain powers, but in part the responsibility is with the Commonwealth Government.

– There is not oneman control at present. When the Labour Government was in office, the nineteen members of Cabinet determined issues on which there was disagreement. The Attorney-General (Senator Spicer) knows that. If he must interject, he should be fair. Since when has democracy meant that experts in banking should be overridden by men who have had no practical experience of banking or finance generally ? It is obvious that the five nongovernment members of the board will not be people who share Labour’s political aims. They will be appointed to the board regardless of their capacity to administer or their knowledge of banking and finance.

– I do not give credence to every newspaper statement I read, but I concede that newspapers generally do accept some degree of responsibility for their reports. Their political reports vary considerably but usually some degree of accuracy is observed in general news items. On the financial page of the Sydney Morning Herald of the Sth May, the following report appeared : -

Kenworth (Australia), makers of rubber goods, has run into difficulties and pays no interim* dividend. A post-war flotation, the company is another to disappoint hopes raised in the prospectus. Fortunately for shareholders, the Industrial Finance Department of the Commonwealth Bank has made a quarter of a million available to the company - and is providing help in re-organization and management.

The Industrial Finance Section of the Commonwealth Bank was established under Labour’s 1945 legislation, against the strong opposition of the present Government parties, not only in the Senate but also in the House of Representatives. Therefore, I was glad to hear the Minister for Social Services pay a tribute to the work of the Industrial Finance Section in his second-reading speech to-day. I am sure that honorable senators from rural districts will agree also that the Commonwealth Bank has done much to assist primary producers. The newspaper report continues -

By the way, this is the third instance I have noted of the I.F. department coming to the rescue of a newly formed company. A. E. Goodwin and Euston Lead are the other two. So far as I can judge, A. E. Goodwin is well on the way to recovery, but it must be some time before it is out of the hands of the Receiver. The market has been quick to sense the value of the company’s “ wonderheat “ radiator.

Is it aware, however, that this product only represents a small part of the company’s total production? Unless another company is prepared to amalgamate with A. E. Goodwin, it will be some time before the present price can be justified by dividends.

Euston Lead now seems to be getting along nicely with production. Rising cost caused it to under-estimate its capital requirements, and, when underwriting of an issue became difficult, the company approached the Commonwealth Bank.

That shows clearly the benefit that the Commonwealth Bank is to this country. [Extension of time granted.] I am sure that the Minister for Social Services (Senator Spooner) who has had considerable experience of company matters, will concede that, occasionally, business organizations find themselves in financial difficulties through no fault of their own. There are many reasons for that. They include such disabilities as shortages of labour and raw materials. In such circumstances, the assistance of the Commonwealth Bank is of great value, not only to the company concerned, but also in the development of this country, the employment of our people, and the general prosperity of Australia. No doubt the Minister, in his reply, will endeavour to justify the proposed change of control of the bank, but I am sure he will admit that, under the present system, nothing has been done by the bank, either internally, or in its control of the private banks, which warrants criticism. If I am wrong in that assumption, I invite the Minister to show me where I am wrong, it is quite clear that private banking interests are not satisfied with the present method of control. There was abundant evidence of that during the recent Commonwealth election campaign. The private banks and other financial institutions not only provided huge sums of money to assist the Liberal party and the Australian Country party, but they also arranged for members of their staffs to be placed at the disposal of the conservatives for electioneering purposes.

Senator Hannaford:

– Australian Workers Union organizers were doing the same kind of work.

Senator ASHLEY:

– The Royal Commission on Monetary and Banking Systems that was appointed in 1935 by an administration of the same political colour as the present Government declared that private trading banks were a semi-public utility. I think that that statement is rather important, and I shall quote from the commission’s report. Under the heading, “ Conclusions and Recommendations “, paragraph 653, which is entitled “Regulation of Bank Profits “, states -

Under modern industrial conditions practically no branch of industry can be carried on without adequate supplies of bank credit. In practice this is controlled by the trading banks, and in our opinion, therefore, those banks should be regarded as enjoying a privileged position which closely resembles that of a public utility. They are entitled to a fair return for the services which they render. If our recommendations relating to the statement of the profit and loss account are adopted, the actual profits will be disclosed. If these are found to exceed what may be regarded as a fair return for the services rendered, the Government should consider whether the profits of the trading banks should be regulated or limited as in the case of some public utility.

That is a very clear recommendation by the royal commission. I have cited evidence this afternoon, including some from the report of the royal commission, to show that private banks would not invest their money in a particular State when conditions were not prosperous in that State but preferred to invest it in another State where there was the prospect of a better return on their money. Is that consistent with the function of a public utility? I suggest that the conduct of the trading banks does not in any way resemble the role discharged by. public utilities in the community. Those who invest in shares in trading banks or in any other enterprise - and this remark could apply to myself - do not do so for the benefit of the country, but for personal profit and gain. That cannot be denied. What semblance of public duty has been exhibited by the trading banks in the past? Of course, I have a full appreciation of the assistance rendered by the trading banks to the anti-Labour parties during the recent election campaign, and we all know that the Government feels itself impelled to reward that assistance. No one will deny that representatives of the trading banks went from house to house and from door to door in every city and town in Australia inciting people to vote against the Labour party. They did not do that without hope of reward.

– What is the answer then to the future of the Commonwealth Bank, which is a socialist institution? Because it is a socialist institution it is hated by the Prime Minister, the Treasurer, the Government and Senator Wright, and all other conservatives. What will the Government do with the hank? Undoubtedly it will do everything possible to retard the progress of the Commonwealth Bank in the interests of the private financial institutions of this country.

As I have already pointed out, the Commonwealth Bank has been extremely successful, particularly since the passage of the Comonwealth Bank Act 1945. The Government and its supporters believe that its progress should be impeded because it will be difficult to destroy the hank later on. Indeed, it has been suggested that a member of the House of Representatives, the honorable member for Mackellar (Mr. Wentworth), will resign his seat in order to become a member of the proposed board, and I should like the Minister later to give me an assurance that that is not intended. Sitting suspended from 5.59 to 8 p.m.

Senator ASHLEY:

– When the sitting was suspended I was dealing with the proposed new section 9a, sub-sections (1.) and (2.) of which read a3 follows: - (1.) The Bank shall, from time to time, inform the Government of the monetary and banking policy of the Bank. (2.) In the event of a difference of opinion between the Government and the Bank as to whether the monetary and banking policy of the Bank is directed to the greatest advantage of the people of Australia, the Treasurer and the Board shall endeavour to reach agreement.

I confirm the statement that I made earlier that, under this bill, the Treasurer will be able, through the Secretary to the Department of the Treasury, who is a highly efficient and capable official, to direct the five private individuals who will be members of the board to formulate a policy that may restrict the activities of the bank, but be will not be forced to accept responsibility for it. When the present Government parties were in Opposition, they condemned the principle of direction of the bank’s policy by the Treasurer. It will be of interest to recall some of the views that were expressed by honorable senators opposite upon the Commonwealth Bank Act 1945. The Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper), for example, made the following statement: -

That brings the bank, through direct intervention of the Treasurer, under political control.

In 1945 the present Government parties expressed their violent opposition to direction of the policy of the bank by the Treasurer, but this bill will not remove that power from the Treasurer. It will leave him with the right, through the board, to override the management of the bank. That was the very thing that the present Government parties opposed strenuously in 1945. The bill will give the Treasurer the right to overrule, not the Governor of the bank but the members of the board, should he disagree with them. The proposal that Executive Council minutes should be tabled in the Parliament is futile. As I have already said, when a decision is made by the Executive Council the Parliament may not be in session and it may be many months before an opportunity presents itself for the Parliament to review the decision. That procedure would be useless in the case of important financial decisions that have to be made in haste. If the Treasurer desires to overrule the board, he will be able to do so under the provisions of this bill, just as, under the provisions of the principal act, as amended by the act of 1945, he could overrule the Governor of the bank. That is the only difference. The fina! decision upon national financial matters should rest always with the government of the day, regardless of its political colour, because it is charged with the responsibility for governing the country. A government has many financial decisions to make, and it would be fatal to the economic interests of this country if those decisions had to remain in doubt pending a debate in the Parliament.

The Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives (Mr. Chifley) has made the following statement : -

During the eight years that I was Treasurer, including the period of four years since the 1045 Commonwealth Bank Art has been in operation, I did not at any time overrule the

Governor of the Commonwealth Bank. There was never any need for me to do so because I was always able to come to a satisfactory decision. That observation applies in respect of not only Or. Coombs and Mr. Armitage who preceded him as Governor of the bank, *mt even when there was a Commonwealth Bank Board in existence. I have never issued a written instruction yet. I have expressed any views about what I thought should be done but at no time was it necessary for me to <exercise that particular power.

The Labour party believes ‘that the Commonwealth Bank should be entirely free of interference from or control by -outside interests, that its function should be to serve all the people, wealthy and poor alike, and that it should advise the Government on all financial transactions. It is absolutely essential to the best interests of Australia that this great national institution should have, to a large degree, the advice of the Treasurer. There is ample evidence available that the Commonwealth Bank is functioning in the best interests of the Australian people. On the Government side, the Treasurer has the other members of Cabinet to assist him. Associated with the Commonwealth Bank, there are men of great ability. They are the Governor and the Deputy Governor of the bank and the manager of the Industrial Finance Department. The Governor also has available to him the advice of the bank’s economic adviser, Professor Melville. Those are men of outstanding capacity, who would be worth much more to private enterprise than they are receiving from the Government. It would be a tragic loss to the Commonwealth Bank and to the nation if their services were not available.

The Opposition proposes to oppose all clauses of the bill that make provision for the control of the Commonwealth Bank by a board. We claim that the establishment of a board would impair the efficiency of the present management of the bank. During the depression, housing schemes and public works schemes were denied to the people of Australia by the refusal of the Commonwealth Bank Board to assist in financing such projects, the cost of which would have been less than one-tenth of the cost of the Snowy Mountains hydro-electric scheme. The Opposition believes that a great disservice would be done to this country if the legislation, in its present form, providing for the establishment of a Commonwealth Bank Board, were placed upon the statutebook, Therefore, as I have said, we propose to oppose the establishment of a board. I am convinced that the object of the Government in seeking to appoint a board is to restrict the progress of the Commonwealth Bank, and in my opinion it could not do a greater disservice to this country. I say, “ Hands off the people’s bank, hands off the Commonwealth Bank” - the bank which has played such an important part in the defence of Australia and which has made a major contribution to the industrial life and national development of this great country of ours.

Senator SPICER:
AttorneyGeneral · Victoria · LP

.- This bill is a further instalment in the implementation of the policy upon which this Government was elected by the people of Australia at the recent general election. Like other measures that have been introduced into the Parliament, it is entirely in accord with the policy that the present Government parties then propounded. If we believe in the principles of democracy - and I shall assume that members of the Opposition still believe in them, although I have very grave doubts about it - it must be perfectly clear that if this chamber refuses to give effect to this measure it will be refusing to accede to the wishes of the electors of this country.

The bill can conveniently be divided into two parts. The first part to which T wish to make some reference is clause 8. It is a simple clause, expressed in very few words, but it is one that is of great importance in the political history of this country. It reads as follows : -

The Banking Act 194” is repealed.

– It is well that the people of this country should be reminded of the history of this matter. At no time has Labour demonstrated a very keen desire to maintain the principles and practices of democracy. On the contrary, it demonstrated perfectly clearly that it was prepared to impose upon the people of Australia legislation about which they had never been consulted. At the time, Labour declared that the eggs were going to be scrambled, and that they could not be unscrambled no matter what might be the result of the election to take place in 1949. Fortunately for the preservation of the freedom of the Australian people, the powers’ of the Parliament are limited by the Constitution. The people can resort to the courts of this country, and to the Privy Council in a case such as that, in order to prevent the Government from pursuing an unlawful course. That is what saved the people of this country from the nationalization of the banking structure, which a they did not desire. We were saved from the complete nationalization of banking in this country, and we can now look forward to an era in which the banking structure will, quite properly, be carried on subject to the control of a central bank. The ordinary banking activities will be carried on by private banks for the benefit of the people of this country.

I shall now refer to the other important provision of this bill, that which provides for the establishment of a board to direct the activities of the Commonwealth Bank in place of one man, the Governor of the bank, who performs those functions to-day. I must confess that I have always found it very puzzling- indeed to understand why it is that, in relation to one of the most important institutions in this country, the Labourparty insists on one-man control. The main issue between us is whether the direction of the Commonwealth Bank isto be in the hands of a Governor, subject to the Parliament, or in the hands of a hoard, subject to the Parliament-

Senator Ashley:

– Supposing the Parliament is not sitting?

Senator SPICER:

– My friend the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Ashley) emphasized this afternoon the very important functions that this institution performs in thi3 country. I venture to say that no other institution, outside the Parliament, is more important from the point of view of the welfare of the people of Australia, than the Commonwealth Bank. Therefore its management is a matter of supreme importance.

Senator Large:

– So it was during the depression.

Senator SPICER:

– It is strange that nowhere else in the world, outside perhaps Communist-controlled territory, has an institution of this kind been placed under one-man control. I challenge the Opposition to cite one instance of an institution of this character, at least anywhere in the democratic world, which is under the control of a single .person called a Governor, or with any other title. Although the Bank of England was nationalized the Parliament of the United Kingdom never dreamt of putting it under one-man control. The Federal Reserve Bank of the United States of America is not controlled by one man. I suggest that the Commonwealth Bank is unique in that respect. It is not uninteresting to speculate why that is so. I have given some thought to the matter and I believe, quite seriously, that it is due to the innate conservatism which characterizes the Labour party in this country. By that I mean that its members never learn ; their ideas never change despite changing conditions and circumstances.

In 1911 the Labour party established the Commonwealth Bank, then a very small institution, but destined to grow. At that time it was merely a trading and savings bank, with a capital of £1,000,000. In 1911 the control of the bank was placed in the hands of a very worthy gentleman, Mr. Miller, later Sir Denison Miller. Since then the members of the Australian Labour party have never been able to get it out of their minds that the proper way to run the Commonwealth Bank is by one-man control. Honorable senators opposite forget that this institution has ceased to be merely a trading bank and a savings bank, ft has become the pivot of the banking system in this country. It performs some of the most important functions in this community. Forgetting all those things honorable senators opposite still say, in effect, “ “We can run the Commonwealth Bank in exactly the same way as when it was started in 1911, when the institution was of little consequence to the people of this country as a whole”. Why is it that one-man control should be applied to the central bank in this country, but not to anything else ? Only a few years ago - just prior to the introduction by Labour of the 1947 banking legislation - a government airline service was established by Labour. It was placed not under one-man control, but under a commission. If that principle is sound in respect of airlines and other activities in this country that were established by the Labour administration, it is equally sound in relation to this important institution. It seems to me that no argument at all can be advanced in favour of the view that the interests of the people of this country would be better served by the bank continuing to be controlled by a governor rather than by a board.

The Leader of the Opposition has relied at length on the report of the Royal Commission on Banking and Monetary Systems. One would have thought when he outlined its findings to-day that its report was virtually the bible on this subject. I propose to turn to it now because the proposal that we are debating to-night is in conformity with the recommendations of that commission. The commission published a report, a copy of which I have before me. It did not say, “ Put this institution under the control of one individual “. The Leader of the Opposition did not read all of the relevant portions of the report. The portion that I shall now cite refers to the method of government of the Commonwealth Bank. Paragraph 575 of the report reads -

The present method of government of the Commonwealth Bank is by a Board, appointed by the Commonwealth Government, and consisting of a Governor, the Secretary to the Treasury, and six Directors, who hold office for a term of years and retire in rotation. The Board elects its own Chairman. We are of opinion that this method of government is generally satisfactory.

SenatorFraser. - What was said in the minority report?

Senator SPICER:

– I have more interest in majorities than in minorities, and it is a pity that the Labour party does not pay more attention to the will of the majority of the people. Paragraph 576 of the report is as follows: -

We recommend -

1 ) The Governor should be Chairman of the Board by virtue of his office and should possess qualifications and receive a salary commensurate with the importance of the office. The appointment of the Governor should not be made on the basis of seniority, nor is it even essential that he should already be in the service of the Bank.

The six Directors other than the Governor and the Secretary to the treasury should be appointed for a term of six years, instead of seven as at present, one should retire each year, and be eligible for reappointment, but provision should be made that no director shall continue to hold office after reaching the age of 70.

That is the recommendation of a majority of the commission, and the bill now before the Senate conforms in principle with the recommendation. There is no support whatever in the commission’s report for the idea that the bank should be placed under the control of one person. Surely there is merit in the conception that the important policies which the Commonwealth Bank has to develop and apply should be the product of the wisdom of a number of men. Surely there is some safety in numbers in a matter of this kind. I do not care how wise the Governor may be, or how good the Advisory Committee may be-

Senator Ashley:

– The Advisory Committee has done good work.

Senator SPICER:

– I am concerned with the future, and I am not prepared to support the view that we should continue to take the risk of leaving this important institution under the control of a Governor. The Governor will not always he the same person as now. To-day, it is Dr. Coombs: to-morrow it may be Mr. Chifley, and the next day it may be Mr. Menzies. I do not think that honorable senators opposite would be so enthusiastic in their support of one-man control if the man in question had not been appointed by their own Government. However that may be, it would be flying in the face of experience to say, in effect : “ We, in Australa, are the wisest people in the world, we know how to run a central bank, and we do not intend to run it as such banks are run in the older countries where they have had centuries of experience. We are prepared to put all our eggs in one basket. We are prepared to take the risk of placing our central bank under the control of one person, although we have the opportunity to place it under the control of a board of competent persons who, by conferring together, might be able to deal much more satisfactorily with the problems that confront them “. Senator Ashley commended the present members of the Advisory Committee. I have nothing against them, but I would feel much easier in mind if those very estimable persons were not merely advisers to the Governor, but were taking part with him in the management of the bank, and taking responsibility for the formulation of policy. If these men are as good as Senator Ashley has said - and I do not dispute it - surely we may expect to get better results if they and the Governor are together responsible for the control of the bank, than if they are mere advisers, and the Governor himself is the person, who, in the end, has to take responsibility for the formulalation of policy.

I now come to those provisions in the bill designed to deal with the situation when a difference arises, as it may, between the bank board on the one hand and the Government of the day on the other. Under the law as it now stands, it is provided that in the event of a dispute between the bank and the Government, the matter shall be decided by the Treasurer, which means, in effect, by the government of the day. It could, of course, be determined behind closed doors, the people having no knowledge of the matter in dispute.

Senator Fraser:

– What about Parliament?

Senator SPICER:

– I am coming to that. We believe that, in the final analysis, the Parliament, consisting of the elected representatives of the people, should have an opportunity to decide such a dispute, and certain provisions have been introduced into the bill to give effect to that principle. Thus, instead of a dispute being decided behind closed doors by the Treasurer, instead of having, in effect, one-man control, the elected representatives of the people in the Parliament will become aware of the nature of the dispute, and once they are in possession of that knowledge the matter will be in their hands for determination.

Senator Ashley:

– They will not be able to alter the decision.

Senator SPICER:

– Of course they will.

Opposition Senators interjecting,

The PRESIDENT:

– There are too many interjections. I ask honorable senators to give the Minister a hearing. Honorable senators on myleft will have an opportunity later to place their case before the Senate and the people of Australia.

Senator SPICER:

– The bill provides that, in the event of a dispute between the bank board and the Government relevant documents shall be laid before the Parliament from which the Parliament and the public may learn the nature of the dispute that has arisen. Such a dispute could arise only over some great issue, which would be of tremendous importance to the people of this country. The moment that the relevant documents were laid upon the table in each house of the Parliament, everybody in Australia would know what was the nature of the dispute, and it wouldprobably become a matter for determination in the Parliament whether the course proposed by the Government was in the best interest of the people, or whether the course that the bank board wished to follow was more likely to prove the proper one.

Senator Ashley:

-Where is that provided for in the bill ?

Senator SPICER:

– It is to be found in proposed new section 9a, sub-section (5.) of which is as follows: -

The Treasurer shall inform the Bank of the policy so determined and shall at the same time inform the Bank that the Government accepts responsibility for the adoption by the

Bank of that policy and will take such action (if any) within its powers as the Government considers to he necessary byreason of the adoption of that policy.

Sub-section (7.) states -

The Treasurer shall cause to be laid before each House of the Parliament, within fifteen sitting days of that House after the Treasurer has informed the Bank of the policy determined under sub-section (4.) of this section -

a copy of the order determining the policy;

a statement by the Government in relation to the matter in respect of which the difference of opinion arose: and

a copy of the statement furnished to the Treasurer by the Board under sub-section (3.) of this section.

Senator SPICER:

– That is what the Labour party is continually doing - having a bit each way. But this is :a matter of such transcendant importance that it should be approached broadly and not in such a narrow-minded fashion. Does this bill provide for the people of Australia a secure and sound foundation for a .banking system?

Opposition Senators. - No 1

Senator SPICER:
LP

– Does it give the people a more satisfactory control over this great institution than one-man control?

Opposition Senators. - No !

Senator SPICER:
LP

– I suggest that it does. The honorable senators who have just said “ No “ do not advance one reason why resort should not be made to the board.

Senator Sheehan:

– Has the AttorneyGeneral any complaints about control by the Governor of the bank since 1945?

Senator SPICER:

– I do not think that I have. But what of it? Because there happens to have been a period of four years under a particular Governor, and in that period of unparalleled prosperity there have been no complaints about him, is that any reason why it should be concluded that the same position will be reached in regard to the same Governor over the next ten years? That implies dependence on the decisions and responsibility of one individual.

Senator Large:

– No.

Senator SPICER:

The Attorney-General said that the issue now before the Senate was one-man control against board control, and that the decisions of the board would be subject to the will of the Parliament. Every honorable senator who has read the bil J knows of course that the board’s decisions will not be subject to the will of the Parliament at all. Sub-sections (5.) and (6.) of proposed new section 9a state - (5.) The Treasurer shall inform the Bank of the policy so determined and shall at the same time inform the Bank that the Government accepts responsibility for the adoption by the Bank of that policy and will take such action (if any) within its powers as the Government considers to be necessary by reason of the adoption of that policy. (6.) The Bank shall thereupon give effect to the policy determined by the order and shall, if the order so requires, continue to give effect to that policy while the order remains in operation.

Clearly the Parliament will not have any authority. The Attorney-General said that “the documents relating to a dispute would be tabled in each House. I shall not argue at length about what will happen if the Parliament is not in session when a dispute arises, but everybody knows that once a policy has been put into operation during a recess, that policy will not be reviewed until the Parliament meets in the ordinary course. The Attorney-General said that when the documents were tabled, a motion of nc confidence in the Government could bemoved in either House. Obviously such a motion would not affect the Government’s decision in any dispute that may have arisen with the Commonwealth Bank Board, and would only be a roundabout way of dealing with the matter. The Parliament would still not have any control over the policy of the bank. I also point out that although the bill provides that the bank shall inform the Treasurer from time to time of the policy of the bank, the method of doing so is most round-about. Under the present arrangements co-operation exists between the Treasurer and the Governor of the bank, and if a difference of opinion arises the Treasurer must take responsibility for the financial and economic policy of the nation. This measure provides that in the event of a dispute between the Treasurer and the proposed bank board the matter shall be referred to the GovernorGeneral, which means that the Governor-General may be drawn into political controversies. That is a most objectionable feature of the Government’s proposals, but it can be overcome by amending that particular provision and allowing the present system of cooperation between the Treasurer and the Commonwealth Bank to continue.

The Attorney-General also said that members of the Australian Labour party never learned anything and never changed their minds, but while I have been sitting in my place I have heard Government supporters almost continuously twitting members of the Opposition with having changed their minds on another matter-

Senator Spooner:

– And they will change their minds again on that issue.

Senator O’FLAHERTY:

– That may be so, but why accuse us of being unable to learn or to change our minds while attacking us because we have the courage to do so in certain other directions? The Attorney-General also said that he is not concerned with minority reports, and that if members of the Australian Labour party concerned themselves less with minority reports they would be better informed and would do more for the country. Of course, he was not hinting at the minority report that was quoted extensively in the debate on other legislation that was recently introduced to this chamber. However, the fact remains that that legislation was based on a minority report, which had been virtually adopted by honorable senators opposite-

Senator Ashley:

– Particularly by the legal gentlemen opposite.

Senator O’FLAHERTY:

– That is so. The Attorney-General chose his words very carefully when he said that the proposed board would control the policy of the bank, and urged that board control is preferable to the present system of control by one. individual. Generally speaking, the only matter at issue is control of the financial policy as it affects the national economy. The actual administration of whatever policy may be decided upon for the bank will inevitably be carried out by one individual, and even if a board were appointed one individual would still administer the policy laid down by the board. However, the AttorneyGeneral endeavoured to lead us to believe that the board would actually administer the bank. When the Minister for Social Services (Senator Spooner) introduced the bill he said -

Collective responsibility for the determination of policy will be restored by the reestablishment of a board comprising men of wide knowledge and experience, which will ensure the integration of the policy of the bank with economic and financial policy generally without impairing the independence of the bank.

While policy will be determined by the board, the day-to-day administration of the bank will be in the hands of the Governor.

It is clear, therefore, that the administration of the bank will still be carried on by the Governor of the bank, irrespective of the existence of the proposed board, just as it was in 1924. The Minister also said -

The Government is convinced that the primary responsibility of the Commonwealth Bank is its responsibility as a central bank for the continued health and progress of the banking system as a whole. Part of the strength of the Commonwealth Bank as a central bank is, however, derived from the direct contact with the financial and industrial system which it maintains through its trading sections. The proposals of the Government are designed to strengthen the Commonwealth Bank both as Australia s central bank and as an essential part of the commercial banking structure of the country.

What does that mean? It is quite plain that by transforming the Commonwealth Bank into a central bank the Government proposes to permit private financial interests, through the instrumentality of the proposed board, to dominate the economic life of the community. Let us recall what happened under the previous board. The Attorney-General, and every honorable senator who has any knowledge of the recent economic history of this country and the activities of the Commonwealth Bank, will admit that while that bank functioned under a governor, and without the interference of a hoard, it progressed splendidly. From 1924, when the former board was established, the bank’s activities were confined within the restrictive policy laid down by the board. Restrictions were placed upon the trading bank section, so that citizens were discouraged from opening trading accounts with the bank.

Under the orders issued to the officers of the hank by the board people who desired to open an account with the bank were told that they could not do so if they had previously had an account with a trading bank, and even if they had not had such an account, they should take their account to a trading bank. Notwithstanding such restrictions the bank continued to make good progress. The members of the board, who had been appointed by the Bruce-Page Government, and occupied a strategic position in the financial and economic structure of the country, so directed the financial policy of the country that although our storehouses became filled with wheat, grain, dairy produce, boots, shoes, and clothing, they could not be sold because the wage-earners of this country simply could not obtain work and therefore had no money to spend on the purchase of goods. Sir Robert Gibson, who was then chairman of the board, said that if certain things were done the Commonwealth Bank would co-operate with the private banks to supply some money to do the job which should have been done before. That was what happened under the previous bank board. Of course, the Attorney-General argued that the Scullin Government which was a Labour administration, should have gone to the people, but he conveniently forgot to mention that the Scullin Government was opposed by a hostile majority in the Senate, which blocked every proposal that it introduced to this chamber. In fact, the Scullin Administration was in much the same position in relation to the Senate as is the present Government, and I hope that the Menzies Government will go out as discredited as did the Scullin administration. The plain fact is that the Scullin Government was not in power but was merely in office because it did not possess a majority in this chamber.

In another flight of words, the Attorney-General said that although he was prepared to give control of the bank to a board he was not prepared to give the control of the bank to the government of the country. He said, in effect : “ The Government might be led by Coombs, by Chifley or by Menzies; but it is far better to place the administration of the bank under stable control by confiding it to a board “. What did he mean ? Does not the Government intend that the board shall control the bank irrespective of, or even in spite of, the government of the day? Even the Minister who introduced the bill admitted that.

To resume the brief account that 1 am giving of the development of the Commonwealth Bank, I remind honorable senators that about 1939 a kind of “ gentleman’s agreement “ to meet wartime emergency conditions was made between the then anti-labour government, of which the present right honorable member for MacPherson (Mr. Fadden’ was Treasurer, and the private financial institutions. That agreement continued to operate until 1945, when it was embodied in the Commonwealth Bank Act of that year. However, an important feature of that legislation, which was introduced by a Labour government, was that it took the control of the bank away from the board. Since then the trading banks have entered the political fray. They went to the courts, and they also financed political campaigns against the previous Labour administration, as was mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Ashley). There is no doubt that they expended a great amount of money.

The Sydney Sun of the 31st January, 1950, published an advertisement, apparently paid for by the Union Bank of Australia Limited, containing extracts from a report to the bank’s shareholders by the chairman, Mr. Hugh D. Flowers, who was stated to have said -

We are in full agreement with, and observe closely, the policy indicated by the Commonwealth Bank with regard to advances. Conferences are held at regular intervals between the Governor and the General Managers. We welcome this practice, which helps to maintain the cordial relations that exist between this and the Central Bank.

– The honorable senator certainly makes life easy.

Senator O’FLAHERTY:

Able senator who has just interjected has made a very wild statement. In many instances his statements are as woolly as those of the Attorney-General, who makes one statement one minute and a conflicting one the next minute. If at all possible honorable senators should make only accurate statements. Of course, I realize that any one might make a slip of the tongue occasionally.

Senator Fraser:

– The honorable senator himself interjected fairly freely.

Senator McCALLUM:

– I made two interjections, and they were both relevant, but interjections that are intended merely to break the thread of an argument, and to prevent honorable senators from hearing what I am trying to say, are out of place. They not only constitute a breach of the rules, but they are also bad taste. The Commonwealth Bank Bill, which was introduced by Mr. Theodore in 1930, contained this provision -

– (1.) The Bank shall be managedby a Board of Directors composed of the Governor and seven other Directors. (2.) Subject to this Act, the seven other Directors shall consist of -
1. six other persons who are or have been actively engaged in agriculture, commerce, finance or industry.

It will be seen that provision was made for the appointment of businessmen to the board, and the bill even specified the interests that were to be represented. If the present Government’s proposal to appoint a bank board of the kind specified in the bill has behind it a sinister purpose, then the clause which I have just quoted from the bill introduced by Mr. Theodore must have had behind it an exactly similar purpose. The bill now before the Senate follows the lines of the Theodore bill, rather than the lines of the Commonwealth Bank Act of 1925, which was introduced by the Bruce-Page Government. There is no justification for concluding that, because it is proposed to place the bank under the control of a board, it is intended to divert the bank from its original purpose, or to place it under the domination of private interests. That being so, the arguments of the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Ashley) and of Senator 0’Flaherty fall to the ground. This measure of control is for the purpose that has been explained by the Treasurer (Mr. Fadden) and by the Minister for Social Services (Senator Spooner) in this chamber. What are those purposes? Clearly when such important matters as the exchange rate, the amount of credit in the country or anything else that affects the commerce and industry of the nation arise, it is not wise to leave them under the control of one man. In the considered opinion of people in all parts of the civilized world, it is possible to get men of wisdom and experience who are not tied up with any particular interest to give sound advice. Every country in Western Europe except Spain has a bank board to administer its central bank. The only countries with autocratic control similar to that upon which the Australian Labour party has insisted since 1945 are Spain, Russia, and the satellite countries of Russia. Australia draws the whole of its inheritance from Western Europe, and the practices of the people of Great Britain, Western Europe, the United States and the English-speaking world are the practices that fit this nation.

The rather far-fetched attempt of Senator O’Flaherty to prove that it is impossible to get anybody for the bank board who is not under the control of some private bank or other is futile. When one notes that a certain man is interested in a directorate, it merely indicates that this is a small community in which people have diverse interests. If persons completely divorced from any private enterprise are sought, they can Le found on this side of the chamber. Everything that I have except some chattels is in the Commonwealth Bank. I have my current account there. My ordinary savings are in the Savings Bank and anything that I put away except insurance is in government bonus which are held by the Commonwealth Bank as custodian. The argument that this Government represents only wealthy private institutions is no longer valid if it ever was valid. The falsity of that argument was proved by the support given to this Government by the people at the general election.

The Government represents the general body of the people and particularly those who have small savings. It is impossible for the Government to destroy those savings and the Commonwealth Bank even if it wanted to. The Government depends on the votes of people who use the Commonwealth Bank. Members of the Government use the bank themselves. We believe that the report of the Royal Commission on Monetary and Banking Systems was sound and that this legislation follows it. The Leader of the Oppo.sition (Mr. Chifley) was a member of that commission. He dissented from some of its proposals and’ presented one or two individual reports but he did not dissent from all the conclusions of the commission and he worked in the utmost harmony with its members. The commission recommended that the banking system of Australia should consist of public and private banks, that the Commonwealth Bank should operate as an ordinary trading bank in competition with the private trading banks and that it should carry out all the functions of a reserve bank. The commission recommended a committee of exactly the same type as that which the Treasurer (Mr. Fadden) proposes to set up. It is also the type of committee that was recommended by the late Mr. E. 6. Theodore who was an intellectual and a financial giant.

Senator Ashley:

– They all say that when a man is dead.

Senator McCALLUM:

– I said it when Mr. Theodore was alive. I stood by him in his political defeat but there are honorable senators and honorable members in another place who did not stand by him. I have nothing to retract in regard to banking policy. I say that there is no sinister purpose in this bill. The attempt not by argument but by innuendo to make the people believe that has failed completely. There is little else in the bill that is controversial and most of the arguments that honorable senators have heard to-night should have been reserved for the committee stages. Honorable senators opposite have made the bank board proposal the main point of their speeches. Apparently because of that proposal alone they believe that they must oppose the bill.

The attempt to represent the Commonwealth Bank as entirely the creation of the Labour party is completely wrong and false. The Commonwealth Bank was founded by the Labour party. Nobody denies that. It was founded by the Andrew Fisher Government, which was different from some of the Labour governments that followed it. The bank functioned quite well through World War I. largely because of the skilled administration of Sir Denison Miller and later it was reconstituted by the Bruce-Page Government. I did not support certain parts of the Bruce-Page legislation and I would not support them now but according to the opinions of the times that was considered to be the way to develop the bank. By establishing a bank board, the Bruce-Page Government was able to introduce the central bank functions in embryo without forfeiting the confidence of the private banks, and as long as the private banks are retained it is essential to have their confidence. The Scullin Government then tried to develop the bank along lines which would have improved it. Then followed successful changes under the Lyons Government and subsequently under the Menzies Government and the Chifley Government.

The Government proposes in this bill to repeal certain parts of the legislation introduced by the Chifley Government, but in the main it has followed all the banking developments of that government that the economists and the other people who understand banking consider to belegitimate. This bill is not a party measure and I deplore the party heatthat has been injected into the debate.. It is a measure to strengthen the Commonwealth Bank and make it the kind of bank that this country needs. All parties have contributed to its development. The Government proposes to abandon all existing measures that are shown to be obsolete or ill-advised, no matter from what source they have sprung. For that reason I urge that this bill be passed, and that the attempt to destroy it that has been foreshadowed should be abandoned. I ask honorable senators to pass this bill in the interests of the people of Australia.

Senator NASH:
Western Australia

– Senator McCallum indicated that this is a measure to strengthen the Commonwealth Bank and to make it something which the country needs. I hope that his opinion will be proved correct and that he has some foundation on which to base his assertion. I am very suspicious of the intentions behind this legislation. I may be quite wrong, and in fact I hope that I am wrong, but I have very sound reasons to believe sincerely that the appointment of a Commonwealth Bank Board will mean a return to what obtained in this country some years ago.

This bill will repeal the Banking Act 1947. The Attorney-General (Senator Spicer) has had something to say in that connexion. He tried to indicate that the Chifley Labour Government attempted to do something heinous by seeking to have the banking system of Australia nationalized. In reaching that determination at the time, the Labour Government was quite sincere. Honorable senators know that as a result of litigation before the High Court of Australia and the Privy Council, determinations were given on various aspects of that legislation. Those findings did not relate to the complete legislation. In fact it canrightly bp claimed that in some- of the determinations of those high tribunals, there was nothing against the Australian Government nationalizing the banks. The adverse findings were only in respect to the application of certain aspects of that legislation. On the 28th October, JU49, the then Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) pointed out to the people that the decision of the Privy Council that the Government could not nationalize banking was sufficient as far as he was concerned. He indicated that as a result of that decision the Government could not nationalize the banks of Australia, and had no intention to do so. Mr. Chifley indicated that before the 10th December and during the election campaign. He told the people without equivocation that in view of the decisions of the august bodies to which I have referred the Labour Government would not endeavour to bring about banking nationalization in Australia. Did the supporters of the Government that is now in office tell the people that? No. Their propaganda had the very opposite intention. Employees of the private banks went from door to door telling untruths about the then Government’s banking proposal.

Senator Wright:

– That is a slander on one section of the community.

Senator NASH:

– It is not a slander. It is the truth, and it can be verified by more than one member of this chamber. We all know that the private banks paid their employees to do that joh.

Senator Guy:

– Just as the Australian Workers Union paid its organizers to do a similar job.

Senator NASH:

– The Australian Workers Union always has organizers in the field. We do not deny that, but they are engaged on their legitimate jobs. It was not the legitimate job of bank clerks to make a house to house canvass in the interests of the present Government parties. The Labour Government’s attempt to nationalize banking in this country was made as a result of the declared intention of the then Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Menzies) to restore the Commonwealth Bank Board should the parties for which he was then sneaking ever be elected to office. That is why the 1945 legislation had to be viewed from a different angle. Strangely enough, the controls contained in the 1945 legislation were laid down originally in national security regulations by the present Treasurer (Mr. Fadden). Under those regulations, the private banks were subject to certain directions. Legislation was introduced in 1945 to give permanent effect to the war-time provisions, the validity of which was in grave doubt when the war ended. What was behind the statement made by Mr. Menzies, that, if elected to office he would restore the Commonwealth Bank Board? Did he believe that the restoration of the board would be in the interests of the people, or did he believe that it would be in the interests of the private institutions? My own view is that the then Leader of the Opposition was concerned more with the interests of the private banks. The Privy Council’s decision in the bank nationalization case did not mean that all the controls exercised under the 1945 legislation were invalid. That is something that should be borne in mind. The Commonwealth Bank still has the right to compete openly with the private trading banks. Because of that, I believe, and because since 1945, the Commonwealth Bank has competed most successfully with the private banks, increased its general banking facilities, as well as the number of its employees to approximately 10,000, and expanded its business considerably by functioning as it was intended to function by its founders, the Government wishes now to restore the Commonwealth Bank Board, so that once again the hank can be instructed to refrain from undertaking general banking business, except business of the type that the private ‘banks do not want. In my opinion the Government is seeking to force the Commonwealth Bank back to the position that it previously occupied under board control when its activities were greatly restricted. I may be wrong in holding that view, but I have a shrewd suspicion that I am right.

The Minister, in his second-reading speech, said that in 1945 and 1947 banking bills of major importance had been introduced into this Parliament and that on each occasion the views of the present Government parties had been clearly stated. I propose to quote some statements that were made by the present Treasurer when the Commonwealth Bank Bill was before the Parliament in 1945. Hansard, volume 1S1, page 786, contains the following statement made by the present Treasurer on the 22nd March, 1.945 :-

A further important observation that must be made concerning this revolutionary reform is in regard to the manner of its acceptance and its likely effect upon us overseas. When it becomes known in greater detail, the reaction will be most detrimental to Australia, particularly in connexion with impending commitments.

This bill represents a complete change of front on the part of the right honorable gentleman, because when we analyse the measure we find that, with the exception of the re-introduction of the Commonwealth Bank Board, there is practically no departure from the 1945 legislation. The Treasurer has been forced to eat humble pie. Can any honorable senator say that the 1945 Commonwealth Bank Act has proved detrimental to Australia overseas? Clearly no such statement could be made with any degree of truth. For instance, our London funds have reached the highest level in our history. Obviously there must be confidence in this country overseas, because no country with an unstable banking system can command the confidence of other countries. The Treasurer’s gloomy predictions in 1945 have not been realized. The right honorable gentleman also said - . . legislation of so rigid a character as that now before the House is more likely to hamstring the Australian banking system than to give to it the additional flexibility which naturally should be associated with it.

Has the 1945 act in any way hamstrung the Australian banking system? Has it interfered with the flexibility which naturally should be associated with banking? On- the contrary, banking in Australia to-day is more sound than ever before. Once again the right honorable gentleman has had to eat humble pie because his 1945 fears have proved to be completely unreal. In the same speech the right honorable gentleman said -

The. grave danger which I and other members of the Australian Country party- see in this bill is that the avowed intention of the measure is to give to the Government increased power over the policy nf the bank, and that can lead only to instability and lack of confidence.

– I am speaking from memory, and my recollection is that the interest rates charged by the trading banks were as high as 8 per cent. The point that I make now is that during World War I. the Government went to tha private banks for financial accommodation, but during the recent war the Labour Government went to the people for .accommodation and the private banks “were not permitted, without the permission -©f the Treasurer, to invest in war loans. Incidentally, the highest interest rate payable on Money subscribed to the loans was 3£ per cent. It is well known that during the war, and since, loans of as much as £150,000,000 have been subscribed hy the people of this country in small subscriptions of £10. So that whatever might be said in criticism of Labour’s financial policy, our handling* of the national finances during the war saved this country many millions of pounds in interest payments. Nevertheless, when the Commonwealth Bank Act 1945 was introduced, the present Treasurer, who waa then in Opposition, said -

Nothing can be more disturbing to confidence than political tinkering with the currency.

Has there been any political tinkering with the currency since 1945? I submit that the fears expressed by the right honorable gentleman at that time were exaggerated and have proved to be groundless. The Ronsard record of his remarks at that time also shows that he said -

There has never been a lack of co-operation in the past between the Treasurer and the Commonwealth Bank Board

That is an interesting statement. As we know, the Commonwealth Bank Board was abolished hy the 1945 legislation, but we are quite entitled to ask ourselves” what co-operation that board gave to the government of the day during the depression. In 1931, when the Scullin Administration required £18,000,000, which is a paltry amount in comparison with the sum of £180,000,000 that will be expended upon the Snowy Mountains development scheme, to tide the community over a time of dire distress, the Commonwealth Bank Board refused to make the money available. What attitude did the board adopt? It said that the suggestion of a fiduciary issue that was involved in the Government’s request would disturb the financial stability of Australia and impair our credit overseas. However, at a later stage it stated, in the course of correspondence with the Treasurer, that the money would be made available if certain conditions were fulfilled. The Scullin Government was confronted by a hostile majority in the Senate, and it had to accede to the conditions imposed upon it by the board, and as a result of the board’s insistence the salaries of public servants were reduced by from 18 per cent, to 22$ per cent. The board also insisted on a reduction of social services, and age pensioners had their pensions reduced to, I think, 1.8s. 6d. a week. In other words, the Commonwealth Bank Board dictated to the Government.

Senator Spooner:

– That has nothing to do with the present measure.

Senator NASH:

– That has a lot to do with the present measure, because the present Government proposes to reestablish the Commonwealth Bank Board.

Senator O’sullivan:

– But under the control of the Parliament.

Senator NASH:

– The honorable senator should not try to put that story over. I was pointing out what occurred under the previous bank board, and my point now is that the establishment of another board may result in a recurrence of the happenings of 1931.

I remind honorable senators that immediately prior to the 1946 elections the then Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Menzies) said that if the anti-Labour parties were returned to power he would re-institute the Commonwealth Bank

Board. I mention that fact because something has been said by honorable senators opposite about the attitude of thepeople tothe proposals ofthe present Government. In 1945, twelve months before the 1946 election, the Commonwealth BankAct 1945 was introduced by Labour and passed by the Parliament, so that at the election of 1946 the people knew exactly what Labour’s attitude towards the Commonwealth Bank was. At that election did not the people return Labour with a substantial majority? Whilst the anti-Labour parties that are now in office may claim that they have a mandate from the people from the 1949 election to repeal the Banking Act 1947, it is obvious that they have no such mandate to interfere with the 1945 legislation by reestablishing the Commonwealth Bank Board.

During the last election campaign the anti-Labour parties certainly told the people that they proposed again to place the control of the Commonwealth Bank under a board, but they alleged that the reason for doing so was that it was not desirable to leave the control of the bank in the hands of one individual. They did not tell the people that their real object was to take the control of thebank entirely out of the hands of the Government. History has a habit of repeating itself, and we do not want the people’s bank again to become the servant of the private financial institutions of this country. I ask for leave to continue my remarks at a later stage.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2343

HOUR OF MEETING

Motion (by Senator O’Sullivan) agreed to -

That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn to to-morrow, at 11 a.m.

page 2343

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Arbitration (Public Service) Act - Determinations by the Arbitrator. &c. - 1960 -

No. 9 - Australian Third Division Telegraphists and Postal Clerks’ Union.

No. 10 - Professional Officers’ Association, Commonwealth Public Service.

No. 11 - Amalgamated Postal Workers’ Union of Australia.

No. 12 - Professional Officers’ Association, Commonwealth Public Service.

No. 13 - Commonwealth Storemen and Packers’ Union of Australia, and Federated Ironworkers’ Association of Australia.

No. 14 - Commonwealth Storemen and Packers’ Union of Australia.

No. 15 - Federated Ironworkers’ Association of Australia, and others.

No.16 - Electrical Trades Union of Australia.

No. 17 - Vehicle Builders Employees’ Federation of Australia, and Australian Federated Union of Locomotive Enginemen.

No. 18- Commonwealth Public Service Artisans’ Association.

No.19 - Commonwealth Public Service Clerical Association.

No. 20 - Australian Workers’ Union, and others.

No. 21 - Association of Railway Professional Officers of Australia.

No. 22 - Commonwealth Public Service Artisans’ Association.

No. 23 - Australian Workers’ Union.

Bankruptcy Act - Twenty-first AnnualReport by Attorney-General, for yearended 31st July, 1949.

Commonwealth Bank Act - AppointmentR.G. Reeves.

Commonwealth Public Service Act - Appointments - Department -

Commerce and Agriculture - K. O. D. Davis.

Defence - R. B. Dodman.

Repatriation - R. S. Kennedy, N. P.G. Little.

Social Services- B. P. Bate, S. B. Benson, M. H. Ramsay.

Works and Housing - D. G. Campbell, A. N. Duff-Gordon, C. T. Eeles, H. Foskett, H. L. Jones, R. E. Robb, L. L. Simon.

Defence Act- Regulations - Statutory Rules 1950, No. 21.

Defence (Transitional Provisions) Act -

National Security (Industrial Property) Regulations - Orders - Inventions and designs (5).

Regulations - Statutory Rules 1950, No. 20.

Lands Acquisition Act- Land acquired for -

Defence purposes - Richmond, New South Wales.

Postal purposes -

Emerald Hill, New South Wales.

Goondiwindi, Queensland.

Haymarket (Sydney), New South Wales.

Mount Barker, South Australia.

Sandigo. New South Wales.

Nauru - Report to General Assembly of the United Nations on Administration of

Nauru for year 1948-49.

New Guinea - Report to General Assembly of the United Nations on Administration of New Gnineafor year 1948-49.

Papua - Report for year 1948-49.

Wheat Indusry Stabilization Act - Regulations Statutory Rules 1950, No. 19.

Senate adjourned at 11 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 10 May 1950, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1950/19500510_senate_19_207/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate10 May 1950

QUESTION

BUTTER

Senator ROBERTSON:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator McLEAY:Minister for Fuel, Shipping and Transport · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

QUESTION

MONOPOLIES

Senator GRANT:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator O’SULLIVAN:Minister for Trade and Customs · QUEENSLAND · LP

QUESTION

POTATOES

Senator GUY:TASMANIA

Senator McLEAY:LP

QUESTION

FLOUR

Senator O’FLAHERTY:SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator McLEAY:LP

QUESTION

FENCING MATERIALS

Senator GEORGE RANKIN:VICTORIA · CP

Senator O’SULLIVAN:LP

QUESTION

SHIPPING

Senator MORROW:TASMANIA

Senator McLEAY:LP

Senator COLE:TASMANIA

Senator McLEAY:

Senator O’FLAHERTY:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator McLEAY:

Senator WILLESEE:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator McLEAY:

QUESTION

CURRENCY

Senator NASH:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator O’SULLIVAN:LP

Senator MORROW:

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

PARLIAMENT HOUSE

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon Gordon Brown:QUEENSLAND

DISTINGUISHED VISITOR

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon Gordon Brown:

QUESTION

GARRISON BATTALIONS

Senator O’SULLIVAN:LP

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Senator SPICER:Attorney-General · VICTORIA · LP

Senator ANNABELLE RANKIN:QUEENSLAND · LP

Senator SPICER:

QUESTION

PRICES CONTROL

Senator AMOUR:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator O’SULLIVAN:LP

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE

Senator TANGNEY:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator O’SULLIVAN:LP

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION,

Senator WOOD:QUEENSLAND

Senator COOPER:Minister for Repatriation · QUEENSLAND · CP

QUESTION

HEALTH AND MEDICAL SERVICES

Senator McKENNA:TASMANIA

Senator COOPER:CP

Senator NASH:

Senator COOPER:

Senator FRASER:WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator COOPER:

COMMUNIST PARTY DISSOLUTION BILL 1950

Senator GRANT:

Senator O’SULLIVAN:LP

Senator GRANT:

The PRESIDENT:

QUESTION

THE PARLIAMENT

Senator GRANT:

Senator O’SULLIVAN:QUEENSLAND · LP

The PRESIDENT:

Senator GRANT:

Senate
10 May 1950

Senator ROBERTSON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator McLEAY:
Minister for Fuel, Shipping and Transport · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
Minister for Trade and Customs · QUEENSLAND · LP

Senator GUY:
TASMANIA

Senator McLEAY:
LP

Senator O’FLAHERTY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator McLEAY:
LP

Senator GEORGE RANKIN:
VICTORIA · CP

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

Senator MORROW:
TASMANIA

Senator McLEAY:
LP

Senator COLE:
TASMANIA

Senator O’FLAHERTY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator WILLESEE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator NASH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon Gordon Brown:
QUEENSLAND

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

Senator SPICER:
Attorney-General · VICTORIA · LP

Senator ANNABELLE RANKIN:
QUEENSLAND · LP

Senator AMOUR:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

Senator TANGNEY:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

Senator WOOD:
QUEENSLAND

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · QUEENSLAND · CP

Senator McKENNA:
TASMANIA

Senator COOPER:
CP

Senator FRASER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QUEENSLAND · LP

Senator CRITCHLEY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator COOPER:
CP

Senator SPICER:
LP

Senator LAMP:
TASMANIA

Senator COOPER:
CP

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for Social Services · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

Senator SPOONER:
LP

Senator COOPER:
CP

Senator COOPER:
CP

Senator MURRAY:
TASMANIA

Senator BEERWORTH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

Senator COOKE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

Senator SPOONER:
LP

Senator SPOONER:
LP

Senator SPOONER:
LP

Senator ARNOLD:
through Senator Nash

Senator COOPER:
CP

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
LP

Senator COOPER:
CP

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for Social Services · New South Wales · LP

Senator ASHLEY:
Leader of the Opposition · New South Wales